Adodo v Argos: Court of Appeal rules switching on a laptop does not break a "digital seal"

The Court of Appeal has held that a consumer who switches on a laptop bought online and activates its preloaded operating system does not lose the statutory right to cancel. It rejected Argos's "digital seal" argument.

In Adodo v Argos Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1462, Andrews LJ gave the lead judgement, with which Foxton LJ and King LJ agreed. Allowing a second appeal by Dr Ebenezer Adodo, who represented himself, the court ordered Argos to refund the £379 price of a Lenovo laptop with interest.

Background

Dr Adodo ordered the laptop, preloaded with Windows 11, online for click and collect. On switching it on he found it incompatible with software he used for work, and returned it within days. Argos refused a refund because the box had been opened and the laptop turned on.

HHJ Hedley, on the first appeal, rejected Argos's argument that the contract was not a distance contract, but held that activating Windows broke a digital seal, which engaged regulation 28(3)(b) of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. That provision removes the 14-day right to cancel for contracts for the supply of sealed audio recordings, sealed video recordings or sealed computer software once the goods are unsealed after delivery.

Construing the exception

Applying domestic principles of construction under CG Fry and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State [2025] UKSC 35, the court gave significant weight to the purpose of Directive 2011/83/EU. Recital 37 entitles distance buyers to test goods to the extent necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning, as they could in a shop. Relying on Slewo v Ledowski (C-681/17), the court held that exceptions to the right of withdrawal must be construed strictly.

Andrews LJ said that buying a computer with preloaded software would not naturally be described as a contract for the supply of computer software, let alone sealed software, because the software is incidental to the supply of the computer. She identified the likely rationale for the exception as protecting intellectual property, by preventing copying and stopping consumers from treating retailers as a free lending library. Counsel for Argos accepted this was a probable explanation, and also accepted that preventing activation of an operating system did little to protect anyone's intellectual property rights.

The court rejected Argos's case that the exception was a deliberate "strict liability" policy choice, and its argument that pre-contract information duties softened the effect. Being told how a computer should function is not the same as testing it. The analogy with a games console preloaded with games did not assist Argos either.

European Commission guidance on Article 14(2) of the Directive supported Dr Adodo. It anticipates that a consumer who goes further and configures software keeps the right to withdraw, subject only to paying the reasonable costs of resetting the device. Argos had not attempted to show any such cost.

The test

The court held that regulation 28(3)(b) applies only where the recording or software is the specific object of the contract, and the tangible medium is physically sealed in packaging that the consumer must open to reach the contents. The seal is the outer packaging, not a notional digital barrier broken on activation.

Andrews LJ observed that Argos's reading would remove the right to cancel almost any online purchase of a computer, phone or similar device as soon as it was switched on. That would seriously undermine the protection the Regulations were intended to provide. A physical seal also signals a legally significant step.

Thomas Samuels and Julie Leenane appeared for Argos.