Galaxus sends 1,400 time-barred bills: what customers in Switzerland need to know

The goods arrived, but the bills did not — for years. Swiss online retailer Galaxus is issuing retrospective invoices for 4,400 orders after a system error prevented them from being sent, it emerged on Tuesday, 20 October. Around 1,400 of the claims are now time-barred. For affected customers, checking the amount is therefore only part of the task: the age of the order matters too, as does explicitly telling the company if they wish to invoke the limitation period.

The orders were delivered several years ago, but the corresponding invoices were never sent. Galaxus is now catching up, including in cases where it can no longer enforce payment once a customer raises the limitation defence. The figure of 4,400 refers to orders, not necessarily to the same number of customers.

Nearly one in three claims is time-barred

Galaxus has acknowledged the scale of the issue: “Around 1,400 of them are indeed time-barred, meaning more than five years old.” That represents almost a third of the orders now being invoiced. The company is not excluding those cases from its retrospective billing exercise.

Its reasoning is that issuing invoices for time-barred claims is “not unlawful”. At the same time, Galaxus recognises that such a lengthy delay can be unsettling for customers. “We are aware that receiving an invoice after such a long time causes confusion. That is why our position is clear: if a customer invokes the limitation period, we will show goodwill and waive the bill immediately.”

Under that approach, the next step initially falls to the customer. A time-barred invoice is not automatically cancelled; cancellation follows when the customer raises the defence. Neither the total amount being sought nor the sums attached to individual orders is known. Further details are also missing about how the system error arose and why the outstanding invoices are only being sent years later.

An unexpected bill after seven years

One customer’s experience illustrates how surprising such a demand can be. Her order dated back seven years, and she could no longer remember it clearly. She contacted customer service through its chat function. The adviser proactively told her that she could invoke the limitation period and offered to cancel the invoice.

In that case, the customer did not have to identify the legal issue herself. Galaxus regards the exchange as evidence that its customer service team is prepared: “This shows that our employees are trained to resolve such cases without administrative hurdles.”

The exchange demonstrates a straightforward way of handling an old bill. It does not, however, establish how every other affected case is being dealt with. The distinction matters when thousands of orders are involved and customers must clarify their individual position.

The difficulty is not simply the unexpected request for money. After several years, even identifying an order can be a challenge. This case shows why asking for clarification makes sense when an invoice no longer seems familiar. A customer’s inability to remember a purchase does not, on its own, mean that the claim is invalid.

A time-barred debt does not simply disappear

For residents of Switzerland, the key legal distinction is between a debt existing and a creditor being able to enforce it. Under Swiss law, a time-barred claim does not simply vanish. The recipient can, however, invoke the limitation period. Once that defence has been raised, the claim can no longer be enforced.

Receiving an invoice therefore does not automatically mean that the person addressed must pay it. Equally, the fact that a bill arrives late does not by itself establish that the underlying payment obligation has gone away.

Galaxus’s reference to “goodwill” describes its proposed handling of these cases rather than the central legal point. The limitation defence is not a discretionary benefit offered by the retailer. It is a protection that debtors can invoke. What matters is actively doing so: customers receiving such a bill should expressly raise the limitation issue with Galaxus rather than assume that the age of the order alone will settle the matter.

Conversely, voluntarily paying a time-barred claim is not unlawful. The underlying debt generally continues to exist. Customers therefore face a choice that should be informed: they can pay, but do not have to settle a time-barred claim once they have raised the defence.

What affected customers should check now

The first step for customers in Switzerland is to examine the retrospective invoice. Which order does it concern, when was it placed, and can the claim be understood and verified? Where an invoice is unclear, the seven-year-old order illustrates the value of contacting customer service to establish what it relates to.

Anyone invoking the limitation period should have the bill waived immediately, under Galaxus’s explicit commitment. Written confirmation of cancellation provides clarity that the case has been closed.

The 1,400 time-barred cases do not mean that all 4,400 retrospective invoices are invalid. A delay in billing alone does not remove an obligation to pay; the individual claim remains decisive. For Galaxus, the next test is whether its promise to avoid administrative hurdles holds as the remaining old invoices are dealt with. For customers, the immediate priority is to establish what they have been billed for and explicitly invoke the limitation period where applicable.