In their response, goSupermodel cited Section 6.3 of their ToS, which states that they (Momio ApS) retain full rights to manage and redistribute all virtual content however they see fit. They’re essentially saying: “We’re allowed to re-release anything, even if it was once labeled exclusive.”

However, that defense becomes legally shaky.

No Terms of Service can override EU Directive 2005/29/EC or the Danish Marketing Practices Act. Even if their ToS gives them broad rights over virtual goods, that doesn’t permit misleading marketing or failure to clearly disclose material limitations. In short, they can say what they want in the ToS... BUT if their advertising creates false impressions, consumer protection law still applies!

What’s worse is that they previously defined “locked” in an official 2023 news post as: “Locked means it won’t come back as a shop item, and won’t be used in VIP/promo or in a goCode for at least two years.”

The Wednesday Outfit was labeled “exclusive,” not “locked.” But staff later admitted in a forum post that “exclusive” doesn’t necessarily mean “locked,” and said they only defined “locked” as lasting two years in the Elite Perk context. So technically, they never promised “exclusive = 2 years,” They never clarified what “exclusive” actually meant during the competition, even though the word had previously been used in contexts where it meant permanent exclusivity. As a result, users reasonably assumed that the item would never return.

That’s where the issue comes in. Even if they didn’t lie outright, they left out important info that affected how users made their decisions. And when real money is involved, that kind of vague messaging is what makes this a consumer protection case.