Errors in JustRestart: Is the software vendor liable for delays in your case?

Since the digitization of court proceedings, communication in collective debt settlements is mandatorily made through the JustRestart platform. When technical errors or ‘bugs’ in this system lead to procedural errors or delays, the technical administrators and software suppliers (such as DP-A and Aginco) can be held liable. The Antwerp Labor Court, Antwerp Division ruled in a judgment of 18 November 2025 that launching an application that does not comply with legal requirements is an error that entitles one to damages.

The facts: A faltering digital system

In this case, a debtor was in collective debt settlement (CDS) proceedings. Several creditors had failed to file their claims in a timely manner after the initial summons.

According to the Judicial Code (J.J.). the debt mediator must send a final reminder in such a case. If the creditor does not respond, his claim is definitively forfeited. Since the introduction of JustRestart these reminders are automatically generated and sent by the digital platform.

The problem? Due to a programming error in JustRestart, the automatically generated reminder did not contain the legally required warning text (in accordance with art. 1675/9 §3 J.J.). As a result, the creditors were not correctly informed about the sanction (the forfeiture of their right). This problem occurred specifically in the period just after the launch, between November 2 and December 21, 2023.

When the debt mediator sought to bar late claims, the creditors challenged this. After all, they had not received a valid reminder. As a result, their claims still had to be included, which led to arguments, additional hearings and a significant delay in the file. The debtor then sued the developers of the platform, DP-A (Digital Platform for Attorneys) and Aginco, in intervention and indemnification.

Notable detail: in an attempt to avoid a judgment on the merits, the IT suppliers even proceeded to pay the claim of the creditor in question (Fintro) during the proceedings. Although this rendered the claim legally ‘without merit,’ the court still ruled on damages for the significant delay.

The decision: liability for software errors

The Antwerp Labor Court ruled in favor of the debtor on the issue of liability.

The court ruled that the late claims should indeed be accepted because the reminder letter from JustRestart was defective. The consequence of the technical error was that the legal sanction of forfeiture could not be applied.

More importantly, the court found that the technical suppliers (DP-A and Aginco) committed extra-contractual misconduct. The court found that they violated the standard of care by:

1. Launching a system that was not ready (“launch bug”).
2. Promising in the manuals that the system would generate correct legal letters, when in practice this was not the case.

The court awarded damages to the debtor based on the doctrine of loss of a chance. The debtor had a 50% chance that the proceedings would have been completed a year earlier had the system worked correctly. The suppliers were ordered to pay damages and court costs.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is an important precedent regarding the liability of IT service providers within the justice system.

1. Extra-contractual liability (Art. 6.5-6.6 CC) Because the debtor did not have a direct contract with Justice's software providers, the claim fell under extra-contractual liability. The court applied the general standard of care. A normal, foresighted and careful IT supplier does not launch a government platform for legal proceedings if essential legal functionalities (such as mandatory warning texts) do not function.

2. JustRestart's “Black Box.” and trust principle for the debt mediator. The defense tried to shift responsibility to the debt mediator: he should have checked the letters. The court rejected this. JustRestart's manual explicitly stated that the system generated the letters automatically. The problem was invisible. The debt mediator was entitled to trust that the system functioned in accordance with the law, especially since he often could not even see or modify the content of the automatically generated messages.

3. Loss of a chance The damage assessment is interesting. It is not certain that had the letter been correct, the creditors would not still have responded on time. However, because of the error, the opportunity for a quicker settlement (in which the creditors would have been late and thus barred) was permanently lost. The court estimated this opportunity ex aequo et bono at 50% and calculated the damages based on the additional cost of one year of debt mediation.

4. Impact on other cases The impact extends beyond this one case. In every case in which an automatic reminder was sent between November and December 2023, the legal warning may not have been properly included. This means that in those cases, the deadline for creditors never began to run and homologations may have been made on a shaky basis.

Specifically, what does this mean?

This ruling has implications for various parties in a collective debt settlement:

• For the debtor (client): If your proceedings drag on unnecessarily due to technical defects in JustRestart (e.g., incorrect calculations, unsent messages, incorrect templates), it is possible to recover the damages you suffer as a result from the administrators of the system. You do not have to stand idly by as technical bugs delay your financial recovery. The fact that the vendors in this case paid the debt themselves to get rid of it shows that they are aware of their weak position.
• For the debt mediator (attorney): Although the court was lenient here, vigilance remains necessary. However, this judgement confirms that you may rely on the automatic processes of the system as described in the manuals. When the system fails, the primary liability lies with the supplier, not the user who is required to use the system.
• For creditors: Technical errors in the notices may play in your favor. If you received a defective notice in the fall of 2023, your claim may not have expired even if the debt mediator ruled that it did.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Who is liable for errors in JustRestart?
The technical suppliers and operators of the system (such as DP-A and Aginco) can be held liable for errors. The court ruled that they have a duty of care to provide a working system that complies with the law, especially when its use is required by law.

Can a creditor be rejected if JustRestart sends an erroneous reminder?
No, not in principle. Article 1675/9 of the Judicial Code requires that a creditor receive a specific legal warning. If the software does not include this text in the reminder, the notice is invalid and the sanction (the forfeiture of the claim) cannot be applied.

Which cases are at risk?
Mainly cases in which reminders were sent via JustRestart between November 2, 2023 and December 21, 2023. During that period, there was a ‘launch bug’ in the software that caused legal texts to be missing.

What compensation can I claim for delays due to software errors?
You may seek compensation for concrete damages suffered. In many cases, this involves “loss of a chance” to expedite your case. Compensation may consist of the additional costs incurred by the debt mediator and the additional administrative costs caused by the delay. In this case, this was estimated at half the cost of one year of additional debt mediation.

Conclusion

The digitization of justice must not come at the expense of the legal certainty of citizens. This judgement by the Antwerp Labor Court is a clear signal: software vendors who build essential government tools bear a heavy responsibility. Technical sloppiness or a hasty launch (“launch bugs”) are legally punished when they lead to delays and costs for the citizen.