Analysis of Sota Store's activities: risks for consumers and points for verification

Legal structure and terms of the agreement

The online store and physical retail chain Sota Store has been operating in the market since 2012. The enterprise is registered as SOTA STORE LLC (Unified State Register of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs code 44836376) with an office in Kharkiv. The founder and beneficiary of the company is Farid Aliaghaevych Kerimov, while the head (director) is Maksym Volodymyrovych Proskurin.

Relations with customers are regulated by a user agreement, which takes the form of a public offer in accordance with Article 633 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The parties to the agreement are "SOTA STORE (Website Administration)" and the user.

Issues with seller information and pricing

One of the key risks is the insufficient identification of the seller directly in the text of the offer. The absence of a clear indication of the full name of the legal entity may be considered a violation of the obligation to provide information about the trading entity, which complicates the exercise of consumer rights.

An additional issue is the practice of applying surcharges depending on the payment method. The payment page explicitly states the following fees:

• payment via terminal — +3 %;
• cashless settlement (settlement account) — +3 %;
• WayForPay service — +2.2 %;
• cash on delivery — +1.8 % (for orders worth up to 25,000 UAH).

Such surcharges may be classified as hidden or unfair terms, especially if they are not reflected in the product price at the selection stage. The consumer has the right to know the full cost of the purchase before concluding the contract. It is also noted that there is an option to pay for goods with cryptocurrency.

Limitations of warranty obligations

The chain's warranty policy contains a list of exclusions. The warranty does not cover batteries, charging devices, housing parts, nor in cases of mechanical damage, moisture exposure, third-party interference with software, or IMEI changes.

Although some of these limitations are standard, the wording stating that "the seller is not liable for the operation of the device in case of improper use," together with a broad list of exclusions, requires verification for compliance with Article 8 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and the Rules of Retail Trade.

Points for the attention of the State Consumer Protection Service

State regulatory bodies should pay attention to the following aspects of the chain's activities:

• compliance of the public offer with requirements regarding seller information (full name, Unified State Register code, address, contacts);
• pricing transparency: whether fees are included in the product price or are separate terms;
• analysis of return and exchange terms for restrictions on consumer rights beyond those established by law;
• presence and content of fiscal receipts (POS/Portable POS) during sales in physical locations and online;
• practice of considering consumer claims, particularly warranty cases and returns;
• compliance of advertising for "original goods" with the actual assortment, especially regarding Apple and other brands.

Points for the attention of the BEB

The Bureau of Economic Security should consider the following points:

• use of a network of individual entrepreneurs (IEs) for business splitting and possible tax evasion;
• suspicions of selling goods without fiscal receipts or without using POS in physical locations;
• claims of "grey" import of equipment and possible cash or cryptocurrency settlements;
• connections of certain IEs with officials, including mentions of relatives of officials and prosecutors, which require separate verification.