Agreement with SME Clickservice voided for error

Earlier this year, the subdistrict court judge of the Amsterdam District Court (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:687) an agreement between SME Clickservice and an entrepreneur destroyed because of error. SME Clickservice had made several attractive promises to the entrepreneur. As a result, the entrepreneur thought that certain services would be provided free of charge (based on a completed fee form) and that his website would appear at the top of Google's search results, or at least be displayed higher through Google ads. Lawyer Conner Canters regularly deals with such disputes and discusses the ruling.

Contract with SME Clickservice unclear

The cantonal court ruled that the agreement did not clearly show what, when and for what was to be paid. In addition, it noted that the agreement was difficult to understand for someone without a legal background. The judge concluded that the business owner had misrepresented the payment obligations when entering into the agreement and had therefore erred. On that ground, the agreement was allowed to be voided.

Disputes between business owners and Internet marketing providers

This case is not an isolated one. Previously, I wrote a blog following a 2023 broadcast of the AVRO TROS program Radar. In that broadcast attention was devoted to the world of Internet marketing. In practice, small business owners were increasingly faced with prohibited modes of acquisition and misleading business practices. In the program, Radar put MKB Clickservice (a trade name of Proximedia) under the microscope. Radar found that MKB Clickservice was guilty of prohibited modes of acquisition and misleading its clients.

Lawsuits over contract with SME Clickservice

Possibly as a result of that broadcast, several lawsuits subsequently ensued. For example, on January 30, 2025, the subdistrict court judge of Rotterdam District Court ruled (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:1417) that the contractual termination fee used by SME Clickservice was unacceptable. Under the terms of the contract, if the contract was terminated early, (part of) the remaining monthly contributions would still be due. This was not allowed according to the court. The following circumstances played a role:

• The agreement had been made by a small businessman with a small turnover, with no legal knowledge.
• SME Clickservice binds small business owners through telephone acquisition and home visits to long-term contracts with terms favorable to it.
• SME Clickservice did not disclose what costs it actually incurred after the entrepreneur's termination.

On April 3, 2025, the Subdistrict Court of East Brabant (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2025:1918) reached the same conclusion in a similar case. Earlier, on May 28, 2024, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Northern Netherlands (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:2060) to a similar conclusion.

In short, such a contractual termination payment (included in the general terms and conditions) may in some cases be contrary to reasonableness and fairness. Under circumstances, the entrepreneur is not bound by it. It is therefore not bound to pay it in the event of early termination of the contract.

Lawyer in dispute with Internet service provider

If you have been approached by phone by an Internet service provider and perhaps even persuaded to sign an agreement based on attractive promises, you may be able to do something about it. For example, if afterwards it turns out that these promises were not kept and the reality is different from what the company promised? It may also be that the agreement was not clear enough and therefore you are not (fully) bound by it. If you run into this as a business owner, or you are being sued to pay an unreasonable termination fee, feel free to take contact with us.