Pieter Zwart

The unconditional promise of next-day delivery prompted repeated complaints. In 2026, the Consumentenbond stated that the Reclame Code Commissie had already found this promise misleading and unfair on seven occasions, after which Coolblue finally amended its advertising message.

State of the evidence

Several Reclame Code Commissie decisions and Consumentenbond intervention documented

Legal status — source text

Advertising self-regulation; no criminal conviction

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as founder and CEO

The Consumentenbond identified information on Coolblue's website suggesting that repairs outside the manufacturer's warranty would be chargeable, although statutory warranty rights in the Netherlands may last longer. In 2026, the organisation maintained that Coolblue still failed to provide clear and complete information and referred its findings to the ACM.

State of the evidence

Consumentenbond mystery shopping and follow-up documented

Legal status — source text

Findings referred to the ACM; no public sanction identified as at 1 September 2026

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as CEO

The Consumentenbond criticised Coolblue's presentation of extended warranty and product insurance packages: in its view, consumers were not adequately informed of rights they already enjoyed under statutory warranties, and some cover could duplicate household insurance or existing rights.

State of the evidence

Consumentenbond investigations documented; commercial practice criticised, individual illegality not established

Legal status — source text

No personal sanction identified

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as CEO

Coolblue asked the court to enforce non-compete and non-solicitation clauses against a former buyer, together with penalties and access to documents. The court found it insufficiently plausible that he had breached the clauses and dismissed the applications.

State of the evidence

Rotterdam court judgment documented

Legal status — source text

Rechtbank Rotterdam, 17 February 2026: Coolblue's applications dismissed for insufficient evidence of breaches of the clauses

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as CEO; legal decision concerns the company, not Zwart personally

The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens concluded that Coolblue processed personal data through cookies without obtaining valid consent and therefore without a lawful basis under the GDPR. Following Coolblue's objection, the infringement finding was upheld and the fine set at 40,000 euros.

State of the evidence

Infringement established by the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Legal status — source text

Administrative fine set at €40,000 on 23 December 2024 following internal administrative review

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as Coolblue CEO; no personal criminal attribution

In a refrigerator offer, Coolblue displayed a crossed-out price without clearly specifying whether it was a former selling price or a recommended retail price. The Reclame Code Commissie found that consumers could not understand the actual benefit and that the presentation was misleading.

State of the evidence

Reclame Code Commissie decision documented

Legal status — source text

RCC: advertisement found misleading and unfair, with a recommendation not to repeat the practice

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as CEO

A Coolblue advertisement gave the impression that delivered refrigerators were connected and tested, whereas several categories, including American-style refrigerators, were never connected upon delivery. The RCC found the information inaccurate and capable of influencing purchasing decisions.

State of the evidence

RCC decision documented

Legal status — source text

RCC: recommendation following finding of misleading and unfair advertising

Attribution

Institutional responsibility as CEO