Does Klarna in addition to the Klarna excessively benefit from defaulters? And why does that really matter?

A T-shirt with a funny print at Rustaagh.nl. Do-it-yourself items on tool center.nl. Company clothing at Proforto. Electronics from MediaMarkt. And fast fashion at Shein.

The subdistrict court judge in Utrecht made a ruling on Wednesday in five cases that incurred collection agencies against customers who have (partly) paid their purchases at these web shops. All those customers made use of a sub -paying service. Buy now, pay later. Either Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL), as the services are known. Two judgments concerned the Swedish Klarna, two the Dutch Billink and one also Dutch in3. Via such a service you pay for installment, in installments. Young people in particular use this.

Not surprising: the judge ruled that the five still have to transfer (part of) their purchase amount. Moreover, they have to pay more than 300 euros per person on litigation costs.

But the statement is not only good news for Swedish Klarna. The market leader in the Netherlands – an estimated more than 1.7 million users of his app, and more than 58,000 affiliated retailers – can experience far -reaching consequences. The company may have to inform consumers much better about additional costs (in the event of payment conflicts) and conduct more research into their creditworthiness. Klarna should also better check the age of users. Minors are not allowed to use the service. According to the AFM regulator, 600,000 transactions could be linked to a minor in 2023, for an average of 50 euros.

Four questions about the after -paying services and the judgments of Wednesday.

1What kind of business was it exactly?

The judge in Utrecht considered purchases of five (anonymous) purchase-now-paying parent users, worth 63.73 euros at Shein; 159 euros at MediaMarkt; 19.90 euros at Rustaagh; 346.47 euros at Proforto; and 595.39 euros at tool center.nl.

The five buyers failed. They did not pay at all, returned part of the purchased goods and did not pay for the rest, or did not pay one term and the others did not.

The BNPL services sent a payment request, a reminder and then transferred the claim to an external collection agency. In all tens of millions of transactions this happens in about 1 percent of the cases, Klarna said in court.

The collection agencies promoted things against the five defaulters. They should not only pay the full purchase amount, but also interest, collection and reminder costs.

2What has the subdistrict court judge determined now?

So in the first place that the defendants have to pay their purchases. That is part of it if you order something, simple. But do they also pay for the costs arising from their default? And how high can those costs be?

The judge judges positively in this context about Dutch payment services, Billink and In3. Both have sufficiently demonstrated that the interest and costs for reminder and collection that they charge are not too high. They are not part of « of the earnings model, » the judge said. Simple: Billink and In3 make no profit over the back of defaulters.

For Klarna it is different, the subdistrict court judge thinks. This company has not demonstrated « that the charged costs are not part of the earnings model ». That is, the judge cannot exclude that Klarna benefits excessively from customers who do not pay or pay too late. The company denied that during the session. It earns its money by sellers who offer customers ‘pay afterwards’ through Klarna, to charge a small percentage of each transaction.

3Why is that important?

If a BNPL provider earns a substantial part of its income with calculation of costs to consumers who pay too late, the service makes a provider of consumer credit. A kind of modern Dirk Scheringa, the Noord-Holland businessman who built a financial empire with loans to private individuals, offered through advertisements in TV guides, among others. And who eventually fell.

Klarna does not find herself a provider of consumer credit à la Dirk Scheringa. The company gives short -term loans – to be repaid in fourteen or thirty days – and does not charge interest or costs. This means that it does not fall under the usual rules for consumer credit, the Sweden reason.

The Utrecht court does not agree with this. Klarna does fall under it (other than Billink and In3), because it does charge extra costs. This means that the payment service falls under the strict European rules for consumer credit – with associated obligations such as transparency, credit testing and clear provision of information.

4Did the Dutch AFM and the European Court of Justice not say the same before?

Beats. In the verdict, the judge points to an investigation of the AFM. The supervisor found that some services charged too high costs in collection, and saw that as « an essential part of their revenue model. » And in April 2024 the Court of Justice of the EU stated: if interest or collection costs form an essential part of the earnings of the provider of retardation services, the service must be considered as a consumer credit.

In other words: even if you are not calculated as long as you pay back on time, these services still fall under the European rules for consumer credit if the company makes a profit in the event of non -payment.

The EU court assessed the European Consumer Credit Directive (which must be included in Dutch law next year). The directive is intended to protect consumers who borrow money or buy on credit. Among other things, it prescribes: clear information in advance about costs and conditions, assessment of the customer’s creditworthiness and transparency about the total costs of the credit, also hidden costs such as those of collection.

In response to the European verdict, four rear paying services – Billink, In3, Klarna and Riverty – signed a renewed code of conduct in January 2025. They promised that they « do not anticipate non -payment by consumers to gain economic benefit. » The companies also promised not to offer services to young people under the age of eighteen. Wednesday’s judgments show that the judge believes that the first two providers have adhered to their own code. And apparently not Klarna.

To share

Mail the editors