Consumer protection · Company response

A consumer has complained to Romania’s National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC) about your business. Management needs to decide what to send, what to correct and who will own the response before a customer dispute becomes a broader inspection issue.

What exactly has your business received?

The company’s first decision depends on the document. A consumer allegation, an ANPC request, an inspection record and a sanction report trigger different work and potentially different procedures.

Ask the recipient to forward the full email or letter, not a screenshot of one paragraph. Record the sender, registration number, addressee, attachments, time of receipt, request made and any stated reply date. Check whether the authority asks for a written position, supporting documents, access during a control or implementation of a measure. If the letter refers to an earlier complaint, locate the original customer correspondence and the identity of the legal entity that sold the product or service.

Some complaints concern an online sale by one group company while delivery, repair or a shop interaction was handled by another. Do not let an internal allocation problem produce an inaccurate answer to ANPC. Establish which company contracted with the customer, which entity issued the invoice and who made the challenged representation. A marketplace may need to distinguish its own customer obligations from those of a third-party trader without assuming the platform has no exposure. If the disputed sale took place online, review the website, marketplace and customer-facing terms alongside the actual transaction.

What should be preserved before responding?

Preserve the original record of the transaction and the customer-facing representation. An e-commerce listing or promotion can change after a complaint; an offer’s wording may differ between the webpage, checkout, order confirmation and invoice. Keep dated captures, content-version history if available, terms and conditions applicable when the order was placed, campaign rules, payment and delivery records, support tickets, warranty documents, repair diagnostics and return tracking. Note who collected each item and when.

Preservation does not prevent a lawful correction. If the business finds a misleading product description or a genuine service failure, make an appropriate operational change and document when and why it was made. Keep the prior version. Do not overwrite records to make a later response look consistent with a webpage or procedure that was different at the time. Avoid sending a large undifferentiated export containing unrelated customers’ personal data; identify the information necessary to answer the specific allegation and handle it securely.

Interview the staff involved separately where memories matter. An informal customer-service note may explain what happened but should not be converted into a definitive factual claim without checking the order history. If the consumer supplied photographs or technical material, retain those in the same chronology. The response file needs both favourable and adverse documents: counsel can assess the position only if gaps and discrepancies are visible.

Which legal issue is the complaint really about?

Classify the allegation before choosing a remedy. Product conformity, withdrawal from a distance sale, misleading commercial claims and the wording of consumer terms are different legal questions.

For defective goods sold to consumers, Emergency Ordinance no. 140/2021 governs conformity and associated remedies within its scope. Its transitional rule applies its provisions to contracts concluded after 1 January 2022; for an older transaction, establish the contract date and the legal regime applicable to it rather than applying today’s remedies retrospectively. Compare what was promised, when the goods were delivered, the reported defect, inspections or repairs already undertaken and what remedy was requested. Do not treat a manufacturer’s voluntary commercial guarantee as if it replaced the seller’s statutory obligations.

Where a complaint concerns a consumer-facing app, downloadable content or digital service, consider Emergency Ordinance no. 141/2021 on digital content and services. A good with integrated digital elements may fall under the goods regime instead; identify the actual contract, product and statutory exclusions before selecting a response.

For a distance or off-premises contract, Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2014 addresses pre-contract information and withdrawal rights, subject to its scope and exceptions. A customer’s request to withdraw can be different from an allegation that the goods are defective. The familiar 14-day period is neither a universal return right for every purchase nor the deadline for replying to every ANPC request; in specified circumstances the withdrawal period and its calculation differ.

Where the complaint concerns a discount, product availability, service claim or cancellation statement, Law no. 363/2007 on unfair commercial practices may matter. Assess the law as amended, including changes arising from the Omnibus transposition, against the date and presentation of the campaign. Capture the mobile display, previous-price claim where relevant and checkout path, not merely the internal campaign brief.

Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 on consumer protection is a foundational instrument for this review. Article 7 sets out obligations of economic operators concerning products and services; Article 18 requires complete, correct and precise information about essential characteristics. Articles 50 and 51 address contraventions, while Articles 55 and 56 provide for distinct protective measures and complementary sanctions in specified conditions. A missing consumer-facing disclosure, an unsafe product and a refusal to cooperate call for different evidence and legal analysis. Identify the exact statutory provision cited by ANPC rather than treating “consumer complaint” as one offence. Sector-specific and product-safety rules may also apply.

How should the company organise its reply to ANPC?

Give one coordinator control of the response, with a factual owner for each question. The customer-service team can assemble order history; the website team can preserve publication history; operations can verify deliveries and repair handling; legal counsel can test the legal basis and draft the authority-facing position. A single chronology and document index reduces the risk that several people send inconsistent explanations. ANPC also publishes its official legislation and consumer-complaint procedures; check the current procedural material together with the request actually sent to your company.

Structure the reply around the authority’s numbered questions, where provided. Identify the legal entity, the transaction, what the business can establish from contemporaneous evidence, what it disputes and what remedial action has actually been completed. Cite an attachment against each material statement. State uncertainty honestly if an event cannot be reconstructed. Ask for clarification through the appropriate channel when the request is materially unclear, while separately protecting any stated deadline.

Separate a response to the consumer from a response to the authority. A goodwill refund may resolve a commercial dispute, but it does not automatically determine whether an earlier advertised claim complied with the law. Conversely, challenging an allegation should not prevent a company from correcting a genuine error. Avoid telling ANPC that the customer “accepted” a resolution without evidence of what was offered and accepted. Preserve proof that the reply was filed or received by the authority.

A consumer’s petition to ANPC and the business’s response to an ANPC request run on different clocks. Government Ordinance no. 27/2002 on petitions governs the public authority’s handling and response to petitioners; its general 30-day authority response period is not a default 30-day deadline for the company. Read the request’s actual instructions and any applicable special rule. Failure to provide records under a lawful inspection request or obstruction of authorised staff can itself have consequences under Article 51(1) of OG no. 21/1992. Failure to implement measures ordered by the authority within the applicable deadline may constitute a separate infringement where the applicable legislation so provides. The legal basis should be verified against the specific act communicated to the company. Classify the conduct and the instrument; mere delay should not automatically be described as obstruction.

Business response map: evidence, decision and owner

This map is an internal decision tool. It does not replace the specific requests in the ANPC document or the terms of a particular customer contract.

What can Atrium deliver on a defined complaint mandate?

A useful instruction produces a decision file rather than a long generic memo. Depending on the documents and scope agreed with the company, Atrium can review the ANPC correspondence and consumer transaction, map the allegations to the relevant statutory and contractual obligations, identify missing evidence, draft or review the authority-facing response and coordinate the position with the business team. Where a measure or sanction has already been issued, the instruction may need to expand to a separate assessment through administrative and regulatory dispute counsel.

The deliverable can include a response chronology, an indexed attachment set, a legal-issue matrix, a draft submission for the company’s approval and a short operational correction list. Those are examples of work to scope, not promises about a particular inspection or decision. The facts remain with the company; counsel should not attest to a warehouse check, repair or customer conversation that was never verified by a responsible employee.

At intake, send the authority’s complete message and annexes, the date received, the customer’s complaint, the relevant order or contract, existing proposed reply and the next internal decision deadline. If a safety concern, broad campaign issue or multiple similar complaints is involved, say so at the outset. These facts can change both the urgency and the legal work required.

Can the customer dispute be resolved outside ANPC proceedings?

Direct resolution may still matter even when ANPC has been contacted. Where a consumer dispute has not been resolved following a direct complaint to the trader, Article 25 of OG no. 38/2015 on alternative dispute resolution (SAL) may require the consumer to be informed about the possibility of using a competent ADR/SAL entity on paper or another durable medium. Additional information obligations may apply where the trader has committed to using ADR procedures. Keep the consumer’s complaint, the offer made and the information provided distinct from any submission to ANPC. Do not rely automatically on a historical EU ODR platform link. Verify the current ADR/SAL framework and the available dispute-resolution bodies before providing information to consumers.

What if consumer complaints recur?

For a single live complaint, start with that file. If similar questions recur across products, stores or marketing campaigns, the company may also benefit from a consistent internal process: customer service records the facts, commercial teams own the proposed remedy, and legal counsel reviews unusual cases and sensitive authority correspondence. Keep dated versions of offers and terms so the next response can be built from evidence already available.

The arrangement can be discussed when there is enough information about the monthly workload. Atrium’s ongoing legal support for companies is one possible route; the scope, responsible contacts and any authority or court work would be agreed separately. There is no need to choose a plan before we understand the immediate matter.

Can ANPC require action that affects sales or services?

Yes, where the facts and statutory conditions support it. Article 55 of OG no. 21/1992 may allow certain consumer-protection measures in the circumstances expressly provided by law. Depending on the case, these include the definitive cessation of sales and withdrawal from the consumption circuit of specified products, or the temporary cessation of services or product sales pending remediation. Article 56 provides for separate complementary sanctions, subject to its statutory conditions; these may concern the operation of a unit or an authorisation. Other applicable sectoral provisions may supply a different power.

For management, a product or service restriction needs its own workstream: identify the affected goods, batches, listing or premises; secure the exact act, annexes and proof of service; stop the prohibited conduct when the measure requires it; preserve pre-correction evidence; and record the remediation owner and any stated deadline. A withdrawal from circulation is not interchangeable with a temporary sales pause. Review the legal basis, scope and challenge route of each act with counsel. The consumer complaint itself is not an order to close the business.

What if the complaint leads to a fine or an operational measure?

A consumer complaint can lead to a control, but the authority’s eventual documents must be examined on their own terms. A contravention report, any complementary sanction and a separate operational measure should be listed individually with their legal basis, service date, required action and review route. Under Government Ordinance no. 2/2001, a contravention complaint generally has a 15-day period from handover or communication of the report. A contravention complaint should be filed within the period provided by OG no. 2/2001 before the competent judecătorie determined under Article 32 and any applicable special rule. Territorial competence should be verified against the current version of the legislation. Article 28 generally permits payment of half the statutory minimum fine within 15 days of receiving the report; verify the particular offence and report before paying. Payment does not itself resolve a distinct operational measure or prevent a timely court complaint. The customer’s original complaint is not a court filing, and not every operational instruction follows the ordinary fine-appeal route.

The effect of a contravention complaint on any separate protective measure, operational restriction or complementary sanction should be assessed independently. A challenge to a fine does not automatically mean that every related measure is suspended in the same way.

Preserve the earlier response file even after corrective actions. The same archived webpage and transaction chronology may be needed to assess the sanction, while later changes document remediation. If the authority restricts sales or imposes a separate measure, get advice on that instrument promptly rather than assuming a challenge to the fine suspends everything. Our separate guide to challenging an ANPC fine

Related Guides

Frequently asked questions

AI Notice: AI-assisted content.