Online Platforms : contrasting perceptions of European stakeholders : a qualitative analysis of the European Commission’s public consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms : final report.
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media
Subjects: Internet, consumption, data processing, information technology, public consultation, qualitative analysis, report, telecommunications policy, type of business

Online Platforms:  

Contrasting perceptions of 
European stakeholders  

A qualitative analysis of the European 
Commission’s Public Consultation on the 
Regulatory Environment for Platforms 

FINAL REPORT  

A study prepared for the European Commission 
DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology 
by: Prof. Annabelle Gawer 

Digital 
Single 
Market 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This study was carried out for the European Commission by 

Prof. Annabelle Gawer 

Internal identification 

Contract number: 30-CE-0752281/00-94 
SMART number: 2015/0077 

DISCLAIMER 

By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology.  

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 
the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible 
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

ISBN 978-92-79-58440-4 

doi:10.2759/679805 

© European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.  

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract  

This report analyses the answers to 8 open questions in the European Commission’s public 
consultation on platforms. Themes included the definition of platforms, platforms’ treatment of 
suppliers and customers, constraints platforms face when expanding their business in the EU, 
and their handling of consumer data. 

1 

 
 
 
Executive Summary 

The European Commission’s public consultation on platforms has generated a very large 
number of responses from a wide variety of European stakeholders. Across this diverse 
stakeholder grouping, a number of key themes emerge, which include: 

(1)  The definition of online platforms was contested and seen as too broad, and many 

respondents were concerned that such a definition would lead to further regulation which in 
turn would risk complicating an already complex regulatory landscape. There is perceived 
partial overlap between the role of platform and that of online intermediary. Many 
respondents disapprove the creation of a new legal status for online platforms, to focus on 
the specific activities that online platforms do and better enforce existing regulation, as well 
as to clarify their domains of application. 

(2)  When identifying problems, stakeholders showed a greater degree of diversity and 

contrasting views. 

a. Businesses and associations of businesses were primarily concerned with platforms 

dominance leading to competition and fair-trading issues, copyright/IP rights protection, 
and to some extent the fairness of rankings and neutrality of online search results. A 
number of business respondents would like to see online platforms taking more 
responsibility for the user-generated content they provide access to.  

b. Associations of consumers and individual citizens were mostly concerned with data 

protection, and the difficulty to enforce consumer rights.  

c. Civil society associations were mostly concerned with issues related to privacy, 

anonymity, and censorship. They are concerned with online platforms’ “taking down” of 
user-generated content, which they attribute to online platforms being overly 
responsive to contestation of posted content by either governments or by private 
entities, and which they see as an arbitrary form of censorship threatening free speech 
and diversity of views. 

d. There were some common broad themes around concerns for illegal, criminal and 
fraudulent online activity, and the difficulty of enforcing existing legislation. 

e. Contrasting views emerged however between businesses and civil society respondents 

around the question of liability of online platforms on the user-generated content they 
provide broad access to. While business respondents tend to want to increase the 
responsibility of some online platforms for the content they publish and the potentially 
illegal activities they indirectly facilitate, civil society respondents warn of the potential 
censorship implications.  

2 

 
 
 
(3)  Respondents reprised these themes when addressing what additional information online 

platforms should display and in which format. The main theme was increased transparency to 
help build trust and mutual confidence.  

a. Businesses and associations of businesses suggested clear display of online platforms’ 

compliance with IP rights, clarity over usage of data, transparency / traceability of online 
service operators.   

b. Associations of consumers and individual citizens suggested displaying display of 

information on how personal data is monetized by online platforms, clearer terms and 
conditions, and clearer display of what remedies are available to consumers. 

c. Civil society associations suggested clear displays of the criteria for de-listing content, 
better information on how user at is tracked and where data is stored, and display of 
controls to ensure child protection. 

d. Think tanks recommend clear displays of distinction between professional and non-

professionals operating on online platforms. 

e. Common themes included displaying the extent which sponsored content is included in 

generating search results, and better information on reviews. 

f.  Types of formats commonly suggested for additional displayed information included the 

use of icons and pictograms, and layered summaries instead of lengthy texts. 

(4)  Online platforms’ use of information and data is a cause for concern for consumers and 

citizens, as personal data is used in ways than are not transparent. However, the General Data 
Protection regulation seems to reassure businesses. 

(5)  Online platforms identify common constraints to their expansion to new markets in the EU, 
around non-harmonized sets of complex regulation across EU countries, and application of 
current EU directives which are not consistent enough within the EU. There is broad support 
for the Digital Single Market initiative. 

(6)  Online platforms consider they treat suppliers fairly, and identify various means by which they 
do. They point to the natural alignment of business incentives and the regularly efficient 
business terms and practices, including open communication, transparency, compliance with 
rules, help desks, and efficient APIs allowing customisation. 

(7)  Access to data on online platforms: A number of respondents in these categories recognize 
that data is a key resource in the digital economy, and the economic potential of innovative 
data-driven businesses. A number of respondents express concerns over too much regulation 
in this area. Some online platforms in particular oppose mandatory portability of data. 
However, some businesses and consumers welcome an open repository of personal data, 
subject to consents, that would act as an “open platform”. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 

Introduction 

This report presents the results of the qualitative analysis of the open responses to “Social and 
Economic Role of Online Platforms” section of the European Commission’s public online 
consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud 
computing and the collaborative economy.  

The following eight (8) open questions analysed in this report are: 

(1)  Please explain how you would change the definition of “online platform” [from the 

definition provided in the consultation]. 

(2)  Please list the problems you encountered, or you are aware of, in the order of importance 
and provide additional explanation where possible [following the question: “Have you 
encountered, or are you aware of problems faced by consumers or suppliers when 
dealing with online platforms?”]. 

(3)  Is there any additional information that, in your opinion, online platforms should be 

obliged to display? 

(4)  What type of additional information in and what format would you find useful? Please 

briefly explain your response and share any best practice you are aware of. 

(5)  Please share your general comments or ideas regarding the use of information by online 

platforms. 

(6)  If you own/develop an online platform, what are the main constraints that negatively 
affect the development of your online platform and prevent you from extending your 
activities to new markets in the EU? 

(7)  How do you ensure that suppliers of your platform are treated fairly? 
(8)  Please share your general comments or ideas regarding access to data online platforms. 

The “Online platforms” section of the questionnaire contained a total of 27 closed, 4 semi-open, 
and 21 open questions.  

Methodology 

II. 
Description of the data 
The respondents answered the online consultation either directly through on the online 
consultation survey, complemented in some cases through sending answers via the “Functional 
Mail Box”, sometimes accompanied by position papers. 
The respondents self-identified into distinct categories: 

(1)  A business, including suppliers using an online platform to provide services 
(2)  An association or trade organization representing businesses 
(3)  An association or trade organization representing consumers 
(4)  An association or trade organization representing civil society 

4 

 
 
 
(5)  An online platform 
(6)  A research institution or Think Tank 
(7)  A public authority 
(8)  An individual citizen 
(9)  Other 

This report analyses all the responses from the categories (1) through (6) and (9). The 
Commission did not request responses from public authorities to be analyzed. A rapid analysis of 
the responses from “individual citizens” was also undertaken although a comprehensive analysis 
of this category would require more time given the volume of data to be processed. 

Among the “other” respondents, a significant number of respondents had wrongly classified 
themselves, as their self-description indicated that they were businesses or various types of 
associations. Whenever the origin of these respondents was clear, these responses were 
reclassified according to their appropriate categories. 

General comments on the sample composition 

The sample of responses contains 1006 replies through the EU survey and 31 replies through the 
Functional Mail Box (FMB). The sample cannot be considered a representative sample of all 
European businesses, associations or citizens, for the following three reasons. The distribution of 
categories of respondents, as they self-reported, can be found in Table 1. 

          Table 1: Number of responses per category (as self-reported) 

Number of 
replies via EU 
survey 

Number of 
replies via 
FMB 

An individual citizen 

410 

An association or trade organization representing businesses 

185 

Other 

A business, including suppliers using an online platform to 
provide services 

149 

119 

An association or trade organization representing civil society  36 

An online platform 

A research institution or Think Tank 

A public authority 

43 

29 

23 

An association or trade organization representing consumers 

12 

0 

7 

1 

6 

5 

0 

5 

3 

0 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
A deeper examination of the respondents which self-reported as “other” revealed that most of 
these respondents misclassified themselves: in fact, among 149 “other”, there were: 32 
businesses, 51 associations or trade organizations representing businesses, 5 associations or 
trade organizations representing civil society, 3 associations or trade organizations of consumers, 
2 public authorities, 3 online platforms, 52 citizens, and 1 other. The analysis of the responses 
was done on the basis of the corrected set of allocated responses, as reported in Table 2. 

           Table 2: Corrected number of responses per category 

Number of replies 
via EU survey 

Number of replies 
via FMB 

An individual citizen 

An association or trade organization representing 
businesses 

Other 

A business, including suppliers using an online 
platform to provide services 

An association or trade organization representing 
civil society 

An online platform 

A research institution or Think Tank 

A public authority 

An association or trade organization representing 
consumers 

462 

236 

1 

151 

41 

46 

29 

25 

15 

0 

7 

1 

6 

5 

0 

5 

3 

0 

First, there is an evident self-selection of respondents’ organizations which have a strong 
incentive to influence the decision-making process of the European Commission, as attested by 
the over-representation of a select group of industry representatives or members including 
music, taxis, hospitality, luxury goods, telecommunications, whose business model is strongly 
impacted or disrupted by the business practices of a subgroup of online platforms.  

Second, it is also evident from the content of the responses from “businesses”, “individual 
citizens” and “others”, as well as from the websites of a number of associations, or subsidiaries 
of businesses, that in a number of cases a deliberate orchestration of responses by associations 
or businesses has occurred, whereby these had encouraged their subsidiaries or members to 
respond “en masse” following guidelines on how to respond to the EU online survey, resulting in 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
either word-for-word or extremely similar textual answers in repeated sets of responses. The 
number of these additional responses might reflect how strongly some constituencies feel about 
online platforms, but may be disproportionate relative to their economic weight. 

Third, a significant number of responses are from “anonymous” respondents. The anonymity of 
such respondents makes it difficult to ascertain when it is the case that these anonymous 
respondents belonged to associations who have already responded, leading to potentially 
significant numbers of duplicated responses (for which there is some evidence) and further noise 
in the sample.  

Last, it is difficult to ascertain the appropriateness of the sample composition because at no 
point did the survey designers indicate a desired composition of the survey sample for the 
purpose of the survey main research questions.  

Methodological approach for data analysis: qualitative rather than quantitative 

For these reasons a direct quantitative analysis, i.e. simply tallying responses, would lead to 
heavily biased and therefore misleading results.   

Given the limitations of the sample, the best use of the data is a qualitative analysis of the 
textual responses, aimed at identifying themes and patterns in the data.  

The advantage of a rigorous qualitative approach, focusing on the open and semi-open answers, 
is that it can exploit the richness of textual answers to identify repeated themes that cut across 
answers.  It can also reveal patterns of responses from categories of respondents. It is therefore 
valuable as a tool to identify themes of concern and of importance to respondents, and situate 
them in the context of respondents’ own framing and expressed experiences. The methodology 
used for data analysis is detailed below. 

Data analysis 

The following method was systematically applied across all sets of questions. It was an iterative 
method comprising of several steps: 

  Reading the entirety of responses pertaining to each Question. 
  For each question, identifying 1st order concepts: these are specific concepts which 
are expressed by respondents in their own words using similar wordings and/or 
convey similar ideas, and which appear throughout a number of responses. Examples 
include, for Question (1) [“How would you change the definition?]: Definition too 
broad; Definition not specific enough; Internet Service Providers should be included; 

7 

 
 
 
 
Operating systems should be included; Open or non-commercial platforms should be 
excluded; How does the definition relate to previous definitions such as Internet 
Society Services 

  Re-reading the responses and coding these 1st order concepts whenever they appear. 
  Generation of 2nd order themes: these are the themes which the researcher generates 
as she identifies commonalities and differences across thematic groupings of 1st order 
concepts. They are not expressed as such by respondents, but characterize a deeper, 
common meaning pertaining to logical groupings of 1st order concepts. Examples 
include for Question (1): Scope of the definition; Overlap with existing definitions. 
  Re-reading the responses and coding these 2nd order themes whenever they appear. 
  Generation of aggregate dimensions: These are dimensions that tie together several 
2nd order themes. Examples for Question (1) include: Clarifying purpose of the 
definition; Confusion with existing regulations; Recommendations for processes to 
achieve better regulation. 

  The collation of the systematic write-up of 1s order concepts, 2nd order themes, and 

aggregate dimensions for each question, constitutes the final analysis. 

III. 

Results 

Question (1): Please explain how you would change the definition of “online platform” [from 
the definition provided in the consultation]. 

The systematic analysis of respondents’ responses for this question has revealed concerns and 
suggestions that cut across the categories of respondents, about (1) Scope of the definition, (2) 
Purpose of the definition, and (3) Suggestions for not only a better definition but a better 
regulatory approach. 

It is important to note that the concerns raised about definitions were shared across the 
categories of respondents. There were no obvious divergences of views, which are more 
apparent in the responses to subsequent questions. 

Scope of the definition 

Most of the answers to open questions indicate that the scope of the current definition proposed 
in the survey is inadequate, for the following reasons: 

(1)  It is too broad and not specific enough 
(2)  It should include other types of platforms which are currently excluded from the 

definition 

(3)  Or, alternatively, should exclude certain types of platforms or examples which are 

presented in the definition. 

8 

 
 
 
Common themes (“1st order concepts”) associated with these Scope concerns include: 

  Too many disparate types are included in this “overly broad definition” 

o  A number of respondents thought this broad definition  would encompass all 

internet activities and services 

  Why just “online” platforms?  

o  A number of respondents indicated that the broad definition merely reflects the 

role of market intermediaries – in which case they question why a special 
treatment for online intermediaries is required, as opposed to all other kinds of 
platforms, including offline intermediaries. A representative example of this 
concern is: “as far as we know, there is no definition for offline platforms, so why 
should there be for online platforms”? 

  Disagreement about who should be included (indicating a correlation with respondents’ 

business models/ orientation): 

o 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs): a number of respondents indicated they should 
not be excluded, and/or express they do not understand the rationale for 
excluding them 

o  Operating Systems (such as iOS) as well as App Stores : a number of respondents 

indicated they should not be excluded, and/or express they do not understand the 
rationale for excluding them 

o  Netflix and other content providers: a number of respondents indicated that 

Netflix should be excluded  

o  Various other suggestions for what should be included: advertising exchanges, 

credit cards/payment services, Cloud services, Internet-of-Things, ISPs who would 
bundle content services 

  Proposed axes of further differentiation within the broad category of platforms: 

Respondents indicate that the definition should allow distinct subcategories such as: 

o  B2B vs B2C ; C2C; C2B1, or combination thereof. Some propose to exclude one or 

more of these categories 

o  Platforms that act as a “passive conduit” versus those that are more “active” or 

have “editorial control over content”: this often repeated suggestion is related to 
the recurrent concern about liability, as the current proposed definition does not 
allow to differentiate between those actors who have a responsibility over 
content and other more passive hosts / conduits (see comment later about 
Internet Society Service provider and their liability) 

1 B2B = Business to Business; B2C = Business to Consumer; C2C = Consumer to Consumer; C2B = Consumer to 
Business 

9 

 
 
                                                           
o  Platforms that simply link individuals, versus those that link professional or 

commercial organizations, indicating overlap with the “sharing / collaborative 
economy”. Taxi companies (disrupted by Uber) and hospitality companies 
(disrupted by Airbnb but also sites such as TripAdvisor) in particular oppose this. 
o  Some propose to separate ex-ante “legal” operations from “illegal” operations.  

Purpose, feasibility and regulatory implications of the definition 

Looking beyond the descriptive set of suggestions as to what to include and what to exclude 
from the definition, I have uncovered an underlying set of deeper concerns which runs through 
the responses, “2nd order themes”. These themes include concerns about the purpose of the 
definition, how feasible or worthwhile it would be to have a “good definition”, and the 
implications of the definition with regard to regulation.  

  Questions about the purpose of such as definition and requests for more clarity about it: 
o  Many express concern about the lack of clarity and explanation as to why a 

definition for online platforms is needed. A characteristic comment: “It is very 
difficult to assess the utility of any definition without knowing its purpose”. 
o  Many businesses or associations of businesses assume and/or express concern 

that this definition is presented  in order to legislate online platforms as a distinct 
category 

o  A number of associations of civil society indicate they welcome the general 

attempt to define online platforms as they do welcome regulatory scrutiny onto 
online platforms 

 

Is the attempt to define online platforms feasible and/or worthwhile? 
o  Doubts as to whether any definition of platforms is feasible 

  As it would not be “future-proof” nor robust: a number of respondents 

express that in the highly dynamic economic and technological 
environment characterizing internet businesses, any definition would have 
to be revisited too often to provide a useful basis for a stable regulatory 
framework 

o  Doubts as to whether attempting to create such a definition is a worthwhile 

endeavour 

  Some express the view against all kinds of ex-ante regulation on online 

platforms and see the attempt to characterize them as a separate entity as 
something inherently leading the way to regulation, which they oppose in 
principle 

10 

 
 
 
  Some point to an implicit assumption conveyed by the survey: that online 

platforms are a subset of all online content and should be treated distinctly 
  Some point to that as a basis for regulation, attempting to define platforms 
is the wrong way to start, as they indicate that platforms are merely a 
business model, rather than a sector, and as such might not be amenable 
to being regulated as such 

 

Implications for regulation: Concerns and warnings about overlap with other existing 
definitions, which would lead to possible confusion between a platform regulation and 
other, partially overlapping, sets of existing regulations 

o  Many indicate that it is not feasible nor worthwhile to attempt to formulate a 

“one-size-fits-all” regulation based on an overly broad definition 

o  Many refer favourably to the ISS (Information Society Service provider) 

category defined in the E-Commerce Regulation, and express concern or lack 
of understanding as to how the proposed definition for online platform differ 
from the existing ISS definition, and why it is needed at all. 

  Many express concerns that this new definition of an online platform 
category and the ensuing possible regulation might disrupt the exiting 
liability regime. The question of liability is recurring, and for some 
respondents it seems to have been already addressed in the case of ISS 
intermediaries.  

o  Concerns about creating “’overlapping rules” and “confusing regulation”: 

  There is already existing regulation, some of it sector-based (E-

commerce regulation, Telecommunications, Audio Visual), some of it 
issue-based (data privacy, copyright), some of it associated with 
identified roles (for example Information Society Service provider) 
  A characteristic comment relates to  concern over “confirming a new 
definition leading to new regulation which would lead to additional 
regulation of already-regulated entities” 

  Another characteristic concern is that “generic concerns about 

platforms overlap with wider issues, including privacy and security, 
copyrights and privacy, competition, consumer rights and more. 
Regulation on platforms risks therefore overlap with existing rules at 
many levels” [...] “Creating overlapping or conflicting legislation must 
be avoided as it would lead to legal uncertainty”. 

  Suggestions that “any new EU-level legislation relating to platform 

should be without prejudice to the application of copyright and other 
existing laws depending on the specific activities and particular facts” 

11 

 
 
  Concerns regarding lack of clarity about scope of application of new 
regulation applying to hybrid types of businesses which may well fall 
within several overlapping characterizations 

Survey Suggestions: Focus on regulating around activities and issues rather than platform 
status 

Further analysis of the underlying dimensions that cut across the “2nd order themes” highlights a 
number “aggregate dimensions”. These are the main concerns and concrete suggestions around 
the definition question, which rally clusters of respondents across categories. They include: 

  Desire for a level-playing field for service providers of similar services, whether they are 

offline or online 

o  Desire for clear and consistent regulation 
o  Calls for better enforcement of existing rules 

  Lack of appeal and lack of persuasive power of a regulatory approach that instigates a 

new type of regulation on the basis of a new unclear and contested “identity” or “status” 
of platforms.  

  A preferred approach presented, which rallies respondents across all categories, is to 
regulate around “activities” which businesses undertake, rather than focusing on 
“platform” status  and which are likely to map better with existing regulations 

 

o  Examples of activities could be: search engines, aggregators, content providers 
In parallel, another preferred approach is to identify issues (as in copyright issues, data 
protection issues, consumer rights) which firms might find themselves contravening, and 
then assess whether existing regulation does not resolve the problem. One characteristic 
comment noted: “Before seeking to provide a definition, the EC should clarify what public 
concern need to be addressed, including if any cannot be dealt with under existing 
legislation” 

  A key cross-cutting theme is the question of the responsibility and liability of platforms, 

and the extent to which existing regulation addresses this issue.  

o  Views differ across respondents on whether it does (as some indicate that a few 
online platforms abuse the protection from “internet service intermediaries” 
whereas they are really engaged in the distribution of content), but the question 
of liability is recurrent. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Question (2): Please list the problems you encountered, or you are aware of, in the order of 
importance and provide additional explanation where possible [following the question: “Have 
you encountered, or are you aware of problems faced by consumers or suppliers when dealing 
with online platforms?”]. 

Contrary to the pattern of responses to the Definition question, where the concerns identified 
were shared across respondents’ categories, here there were clusters of issues which were of 
greater concern to specific categories of respondents. The first order concepts consisted in the 
list of all possible problems that werementioned in their own words by the respondents. The 
second order themes were generated in identifying the commonalities across these problems 

The problems (2nd order themes) identified can be regrouped into the following categories 
(aggregate dimensions): 

Consumer protection: issues affecting consumer rights  

Competition: issues affecting the ability of businesses to compete fairly 

Fair trading: issues affecting businesses in their commercial dealings with online platforms 

Issues affecting citizens and civil liberties 

Tables 3 and 4 indicate the problems primarily encountered by various categories of 
respondents. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Problems primarily encountered by businesses 

Problems      

 encountered 

Rights infringements 

Inconsistent regulation  

Unfair trading practices 

Fraud / 
counter
-feiting 

Piracy / 
copyright / 
intellectual 
property rights 
infringement 

Lack of 
level-
playing 
field 

Lack of 
consumer 
protection 

Lack of 
choice 

Unfair 
licensing / 
parity 
clauses 

Online search 
specific: lack of 
transparency 
and non-
neutrality of 
rankings 

A business, including 
suppliers using an 
online platform to 
provide services 

An association or trade 
organization 
representing businesses 

An association or trade 
organization 
representing 
consumers 

An association or trade 
organization 
representing civil 
society 

A research institute or 
think tank 

An online platform 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

An individual citizen 

Low concern    

    Moderate concern   

 High concern 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Problems primarily encountered by consumers and citizens  

15 

 
 
BLANK PAGE 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fraud, counterfeiting, piracy, and copyright / intellectual property rights infringement 

A number of businesses express concern about the role of platforms in the widespread 
selling of illegal copies / fake products on fraudulent websites – a phenomenon whose reach 
has been vastly expanded through internet e-commerce. While this problem is not specific 
to online platforms, this problem is seen by many business respondents as aggravated by the 
combination of the expansive reach and the behaviour (the lack of taking responsibility / lack 
of liability) of online platforms regarding content accessed through the platform.  

  Who is harmed:  

o  Consumers are allegedly harmed, as: 

  They are misled as to the legality or quality of the good  
  They have no means of redress for the illicit good they have purchased 
  They often download malware and viruses  unknowingly 

o  Businesses claim to be harmed, as their IP rights / trademarks /copyrights are 

misused and their brands negatively impacted. 

  Specific cases of creative industries, where platforms facilitate user-

uploaded content which breaches content holder rights.  

  Role / implication / involvement of platforms in this harm: 

o  Some businesses, particularly from industries that have suffered from piracy, 
counterfeit, and copyright infringements (e.g. music, images, luxury goods) 
indicate that online platforms, “who have no obligation to ensure the traceability 
of the trader who put the counterfeited good on the platform”, “nor are they 
liable for the selling of illicit products on their platform”, “do not take enough 
responsibility”, as they do not “engage enough” or “proactively enough” with 
rights holders in the fight against illicit goods.  

 

 

Industry-specific concerns and allegations: Music industry: Online 
intermediaries and content aggregators websites, specifically those 
who provide access to embedded contents and hyperlinks, are claimed 
to be creating problems to content-creators as the right-holders’ 
consent is not obtained before their work is made available online.  
Industry-specific concerns and allegations: Video gaming industry: 
concerns about pirate sites and their association with fraud and 
malware 

o  These business respondents suggest that online platforms are mostly interested 

in increasing traffic to their website, irrespective of the legality of the activity, and 

16 

 
 
that therefore the incentives of platforms are not well aligned with those of rights 
holders or those aiming to fight fraud.  

Inconsistent regulation for similar services 

A number of businesses claim that there is a problem stemming from the fact that entire 
sectors that are subject to sector –specific rules now in fact compete with online platforms 
in these same sectors, yet those online platforms are not subjected to the same regulations. 
Examples include media services (regulated under the Audio Visual Media Service Directive 
AVMSD); telecommunications and taxis. 

  Who is harmed: 

o  Businesses claim that consumers are harmed as 

  “Protection standards” differ depending on whether consumers consume 
similar services through online platforms vs. through dedicated services. 
For example consumers are “not provided with the same level of 
protection whether they catch a video via an online platform or an 
audiovisual media service”. Most of these claims about consumer 
protection standards emanated from businesses that operate in these 
disrupted sectors. 

o  Think tanks and research institutions are concerned for 

  Citizens and consumers / minors / citizens due to their inconsistent 

protection and the lack of liability of online platforms for content provided 
through online platforms 

  Businesses in content-creation industries due to the lack of clarity around 

the proper application of the legislative framework  

o  Businesses claim to be harmed by 

  Operating in regulated services sectors that are being disrupted by online 
platforms claim that, as online platforms have become “a substitute of 
traditionally dedicated services”, yet are not subject to similar regulatory 
constraints, this constitutes a form of unfair competition. 

Perception of unfair trading practices 

This set of issues combines businesses’ claims of unfair competition and of unfair 
commercial treatment as suppliers or buyers to online platforms. The problems 
encountered, expressed through various symptoms, all stem from the perceived abuse of a 

17 

 
 
 
 
strong bargaining power imbalance across the supply-chain between a small number of 
dominant online platforms and less powerful businesses. These problems are made worse by 
the fact that online platforms play a dual role vis-a-vis other businesses: some online 
platforms do not only transact with them in a capacity of supplier/buyer, but they also 
compete with them on vertical markets. This is why it is difficult to disentangle competition 
issues from supplier-buyer trade issues, as the two overlap and interact.  

  Dominant platforms: In the view of many business respondents, a small number of 
online platforms have become dominant, “controlling critical access points”(such as 
operating systems, app stores, and popular apps) and abuse their dominance in harmful 
ways  

o  Businesses claim to be harmed by 

 Lack of choice for suppliers/buyers who transact with these platforms  

 Unfair licensing or unfair terms, due to low bargaining power for 

businesses  

-  whose online visibility depends on these platforms  

-  or, as in the music industry / song writers and composers, who feel 
forced to accept unfair licensing terms from online platforms, 
which, if these terms would not be accepted,  “threaten to simply 
not license at all and rely instead on “Safe harbour”.  

-  Unfair “parity clauses” which service providers feel compelled to 
accept, as in when in the past Booking.com required the hotels to 
always offer Booking.com the same or lower rates than offered 
through other sales channels. Such parity clauses have been found 
to have a detrimental effect on competition.2  

 Lack of transparency  

-  on platform tariffs : “intermediation rates vary from 5% to 30% of 

the final price”, including “20% for Uber and Airbnb” 

-  on use of data: this gets echoed in the section “data protection 

issues below) 

2 Booking.com settled in 2015 with France, Sweden and Italy’s competition authorities, but the German competition 
authority filed antitrust charges against Booking.com prohibiting the continued use of “best price” clauses. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
-  makes it hard to challenge due process, for example in the case of 
discrimination (cases of Airbnb), or Uber drivers being de-activated 
on the basis of customers’ review 

 Online platforms use of consumer data 

-  Some businesses frame the issue as “data as currency” 

-  Online platforms not sharing access to consumer data with 

businesses 

  Some businesses find that when consumers book or 

connect to their services through an online platform, that 
platform does not share consumer data with the service 
provider. This is perceived as unfair by such providers. 

o  Businesses claim that consumers are harmed 

 Lock-in of consumers in “vertical silos” with lack of “interoperability” (this 

reflects claims from  booksellers about eBooks, but also from 
telecommunication operators) 

  Online search and comparison website platforms raise specific concerns: 

o  Contested neutrality of online search results, and resulting alleged harm: 

 Associations of businesses claim to be harmed, claiming that they do not 
trust the neutrality or validity of search results by online search engines 
and/or comparison website platforms, such as Google, or travel and 
hospitality websites, claiming that the services being most visible on 
search results reflect the private incentives of search engines as part as 
their non-search business activities. Accusations against online search 
platforms is that they end up favouring in the search results : 

-  Their own vertical market offering over external suppliers /SMEs, 

and do so in a non-transparent way.  

-  Or those of platform-favoured vendors who pay them the highest 
fees, as opposed to neutral or fair search, , and do so in a non-
transparent way. A number of respondents indicate Google search 
as well as online travel agencies (TA) as having such problems. 

o  Lack of transparency / opacity of how results are obtained 

19 

 
 
 Research institutions and think tanks claim that consumers and citizens 

are harmed by the lack of transparency on: 

-  Which parts of search results are sponsored content. 

 Associations of consumers are concerned about: 

-  False reviews, paid reviews (skewing results) 
- 

Lack of clarity of criteria for ranking and customer satisfaction 

Consumer rights issues 

Individual citizens, consumers, and associations of consumers are concerned about:  

  Lack of access to commercial services delivered by platforms, due to: 

o  Geo-blocking: Refusal from some platforms to ship goods to some countries 

  Difficulty to switch to other platforms providers 

o 
o  Example: “I could not move my user data in an open format to move my 

business to a different service” 
  Lack of enforcement of consumer protection rights 

o  Overly complex “Terms and Conditions” 
o  Difficulty to complain for faulty services 
o  See section below on “Difficulty to enforce existing regulation” 
o  See section above on “Fraud and Counterfeiting” 

  Consumer data protection issues 

o  See section below on “Data protection issues” 

Data protection issues  

Think tanks and research institutions, as well as associations of consumers, and associations 
of civil society, focus more than businesses on this set of issues. They share the following 
concerns about some online platforms’ behaviours: 

  Lack of transparency about personal data collection 

o  Unclear and overly complex “Terms and Conditions” 
o  Unclear and non-transparent exploitation of personal user data for 

commercial purposes, as when personal data is sold to third-parties  

o  Concerns about “online tracking” and “profiling”, concerns about “too much” 

personal data being collected, and “long data retention policies” 

20 

 
 
 
 
  Lack of respect for data privacy, misuse of personal / sensitive data, and security data 

breaches 

o  Weak respect for data security and data privacy 

  Some associations and citizens are concerned that online platforms 

are “forced to comply to harmful legislation” to share user information 
(see Anonymity below). Associations and citizens concerned about 
“government mass surveillance” 

o  Some associations frame the issues as rights to privacy and “rights to 

encryption” 

  Poor or non-implemented security protocols and measures 
  Not possible for users to delete their own user data 

  Anonymity / Right to be forgotten / rights to be “de-indexed” 

o  These are contested issues, raising concerns, on the one hand on whether 
there is not enough provision of these, or  whether these rights are being 
abused 

  Censorship / freedom of expression issues, as when online platforms are seen to 

“unilaterally” and “arbitrarily” decide to “block” or “take down” content 

o  Examples of book selling platforms de-listing e-books, representing for some 
associations “a danger for cultural diversity and freedom of expression” 
o  Examples of blocked content, for political reasons, as when “videos which 
provoked strong reactions in the Middle East” were blocked in these 
countries following “informal requests from governments in these countries 
without court judgment” 

o  Examples of content being taken down by online platforms due to allegations 
of copyright infringement by content holders, but here, the associations claim 
that copyright was not infringed yet the platform decided to take the content 
down. 

Difficulty to enforce existing regulation 

The complexity of the regulatory framework and the lack of enforcement are seen as a 
problem for consumers, businesses and platforms 

  Difficulty to enforce regulation: Which laws apply? This set of issues refers to the fact 
that some respondents argue that in a number of cases it is difficult to assess with 
regulation should apply 
o  Location:   

21 

 
 
 
  “It is almost impossible for users, partners, and platform maintainers 
to apply fragmented national laws to situations where both the 
creation and the use are transnational” 

 

o  Difficulty to enforce rights because of lack of information about consumers;  
Inability for some online suppliers (e.g., content creators) to respect 
consumers rights as in the case where “content creators do not have 
enough information to handle consumer complaints about their 
products, as part of the information required to process these 
complaints might be in the hand of distribution platforms” 

o  Tax:  

  A number of respondents claim that some online platforms do not pay 

national tax 
Industry specific regulations 

o 

  A number of respondents claim that online platforms which for 

example deliver content should abide by the same directives that 
apply to video and media   

 

Illegal / criminal activities associated with Some types of online websites / activities 
which conflate several problems: 

Illegal websites: gambling, sharing content without pay, porn 

o 
o  Which at the same time: do not pay tax, constitute fraudulent activities, and 

infect consumers with “malware” and “viruses” 

Labour rights 

A small number of associations for civil society and individual citizens indicate concern 
about: 

  Unprotected rights of workers in online tender for work assignments, which exclude 

workers from social security systems 

o  Example: UNI Europa (European Services Worker Union, 7 million members across 

Europe) and TCO (TCO is a professionals union in Sweden) provided the same answer 
word-for-word): UNI Europa and TCO are concerned about “the rising number of so-
called crowdsourcing platforms. Such platforms allow companies or individuals to 
recruit labour flexibly, cheaply, and without territorial restrictions. So-called 
requesters publish online tenders for work assignments for which job seekers can 
apply. Workers winning contracts on crowdsourcing portals usually operate as 
freelancer, an employment status exempting them from standard employment 
legislation and the rights to information, consultation, and co-determination that 

22 

 
 
 
employee status grants. UNI Europa considers it necessary to empower such workers 
vis-a -vis platform operators in particular, as their wages and working conditions are 
heavily influenced by the terms and conditions that are applied on such platforms 
and are, at present, unilaterally imposed by platform operators.” 

Question (3): Is there any additional information that, in your opinion, online platforms 
should be obliged to display? 

Most respondents across all categories, excluding platform respondents, recommend 
greater transparency and application of EU directives in order to increase trust in online 
platforms 

Businesses and associations of businesses express a common set of recommendations: 

Ranked in order of frequency mentioned: 

 
Indication of copyright compliance e.g., images on site, rights holders origins  [B2B] 
  Better information about how consumer data is used and sold, and highlighting how 

 

and when user data is being tracked [B2C] 
Improve traceability, through clearer contact information, including registration and 
business licences [B2B & C] 

In much lesser frequency, other recommendations were made: 

o  More transparency about promotional activity, which can influence search 

results [B2C] 

o  More transparency about “price guarantees” also called “parity clauses”, e.g., 
on OTA (online travel agencies, i.e., travel and hospitality platforms), as when 
“a parity clause that insists the supplier cannot give a cheaper price to another OTA, 
or indeed feature a cheaper price on their own website”. 

o  Better information about security rating of systems supporting service 

provision/data protection [B2B] 

Interspersed with these responses there are some recurring observations: 

  Avoid over-regulation, particularly if to compete with USA 
  Any new rules must be applied horizontally, i.e., online and offline 
  Regulations must increase consumer confidence 
  See better enforcement, e.g., Article 5 of e-Commerce Directive 
 

Improve consumer trust, by making it easier for consumers to complain. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Think Tanks recommend: 

 In no particular order (Small sample, little consensus within the sample): 

  Display the extent to which sponsored content is included in generating search 

results and in the ordering of their appearance 

  The requests for disclosures should not be the same for all originators of data: Care 

not to confuse “professionals” with “non-professionals” operating through platforms, 
as in the case of airbnb where respondents indicate that a number of suppliers to the 
platforms are indeed professional hospitality who operate multiple rentals which 
they own. 

  Consumer data protection (display clearer info) 
  Clearly enable users to switch-off tracking 
  Display clear criteria for content likely to be de-listed 

Civil society organisations recommend: 

In no particular order (Small sample, little consensus within the sample): 

  Clearly justify information required by consumers. 
  Data protection laws should be equally applied online and offline, including 

indication of where data is stored 

  Show clearly what remedies are available to consumers 
  Display information and controls to ensure child protection 
  Ownership/contact info to be shown 
  Clear signs for platform inter-operability 
  Compliance with Article 5 of e-Commerce directive. 

Consumers’ organisations recommend: 

In no particular order (Small sample, little consensus within the sample): 

  Display the extent to which sponsored content is included in generating search 

results and in the ordering of their appearance 

  Display information to allow authenticity of reviews/feedback 
  Access to info about platform business model, i.e. monetisation of personal data 
  Apply existing EU Directives properly, as above 
  Clearer signalling of data protection and data storage (location) 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Question (4): What type of additional information in and what format would you find 
useful? Please briefly explain your response and share any best practice you are aware of. 

Answers to this question reprise the themes of the previous question across all the 
respondents In addition, some respondents express concern that information should be easy 
to understand and recognize that lengthy texts which are subject to frequent changes are 
not helpful.  

  Presenting the information in short and readable way 
  Suggestions include of using icons and pictograms, instead of lengthy texts 
  Summary of key points instead of long Terms and Conditions, filled with “legalese” 
  “Layered” content with hierarchical presentation 

Question (5): Please share your general comments or ideas regarding the use of 
information by online platforms. 

The responses to this question reprised in a large measure the answers to earlier questions 
on problems. Common themes across respondents included concerns about misuse of 
personal data. But there were also a number of responses which identified data and in 
particular aggregate data as a key resource for product / service innovation in the digital 
economy.   

Businesses and associations of businesses 

  A number of businesses express confidence in the General Data Protection 

Regulation 

  Some express concerns about “automatic filtering” and “recommendation 

algorithms” which select out content and creative work and favour “blockbusters”, 
creating less diversity 

Associations of consumers, associations of civil society, and think tanks: 

  More transparency is needed on the use of personal data 
  Stronger constraints are needed on the commercial use and the transfer of personal 

data 

  Concerns about the data which online platforms allow to be “harvested” by 

government agencies. 

Individual citizens: 

25 

 
 
 
  “Information about a person should be his/her property” 
  Some would like” an annual statement of [their] personal data used and in which 

context the data was used 

  Some suggest that aggregate data is a key resource for innovation, and suggest that it 

could be made “open source” 

Question (6): If you own/develop an online platform, what are the main constraints that 
negatively affect the development of your online platform and prevent you from 
extending your activities to new markets in the EU? 

There were a number of common themes across the responses. However, the small sample 
of responses so difficult to draw broad conclusions. 

Some respondents preface their response by noting that there are different types of online 
platforms (each with its own challenges): search, social networks, apps, auction or sales. This 
implies that not all platforms will face similar constraints depending on their business model. 

The responses, ranked in order of frequency, include: 

 

 

 

 
 

Legal issues: complex and non-harmonized sets of laws, such as intermediary liability 
law, intellectual property law, data protection laws, consumer protection law, national 
laws and exceptions. Many want common (harmonised) EU rules and laws or for 
home-state rules to be designated the lead within the EU  

Application/enforcement of existing Directives should be more consistent across the 
EU 

Facebook, Google, booking.com all support the Commission’s digital single market 
agenda – all note fragmentation is a major problem e.g. when compared with the USA 
– hence need for harmonization of rules and regulations 

Online/offline legal rules also need harmonization, e.g. post, waste, labelling 

Several want easier data exchange in the EU and better interconnection, to be able to 
generate economies of scale/network effects 

Others mention: 

  VAT (harmonization) 
  User data and data protection (harmonization) 
  Complexity of dealing in multiple languages and inadequate translation 

engines 

26 

 
 
 
  Need to avoid legal uncertainty 
  Some mention that Google’s dominance affect their ability to develop and 
expand. Examples include when Google search results present preferential 
display of their own services, for example because of the results prominently 
featuring a map which indicates Google+ local reviews results in priority, 
thereby obfuscating other potentially more relevant results (TripAdvisor, 
Yelp). 

  USA rules on music differ, which are claimed by some to be more favourable 

to online music business development 

Question (7): How do you ensure that suppliers of your platform are treated fairly? 

There were a number of common themes across the responses. However, the small sample 
of responses so difficult to draw broad conclusions. 

The responses, ranked in order of frequency, include: 

  Offer fair terms and conditions, as transparency of relations help underpin trust with 

suppliers 

  Regularly maintain the alignment of incentives of platforms and their suppliers 

through regular feedback and service quality improvements 

  Avoid competing with suppliers or allow switching to other suppliers 
  Fair treatment is provided by some online platforms when they do not force 

suppliers to standardise their offering, but instead, allowing them to customise and 
differentiate their offers (e.g. hotels, homes to let) 

  Reward successful or reliable suppliers (e.g. with star awards) 
  Provide efficient help desk, e.g. to customise website, or provide on-line support 

services 

  Actively help protect IP or copyright, and comply with regulations 

Question (8):  Please share your general comments or ideas regarding access to data online 
on platforms. 

A number of respondents in these categories recognize that data is a key resource in the 
digital economy.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Businesses, consumers, think tanks: 

Respondents in these categories make the following suggestions: 

  Some express concern that over-regulation around data could hamper competition in 

innovation in the digital economy 

  Data-driven innovation can be an engine of growth for Europe 
  Some suggest that online platforms should not act as “gatekeepers” or hold all this 

data just for themselves, but instead that data could be used as “open platforms” by 
many to innovate.  

o 

o 

Instead, suggestions are made that online platforms should share it to create 
“holistic profiles of interests and behaviours”, - subject to appropriate 
consumers’ consent 
 Some citizens suggest that such data repositories should be made “open 
source” to facilitate innovation on new products and services. 

  Fight against fraud: 

o  Metadata about who owns sites should be available, and would be helpful in 

the fight against fraud and crime. 

  Transparency:  

o  Consumers should be made aware of data transfer and cession of their data. 

Online platforms: 

  Data-driven innovation 

o  Data-driven innovation can be an engine of growth for Europe, and new 

business models involving data are creating value 

o  Some suggest that data analysis has always been a fundamental part of 

business operations, whether online or offline. 

  Data portability  

o  Some suggest that “data portability is a good thing but “should not be 

mandatory” 

  They note that it is “not mandatory for offline platforms” 
  They suggest that any new regulation that would make data 

portability mandatory would create costs (for incumbents as well as 
for new start-ups) without clear benefits. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
IV. 

Conclusion 

Online platforms have become an increasingly important arena for Europeans’ social and 
economic wellbeing. By making use of advances in technology and global connectivity, 
online platforms facilitate fundamental and basic activities such as buying, selling, creative 
expression, and access to tools and resources. Private companies have created and control 
the functioning of online platforms. The value they provide to millions of users has resulted 
in an increase in public scrutiny and expectations. This EC consultation has revealed a variety 
of stakeholder perspectives on online platforms.  

The survey indicates that respondents recognize online platforms to be an important driver 
of economic activity and growth in Europe. Most respondents welcome the Commission’s 
efforts in helping to foster the European digital single market. The behaviour of a small 
number of online platforms is identified as problematic, revealing contrasting stakeholders’ 
perspectives: businesses and their representative associations highlight dominance over 
suppliers, while consumer and civil society associations emphasize what they perceive as a 
lack of care and transparency in the treatment of consumers’ data. In addition, 
representatives from industries whose business models are disrupted by online platforms 
express concerned about competition issues and ensuring a level-playing field. While a small 
number of respondents call for more regulation, a large number of respondents from across 
social and economic categories indicate a preference for more rigorous and consistent 
enforcement of existing Directives across the EU member states rather than additional 
platform-specific regulation.  

The contrasting views expressed by various stakeholders in this report reflect the diverse set 
of incentives and value systems which exist also in the off-line world. The differing 
underlying logics sustaining these views  (for example, the extent to which the protection of 
property rights may come at the expense of preserving free speech) are not specific to 
online platforms. These contrasting perspectives reflect the respective weights different 
stakeholders associate with identified problems, , whether it is fraud, illegal activities, abuse 
of dominance, or lack of respect of various rights (intellectual property rights, consumers’ 
rights, or data protection) by various entities. These contrasting views also point to familiar 
societal trade-offs, which are not specific to online platforms: securing property rights, 
increasing safety for citizens, guaranteeing freedom of expression, providing access to 
essential services to consumers, while ensuring  business incentives for private investment in 
innovation.  

29 

 
 
The liability of online platforms is of particular importance, and the way in which it needs to 
be addressed is contested across respondents’ categories. A potentially relevant distinction 
for questions of responsibility and liability seems to bear on the extent to which any given 
platform acts as a “passive conduit”, i.e., simply connecting users (which would tend to 
suggest that if it is the case it might not be held responsible for the activity that happens “on 
the platform”), versus the extent to which it plays an active role in the activities that happen 
through the platform. A case-by-case approach based on the principle of responsibility as 
proportional to the extent of “curation” and customization of content could be a fruitful way 
forward for European regulators. 

Finally, the globalized nature of the digital economy suggests that the European Commission 
would be advised to recognize the limits of EU-local regulation and work even more closely 
with international counterparts to harmonize regulatory approaches and enforcement 
worldwide. Further, it is advisable for the EC to work collaboratively with the few dominant 
private platforms and take the lead in articulating the direction for a win-win collaboration 
which aims to pursue the public good while preserving private platforms incentives to invest 
and innovate – who will want to reciprocate in order to ensure that their business in Europe 
is not hampered and Europe’s long-term competitiveness is not disadvantaged. 

References for further reading 

1.  Gawer, A., Evans, P. (2016), “The Rise of the Platform Enterprise: A Global Survey”, 
The Centre for Global Enterprise. http://thecge.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey_01_12.pdf 

2.  Gawer, A. (2015). Evidence to the UK House of Lords, Inquiry into Online Platforms 
and the EU Digital Single Market. 
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocume
nt/eu-internal-market-subcommittee/online-platforms-and-the-eu-digital-single-
market/oral/23234.pdf 

3.  Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. (2015), “Business Platforms”, Encyclopedia for Social 
and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier. Gawer, A., Cusumano, M., Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 37–
42. 

4.   Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. (2014), “Platforms and Innovation”, Oxford Handbook 
of Innovation Management. M. Dodgson, D. Gann, and N. Phillips (Eds), Oxford 
University Press, 648-667.  

30 

 
 
 
 
European Commission 

Online Platforms: Contrasting perceptions of European 
stakeholders 

A qualitative analysis of the European Commission’s Public 
Consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms 

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union 

2016 – 31 pages  

ISBN 978-92-79-58440-4 
doi:10.2759/679805 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
K
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
3
9
8
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2759/679805                       ISBN 978-92-79-58440-4