A woman bought an EcoFlow charging station for 67,000 hryvnias, but it stopped working. Here’s the court’s decision on the matter.

A woman purchased an EcoFlow Delta charging station from an individual entrepreneur for 67 thousand hryvnias. However, it turned out that the product stopped working. This was stated in the decision of the Brovary District Court of the Kyiv region, published on December 24, 2024.

On December 12, 2022, the woman ordered an EcoFlow Delta charging station for 67 thousand hryvnias. An employee of the company issued a receipt and promised warranty service for this product for two years. A month later, she was unable to use the product as the station ceased to charge. Based on the identified malfunction and the provision of warranty service, the citizen contacted the individual entrepreneur, but was refused and advised to reach out to the official EcoFlow service center.

On March 7, 2023, a representative of the official EcoFlow service center denied the woman warranty service due to the unofficial importation of the EcoFlow Delta charging station into Ukraine and recommended returning the defective product to the seller. On March 14, 2023, the citizen sent a formal complaint to the official address of the individual entrepreneur, demanding a refund and termination of the sales contract. The complaint was ignored.

"The defendant, from the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine until November 2022, was outside Ukraine. Upon deciding to return and understanding the situation with prolonged power outages, she purchased the EcoFlow Delta charging station for her personal needs. By the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1260 dated November 9, 2022, VAT and import duties on the import of energy equipment into Ukraine were abolished, particularly for lithium iron phosphate batteries, including 'EcoFlow.' Moreover, on November 16, 2022, by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1288, amendments were made to several government resolutions regarding the approval of technical regulations, eliminating the requirement to provide a declaration of conformity and marking with the conformity mark as proof of exemption from customs duties. Since goods imported by citizens into the customs territory of Ukraine in hand luggage and/or accompanied baggage weighing up to 50 kg, with a total invoice value not exceeding the equivalent of 500 euros, were not subject to written declaration, the purchased EcoFlow Delta charging station fell within this category, so she did not declare it in the customs declaration. Subsequently, deciding that the charging station was no longer needed, she chose to sell it by posting an ad on the OLX platform. A woman responded to the ad, and by agreement with her, the charging station purchased for personal use was delivered to the specified address on December 13, 2022. The plaintiff did not provide evidence in the lawsuit that the product she purchased had any defects, including significant defects. The conclusion of the official EcoFlow service center, which the plaintiff refers to in the lawsuit, is not a denial of warranty service and does not serve as evidence confirming the existence of product defects and the reasons for their occurrence, as it does not contain such information," the individual entrepreneur stated.

What was the court's decision?

The court denied the woman's claim. The product (charging station) had no defects at the time of purchase.

"The plaintiff did not deny that she had used the product since its purchase, so there were no defects at the time of acquisition. She specifically noted in the lawsuit that a month after purchasing the product, she was unable to use the charging station as it did not charge. However, she did not prove the existence of a malfunction or the impossibility of using the product for its intended purpose for these reasons. The letter from 'EcoFlow Service' contains no information about any product malfunction. There was no appropriate and admissible evidence provided to the court that the product defects arose due to the seller's fault rather than the buyer's use of the product. In considering this case substantively, the court did not receive evidence indicating that the defendant should bear responsibility for the defect that arose in the product purchased by the plaintiff," the court emphasized.