Developing
The Court of Justice has not ruled, and the date of its ruling is unknown.
In 60 seconds
- The case, brought by Austria's consumer association VKI against mail-order firm Universal Versand GmbH, was referred by Austria's Supreme Court.
- The opinion says the retailer must show which data it collected, why it predicts non-payment and why automation is necessary; the burden of proof is on the retailer.
- Customers can still pay up front, but the opinion treats that as a possible barrier.
- It cites the SCHUFA ruling (C-634/21) and the Meta ruling (C-252/21).
Impact Layer
- What changed
- An EU court adviser has said a payment-method refusal by algorithm may count as a restricted automated decision.
- Why it matters
- Retailers use automated risk scores to hide or show pay-later options, and a ruling in line with the opinion would add transparency and justification duties.
- Who is affected
- E-commerce retailers, payment providers and credit-scoring vendors serving EU customers.
- Martech stack area
- Data, Commerce
- Stack impact
- Inventory where automated scores restrict payment options and check whether you can explain the data and logic used.
- Business impact
- Moderate PPC Land's reading of an English translation of the opinion. It is not binding, parts of the translation are unclear, and this is not legal advice.
- Related technologies
- What to watch
- The Court of Justice's judgment.
Advocate General Laila Medina delivered her opinion in Case C-568/25 on October 15, 2026, according to PPC Land. The case was brought by Austria’s Association for Consumer Information (VKI) against Universal Versand GmbH, referred by the Austrian Supreme Court.
What the opinion says
- Refusing invoice or instalment payment on the basis of a fully automated credit check can fall under the GDPR’s Article 22 ban on solely automated decisions.
- The retailer must show which data it collected, why that data predicts non-payment and why automation is necessary. “The burden of proof for this lies with the mail-order company.”
- Customers can still buy by paying up front, which the opinion treats as a possible barrier.
- A refusal counts if it is “likely to prevent the conclusion of the sales contract in question”.
References
The opinion cites SCHUFA (C-634/21, December 7, 2023), Meta (C-252/21, July 4, 2023) and the Digital Omnibus proposal COM(2025) 837.
Not stated or unclear
The date of the Court’s ruling, and parts of the English translation. An Advocate General’s opinion is not binding on the Court.
Our read
If the Court follows this, hidden payment options become a compliance topic. Document your scoring data and logic now. This is a news summary, not legal advice.
Sources
- PPC Land: Universal Versand faces EU ruling on algorithm that blocks pay-later options (opens in a new tab)
Source for the opinion's reasoning, references and gaps.