REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2017-05-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, commercial contract, consumer policy, consumer protection, contract, data protection, digital technology, electronic commerce, single market, supply

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.5.2017  COM(2017) 259 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council {SWD(2017) 169 final} {SWD(2017) 170 final}  
 
 
Report  on  the  application  of  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  25 October  2011  on  consumer  rights,  amending  Council 
Directive 93/13/EEC  and  Directive  1999/44/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  and  repealing  Council  Directive  85/577/EEC  and  Directive  97/7/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council 

1. Introduction 

Directive  2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights1  (‘the  Directive’  or  ‘the  CRD’)  was  adopted  on 
25 October 2011. It aims to achieve a high level of consumer protection across the EU and to 
contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by harmonising certain aspects of 
Member  States’  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  on  contracts  between 
consumers and traders. 

The  Directive  had  to  be  transposed  into  the  national  laws  of  the  Member  States  by 
13 December 2013, with a view to become applicable in all EU Member States from 13 June 
2014. 

Article  30  of  the  Directive  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  application  of  the  Directive,  particularly  regarding  the 
provisions on digital content and the right of withdrawal. 

The Commission has evaluated the Directive, drawing on: 
  an external study on the application of the CRD;2 
  an European Economic and Social Committee report3; 
  various stakeholder consultations4; and 
  other data sources.5 

The  evaluation  is  drawn  up  in  a  SWD  that  accompanies  this  report  which  presents  its  main 
findings. As the Directive was evaluated less than 3 years after the national laws transposing 
it were supposed to become applicable, the evidence base was relatively limited. Due to the 
fact that the Directive is still in the early stages of implementation, this evaluation aimed at 
assessing progress in its transposition and first application. 

The CRD was evaluated in parallel with a broader REFIT fitness check of EU consumer and 
marketing law, and the results of the CRD evaluation fed into the final fitness check report6. 
Several consultation activities carried out as part of the fitness check (such as the stakeholder 
consultation group and the Consumer Summit) were also used to gather views and data for the 
CRD evaluation. 

final  report  available  at 

led  by  Risk  &  Policy  Analysts  Ltd, 

1 OJ L 304 22.11.2011 p. 64. 
2  Performed  by  a  consortium 
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=59332 
3 EESC Information report: Consumer Rights Directive (evaluation) http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.int-
opinions.39555 
4  Consultations  carried  out  by  the  external  consultant  for  the  study  (online  survey  and  interviews  with 
consumers,  traders,  national  consumer  and  trade  associations,  enforcement  authorities,  ministries,  European 
consumer  centres);  online  public  consultation  (May-September  2016);  meetings  of  the  Fitness  Check 
Stakeholder  Consultation  Group  and  of  existing  networks  (such  as  European  Consumer  Consultative  Group, 
Consumer Policy Network); discussions at the 2016 European Consumer Summit.  
5  Analysis  of  complaint  data,  results  of  the  CRD  'sweep'  (coordinated  screening  actions  by  the  national 
authorities  under  the  coordination  by  the  Commission,  see  footnote  11),  mystery  shopping  exercise  and 
behavioural experiments, findings of the Exploratory study into consumer issues in the sharing economy.  
6 Final report available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=59332 

2 

 
 
                                                            
2. The Directive’s aim and main provisions 

The  CRD  repealed  Directive  97/7/EC  on  the  protection  of  consumers  in  respect  of  distance 
contracts  and  Directive  85/577/EEC  to  protect  consumer  in  respect  of  contracts  negotiated 
away  from  business  premises.  The  CRD  introduced  fully  harmonised  rules  for  distance 
(online)  and  off-premises  contracts  for  goods  and  services,  as  well  as  for  digital  content.  It 
also  amended  certain  provisions  of  Directive 93/13/EEC  on  unfair  terms  in  consumer 
contracts  and  Directive  1999/44/EC  on  certain  aspects  of  the  sale  of  consumer  goods  and 
associated guarantees. 

Article 1 of the Directive states that its overall objective is to achieve a high level of consumer 
protection across the EU and to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by 
harmonising  certain  aspects  of  Member  States’  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions concerning contracts concluded between consumers and traders. 

Recital  4  of  the  Directive  explains  that  this  harmonisation  is  necessary  to  promote  a  real 
consumer  internal  market,  striking  the  right  balance  between  a  high  level  of  consumer 
protection and business competitiveness. 

While  the  previous  Directives  for  business-to-consumer  off-premises  and  distance  contracts 
provided  a  minimum  level  of  harmonisation  for  the  relevant  consumer  protection  rules,  the 
CRD is a full harmonisation directive. This means that, within its scope, Member States may 
not maintain or introduce in their national legislation provisions that are not in line with the 
Directive, unless the Directive provides otherwise (Article 4). 

The  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  impose  additional  pre-contractual  information 
requirements for on-premises contracts (Article 5(4)) and to make use of regulatory choices 
under their own national law in six areas. Member States are required to report on their use of 
these regulatory choices and the Commission has made their reports available on its website, 
in accordance with Article 29 CRD.  

The most used regulatory choices are7:   

  20 Member States do not apply the provisions of the Directive to those  off-premises 
contracts for which the payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed 50 euros 
(or lower values laid down in national legislation) (Article 3(4) CRD); 

  15  Member  States 

the  contractual 
information  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts,  in  order  to  ensure  that  such 
information is easily understood by the consumer (Article 6(7) CRD); 

language  requirements  regarding 

impose 

  7 Member States opted for a simplified information regime for off-premises contracts 
concerning  repair  or  maintenance  works  not  exceeding  200€  explicitly  requested  by 
the consumer (Article 7(4) CRD); 

  16 Member States require a written confirmation of contracts concluded by telephone 

(Article 8(6) CRD)  

7  For  more  detailed  information,  please  see  the  tables  published  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/overview_regulatory_choices.pdf. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
framework  under 
Compared  with 
Directive 97/7/EC  and  Directive  85/577/EEC,  the  new  provisions  of  the  Consumer  Rights 
Directive relate to: 

legal  minimum  harmonisation 

the  previous 

 

 

 

 

functionality  and 

 further  harmonisation  of  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  on-premises  
(Article 5(1)) and full harmonisation of those applicable to  distance and off-premises 
contracts (Article 6(1)); 
inclusion of digital content in the scope with  specific provisions related to it, such as 
information  on 
right  of  withdrawal 
(Articles 5(1)(g) and (h); 6(1)(r) and (s); 9(2)(c); 14(4)(b); and 16(m)); 
formal requirements for distance and off-premises contracts, e.g. 'button provision'  for 
orders with an obligation to pay (Articles 7 and 8); 
fully harmonised period of 14 days for the right of withdrawal from distance and off-
premises  contracts  -  albeit  with  some  exceptions  (Article 16)  -  and  clearer  refund 
rights (Articles 9-15); 

interoperability  and 

  new rules on the delivery and passing of risk (Articles 18 and 20); 
 

 ‘basic rate’ requirement for consumer phone-calls to the trader in relation to contracts 
already concluded (Article 21); 

  ban  on  unjustified  charges  for  payment  means  (Article  19)  and  pre-ticked  boxes 

(Article 22).  

  exempting  the  consumer  from  the  obligation  to  pay  for  any  unsolicited  supply  or 

 

provisions of products ('inertia selling', Article 27); 
introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form.(Articles  6(1)(h)  and  11,  Annex 
I(B)). 

3. Transposition and implementation 

Article  28  of  the  Directive  required  Member  States  to  adopt  and  publish  national  measures 
transposing the Directive by 13 December 2013, with a view to applying these measures from 
13 June 2014. 

From October 2012 to April 2014 the Commission organised five transposition workshops to 
assist  Member  States  in  this  task8.  Nevertheless,  17 Member  States9  were  late  with  their 
transposition and the Directive became applicable in all 28 Member States only from the end 
of 2014. 

Member States chose different transposition techniques: some Member States transposed the 
CRD by incorporating it into existing laws (for example their civil codes), others adopted a 
new piece of legislation transposing the CRD almost verbatim, and some chose a combination 
of the two. 

8 Workshops were held on 5 October 2012, 8 March 2013, 19 September 2013, 11 December 2013 and 11 April 
2014. 
9 The following Member States were late in transposing the Directive: AT, BE, BG, FI, HR, HU, ES, FR, IT, 
LV, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
The  Commission  carried  out  an  extensive  check  of  the  transposition  of  the  CRD  in  all 
Member  States  and  opened,  as  a  result  thereof,  21  bilateral  structured  dialogues  with  the 
national  authorities  concerned  (so  called  EU  Pilot  cases).  This  transposition  check  has 
revealed that most Member States had, at first, failed to transpose several definitions and key 
terms of the Directive in their national law. While the concerned Member States have made or 
proposed significant changes to their transposition laws in order to  address these issues and 
bring their law in line with the Directive, the Commission continues its bilateral dialogue with 
most  of  them  to  ensure  full  compliance.  Whilst  cases  of  lack  of  or  incorrect  transposition 
clearly  affect  the  attainment  of  the  objectives  laid  down  by  the  Directive,  few  data  are 
currently available to the European Commission as to the concrete impact in practice of such 
delayed  and/or  incorrect  transpositions,  since  all  the  mentioned  EU  Pilot  cases  (with  the 
exception of one) were opened ex officio, and not on the basis of complaints.  

In  June  2014,  the  Commission  services  issued  a  Guidance  document  concerning  the  CRD10 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'CRD Guidance') following consultations with Member States’ 
authorities  in  charge  of  transposing  and  enforcing  the  Directive,  industry  and  consumer 
stakeholders.  The  CRD  Guidance  aims  to  help  national  authorities  and  courts  to  apply  the 
Directive  in  a  uniform  and  consistent  way,  providing  guidance  on  the  Directive’s  key 
concepts  and  provisions.  It  also  includes  practical  examples  that  show  how  the  Directive 
should work. 

In 2015, the Commission coordinated a ‘sweep’11 by 26 Member States, Norway and Iceland 
to  check  whether  traders  complied  with  pre-contractual  information  requirements  under  the 
CRD for products offered online.12 While before the sweep only 37 % of websites were found 
to be compliant, after the sweep 88 % of websites were found to be compliant. 

Between  spring  2014  and  spring  2016,  the  Commission  organised  a  Consumer  Rights 
Awareness Campaign aimed at increasing traders’ and consumers’ general knowledge of EU-
wide consumer rights that stem from several EU consumer law directives, including the right 
of withdrawal under the CRD.13 

4. Key results of the evaluation 

4.1. Effectiveness 

The  examination  of  national  legislation  in  the  Member  States  prior  to  the  Directive's 
implementation  has  shown  a  significant  degree  of  variation  concerning  rules  on  consumer 
protection  related  to  contracts  between  traders  and  consumers.  With  the  exception  of  the 
limited  areas  still  open  to  national  regulatory  choices,  the  CRD  has  largely  removed  such 

on 

DG 

JUST 

Guidance 

10 
document 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm. 
11 The "EU sweep" is an EU-wide screening of websites. It is conducted in a form of simultaneous, coordinated 
checks  to  identify  breaches  of  consumer  law  and  to  subsequently  ensure  its  enforcement.  See  also: 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps/index_en.htm.  For  more  detailed  information  on  the  2015 
CRD sweep, see: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps/directive/index_en.htm 
12 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps/directive/index_en.htm. 
13 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/consumer-marketing/events/140317_en.htm. 

available 

CRD, 

2014, 

June 

the 

at: 

5 

 
 
                                                            
differences  among  Member  States,  thus  contributing  to  increased  legal  certainty  for  traders 
and consumers, especially in the cross-border context.  

The comparative analysis of the legislative situation in all Member States before and after the 
Directive was transposed has also highlighted that consumer protection has been strengthened 
in  most,  if  not  all,  Member  States.  This  is  likely,  in  line  with  the  Directive's  objectives,  to 
boost consumers’ confidence in both domestic and cross-border purchases, especially online. 
Analysis by Eurostat  shows an increase of online cross-border purchases between 2012 and 
2016.14  Furthermore,  in  terms  of  achieving  greater  consumer  trust  and  empowerment,  the 
available Eurobarometer survey data show that the percentage of consumers agreeing that, in 
general,  retailers  and  service  providers  respect the  rules  and regulations of  consumer  law  is 
equal  to  76%  in  2016,  which  represents  an  increase  by  14  percentage  points  compared  to 
2006.  

However, the evaluation highlighted some factors that limited the effectiveness of the CRD. 
These included: 

  a lack of awareness among consumers and traders of the Directive’s provisions; 
  difficulties in interpreting some provisions such as, among others, the definition of the 
'basic rate' (Article 21)15, the notion of outside the 'business premises' in off-premises 
contracts  (Article  2(8)),  the  distinction  between  a  digital  content  contract  and  a 
contract  for  paid  online  services,  the  moment  from  which  the  14-day  cooling-off 
period  starts  as  regards  contracts  containing  elements  of  both  sales  and  services 
contracts  (Article  9)  and  the  calculation  of  the  diminished  value  of  goods  in  cases 
consumers  exercise  their  right  of  withdrawal  after  having  used  the  goods  more  than 
necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning (Article 14(2));  
lack of compliance by traders; and 
issues  relating  to  enforcement,  with  particular  regard  to  low  level  of  national 
enforcement actions and differences in the way in which the rules are enforced. 
the  different  level  of  penalties  put  in  place  by  Member  States  for  breaches  of  the 
Directive might also be problematic, since the maximum penalties in several Member 
States do not appear sufficiently ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ (Article 24) 
for traders of any size. 

 
 

 

4.2. Efficiency 

There is no clear view yet of the Directive’s overall impact on costs for businesses since it has 
not  been  possible  to  gather  quantitative  estimates  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  its 
implementation. In particular, stakeholders consulted in the framework of the evaluation did 

14 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/E-commerce_statistics_for_individuals (figure 8.) 
15  By  its  judgment  of  2  March  2017  in  Case  C‑568/15  Zentrale  zur  Bekämpfung  unlauteren  Wettbewerbs 
Frankfurt  am  Main  e.V.  v  comtech  GmbH,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  has  clarified  that  "the 
concept of ‘basic rate’ referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU […] must be interpreted as meaning that 
call charges relating to a contract concluded with a trader to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not 
exceed the cost of a call to a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone line. Provided that that limit is 
respected,  the  fact  that  the  relevant  trader  makes  or  does  not  make  a  profit  through  that  telephone  helpline  is 
irrelevant". 

6 

 
 
                                                            
not  provide  quantitative  estimations  on  the  impacts  of  the  CRD  and  could  not  establish  a 
direct causality link between the increase in sales and the coming into application of the CRD. 
Data on actual costs and benefits are also very limited due to the short time since the Directive 
has  been  transposed.  The  analysis  has  therefore  been  based  on  qualitative  information.  The 
limited available data mean it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the level of 
costs  that  businesses  faced  in  ensuring  compliance  with  the  Directive.  Surveyed  businesses 
were  reluctant  to  provide  financial  estimates  of  such  costs,  and  there  was  scarce  monetary 
evidence  available.  However,  when  it  comes  to  qualitative  assessments,  some  specific 
burdens have been reported, especially for SMEs. These  mainly concern the pre-contractual 
information  requirements  particularly  with  regard  to  overlapping  information  requirements, 
and  the  right  of  withdrawal.  Stakeholders  reported,  among  others,  losses  associated  to 
returned goods used to an extent more than necessary to establish their nature, characteristics 
and  the  functioning,  due  to  traders'  difficulties  in  assessing  the  diminished  value  of  the 
returned  goods  and  in  reselling  them.  Concerns  have  also  been  reported  as  regards  the  fact 
that traders have to reimburse consumers without having the possibility to inspect the returned 
goods once the consumer has supplied evidence of having sent them back (Article 13(1)). 

4.3. Coherence 

Overall,  the  Directive  is  considered  to  be  coherent  with  other  EU  legislation,  and  no  major 
problems  have  been  identified.  Nevertheless,  there  are  specific  interplays  between  the 
Directive and other pieces of consumer and marketing legislation, other horizontal and sector-
specific  legislation  (in  particular  the  E-commerce  Directive  and  the  Services  Directive),  as 
well  as  new  proposals,  which  could  be  further  streamlined  and  clarified  in  the  future.  For 
example, certain information requirements of the ‘invitation to purchase’ (Article 7(4) of the 
Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive)  overlap  with  the  pre-contractual  information 
requirements of the CRD: they could be addressed in possible follow-up legislative actions to 
the  REFIT  Fitness  Check  and  CRD  evaluation.  The  outcome  of  the  negotiations  on  the 
proposed Directive for the Supply of Digital Content should also be taken into account in any 
possible amendment of the CRD provisions dealing with digital content (see also below under 
5). 

4.4. Relevance 

The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  original  objectives  of  the  Directive  are  as  valid  today  as 
when the Directive was first proposed. In particular, the objectives of ensuring a high level of 
consumer protection and a level playing field for businesses in online business-to-consumer 
contracts continue to be very relevant, especially within the framework of the Digital Single 
Market policy. The provisions on distance contracts are likely to become even more relevant 
in the future, as the number of online purchases made by consumers continues to increase. 

The  provisions  of  the  CRD  on  information  requirements  were  found  to  still  be  relevant, 
except for the requirement under Article 6(1)(c) to provide the trader’s fax-number and email 
address  where  other,  more  modern  means  of  communication  (such  as  web-based  forms) 
would also enable the consumer to efficiently contact the trader and keep proof of this on a 
durable  medium.  The  evaluation  also  suggests  that  there  is  room  to  investigate  how  to 
simplify  the  presentation  of  pre-contractual  information  and  standard  terms  and  conditions. 

7 

 
 
Moreover,  with  the  growing  role  of  online  platforms,  there  is  a  strong  call,  especially  from 
consumer  associations  and  some  business  associations,  to  introduce  specific  transparency 
requirements  for  online  marketplaces.  The  aim  would  be  to  ensure  that  consumers  are 
informed  about  the  identity  and  quality  (‘trader’  or  ‘consumer’)  of  the  supplier,  about  the 
differences  in  the  level  of  consumer  protection  when  contracting  with  a  trader  rather  than 
another consumer and about the default ranking criteria when presenting offers. 

4.5. EU added value 

An  EU  approach  remains  the  most  appropriate  response  and  is  more  likely  to  achieve  the 
objectives set by the Directive than national approaches. In fact, the Directive has consistently 
reduced  the  regulatory  fragmentation  among  Member  States  through  its  harmonisation 
approach,  thereby  helping  to  increase  consumer  trust  in  cross-border  sales  and  to  reduce 
traders’  cost  of  compliance  when  selling  cross-border  as  highlighted  by  the  stakeholders 
consulted  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation.  Harmonised  rules  are  also  needed  to  ensure 
effective cross-border enforcement actions between Member States. 

5. Rules on digital content 

For the first time in EU consumer and marketing law, the Directive lays down specific pre-
contractual  information  requirements  for  digital  content  and  rules  on  the  withdrawal  from 
contracts for digital content that is not supplied on a tangible medium. These provisions are 
especially relevant in pursuing the objectives of the Digital Single Market strategy. 

Digital  content  is  defined  as  ‘data  which  are  produced  and  supplied  in  digital  form’ 
(Article 2(11)  CRD).  As  regards  the  scope  of  application  of  the  CRD  in  relation  to  digital 
content, the CRD Guidance of June 2014 states that: 

‘[I]n view of the distinction drawn in recital 19, contracts for online digital content are 
subject  to  the  Directive  even  if  they  do  not  involve  the  payment  of  a  price  by  the 
consumer’.16 

Even though the CRD Guidance document was drawn up in cooperation with Member States 
and  stakeholders,  some  interested  parties  consider  that  the  application  of  the  CRD  to  ‘free’ 
digital  content  is  not  absolutely  clear.  Whilst  the  Commission  confirms  the  interpretation 
provided  in  the  CRD  Guidance,  difficulties  may  indeed  exist  to  distinguish  in  practice 
between digital content contracts and contracts concerning online services whose main object 
is the supply of a service rather than the digital content itself; the latter fall within the scope of 
the Directive as "services contract" only when supplied against payment of a price. 

In  principle,  all  CRD  provisions  are  also  applicable  to  contracts  for  the  supply  of  digital 
content.  Moreover,  several  provisions  set  out  specific  requirements  in  relation  to  digital 
content: 

  pre-contractual 

information  requirements  on  functionality  and 

interoperability 

(Article 5(1)(g) and (h); Article 6(1)(r) and (s)); 

16 Page 64 of the CRD Guidance. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
 

right of withdrawal — start of withdrawal period and information requirement about 
loss of withdrawal right in case of download (Articles 9(2)(c) and 14(4)(b)); 

  exception from the right of withdrawal (Article 16(m)). 

Digital content remains a key area where consumers do not feel as protected as in sales and 
service contracts. The findings of the evaluation suggest that the low level of effectiveness of 
the  digital  content  provisions  results  from  a  lack  of  awareness  both  among  traders  and 
consumers,  a  lack  of  compliance  by  traders,  and  a  low  level  of  enforcement  by  national 
authorities.  Anecdotally,  traders  have  also  pointed  to  some  difficulties  with  the  practical 
implementation and understanding of these provisions, particularly as regards the requirement 
to provide pre-contractual information on the right of withdrawal. Concerning awareness, the 
data showed that the lowest level of awareness was reported for pre-contractual information 
requirements  on  digital  content  and  digital  content  withdrawal  rules.  The  evaluation  found 
that  compliance  with rules on digital content was very low; in  particular, it highlighted that 
traders do not generally inform consumers of when they would lose their right of withdrawal.  

The evaluation also found that there could be scope for re-assessing some of the CRD rules on 
digital content to better match them with current needs within the EU. In particular, the CRD 
does  not  currently  apply  to  the  provision  of  ‘free’  online  services.  These  services  include 
cloud storage or webmail, where the main contractual obligation of the trader is not to provide 
digital content but rather a service allowing the creation, processing, storing or sharing of data 
that  is  produced  by  the  consumer.  Following  the  Council  discussions  on  the  proposal  for  a 
Directive on Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content at the June 2016 JHA Council, the 
Ministers expressly invited the Commission to ‘include, in its report on the application of the 
CRD, an evaluation  of  the application of  the CRD, and in  particular  of  the pre-contractual 
information  requirements  provided  for  in  that  Directive,  to  all  types  of  contracts  for  the 
supply of digital content covered by the [December 2015 proposal for a] Directive on digital 
content,  with  a  view  to  helping  assess  in  how  far  the  two  instruments  (in  particular  the 
definitions used therein) may need to be aligned to ensure greater coherence’. 

Therefore the Commission considers that, in order to ensure that the Directive remains fully 
relevant and able to meet current challenges, its scope should be expanded to cover contracts 
for  ‘free’  digital  services  while  making  sure,  where  appropriate,  that  the  Directive  ensures 
equal treatment of digital services and digital content. 

6. Conclusions and way forward 

The Commission will follow up the evaluation’s findings by: 

  promoting consumers’ and traders’ awareness of their rights and obligations. To this 
end, in December 2016 the Commission launched a pilot project for training SMEs on 
EU  consumer  and  marketing  law.  The  pilot  project  aims  at  considerably  increasing 
traders’ awareness of their obligations and the corresponding consumer rights; 

  considering  further  guidance  on  the  provisions  which  the  evaluation  found  to  be 

perceived as lacking clarity; 

9 

 
 
  steering  the  recently  launched  self-regulatory  exercise  within  the  REFIT  stakeholder 
group with a view to reach a multi-stakeholder agreement on a set of key principles for 
a better presentation of both pre-contractual information under the CRD and standard 
contract  terms.  Such  work  is  of  course  without  prejudice  to  further  legislative 
intervention, notably in case this self-regulatory approach proves unsatisfactory; 

 

further examining, subject to the outcome of an impact assessment, possible targeted 
amendments to the Directive regarding: 

  extending  its  scope  to  include  contracts  for  ‘free’  digital  services  and  thus 
applying the pre-contractual information requirements and the right of withdrawal 
to  any  digital  services.  This  amendment  should  clarify  that  the  Directive  also 
covers contracts for the provision of digital content which is not provided against 
payment of a price; 

  simplifying some of the existing information requirements, in particular to better 
reflect technological/market developments, for example by allowing traders to use 
more  modern  means  of  communication  for  their  exchanges  with  consumers, 
provided that such means allow the consumer to efficiently contact the trader and 
to keep a proof of such exchanges on a durable medium; 

 

 

reducing  the  burden  on  traders,  especially  SMEs,  which  some  stakeholders 
consider disproportionate. This concerns provisions on the right of withdrawal for 
goods  used  by  consumers  more  than  necessary  to  establish  their  nature, 
characteristics  and  functioning  and  the  rules  on  reimbursement  before  the  trader 
has received the goods back; 

increasing  the  transparency  of  the  information  that  online  marketplaces  provide 
consumers about the identity and quality (‘trader’ or ‘consumer’) of the supplier, 
about the differences in the level of consumer protection when contracting with a 
trader rather than another consumer, and about the default ranking criteria when 
presenting  offers,  and  establishing  the  consequences  for  failing  to  comply  with 
transparency requirements; 

  stepping  up  the  enforcement  of  the  Directive  across  all  Member  States,  including 
through  common  actions  in  the  framework  of  the  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation 
Regulation. 

10