The Consumer’s Right of Withdrawal in Case of Payment With Bitcoins

Bitcoin is the most important and well known form of digital currency. It is not produced or backed by any single entity. Its production takes place in a decentralized manner and its value derives only from the fact that there is a growing community that attributes value to it and chooses to transact using this innovative means of payment. However, its importance is increasing, especially in the field of e-commerce. The main aim of this article is to examine the consumer’s right of withdrawal, as it is regulated in the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU), in case of payments with bitcoins. More specifically, it is examined whether a consumer’s payment with bitcoins can be a hindrance to the consumer’s protection, with respect to the withdrawal right provided by the aforementioned Directive in cases of distance and off-premises contracts. Furthermore, the consequences of the exercise of the withdrawal right are examined, particularly with regards to reimbursement. The main concerns derive from the bitcoin’s disputed legal nature and its high value volatility.


Introduction
The European Central Bank (ECB) in its 2012 report on virtual currency schemes has defined virtual currency as 'a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community'. 1 Amongst the various types and kinds of virtual currencies, the most important and well known is, undoubtedly, the bitcoin. 2 Its importance in ecommerce is steadily increasing, as more online merchants accept bitcoins as a means of * Lecturer, School of Law, European University Cyprus; e-mail: E.Rizos@euc.ac.cy.  3 Although this volume is rather insignificant in comparison to the transaction volume in state currencies, 4 several institutions, such as the European Central Bank (ECB), 5 the European Banking Authority (EBA) 6 and the Bank of France, 7 have issued warnings concerning the use of bitcoins in relation, amongst other situations, to e-commerce, expressing fears regarding a lower level of consumer protection 8 .
The legal issues arising from the emergence and use of bitcoin 'currency' are potentially vast and complex. This article focuses on the issue of consumer refund rights with respect to the provisions of the Directive 2011/83/EU (Consumer Rights Directive). 9 More specifically, it will be examined whether a consumer's payment with bitcoins can be a hindrance to the consumer's protection, with respect to the withdrawal right provided by Articles 9-16 of the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) in cases involving distance and off-premises contracts. Furthermore, the consequences of the exercise of the withdrawal right will be examined, particularly with regards to reimbursement. The main concerns derive from the bitcoin's disputed legal nature and its high value volatility.
The article is structured mainly in three parts. Initially (in section 2), a brief overview of the bitcoin's technical structure and function is laid out. Furthermore, the issue of whether or not bitcoin can be considered as money from an economic and legal point of view is explored. Next (section 3) addresses the consumer's rights relating to information and withdrawal according to the CRD (to the extent necessary for the purposes of this article). The main issues raised in this article are then examined 3 Data on the bitcoin transaction volume is available at Quandl, 'Bitcoin Estimated Transaction Volume USD' <https://www.quandl.com/data/BCHAIN/ETRVU-Bitcoin-Estimated-Transaction-Volume-USD> accessed 13 March 2016. 4 Eg the non-cash payments in the EU alone in 2014  network. A bitcoin transaction is concluded only by means of its registration in the blockchain. 18 The real identities of the payer or the payee are not revealed publicly in the blockchain, since the blockchain records only the public addresses (or public keys) of the transactors, ie 'essentially a string of letters and numbers ', 19 which are used to identify bitcoin ownership. 20 This does not necessarily mean that the real identity of the payee is unknown to the payer, it means that the real identities of the people involved in a bitcoin transaction are not known to the people who view the publicly accessible blockchain. Each person can have more than one public address and a single transaction can be concluded by means of more than one public address, should the payer or the payee use several public addresses to proceed to the transaction. 21 Therefore, bitcoin transactions can more accurately be described as being conducted pseudonymously. 22 An individual who wants to use his or her public address(es) in order to conclude a bitcoin transaction (ie to send bitcoins to another person) has to use a private key (similar to a password), 23 which corresponds to the public address involved in the transaction (this public/private key relationship relies on cryptography.) 24 With regards to the use of public and private addresses, parallels have been drawn to a letterbox 25 or an e-mail address: 26 anyone can post items to a letterbox but only the key-holder can retrieve its content. Therefore, the person who holds the private cryptographic key to a public address has in fact the ability to use the amount of bitcoins that are attached to this address. 27 Put otherwise, '[o]wnership of bitcoin means the ability to transfer it to Euripides Rizos -The Consumer's Right of Withdrawal in case of Payment with Bitcoins 5 others'. 28 If a person wants to send bitcoins to another person, he or she has to digitally 'sign' the transaction with the aforementioned private key 29 (ie use the private key to authenticate the transaction) and broadcast a message to the decentralised Bitcoin peerto-peer network that his or her public address is sending a certain amount of bitcoins to the public address of the payee (eg address X is sending 1 bitcoin to address Y). 30 The transaction is still not concluded, however. Before the transaction is recorded in the blockchain (and therefore before an amount of bitcoins is actually transferred), it must be verified whether the transferor actually owns the amount of bitcoins to be spent and ensured that he or she shall not spend, or has not spent, the same amount twice. 31 The verification of a transaction is a highly sophisticated procedure that relies on cryptography. 32 Individuals who participate in this procedure by using the appropriate software (the 'users') compete with each other using computers' processing power 33 to algorithmically solve a puzzle that is difficult to solve, 34 while it is easy to check whether or not it is correctly solved, and is related with the continuity of the records in the blockchain 35 and the validity of the transaction. 36 Regarding the aforementioned puzzle, parallels have been drawn to a complicated Sudoku puzzle: although difficult to solve it is easy to verify whether or not the answer is correct. 37 The solution of the puzzle and the procedure of its verification confirm that the transaction is valid and that the public ledger is neither forged nor falsified. 38 Based on the consensus of the users (or more precisely the consensus of the total amount of CPUs of the users) 39 who verify the correct solution of the puzzle and the validity of the transaction, as mentioned above, the user who first solves the puzzle can then record the transaction in the blockchain 40 and is rewarded via the Bitcoin protocol with a certain amount of bitcoins. 41 The consensus upon the solution of the puzzle and, therefore, the validity of the blockchain is reached 28 Isaac Pflaum and Emmeline Hateley, 'A Bit of a Problem: National and Extraterritorial Regulation of Virtual Currency in the Age of Financial Disintermediation' (2014)  on the grounds of the majority of the processing power of the users ('one CPU -one vote'). 42 This procedure is known as 'mining '. 43 Mining is used not only for producing bitcoins but also for the conclusion of all transactions in bitcoins. More precisely, when the mining procedure is successfully accomplished, a transaction can be concluded by means of its registration in the blockchain -ie a public address (or, more precisely, the owner of the private key that pertains to this public address) is known to be entitled to the particular amount of bitcoins involved in the transaction. Furthermore, new bitcoins have been produced and are attached to the public addresses of the users who registered the transaction. The blockchain is updated on average every ten minutes. 44 The payer and the payee do not have to participate in the mining procedure. The payee only has to inform the payer of his or her public address(es), while the payer has to sign the transaction with the private key and issue a message to the Bitcoin network in order for the transaction to be concluded by means of the mining procedure.
All in all, bitcoins are basically encrypted information, 45 registered in a digital and publicly accessible ledger, 46 organised in a decentralised manner, on the basis of a peerto-peer protocol, by means of which all transactions in bitcoins are concluded (as described above). The records of this public ledger provide information about the transactions in bitcoins, in a pseudonymous manner -ie only the public addresses of the bitcoins' owners are known, while access to a public address is provided only by means of an encrypted private key, the actual ownership of which is of value 47 and indicates bitcoin ownership. 48

Bitcoin's Economic Status
Bitcoin, as a digital currency, has no intrinsic value. 49 This means that its value is derived neither from the fact that it is redeemable to a specific state currency or a valuable commodity (such as gold), 50 nor from being backed and compulsorily imposed by a 42 Nakamoto (n 10) 3. 43  government as a means of payment. 51 Value is derived only from the fact that there are people who attribute value to it and choose to transact using this innovative 52 means of payment. 53 Bitcoin was intended by its creator(s) to function as an alternative, decentralised payment system, depending not on fiat currency 54 or intermediaries such as banks. 55 However, there is a great deal of discussion on the matter of whether or not bitcoin can be considered money, in a more or less broad sense of the term. The majority of scholars are reluctant to acknowledge bitcoin as money, pointing out its poor monetary functions. 56 The same cautiousness is exhibited by institutions such as the European Central Bank (ECB), 57 the Bank of Canada 58 and the Bank of France. 59 Nevertheless, some scholars argue that Bitcoin is, from an economic perspective, a form of money. 60 Money, from a purely economic perspective, is commonly defined by its economic functions and, more specifically, money serves as a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. 61 Bitcoin's use as a medium of exchange can be described as limited. 62 Although the number of traders who accept bitcoins as a means of payment is increasing, 63 it is still a small proportion when compared to the total amount of trade worldwide. 64 Furthermore, bitcoin serves only in a weak manner, if at all, as a unit of account, ie as a 'common denominator that allows individuals to relate and compare the values of different goods and services'. 65 Its poor performance as a unit of account can be attributed to its highly volatile value 66 and to the fact that a bitcoin is divided into 100,000,000 sub-units. 67 Even in cases where traders accept bitcoins, prices are usually denominated in a traditional currency and the amount of bitcoins to be paid is calculated according to the exchange rate of a specific online exchange service. 68 With regards to its function as a store of value, bitcoin is at the moment highly volatile, 69 in terms of its value when compared to other traditional currencies. 70 Consequently, people who acquire and maintain bitcoins typically have speculative motives. 71 Such motives are pointed out by many scholars who consequently conclude that bitcoin serves in fact primarily as a 'speculative investment', 72 while the primary function of a currency, on the other hand, is not speculation (even though there can be speculation in state currencies also, of course). 73 In view of the constant fluctuations of bitcoin price and the severe risks presented by hacking, 74 it serves as a rather poor store of value. 75 In conclusion, bitcoin does serve as a medium of exchange, albeit on a limited scale. 76 Furthermore, bitcoins can be converted into a state currency by means of a bitcoin exchange service, 77 which functions in a similar manner to an ordinary currency-tocurrency exchange service. Therefore, bitcoins can serve as a medium to convey value 78 or, in other words, purchasing power. 79 On the one hand, in view of the fact that bitcoin is meant to be used as money 80 and serves as a medium of exchange within a growing community, 81 the monetary status of bitcoin should not be entirely denied. On the other hand, bitcoin performs poorly when it comes to the function of a store of value and probably does not perform at all in terms of the function of a unit of account. While it is not entirely unusual for a currency to be a poor store of value, 82 bitcoin's nonperformance as a unit of account could prevent one from recognising the monetary status of bitcoins. 83  accurate to ascertain that, from an economic perspective, bitcoin is a quasi-money 84 financial asset. 85

Bitcoin's Legal Status
With regards to the legal nature of bitcoin, it should first be noted that bitcoin is barely regulated in the majority of jurisdictions. 86 Most certainly, it does not enjoy, in any jurisdiction, the status of 'legal tender', 87 ie a form of money that is statutorily imposed as an obligatory means of debts' discharge. 88 Nobody in any State is obliged to use or accept bitcoins as a means of payment against his or her will. 89 However, provided that the use of bitcoins is not prohibited, the parties to a contract are free to determine whether a particular debt will be discharged by means of bitcoins. 90 According to the European Central Bank (ECB) 91 FC 2014Workshops, BITCOIN and WAHC 2014, Christ church, Barbados, March 7, 2014. Revised Selected Papers' (Springer 2014  as PSD), 96 the ECB 97 and certain scholars 98 have argued that bitcoins do not fall within its scope . Indeed, the PSD is aimed mainly at providing a regulatory framework for payment services providers 99 and transactions in bitcoins are meant to be conducted without intermediaries, 100 in a decentralised manner. 101 The same conclusions can be adopted with regards to the scope of the 2015 Payment Services Directive (PSD 2).
Apart from the aforementioned Directives, there is a great deal of discussion about whether or not bitcoins can legally be classified as money (in a similar way to a foreign currency even), 102 as security or commodity. 103 However, an a priori overall judgment of bitcoin's legal nature and classification, based on its conceptualistic understanding, should be avoided. 104 Its legal characterisation and treatment should be made on a caseby-case basis, depending on the legal rule that needs to be applied. 105 For example, according to a recent judgment of the CJEU with respect to the VAT Directive (Council Directive 2006/112/EC), 106 bitcoin cannot be classified as security 107 and although it is not legal tender, 108 it can be regarded as a 'direct means of payment between operators who accept it'. 109 Furthermore, the CJEU has recognised, albeit rather indirectly, that bitcoins are money, even for the purposes of the VAT Directive. 110 However, bitcoins should not be treated as money in cases where it is concluded that only a legal tender can fall within the scope of a certain legal rule (eg a statute that provides a claim for damages due to a tort and declares that damages are to be paid in money). 111

The Consumer's Right of Information and Withdrawal according to the CRD
This section briefly describes the provisions of the CRD concerning the consumer's right of information and withdrawal in distance contracts, to the extent necessary for the purposes of further examining the existence and content of the consumer's right of withdrawal when the consumer has paid the agreed price in bitcoins. One of the main fields of application of the CRD, and in particular its provisions on distance contracts (as they are defined in Article 2 paragraph 7), is e-commerce. Online sales or service contracts between traders and consumers clearly fall within the CRD definition of a 'distance contract '. 112 The CRD sets new information requirements in cases of distance and off-premises contracts, 113 in order to provide better protection to the consumer, who is the party with less access to the crucial information regarding the contract to be concluded. 114 Article 6 provides the regulatory framework concerning the information that must be provided to the consumer before the conclusion of a distance contract. The trader should provide the consumer with information relating to, inter alia, 'the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes' 115 and 'the arrangements for payment'. 116 The CRD also provides the consumer with a right to withdraw (Articles 9-16), within a certain time limit (Articles 9-10), from a distance or an off-premises contract, without having to give a reason and without having to pay a withdrawal penalty. 117 This is a 115 CRD Art 6 (1)(e), subpara 1. 116 CRD Art 6 (1)(g). 117 CRD Art 9-16; Article 9 para 1 states that '[s]ave where the exceptions provided for in Article 16 apply, the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract, without giving any reason, and without incurring any costs other than those provided for in Article 13 (2) and Article 14'. For a further analysis see also Luzak (n 112) 387.
provision that deviates from basic principles of contract law, such as pacta sunt servanda. 118 The right of withdrawal in the aforementioned cases aims to provide the consumer, as the weaker party to the contract, 119 with the opportunity to evaluate the contract calmly, after receiving the products 120 he or she has purchased 121 and to avoid the obligations arising from a hasty or an unwanted contract. 122 To ensure the effectiveness of this right, the CRD imposes an information duty on traders. More specifically, the trader should provide the consumer with information regarding the existence of this right to withdraw, the conditions, the time limit, the procedures for exercising it, and the potential costs that the consumer would have to bear in case of withdrawal. 123 The main legal consequence of a valid exercise of the right of withdrawal is the termination of the obligations that derive from the contract. 124 The trader must reimburse all payments received from the consumer, using the same means of payment that the consumer initially used to pay the price of the contract. 125 On the other hand, the consumer must return the goods to the trader (as indicated above). The CRD introduces certain exceptions 126 from the right of withdrawal, based mainly on the nature of the goods or services subject to the contract. One of the exceptions relates to the risks that may derive from price fluctuations. More specifically, according to Article 16(b) a right of withdrawal should not be provided in distance or off-premises contracts concerning 'the supply of goods or services for which the price is dependent on fluctuations in the financial market which cannot be controlled by the trader and which may occur within the withdrawal period'.

Possible Hindrances to the Establishment of the Right of Withdrawal
Bitcoin is used as a means of payment by consumers mostly in e-commerce 128 , since the 'brick and mortar' stores who accept bitcoins are far fewer in number than the online traders who accept bitcoins. 129 Therefore, since sales or service contracts that are concluded over the internet can be regarded as distance contracts, one should examine whether, and how, the provisions of the CRD are to be applied to sales or services contracts where the price is paid by bitcoin, as this is a matter that is not regulated.
Since the CRD is a maximum harmonisation Directive, 130 its rules should be transposed, interpreted and implemented in the most uniform manner possible. More specifically, one should examine whether a consumer maintains the withdrawal right provided by the CRD even if the payment was effected in bitcoins, or whether a payment with bitcoins can be an obstacle to the aforementioned right (where all other prerequisites to this right are met). It should be noted that there is a certain degree of scepticism in the literature on the issue of the possible application of the CRD in cases where bitcoins are used. It is argued that 'the application of the CRD and the E-Commerce Directive in case of use of bitcoins is rather to be ruled out', 131 albeit without any further explanation.
First, it should be clear that the concept of the consumer, as 'a natural person who, in contracts covered by the CRD, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession' 132 is not affected by the fact that the aforementioned natural person pays the price of the goods or services in bitcoins. However, it is interesting to examine whether a sales or services contract, the price of which is paid in bitcoins, falls within the definition of the sales/services contract in Article 2(5) and (6) (6), where it is stated: 'sales contract means any contract under which the trader transfers or undertakes to transfer the ownership of goods to the consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof, including any contract having as its object both goods and services". See also CRD Art 2(5), where it is stated: 'service contract means any contract other than a sales contract under which the trader supplies or undertakes to supply a service to the consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof'.
provide in order to obtain the goods or services subject to the contract is the payment of the price. It is suggested in the legal literature that an obligation to transfer bitcoins is not a monetary obligation; thus, a contract of purchase of goods in return of bitcoins should be considered not as a sales contract, but as a barter (or exchange) contract. 134 However, it has been also suggested that the aforementioned contract is actually a sales contract. 135 Therefore, it should be examined more closely if the conveyance of bitcoins can be regarded as 'payment' and, consequently, if the obligation to transfer bitcoins can be a part of a 'sales' or 'services' contract, for the purposes of the CRD.
The CRD lacks a definition of the term 'payment'. The revised Payment Services Directive (PSD 2) 136 defines a payment transaction as 'an act, initiated by the payer or by the payee, of placing, transferring or withdrawing funds, irrespective of any underlying obligations between the payer and the payee', while 'funds' are to be considered 'banknotes and coins, scriptural money and electronic money'. 137 Bitcoin is neither of these forms of money. Thus, if the 'payment' definition of the PSD 2 is to be adopted in the context of the CRD also, a payment with bitcoins could possibly mean that there exists no 'sales' or 'services' contract, potentially raising doubts pertaining to the matter of the consumer's protection. However, the PSD 2 and its definitions of 'payment' and 'funds' serve other purposes than consumer protection and the advancement of crossborder selling, which are, inter alia, the main goals of the CRD. 138 Therefore, the definition of a 'payment transaction' should not be adopted for the needs of the CRD without further consideration.
With regards to the CRD, a broader definition of 'payment' should be adopted, in order to cover also non-traditional means of transferring purchasing power from the consumer to the trader which are used in modern commerce. This is also indicated in the Recitals of the Directive, where it is acknowledged that the use of vouchers should be regarded as payment. 139  bitcoins; nonetheless, it does not seem to rule out the use of assets other than cash, scriptural or electronic money for the conclusion of a payment.
Consequently, for the purposes of the CRD, a 'payment' should be considered as any act of transferring monetary value from the consumer to the trader, as in transferring a certain amount of purchasing power by means of a financial asset that serves as a medium of exchange, even within a limited community. 141 As mentioned above, bitcoin is a financial asset that resembles money and, from an economic point of view, should be considered as quasi-money. Furthermore, bitcoin is in fact used as a medium of exchange, even on a limited scale, and, as the CJEU has ruled, it does in fact serve as a 'direct payment system'. 142 This is also indicated in the Explanatory Notes of the UK Consumer Rights Bill (the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 1 October 2015), where it is acknowledged that bitcoins are 'much more akin to real money'. 143 Moreover, in cases where traders accept, and consumers pay with, bitcoins, this particular digital currency is used as a means of exchange by the contract partners and is considered a means for the conveyance of purchasing power. 144 In the majority of cases of payment with bitcoins, prices are actually denominated in a traditional currency and bitcoins are used for the purpose of conveyance of the purchasing power that corresponds to the price.
Therefore, the conveyance of bitcoins from the consumer to the trader should be considered as a 'payment', in view of the definition of Article 2(5) and (6) of the CRD, 145 according to which, the valuable consideration that the consumer undertakes to provide in order to obtain the goods or services subject to the contract is the payment of the price (as stated earlier). This solution also serves the purpose of the consumer's protection, ensuring that consumers shall not be deprived of the rights provided to them, in cases of payments with more innovative means, such as bitcoins.
Another issue to be examined is the potential exception from the right of withdrawal, according to Article 16(b) of the CRD. 146 As mentioned above, a right of withdrawal shall not be provided in cases where the price of the goods or services is dependent on fluctuations in the financial market which cannot be controlled by the trader and which may occur within the withdrawal period. As discussed in section 2, bitcoin's price in the online currency exchange markets is rather unstable and fluctuates in a manner that the trader cannot control. However, the exception introduced by Article 16(b) is to be applied only in cases where the fluctuations refer to the price of goods or services to be supplied to the consumer and not in cases where the fluctuations refer to the value of the means of payment to be provided by the consumer. On the other hand, traders can (and in fact most of them do) protect themselves from the fluctuation risks connected with the speculative nature of bitcoins. Even though they cannot control the fluctuations in the bitcoin exchange markets, they can cooperate with a bitcoin exchange service in order to receive payments only in a state currency, even in cases where the consumer has paid with bitcoins. Otherwise put, the consumer pays the price in bitcoins to a bitcoin exchange service indicated by the trader and the exchange service instantly pays the trader the equivalent in a state currency. This practice can be regarded as a potential means to control (to an extent) the stability of the price's value, since the payment that the trader has received and is to be reimbursed (in cases of withdrawal) is that of the value of the state currency. Consequently, the aforementioned exception should not be applied in cases where the price of the obtainment of goods or services is paid in bitcoins, unless, of course, the goods or services are of a speculative nature, as described in Article 16(b). 147 In conclusion, the fact that the consumer pays with bitcoins cannot constitute an obstacle to the right of withdrawal.

Payment with a state currency
The most complicated issues relate to the issue of the consumer's restitution claim, in cases where the consumer pays with bitcoins and later validly exercises the right of withdrawal provided by the CRD. As mentioned above, according to Article 13(1) the trader should reimburse all payments received from the consumer using the same means of payment that the consumer used for the initial payment transaction. The first question to be addressed concerns the type of currency the payment must be reimbursed in (bitcoins or state currency). The second question relates to the value of the payment to be reimbursed, given that bitcoin's value is volatile.
It would be useful to first examine the content of the right of withdrawal, should the consumer have effected the payment by means of a state currency. Of course, solutions pertaining to the issue of the value and means of the reimbursement in cases of payments with a state currency in general (ie in cases other than those covered by the CRD) may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, there is a need for a uniform interpretation and implementation of the CRD (as mentioned above). Therefore, the rules of the CRD are examined with respect to this issue.
The simplest case is when there is only one currency involved in the payment. The trader has to reimburse the exact amount of money received, notwithstanding any possible increase or decrease in the currency's internal or external value. This is due to the nominalistic principle, which governs in principle the monetary obligations 148 in most jurisdictions, 149 according to which: … a unit of currency is always equal to itself ... and neither external changes in the value of currency, namely the rate of exchange in relation to other currencies, nor internal changes of value of money are taken into account. 150 The nominalistic principle is statutorily imposed in many EU member states (such as France, 151 Italy, 152 and Greece 153 ) and is a part of the common law tradition as well. 154 Another potential issue relates to cases where the payment is effected by means of scriptural money (remittance, debit or credit card) and where the consumer's and trader's bank accounts are in different currencies. According to the aforementioned Guidance of the European Commission, 'the trader should refund the full amount paid by the consumer in the currency of the payment' 155 and ' [i]f the consumer's bank account is in one currency but the payment and refund are made in a different currency, the trader should not be responsible for any loss arising from the currency exchange performed by the consumer's bank on the refund'. 156 The meaning of the phrase 'the full amount paid by the consumer in the currency of the payment' in this context is to be clarified, since two currencies (the currency of the consumer's bank account and that of the trader's bank account) are involved in the payment in a case such as the aforementioned one and the currency of the payment is not necessarily that of the consumer's bank account, as is implied in the Guidance of the European Commission (to reiterate: '…[i]f the consumer's bank account is in one currency but the payment and refund are made in a different currency…'). 157 The measure of the trader's monetary obligation of reimbursement is provided by the 'money of account', 158 ie the amount of a specific currency in which the price was denominated in the contract as the measure of the consumer's monetary obligation of payment, regardless of the means of payment. 159 Thus, the 'currency of the payment' in the aforementioned context is the currency in which the parties of the contract agreed to denominate the price. Furthermore, for the purposes of reimbursement, the trader should use the same means used by the consumer for the payment. Therefore, the trader should remit to the consumer's bank account the exact amount of the money of account initially received.
This conclusion can be supported by examining cases where the trader provides the consumer with the option to choose between two currencies; this choice relates to the currency in which the price of the product is to be denominated. For instance, let us take an example of a consumer located in the UK who wants to purchase a product from a trader located in Germany where the price of the product in question is initially 250 euros and the consumer is provided with the ability to choose to effect the payment either in euros or in the local currency, according to a specified exchange rate at the moment of payment (eg £200 GBP). In both cases, there are two currencies involved in the payment, since both the consumer's and the trader's bank account are in a different currency. However, the denomination of the price in a specific currency has an effect on the amount of the reimbursement. This amount depends on the agreed currency of the price, ie the currency used as the 'money of account'. If the consumer chooses to denominate the price in pounds, then £200 GBP shall have to be reimbursed, regardless of the exchange rate at the moment of reimbursement. Likewise, should the consumer choose to denominate the price in euros then the amount of reimbursement is 250 euros, which means that the consumer shall receive the equivalent of 250 euros in pounds, according to the exchange rate at the moment of the reimbursement. Consequently, in the latter case (payment in euros), the consumer could either make a profit or suffer a loss, according to potential fluctuations in the exchange rate.

Agreement between the parties on the issue of refunds in case of payment with bitcoins
With respect to the issue of a payment with bitcoins, the first matter to be examined is whether an agreement between the trader and the consumer on the subject of refunds in case of a consumer's withdrawal has been concluded in a manner that does not violate the imperative nature (Article 25) of the provisions of the CRD concerning the content of the consumer's right to receive reimbursement in case of withdrawal. More specifically, Article 25 paragraph 2 provides that 'any contractual terms which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights resulting from this Directive shall not be binding on the consumer'.
In fact, a lot of traders who accept payment with bitcoins, include a specific refund policy in the sales contracts, according to which the trader is to reimburse the nominal value of the price denominated in a specific state currency at the moment of payment, should the consumer exercise a right of withdrawal, provided by virtue of a statute or the contract. For instance, according to the aforementioned refund policy, if a consumer purchases a product, the price of which was €600 at the moment of payment, the trader should reimburse the amount of €600. Some traders reimburse the price in the state currency in which the price was denominated (ie €600), 160 while others reimburse the amount of bitcoins equivalent at the moment of the reimbursement to the price denominated in a state currency at the moment of the payment, according to the exchange rate of a particular bitcoin exchange service. 161 For instance, assuming that the bitcoin to euro exchange rate at the moment of the payment is 200:1, a consumer who purchases a product that costs €600 could pay 3 bitcoins instead of €600. According to the aforementioned term, if the exchange rate at the moment of the reimbursement is 300:1, the consumer should receive 2 bitcoins, which is equivalent to €600 at the moment of the reimbursement.
These terms do not violate the mandatory nature of the right of withdrawal or the provisions of the CRD relating to the consequences of the right of withdrawal. The consumer receives the amount of purchasing power that he or she originally spent. Therefore, the implementation of the aforementioned term does, in fact, restore the consumer's initial monetary situation, from the point of view of the purchasing power disposed. Therefore, this term should be considered as valid, since it is not disadvantageous and does not entail a burden for the consumer.

Denomination of the price in state currency
The issue remains open in cases where such an agreement between the trader and the consumer about the object or the value of reimbursement does not exist. According to Article 13(1) (as mentioned above) the trader must reimburse all payments received. At first glance, this particular provision could apparently lead to the conclusion that the trader should reimburse the amount of bitcoins received. Such a solution is suggested in the legal literature 162 and is possibly implied by legislative organs as well. More specifically, it is suggested in the Explanatory Notes of the UK Consumer Rights Bill that: … digital currencies (or cryptocurrencies) that can be used in a variety of transactions with a number of traders, and exchanged for real money, are much more akin to real money (eg bitcoins). Where the consumer uses these types of digital currency to pay for digital content, the trader can (and must, unless the consumer agrees) repay the consumer in the digital currency. 163 Although the aforementioned Note refers only to the means of reimbursement, it may indicate that the payment to be reimbursed is that of the bitcoins received. However, this should not be considered a solution applicable to all cases of payments by means of bitcoins. As mentioned above, when the consumer's and the trader's respective bank accounts are in a different currency, the decisive currency is the currency in which the price was denominated in the contract. 164 The denomination of the price in a currency is strongly connected with the function of this currency as a unit of account. 165 In the majority of cases, the price is denominated only in a state currency, even when the consumer has the opportunity to pay with bitcoins; 166 the trader provides information concerning the price in a state currency alone and the contract is concluded in relation to this particular currency. This is due to the fact that bitcoin does not properly serve as a unit of account, as mentioned above (as discussed in section 2). Bitcoin is perceived not as the currency of account, but as a medium to convey the purchasing power that corresponds to the price denominated in a state currency. For this reason, a trader who accepts payments in bitcoins usually does not present bitcoin as a different currency option (ie where the consumer may choose between two state currencies), but rather as a different means of payment, such as (for example) payment by credit card or remittance. Put otherwise, the state currency in which the price is denominated is the 'money of account', which is decisive in terms of measuring the consumer's obligation of payment and the trader's obligation of reimbursement, while bitcoin is 'the money of payment'.
Should the consumer choose to effect the payment using bitcoins, the trader usually refers the consumer to a specific bitcoin exchange service. In fact, the majority of traders do not actually receive bitcoins, even when the consumer pays with bitcoins. 167 More precisely, the consumer pays a bitcoin exchange service (in bitcoins), which in turn cooperates with the trader to receive the bitcoins and then instantly pay the trader the bitcoins' equivalent in the agreed currency (at the moment of payment). 168 The majority of traders who accept payments with bitcoins have adopted this payment practice in order to avoid incurring any risk related to bitcoin's volatility. 169 The amount of bitcoins to be paid is calculated according to the exchange rate that the exchanger provides at the moment the consumer chooses to effect the payment in bitcoins.
Consequently, in the aforementioned cases, the trader should reimburse the amount in the state currency in which that price was denominated. However, the CRD demands that the reimbursement be conducted by the same means of payment that the consumer initially used, unless the consumer agrees to another means of reimbursement. In the aforementioned cases, where the trader has received the payment in a state currency from a bitcoin exchange service, payments should be reimbursed according to the value of the price, as initially denominated in the state currency (as suggested above) and by the means the consumer used to pay. Accordingly, the consumer should receive bitcoins and, more specifically, the bitcoin exchange service should convey to the consumer the amount of bitcoins equivalent to the amount of the state currency to be reimbursed at the moment of the reimbursement (as in fact happens in the majority of cases, by virtue of an agreement between the parties to the contract). 170 For instance, to revisit the earlier example, if the consumer paid 3 bitcoins, instead of €600, and at the time of reimbursement the euro to bitcoin exchange rate decreased from 200:1 to 150:1, the consumer should then receive 4 bitcoins (the current equivalent value in bitcoins of €600). Of course, there is always the possibility that the consumer will agree to more traditional means of reimbursement, such as remittance to a bank account, directly from the trader, as the CRD allows in Article 13(1), provided that the consumer does not incur any additional fees as a result of such reimbursement.
Even in cases, where the payment is effected without an intermediary and bitcoins are conveyed directly from the consumer to the trader, it is of utmost importance to examine whether the price was denominated in bitcoins or in a state currency. As stated above, bitcoin does not properly serve as a unit of account. Therefore, if the information about the price is provided only in relation to a specific state currency, this particular unit of account serves as the unit of account in which the price is denominated. Even if the consumer is given the option to effect the payment using bitcoins, bitcoins are not perceived as a unit of account, in which the price is denominated, but as an alternative means of conveying the value of the price actually denominated in a state currency. Consequently, even in cases of a direct conveyance of bitcoins, if the trader sets the price in a state currency then the reimbursement should be conducted according to the nominal value of the price denominated in this particular currency. The means of reimbursement should be the same as the means of payment used by the consumer. Therefore, the trader should reimburse the amount of bitcoins that is equivalent to the nominal value of the price at the moment of the reimbursement, with respect to the average bitcoin price in relation to the currency in which the price was denominated. 171

Denomination of the price in bitcoins
There are still cases, albeit rare, 172 where prices are indeed denominated in bitcoins. These are cases where the trader provides information about the price of the product in bitcoins alone and therefore bitcoins are actually used as a unit of account. Thus, in these said cases, bitcoin is indeed perceived as the currency of payment and not merely as a method of payment. If a valid agreement concerning the manner of a potential refund does not exist, the trader should reimburse the exact amount of bitcoins received, regardless of any future fluctuations concerning the bitcoin's value, as is suggested in the legal literature. 173 For instance, if a consumer has paid 3 bitcoins to purchase a product then in this case 3 bitcoins are to be reimbursed.
However, due to bitcoin's high volatility, this mode of reimbursement entails risks for both parties to the contract. If the bitcoin's value increases, consumers may exercise the withdrawal right more often than otherwise expected, in order to benefit from the increase in value. 174 However, this does not constitute a valid reason to justify an exception to the right of withdrawal, 175 since the trader should bear the risk of denominating the price in bitcoins. In this case, the consumer can benefit from the withdrawal, since he or she can receive a financial asset of greater value at the moment of reimbursement than at the moment of payment. Besides, even in cases where the consumer pays in foreign currency, he or she might still make a profit if the value of the currency of payment decreases in comparison to the value of the currency in the consumer's bank account used for the payment (as mentioned above).
Bitcoin's value, however, could not only increase but also decrease. In this case, the consumer could suffer the consequences of bitcoin's value fluctuation, as he or she would receive a financial asset, the value of which is then less than it was at the moment of the payment. The consumer's losses can be covered by means of a claim to damages only in cases of a breach of contract from the trader's side. Otherwise, the exercise of the consumer's right to withdraw does not justify a claim to damages against the trader. 176 With respect to this potential loss incurred by the consumer, there are two issues to be examined: whether there is a duty to inform the consumer about the risks that derive from bitcoin's volatility in case of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, and whether the potential losses incurred by the consumer are compatible to the reasoning of this particular right.
The rationale that underlies the information duty is 'the one-sided drafting of the contract, the information asymmetries and ignorance of the average consumer about the legal technicalities, to which one can add the ignorance of the content and usefulness of products and services may lead to suboptimal contracts'. 177 One of the legal technicalities that the consumer might ignore is the existence and the main legal consequences of the right of withdrawal (such as the obligation of the trader to reimburse the payment in the agreed currency of the price) where such a right exists. Consequently, the trader bears a respective duty of information, according to Article 6(1)(h)-(k) of the CRD. The trader complies with this duty provided he or she informs the consumer that the latter has a right of withdrawal, and in case of a valid exercise of this right, the trader shall reimburse the agreed price. However, the fact that the value or the exchange rate of the currency of payment may fluctuate in the future or the consumer's domestic currency may lose its internal value due to inflation constitutes neither a legal technicality, on the grounds of which the trader has an informational advantage concerning the contract to be concluded, nor does it constitute information directly connected with the obligations derived from the contract. For this reason, the CRD provides no specific duty of information about the potential losses the consumer could incur due to fluctuations in exchange rates, in cases where the payment is agreed in a foreign currency.
A parallel can be drawn with respect to sales/services contracts, where the agreed price is denominated in bitcoins. The fact that bitcoin's value may fluctuate in the future is essentially no different from the fact that a state currency's value may fluctuate in the future, since both refer to cases where there is no information asymmetry concerning the contract to be concluded. Therefore, the trader bears no duty to inform the consumer that bitcoin's value may decrease in the future. With respect to the issue of the compatibility of the consumer's potential loss due to the possible decrease of bitcoin's value with the ratio of the right of withdrawal, there could be a possible objection, relating to the teleological interpretation of Article 13. More specifically, the consumer's financial position might deteriorate and this can then hinder the actual exercise of the right of withdrawal, something that potentially opposes the rationale for the aforementioned rules, which inter alia is to ensure the effectiveness of the withdrawal right.
However, the teleological interpretation of Article 13 should take into consideration not only the goal of the effectiveness of the right of withdrawal but also the teleological system of the CRD more generally, ie as a coherent system of goals expressed by its provisions. There are cases, such as those regulated in Article 14(2) 178 and Article 13(2), 179 where the consumer's financial situation might deteriorate. These rules refer to situations where the consumer has attempted to gain a profit from the use of the goods or selected a more expensive means of transportation. Both rules are based on the principle of the bona fides dealing. Furthermore, as mentioned above, according to the DG Justice Guidance, the consumer might suffer losses due to fees charged by the consumer's bank in case of reimbursement of a foreign currency 180 or due to fluctuations in relation to the value of the currency, yet the trader shall not be responsible for any such losses. The trader's duty is only to reimburse the nominal value of the agreed price in the agreed currency of payment. Consequently, a perfect restoration of the consumer's previous financial position in any case of withdrawal is not an ultimate goal of the CRD.
Parallels can be drawn with respect to the potential losses that the consumer might suffer should the bitcoin's value decrease. Bitcoins are an asset of a rather speculative nature and could also be profitable for the consumer who uses them, since the consumer may withdraw within the legal time limit in case the bitcoin's price has increased. In this case, the consumer would reap the profit of the bitcoin's value increase. Since an exception to the right of withdrawal in case of a payment with bitcoins cannot be justified, the consumers can use bitcoins as a means of payment even for speculative reasons, in cases where prices are denominated only in bitcoins. However, speculation also entails risks. Since the consumer could potentially profit from the use of bitcoins, he or she should also bear any potential losses. Expecting only to gain the potential benefits but not to bear any potential losses of a personal choice should not be regarded as a legitimate expectation, especially if one takes into account the need for an honest and fair (bona fides) dealing. Furthermore, it could be difficult to determine the exact loss to the consumer, if the price is only denominated in bitcoins. Bitcoin's value is defined in relation to its exchange rate against state currencies, as it is not legal tender or domestic currency in any state. 181 Since no state currency is mentioned in the contract or used as a standard of comparison, the exact decrease of bitcoin's value cannot be precisely defined. For instance, bitcoin's value may decrease 5 % with respect to its exchange rate against