Column by Alexandra Mertsalova about confrontation between business and consumers

Popularized by the founder of the British department store Selfridges, Harry Selfridge, the slogan “the customer is always right” could claim the title of one of the most contested in business literature. There are always caveats: the client can be completely wrong, act out of harm, or turn out to be a “terrorist consumer”. It is the existence of the latter that housing developers have long been proving. And it seems they succeeded. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the statement of the head of the State Duma Committee on Construction and Housing and Utilities, Sergei Pakhomov, who said that work on a bill restricting “consumer terrorism” against developers when renting housing has been completed. The document is ready for submission to the State Duma, and the Ministry of Construction already agrees with everything.

The document will limit the ability of equity holders to go to court when accepting apartments. Having found shortcomings in the rented housing, the buyer will first have to write a complaint to the developer, who will order an examination, and then receive 20 days to eliminate the shortcomings. Now the shareholder can immediately seek compensation in court, which creates problems for developers. “You rent out 2,000 apartments, and you have 195 lawsuits for anything, even for a current crane,” Leonid Kazints, president of the National Association of Housing Developers, is quoted by TASS. The question of whether it is worth renting out housing with a current faucet is rhetorical – building ideally, of course, is not always possible.

Developers are not the only ones who suffer from “terrorist consumers”: marketplace operators face substitutions when returning, offline retailers often have to take back used items. It was after high-profile lawsuits that warnings “Caution, hot!” appear on cups of drinks, and on household appliances – comical, at first glance, recommendations not to dry pets in it. It is not easy for restaurateurs, travel agents, beauty salons, and all areas that one way or another have to come into contact with consumers. The desire of the authorities in this situation to protect only developers from “consumers-terrorists” may well open a Pandora’s box to other industries. Why are they worse?

Probably, there is a bias in the legislation in favor of the interests of consumers. But an attempt to get rid of it can create another bias, already in favor of suppliers of goods and services, which will create difficulties not only for consumers themselves, but also for businesses. After all, dissatisfied customers and their annoyed posts on social networks often incur image losses for manufacturers and sellers. And for the same developers, we can talk about increased competition with the secondary market. After all, consumers will have even less incentive to take risks by investing in the purchase of housing in new buildings.