In 2020, a user named Alexey Kostov joined Yandex.Drive and entered into an Audi car rental agreement. The contract clearly stated that the renter could not dispose of the vehicle or transfer its management to another party. It also specified that if the renter shared login credentials or the account with third parties, he would be responsible for their actions as if they were his own, and could incur a fine of 150,000 rubles. Kostov later testified in court that he could not memorize every page of the lengthy contract and did not reach that point in his testimony, as reported by Pravo.ru.
The renter provided his password and the application login to his son Lavrenty, who held a driver’s license. After some time, Kostov was held administratively liable under Article 12.18 of the Administrative Code for not preventing a pedestrian from entering a restricted area or committing an offense.
Because the tenant formally violated the contract, a 150,000 ruble fine was charged to Kostov’s card. He asked Yandex.Drive to reduce the amount to 10,000 rubles, noting that no damage had been done to the foreign car. The company did not agree, and Kostov pursued a legal remedy. This dispute reached the courts, as described in reports from Pravo.ru.
Judgment of the court
At the Oktyabrsky District Court of Kirov, Kostov’s debit was deemed disproportionate. The court applied Article 333 of the Civil Code to reduce the penalty and lowered it to 50,000 rubles, ordering Yandex.Drive to refund 100,000 rubles and to pay a consumer fine for failing to negotiate with the plaintiff to lower the amount. The court noted that Yandex.Drive objected to the ruling, so the case proceeded through the judicial chain. This decision reflected an effort to balance the punitive measure with the actual conduct involved, as explained in court records and commentary from Pravo.ru.
The Kirov Regional Court upheld the lower penalty but canceled the collection of the fine from Yandex.Drive, deeming it unreasonable. The Sixth Court of Cassation agreed with that view and maintained a 50,000 ruble penalty for the contract violator. The appellate path shows how the courts scrutinized the relationship between contractual terms, user behavior, and financial penalties. This sequence is documented in court numbers and summaries published by legal outlets in Russia.
Yandex.Drive challenged the appellate findings before the Supreme Court, arguing that there are no statutory caps on the amount of a fine. They asserted that the penalty was set due to the high public risk associated with such actions. In their view, an untrustworthy driver could hand control to an unlicensed person, creating a dangerous scenario. They also pointed to the fact that the user linked his bank card to the account and did not terminate it upon violation, even though there had been time to do so during correspondence. In their assessment, the penalty reflected the agreement reached by the parties and the ongoing risk management measures of the service. These points were presented in court records and reported by legal outlets.
The Supreme Court’s position
The Supreme Court observed that transferring car control to a third party incurs a 50,000 ruble penalty under the contract, and it questioned why handing over account access should be considered more dangerous than handing over control of the vehicle itself. The response was that car control involves the user being inside the vehicle, whereas account transfer occurs remotely, potentially enabling a third party to drive without the user’s direct presence. The Court noted that third parties might depart from the scene in the event of an accident, highlighting potential safety concerns when control is shared remotely. This point is summarized in the court’s reasoning and in coverage by legal press, including Pravo.ru.
The Court referenced statistics indicating higher accident rates when account access is shared with others. It also clarified whether the company could allow a reduction of the fine. The answer was affirmative in principle, but in this case the proposed amount was found disproportionate to the act. In practice, reductions typically settle around 100,000 rubles, according to the Court’s overview and legal reporting.
As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Kirov Regional Court and the Sixth Court of Cassation, sending the case back for a new trial to reconsider the specifics of the penalty. The outcome demonstrates the Court’s approach to proportionality when enforcing contractual penalties and its emphasis on reasonable remedies in consumer service agreements.