In July 2017 the Pervomaiskii District Court dismissed Yulia Kudryashova's appeal against "SB-Eurasia" LLC, who refused to produce a gift shampoo with rainbow symbols on the label. The LLC in question officially stated that the reason behind their refusal was the so-called “anti-propaganda law”. However, the Court didn’t take into account the discriminatory underpinnings of the refusal when making its decision. Kudrayshova’s attorney filed a cassation appeal.
Last year in November Yulia Kudryashova asked “SB-Eurasia” that manufactures and sells shampoos in gift packages to make shampoos, using some the labels that Kudryashova herself designed. After the manufacturer agreed to the terms and conditions, Yulia emailed the label of a Rainbow she designed. The manufacturer then denied her the services. Kudryashova applied to the Court with a claim for the protection of consumer’s rights with a requirement to oblige SB-Eurasia to produce a batch of gift shampoos and to collect compensation for moral damage in the amount of 5,000 rubles.
In their responses to both the claim and the appeal (that was filed on the 15th of May 2017) “SB-Eurasia” did not even debate the fact that the order was accepted and agreed upon through a standardized contract. Then, the defendant directly pointed out that "the layout of the label was not agreed upon since this condition is usually not mandatory for approval because usually, images on the customer's labels do not contradict the existing legislation."
However, both the Justice of the Peace and the Judge of the Pervomaiskii Court District ignored the fact that that the denial was discriminatory as it referred to the law “On protecting children from information that is harmful to their health and development”. In both cases, the Court ruled based on the fact that there was no signed contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was not concluded, in spite of the fact that SB-Eurasia is working under an offer contract.
Kudryashova’s attorney Nikolai Rod’kin notes that “the Court approached the appeal as a complete formality. In my opinion, both judicial decisions, in this case, are a vivid example of homophobia on the part of the state. The court avoided the obligation to eliminate a clear violation of the rights of a representative of the LGBT community, cowardly avoiding an uncomfortable topic for him."