REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation
Date: 2020-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, discrimination on the basis of nationality, electronic commerce, equal treatment, establishment, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, goods and services, residence, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.11.2020  COM(2020) 766 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation {SWD(2020) 294 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

  The  Geo-blocking  Regulation  outlaws  unjustified  discrimination  of  customers  buying 
goods  or  services.  It  ensures  that  customers’  nationality,  place  of  residence  or  place  of 
establishment  cannot  be  used  to  refuse  access  to  an  online  shop  (e.g.  for  electronics  or 
clothing) or to a service provided online and consumed off-line (e.g. car rental) in the EU, 
including where this discrimination is related to means of payment.  

  These rules have been applicable since 3 December 2018. The Regulation was part of the 
digital-single-market  package  of  measures  agreed  for  e-commerce.  Other  related 
measures  to  facilitate  cross-border  e-commerce  included  new  rules  on  cross-border 
parcel-delivery  services  (applicable  as  from  May  2018),  revised  consumer-protection 
rules,  and  new  VAT  rules  for  online  sales  of  goods  and  services.  A  range  of  new 
consumer-protection  rules  will  enter  into  force  during  2022,  while  the  VAT  rules  will 
enter into force in July 2021. 
In  this  report,  the  Commission  takes  stock  of  the  first  phase  of  implementation  of  the 
Geo-blocking  Regulation.  Such  an  early  review  was  agreed  upon  in  the  negotiations, 
partly  to  assess  the  opportunity  for  extending  its  scope  to  other  services,  such  as 
copyright-protected content. At the same time, the review was finalised in the middle of 
the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis, so the data and analysis in the review could not take 
into account the possible effects of the pandemic. 

 

  On the implementation so far, the Commission’s findings show good consumer awareness 
and some initial positive effects. For example, blocking access/registration to websites  – 
or rerouting consumers to other websites – has decreased. On the other hand, there have 
been  significant  delays  in  the  empowerment  of  enforcement  bodies  by  most  Member 
States. Moreover, traders continue to be reluctant to offer cross-border delivery options, 
which is not part of the obligations currently imposed by the Regulation. Improvements 
on  these  issues  can  be  expected  in  the  near  term,  notably  once  all  the  e-commerce 
measures of the digital-single-market strategy enter into force and legal predictability is 
increased. 

  On the feasibility to now extend the scope of the Regulation, particularly  for copyright-
protected  content  online,  the  data  presented  in  the  report  suggest  that  the  effects  would 
vary  by  type  of  content,  depending  on  the  level  of  consumer  demand  and  on  the 
availability  of  content  across  the  EU.  For  instance,  the  effects  on  consumer  welfare  of 
extending  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  to  music  streaming  could  even  be  negative,  as 
prices  may  rise  in  certain  Member  States  where  these  services  are  currently  less 
expensive.  The  report  identifies  potential  benefits,  in  particular  for  audiovisual  content, 
the availability of which is  often limited within national  borders and  access  to  which is 
often geo-blocked. However, the report also identifies possible challenges for investment 
in  content  production  and  implications  for  the  overall  sector  ecosystem  and  welfare 
impact  requiring  further  assessments.  Overall,  the  effects  of  extending  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation  would largely  depend on copyright-licensing practices  and on copyright-law 
considerations.  

1 

 
 
 
  At this stage, the Commission takes the view that the full effects of the Regulation will 
only become apparent with time, as enforcement is strengthened and other relevant   (e-
commerce) measures become applicable and the full impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the 
various sectors involved can be assessed. In the meantime, follow-up actions should focus 
on  further  monitoring  and  awareness-raising,  while  stepping  up  enforcement  and 
guidance.  

  On  audiovisual  content  in  particular,  the  Commission  will  engage  in  a  dialogue  with 
stakeholders  with  a  view  to  fostering  circulation  of  quality  content  across  the  EU.  This 
could take place as part of the European industrial and recovery policy for media and the 
creative industries, which will be further outlined in the upcoming media and audiovisual 
action plan.  

  Accordingly, another stock-taking exercise should be planned for 2022.  The outcome of 
this  monitoring  will  determine  whether  the  Commission  will  then  consider  proposing 
amendments  to  the  Regulation  or  any  other  follow-up  measures,  including  appropriate 
legislative intervention.  

1.  INTRODUCTION 

In  a  truly  connected  digital  single  market,  consumers  expect  seamless  access  to  goods  and 
services across borders.  Since 3 December 2018, the Geo-blocking Regulation1 (hereinafter 
‘the  Regulation’)  prohibits  unjustified  discrimination  of  customers  (consumers  and 
undertakings  purchasing  as  end  users)  shopping  online,  purely  based  on  their  nationality, 
place  of  residence  or  place  of  establishment.  This  includes  situations  where  a  customer 
buying  across  borders  is  prevented  from  finalising  the  purchase,  or  is  asked  to  pay  with  a 
debit  or  credit  card  from  a  certain  country.  The  goal  of  the  Regulation  was  to  increase 
opportunities for consumers and businesses to buy across borders: consumers should be able 
to ‘shop like a local’ anywhere in the EU.  

The Regulation stipulated a short term review after 18 months from its application, and that 
this review should include an assessment of the feasibility to extend the Regulation’s scope, 
in particular for online services giving access to copyright-protected content2 such as music, 
video games, films, or e-books. 

This report contains the Commission’s main findings for the first period of implementation of 
the Regulation. It is structured in three main sections. Section 2 discusses implementation by 
Member  States  and  traders,  and  changing  consumer  expectations.  Section  3  discusses  the 
opportunities  and  challenges  for  a  change  of  scope  of  the  Regulation.  Section  4  concludes 
with a series of follow-up actions.  

The  accompanying  staff  working  document  contains  more  detailed  evidence  and  analysis 
supporting these findings.  

1 Regulation (EU) 302/2018. 
2 See Art 9(2) of the Regulation. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
2.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATION 

This section contains: (i) initial findings on the implementation of the Regulation by Member 
States; (ii) some general trends in consumer awareness and expectations; and (iii) details on 
implementation  of  the  Regulation  by  traders.  It  also  summarises  the  synergies  with  other 
related legislative initiatives that have come into force, or are about to come into force. 

2.1. 

Implementation by Member States  

For cases where a dispute arises between a consumer and trader, Member States have had an 
obligation  to  designate,  by  3  December  2018,  a  body  or  bodies  responsible  for  providing 
practical  assistance  to  consumers.  They  should  also  have  ensured  the  availability  of 
injunctions,  and  cooperation  within  the  consumer-protection  cooperation  (CPC)3  network. 
The CPC network brings together authorities responsible for enforcing consumer protection 
laws  in  the  EU.  Member  States  were  also  required  to  empower  competent  bodies  and  lay 
down measures to ensure adequate and effective enforcement of the Regulation, so that action 
can be taken against traders who infringe the rules.  

In general, the implementation process by the Member States has been held back by delays. 
By  December  2018,  only  six  Member  States  had  adopted  and  notified  the  measures  and 
bodies  designated  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation.  Following  close  monitoring  and 
scrutiny  activities  by  the  Commission,  most  Member  States  adopted  these  measures  during 
the  spring  of  2019.  By  July  2019,  six  Member  States  had  still  not  communicated  fully  or 
partially  the  enforcement  measures  applicable  for  infringement  of  the  Regulation.  The 
Commission launched infringement proceedings in these cases.  

The  rights  and  obligations  in  the  Regulation  apply  directly,  and  have  not  been  affected  by 
these delays. However, in the first quarter of 2019, no public enforcement or supervision was 
available in most Member States4.  

Among  those  Member  States  who  designated  the  relevant  bodies,  most  chose  to  empower 
consumer-protection  authorities  as  enforcement  bodies,  and  European  consumer  centres  as 
assistance  bodies5.  However,  there  are  large  variations  in  applicable  fines  across  Member 
States and often there is a large range between min and max fines  within a Member State6. 
On business-to-business cases of geo-blocking, Member States are almost equally divided in 
following one of two different approaches: either only private enforcement through courts; or 
a  combination  of  private  and  public  enforcement.  The  effectiveness  of  the  sanctioning  and 
enforcement  systems,  in  particular  for  business-to-business  cases,  will  therefore  need  to  be 

3  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2017  on 
cooperation  between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1–26. This new 
CPC Regulation applies from 17 January 2020. 
4 At the date of adoption of this report, one Member State has not yet adopted all necessary measures, although 
it informally cooperates within the CPC network with other enforcement authorities. 
5 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/geo-blocking-digital-single-market#Implementation 
6 From a few hundreds of euro to fines above EUR 100 000 and/or fines linked to turnover. See  accompanying 
SWD, sec. 2.1.2. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
assessed  further,  including  to  evaluate  the  practical  application  and  effectiveness  of  the 
judicial’ remedies. 

2.2.  Consumer awareness and expectations 

As  one  of  the  main  e-commerce-related  initiatives  of  the  digital-single-market  strategy,  the 
Regulation  attracted  significant  attention  from  consumers  and 
their  representative 
organisations. One of the reasons for this is that the Regulation directly empowers consumers 
with specific rights vis-à-vis cross-border traders.  

The Commission also carried out awareness-raising activities through various channels, well 
before the Regulation became applicable. One of these actions was the creation of question-
and-answer documents to clarify questions for both consumers and traders7.  

As a result, in February 2019, just a couple of months after its application date,  roughly 50% 
of EU consumers were already aware of the Regulation.  Approximately half of those aware 
also considered themselves to be sufficiently informed about what it involved8.  

Nevertheless,  the  first  months  of  implementation  by  national  enforcement  and  assistance 
bodies showed that, when it comes to disputes and problems, consumers have often greater 
expectations  about  the  rights  and  obligations  at  stake9.  These  expectations  were  especially 
high  for  the  denial  of  cross-border  delivery,  or  the  absence  of  delivery  options  for  certain 
countries,  especially  by  multinational  traders.  Obligations  in  these  areas  were  not  provided 
for  in  the  Regulation.  The  Commission  proposes  to  continue  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
Regulation,  while  continuing  to  monitor  the  overall  marketing  practices  of  traders  and  the 
impact of these practices on the choices available to the public across the EU. 

2.3.  Application by traders 

In  the  first  months  of  application  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  monitored  traders’ 
marketing  practices  through  a  ‘mystery  shopping’  survey,  and  by  means  of  feedback  from 
enforcement and assistance bodies. 

In a mystery-shopping survey10, many attempts to buy goods and services across borders are 
carried out with a view to collecting data on practical restrictions. A typical survey looks at 
the  customer  experience  when  shopping  across  borders  in  different  stages  of  the  shopping 
process. A baseline survey in 2015 formed the basis of the impact assessment of the original 
proposal for the Regulation11.  

at 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/geo-blocking-regulation-questions-and-

7  Available 
answers.  
8 Flash Eurobarometer 477b (2019). 
9 See ECC network position paper, available at  https://www.ecc.fi/globalassets/ecc/ajankohtaista/raportit/2019-
geoblocking-position-paper-en.pdf, and accompanying SWD, sec. 2.1.3. 
10 Ipsos et al (2020). 
11 GfK (2015), available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/geoblocking-final-report_en.pdf 

4 

 
 
                                                           
The 2019 survey, covering about 9 000 websites, showed some initial positive effects of the 
Regulation  in  improving  the  cross-border  accessibility  of  traders’  websites12.  Compared  to 
2015,  rerouting  or  denial  of  access  to  e-commerce  websites  had  decreased13,  while 
restrictions  fully  preventing  registration  on  websites  halved14.  Automatic  changes  to  prices 
upon registration have also decreased. Overall, the success rate in completing a cross-border 
purchase slightly increased compared to 201515.  

However, more than 1 in 10 cross-border mystery-shopping attempts failed at the registration 
stage, and a similar number failed at the payment stage. This was usually due to residence or 
payment-location  requirements  (e.g.  only  accepting  locally  issued  debit  cards)16.  There  is  a 
continued need to tackle these obstacles, which may: (i) have a discriminatory character; (ii) 
lead to biased results, and/or (iii) prevent access to and comparison of offers. This needs to be 
tackled through fully operational enforcement and assistance bodies in all Member States.  

The  initial  experience  of  those  bodies  that  have  been  empowered  to  resolve  geo-blocking 
issues  confirms  this  data17.  Often  ‘amicable’  intervention  by  national  authorities  and/or 
assistance  bodies  with  the  trader  can  address  the  problems  encountered.  This  shows  that  a 
number  of  traders  are  not  necessarily  aware  of  their  obligations,  or  did  not  sufficiently 
prepare  to  adjust  their  marketing  policies  for  cross-border  customers  by  the  time  the 
Regulation became applicable, but were willing to adapt once contacted.  

These  results  also  support  the  need  for  further  guidance  on  implementation  and  additional 
awareness campaigns to promote compliance by traders. Initial information gathered from the 
national  bodies  also  shows  the  benefit  of  cooperation  between  authorities  within  the  CPC 
network. This cooperation facilitates cross-border enforcement but also ensures the consistent 
interpretation of the rules with the support of the Commission.  

The Regulation does not oblige traders to deliver across borders where this is not provided in 
the applicable terms and conditions18. However, often the shopping process is stopped at the 
last stages because the trader does not deliver to the shopper’s country, so that when cross-
border delivery is requested, only 1 in 3 cross-border shopping attempts was successful in the 
recent mystery-shopping exercise19.  

12 SWD sec. 2.2 based on Ipsos et al (2020). 
13 Although already low generally, Ipsos et al (2020).  
14 Even when issues were encountered, failure to register dropped significantly (by 13 pp), Ipsos et al (2020).  
15 SWD sec. 2.3. It is important to note that this overall indicator also includes elements not directly addressed 
by  the  Regulation  (such  as  cross-border  delivery),  which  slightly  deteriorated,  thus  negatively  affecting  the 
overall success rate.  
16 Ipsos et al (2020). 
17 SWD, sec. 2.1.3 and results of the surveys with national bodies reported therein. 
18  If  the  trader  under  his  general  conditions  already  provides  for  cross-border  delivery  in  the  country  of  the 
customer, on the other hand, there should be no discrimination of that customer. 
19 Ipsos et al (2020). This is consistent with the general Eurostat figures about the number of enterprises actively 
engaging in cross-border sales, which remained stable in 2019 compared to 2017. Only a minority of enterprises 
sell across borders, even in the online sector (43% of companies operating online sell across borders, compared 
to 9% of all enterprises). 

5 

 
 
                                                           
This is mainly due to the persistence of delivery limitations in cross-border shopping. Such 
restrictions still affect more than 50% of shopping attempts20, even with multinational traders 
who offer different national versions of their websites. 

Although  not  directly  addressed  by  the  Regulation  at  this  stage,  such  problems  potentially 
frustrate the expectations  of consumers that offers be accessible across  the European single 
market.    On  the  other  hand  online  traders  still  encounter  administrative  obstacles  (such  as 
VAT-registration requirements), and are unclear about the consumer-protection requirements 
that  apply  to  cross-border  sales.  These  issues  may  therefore  deter  traders  from  more  active 
cross-border engagement21 .  

These insights suggest that a holistic approach is needed to achieve the full intended effects 
of  the  Regulation.  Such  an  approach  would  promote  greater  cross-border  access  for 
consumers,  while  simultaneously  facilitating  the  cross-border  engagement  of  traders.  The 
next section will elaborate on these issues. 

2.4.  Synergies with the broader framework of the digital single market 
The  digital-single-market  measures  help  traders  to  sell  goods  and  provide  services  more 
easily across borders22 by reducing the complexity and costs, especially for SMEs.  

 This  includes  measures  that:  (i)  reduce  the  administrative  costs  of  compliance  with  VAT 
requirements  for  cross-border  sales  of  goods,  in  particular  eliminating  the  need  for 
registration  for  businesses  making  distance  sales  of  goods  or  supplying  services  to  non-
taxable  persons  in  Member  States  where  they  are  not  established    (applicable  as  of  July 
2021); (ii) further harmonise consumer-protection rules, including for remedies  for defective 
goods (as of 2022); (iii) strengthen consumer enforcement cooperation (as of January 2020); 
and  (iv)  improve  both  the  regulatory  oversight  of  cross-border  parcel-delivery  services  and 
the transparency of parcel-delivery tariffs (as of May 2018)23. The Commission is committed 
to identifying and tackling any further cross-border barriers24.  

20  SWD,  sec.  2.2.4.1  and  Ipsos  et  al  (2020). This  figure  of  50%  includes  also  cases  where  the  problems  with 
delivery incurred during registration (delivery address not accepted in the registration phase) were reported.  
21 These are the second- and third-most prominent obstacles for retailers respectively (after debt recovery) and 
still affect a large share of businesses (60% of businesses cite VAT procedures as an obstacle to selling across 
borders),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Business  Journey  on  the  Single  Market:  Practical  Obstacles 
and Barriers SWD(2020) 54 final. 
22 In addition to the DSM measures, an overall review of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation due in 2022 
is also ongoing. This review will partly focus on ‘vertical’ contractual obstacles imposed on traders, affecting 
the cross-border provision of services and goods. 
23  See  Council  Directive  (EU)  2019/1995  amending  Directive  2006/112/EC  as  regards  provisions  relating  to 
distance  sales  of  goods  and  certain  domestic  supplies  of  goods,  as  well  as  the  related  Council  Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/2026  amending  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  282/2011  as  regards  supplies  of 
goods  or  services  facilitated  by  electronic  interfaces  and  the  special  schemes  for  taxable  persons  supplying 
services  to  non-taxable  persons,  making  distance  sales  of  goods  and  certain  domestic  supplies  of  goods  and 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/194 laying down details on the working of the VAT One Stop 
Shop;  Directive  (EU)  2019/770  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2019  on  certain 
aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services and Directive (EU) 2019/771 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the 
sale  of  goods,  amending  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  and  Directive  2009/22/EC,  and  repealing  Directive 
1999/44/EC; Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 

6 

 
 
                                                           
 
The  full  and  effective  implementation  of  the  above  measures  will  have  an  impact  on  the 
effects of the Regulation, as they give greater legal certainty to traders, and remedy some of 
the  obstacles  making 
to  engage  with  consumers  across  borders. 
Consequently, the effectiveness of the Regulation, and the need for any possible adjustments, 
will  be  easier  to  assess  in  the  light  of  broader  market  circumstances  once  other  measures 
adopted under the digital-single-market strategy have been fully implemented and started to 
have an effect.  

traders  reluctant 

In the meantime, even within the evolving regulatory framework, the potential discriminatory 
effects  of  certain  traders’  practices  not  directly  addressed  by  the  Regulation  may  still  be 
subject  to  case-by-case  scrutiny,  pursuant  to  the  general  non-discrimination  clause  of  the 
Services  Directive25,  such  as  deliberately  limiting  delivery  options  for  certain  products  or 
websites  in  countries  otherwise  served  by  the  trader  without  any  objective  justification. 
Further guidance on this clause and its links with the Regulation may therefore be needed. 

3.  EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE REGULATION 
3.1.  Electronically supplied services giving access to copyright-protected 

content  

For  services  that  provide  access  to  copyright-protected  works26  (such  as  services  providing 
access to music, video games, or films), the review clause of the Regulation specified some 
particular  aspects  to  be  taken  into  account.  In  particular,  the  Regulation  provides  that  the 
assessment  of  any  scope-extension  should  require  that  a  trader  making  any  such  works 
accessible  across  borders  must  hold  ‘the  requisite  rights  in  the  relevant  territories’.  This 
implies that consumers may access online content services in other Member States only if the 
service provider holds the rights for their territories. This approach is broadly consistent with 
the  intervention  logic  of  the  Regulation,  and  leaves  copyright  law  unaffected.  However,  it 
does not address the question as to what the ‘requisite rights’ are, in particular when a trader 
responds to unsolicited requests from customers located in other Member States (known as a 
‘passive sales’). This is an important issue, as the actual effects of an extension of the scope 
of  the  Geo-blocking  Regulation  would  depend  on  the  licensing  practices  and  possible 
interpretations of the ‘requisite rights’. 

This  report  identifies  some  trends,  opportunities  and  challenges  that  would  result  from  an 
extension  of  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  to  these  services,  including  audiovisual  and  non-
audiovisual content, assessed on the basis of the indications of the review clause, including 

amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  better  enforcement  and  modernisation  of  Union  consumer 
protection rules; Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 April 2018 on 
cross-border parcel delivery services. 
24 Identifying and addressing barriers to the Single Market COM(2020)93 final.  
25 Earlier Commission guidance on the application of Article 20(2) dates back to 2012 (SWD(2012)146) before 
the DSM measures and the Regulation.  
26 Audiovisual services are fully excluded from the scope of the Regulation. Non-audiovisual content services 
whose  main  feature  is  giving  access  to  or  use  of  copyright  protected  works  (such  as  e-books,  online  music, 
software and video games) are subject to the Regulation, except its Article 4. 

7 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
the ‘requisite rights’ condition. It relies on different analytical studies and data sources further 
analysed  in  the  accompanying  staff  working  document27.  It  analyses:  (i)  consumers’ 
expectations/demands; (ii) possible variety and price effects for consumers; and (iii) impacts 
on  different  sectors.  It  also  takes  into  account  regulatory  and  licensing  frameworks,  and 
dynamic  effects,  all  of  which  are  particularly  important  for  complex  and  rapidly  evolving 
creative  industries.  At  the  same  time,  given  that  the  available  evidence  refers  to  the  period 
prior to the break-out of the COVID-19 crisis, the analysis could not reflect the impact of this 
crisis on copyright content industries. 

Music 

Data show that consumers’ expectations for – and interest in – cross-border access to music 
content  has  increased,  even  though  domestic  consumption  remains  mostly  dominant  in  the 
EU28.  Subscription-based  business  models  now  represent  85%  of  revenues29  in  the  music 
sector. A number of pan-EU providers, along with a few national providers, are active in all 
Member  States,  offering  large  catalogues.  Pan-EU  providers  in  particular  have  large 
catalogues  with  more  than  90%  overlap  across  different  Member  States30.  In  other  words, 
there  are  no  substantial  differences  in  the  variety  of  repertoire  available  across  Member 
States. Existing geo-blocking practices in the sector are therefore mainly meant to implement 
price differentiation strategies across different Member States, and follow a consistent pattern 
on the basis of factors such as different demand and purchasing power31.  

The  available  data  indicate  that  price  seems  to  be  the  main  driver  of  consumer  switching 
across services. If the Regulation was extended, existing price differentiation strategies would 
therefore be less sustainable, and large-scale migration towards cheaper versions of the same 
service  supplied  in  other  Member  States  could  potentially  have  a  significant  impact  on  the 
revenues of music-streaming services. Providers are likely to respond by harmonising prices 
and, possibly, through differentiation of services actively offered in different countries32. 

Based  on  the  available  data,  the  overall  dynamic-welfare  effects  (on  both  businesses  and 
consumers) of increasing price harmonisation  appear ambiguous at  this point. Any possible 
decrease of prices in high-demand countries (and increase in consumption in those countries) 
may be more than  compensated for by increases  of prices and  reduction of consumption in 
low-demand  countries33.  These  conclusions  appear  to  be  further  supported  by  additional 
evidence  about  structural  gaps  between  countries  across  the  Union  in  relation  to  the  sector 

27  Including  the  Eurobarometer  Flash  survey  (EB477b  (2019)),  as  well  as  the  ‘Study  on  the  impacts  of  the 
extension  of  the  scope  of  the  Geo-blocking  Regulation  to  audiovisual  and  non-audiovisual  services  giving 
access to copyright protected content’ prepared by VVA et al. (2020), further input from the JRC and studies 
carried out by different stakeholders. The specific sources are specified further in the SWD sections referred to.  
28 Flash Eurobarometer 477b (2019) shows that, on average, 8% of internet users in the EU have tried to access 
online music services across borders, and 29% of those who have not tried this would be interested to do so.  
29 SWD sec. 3.1.2.1. 
30 SWD sec. 3.1.2.2., based on VVA et al (2020), JRC (2017). 
31 SWD sec. 3.1.2.2., based on VVA et al (2020). 
32 SWD sec. 3.1.2.4, based on VVA et al (2020), NERA (2019), Waldfogel, 2018. 
33 SWD sec. 3.1.2.4, based on VVA et al (2020), NERA (2019), Waldfogel, 2018. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
development,  which  have  implications  on  the  export  and  consumption  of  music  across 
borders.34   

E-books 

Demand for cross-border access to e-books appears low compared to other content services35. 
The  market  structure  shows  a  mix  of  a  few  pan-EU  platforms  alongside  many  smaller 
national and regional booksellers/distributors, who frequently offer e-books as a complement 
to their physical sales, despite more limited demand and lower margins.  

An extension of the Regulation to e-books could potentially lead to a significant increase in 
accessible items  from  individual catalogues  across  borders for a  given providers in  specific 
countries (e.g. up to a 40% increase in few countries for the iTunes catalogue) and increased 
access to smaller/national booksellers36. However, it is not clear whether this would actually 
increase  the  effective  variety  of  individual  titles  already  available  to  consumers  through 
different providers/versions of pan-EU and national bookstores.  

Consumer  demand  in  this  sector  is  characterised  by  relatively  high  sensitivity  towards 
language, and relatively low price sensitivity vis à vis foreign services37. Combined with the 
more limited effects of price differences in this sector and the non-exclusivity of catalogues 
(already available at national level through different providers), this supports the finding that 
extending  the  Regulation  could  have  positive,  although  probably  limited,  effects  for 
consumers, mostly due to limited price reductions38. In addition, some national markets have 
legislation  that  sets  book  prices,  which  could  further  limit  these  effects  while  increasing 
compliance costs. 

However,  given  the  structure  of  the  industry,  the  negative  effects  (through  greater  price 
competition,  but  above  all  through  greater  compliance  costs)  are  likely  to  be  particularly 
detrimental for smaller booksellers. These would be felt through much smaller market shares 
and  margins  from  sales  of  e-books,  but  higher  relative  operating  and  compliance  costs  for 
cross-border sales39.  

Games/software 

Demand for cross-border access to games and, above all, software appears low according to 
current data40, in particular compared to other content services.  

Cross-border  availability  of  video  games  (i.e.,  PC,  mobile  and  console  games),  at  least 
through major pan-EU providers such as app stores  or PC/console platforms, differs across 

34 SWD sec. 3.1.2.4, based on the study report “A European music export strategy” (2019) 
35 Flash EB 477b (2019). 
36 SWD sec. 3.1.3.2 based on VVA et al (2020). 
37 SWD sec. 3.1.3.3., based on VVA et al (2020). 
38 SWD sec. 3.1.3.4., based on VVA et al (2020). 
39 SWD sec. 3.1.3.4 based on VVA et al (2020).  
40 Flash EB 477b (2019). 

9 

 
 
                                                           
different online gaming ecosystems. As is the case for e-books, national  gaming catalogues 
slightly differ across the EU, in particular for console games and for some Member States. As 
it is for music, distribution practices for video games are largely based on non-territorial and 
non-exclusive licensing,  contrary to other  content services41. Removing cross-border  access 
restrictions  has  the  potential  to  increase  the  variety  of  accessible  items  in  individual 
catalogues  (up  to  approximately  17%  for  Playstation,  weighted  for  the  items’  ranking). 
However,  for  all  platforms  availability  gaps  mainly  affect  titles  with  relatively  low 
demand/rating42.  

Although  price  differences  across  Member  States  appear  small  on  average,  the  evidence 
indicates that extending the Regulation to video games could bring some positive impacts for 
consumers, in particular through lower prices and increased sales43. For providers, however, 
it  does  not  seem  that  the  potential  increase  in  consumption  would  fully  make  up  for  the 
reduction in prices. A possible reduction in revenues for developers/publishers may therefore 
be expected. The overall welfare effects (bringing together consumer and provider effects) of 
extension could be slightly positive, at least in the short term44.  

However, the possible negative effect could be greater for smaller and/or national distributors 
active  in  distributing  PC  games,  where  pan-EU  platforms  operate  alongside  direct  sales  by 
publishers) that have a smaller market position but higher relative operating costs for cross-
border  sales45.  The  potential  impacts  on  some  games-specific  national-transparency 
requirements (such as age ratings) would also need to be considered.  

Audiovisual (AV) services 

Domestic  consumption  remains  prevalent  for  audiovisual  services,  but  demand  for  cross-
border  access  to  audiovisual  services  appears  to  be  highest  among  copyright-protected 
content service. Evidence also indicates that this demand is increasing, even if it is still rather 
limited  9%  of  internet  users  have  tried  to  get  access  to  audiovisual  content  across  borders, 
and 31% are interested in such access46.  

But  in  spite  of  this  potential  cross-border  demand,  the  availability  of  audiovisual  content 
online (in particular films and series) across the EU remains very limited (on average 14.1% 
in the EU-2747). Catalogues are fragmented in terms of titles available, and often in terms of 
language  versions,  with  consumers  in  smaller  countries  generally  having  access  to  less 
content.  This  situation  is  partly  the  result  of  distribution  practices  that  are  largely  based  on 

41 SWD sec. 3.1.4.1. based on VVA et al (2020). 
42 SWD sec. 3.1.4.2 based on VVA et al (2020).  
43 SWD sec. 3.1.4.4 based on VVA et al (2020). 
44 SWD sec. 3.1.4.4 based on VVA et al (2020). 
45 SWD sec. 3.1.4.4 based on VVA et al (2020). 
46 Flash Eurobarometer 477b (2019), compared to 5% and 29% respectively in 2015. 
47 SWD sec. 3.1.5.2 based on JRC (2020).  

10 

 
 
                                                           
territorial  and  exclusive  licensing  in  the  audiovisual  sector  to  raise  production  financing48. 
However,  it  may  also  be  due  to  commercial  practices  segmenting  the  single  market  along 
national  borders49.  The  cross-border  availability  of  audiovisual  content  is  very  low  for 
catalogues of national service providers, which remain largely unavailable in other Member 
States50.  Even  large,  mostly  US-based,  pan-EU  providers  offer  different  catalogues  in 
different  Member  States,  although  their  own  productions  are  more  easily  available  across 
Member States51.  

In  recent  years,  the  EU  has  facilitated  access  to  audiovisual  content  across  borders  by 
addressing certain copyright-related obstacles to the distribution of content. For example, the 
Portability  Regulation52  allows  consumers  to  continue  accessing  their  paid-for  subscription 
service when travelling in the EU. The Online Television and Radio Programmes Directive 
will facilitate the cross-border accessibility of certain television programmes on broadcasters’ 
online services53. On the other hand, given that the Geo-blocking Regulation does not affect 
copyright  law  per  se,  the  effects  of  extension  of  its  scope  to  the  audiovisual  sector  may 
depend on licensing practices54.  

In  particular,  industry  licensing  practices  generally  assume  that  ‘having  requisite  rights’ 
implies  that  content  distributors  must  have  the  rights  for  the  different  countries  where  the 
content is  made available, and that this would  also  apply for ‘passive sales’ (i.e. where the 
service is not actively promoted in the territory of the consumer). Therefore, in this situation, 
there would be very limited impacts on the accessibility of new online audiovisual services 
across  borders  if  the  Regulation  were  to  be  extended.  This  is  because  producers  would 
continue to limit the scope of the licensed rights55, and could be even incentivised to do so to 
prevent  the  Regulation  being  applied  to  the  licensed  distributors.  In  this  context,  extending 
the Regulation to the audiovisual sector means that consumers would mainly switch for price 
reasons (i.e. looking for cheaper offers of content/services that they already have access to), 
and mostly within different versions of pan-EU providers. In the short term, this might lead to 
slightly  positive  overall  welfare  effects  thanks  to  possible  price  arbitrage  by  consumers56, 
without  however  excluding  some  harmonisation  of  prices  adopted  by  providers  as  possible 
mitigation  strategy.  At  the  same  time,    the  possible  loss  of  revenues  by  the  industry  might 
trigger a potentially negative dynamic in the creation, financing, production and distribution 
markets  in  the  mid-long  term  with  related  welfare  impacts  also  in  relation  to  cultural 
diversity57. 

48 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Report from the Commission to the Council and the 
European Parliament on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, SWD(2017)154. 
49 Case AT.40023 – Cross-border access to pay-tv. 
50 Between 7% and 3%, SWD sec. 3.1.5.2 based on JRC (2020). 
51 SWD sec. 3.1.5.2 based on JRC (2020). 
52 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128. 
53 Member States need to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/789 by 7 June 2021. 
54 See SWD sec. 3.1.1 and 3.1.5.1. 
55 See DG COMP sector enquiry (2017) on the scope of licensed rights in AV sector. 
56 SWD sec. 3.1.5.4 based on VVA et al (2020). 
57 SWD sec. 3.1.5.4., based on VVA et al (2020) and Oxera (2016). 

11 

 
 
                                                           
However, the current case-law on this interpretation of copyright legislation is not conclusive, 
and  some  issues  are  still  pending  before  the  CJEU58.  If  distributors  did  not  need  additional 
licences  for  responding  to  unsolicited  requests  from  individual  consumers  from  outside 
territories where they are actively providing the service, this would have implications for the 
impact  analysis.  In  this  case,  cross-border  demand  triggered  by  extending  the  Regulation 
would  also  be  driven  by  consumers  looking  for  new  content  or  language  versions  not 
available in their Member State, not necessarily at a cheaper price. In this scenario, under the 
assumptions  of  the  study,  it  could  be  that  overall  revenues  for  online  service  providers  (at 
least  the  largest  ones)  could  actually  increase,  because  local  content  would  find  new 
audiences  across  borders59.  While  this  market  expansion  could  potentially  lead  to  positive 
overall welfare effects, the impacts of such an expansion on the structure of the industry, on 
the different market players, and on the different Member States are much more difficult to 
predict60  and  further  assessment  is  needed.  For  example,  uncertainty  remains  about  the 
impact of the characteristics of the licences. On the one hand, extending the Regulation could 
trigger growth in pan-EU exclusive licensing61, with possible effects on the structure of the 
concerned  markets.  But  on  the  other  hand,  it  could  also  incentivise  licensing  practices 
focusing on the linguistic and cultural differences of the demand, while allowing spill-over in 
different territories62.  

Overall,  in  a  broader  analysis  of  the  sector  it  is  important  to  take  into  account  that  the 
industry  is  rapidly  changing.  In  economic  terms,  this  means  that  both  short  and  long  term 
effects  need  to  be  considered,  e.g.    when  assessing  investments  incentives,  with  different 
business models and distribution value chains playing a crucial role in content financing and 
distribution.. For example, streaming subscriptions are expected to continue growing steadily 
in the future63, with an increasing number of global and national platforms, investing heavily 
in local content and distributing it across borders, including through partnership agreements.  

Other sectors 

The Commission has examined other sectors not covered by the Regulation, with a view to 
assessing possible unjustified restrictions (applied by traders) which could be tackled through 
the Regulation. 

On transport, the non-discrimination principle is already embedded in existing sector-specific 
EU  legislation,  or  the  passenger  rights  legislation  currently  being  negotiated  for  railways. 
Results  from  the  2019  mystery-shopping  survey  suggest  that  geo-blocking  practices  in 
different transport sectors (airlines, bus, train and maritime) are mostly rare, although they are 
slightly  more  prevalent  in  the  rail  and  maritime  sectors64.  This  suggests  there  is  a  need  to 

58 Case C-132/19 Groupe Canal + v Commission. 
59 SWD sec. 3.1.5.4 based on VVA et al (2020).  
60 SWD sec. 3.1.5.4. and sources reported therein. 
61 SWD sec. 3.1.5.4, for example O&O (2020) models this effect for a significant range of sport events. 
62 SWD sec. 3.1.5.4 Hugenholtz-Poort (2019). 
63 Up to 20% of the paid services in 2023, estimation in VVA et al (2020). 
64 SWD sec. 3.2., based on Ipsos et al (2020). 

12 

 
 
                                                           
ensure  that  the  non-discrimination  clause  proposed  in  the  recast  Rail  Passenger  Rights 
Regulation is quickly approved by the co-legislators. More broadly however, there does not 
appear  to  be  a  need  to  include  transport  services  in  the  Regulation  at  this  stage.  This  is 
because of: (i) the overall rarity of geo-blocking in the transport sector; (ii) the existence of 
specific non-discrimination clauses in other sectoral transport instruments (air, maritime, bus 
and coach); (iii) an upcoming legislative initiative for railways and (iv) the possible impact of 
public service obligations applied in the Member States.  

Financial  services,  telecoms,  and  health  services  all  present  specific  features  that  must  be 
taken  into  account  when  considering  how  to  tackle  possible  unjustified  barriers  to  cross-
border  access  of  these  services65.  For  example  cross-border  provision  may  trigger  sector 
specific  supervisory  requirements  or  may  be  subject  to  some  safeguards  and  additional 
checks that are required or allowed by sector-specific legislation, so that a blanket extension 
of a horizontal instrument such as the Regulation does not appear warranted.   

4.  FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS BY THE COMMISSION 

At this stage, the preliminary view of the Commission is that it is too soon to assess all the 
direct  and  indirect  effects  of  the  implementation  of  the  current  Regulation  and  identify 
amendments  in  this  regard.  Despite  the  slow  implementation,  the  initial  positive  effects 
reported  here  indicate  that  there  is  near-term  potential  for  better  results  over  time,  notably 
through better enforcement  in  Member States.  Moreover, any  possible  synergies with  other 
measures  of  the  digital  single  market  in  enhancing  customer  access  to  offers  should  be 
monitored in the next 12-18 months.  

As far as any extension of the Regulation to electronically supplied services providing access 
to  copyright-protected  content  is  concerned,  further  assessment  and  consideration  is  also 
needed. The analysis shows that geo-blocking in these sectors is driven by different  factors 
and  market  dynamics,  and  that  extension  of  the  Regulation  might  possibly  have  different 
effects in different areas. Any beneficial effects, in particular for consumers, largely depend 
on  copyright-licensing  practices  and  approaches,  which  deserve  further  analysis.  This  is 
particularly the case for the audiovisual sector, where there may indeed be potential relevant 
improvements in terms of availability of content. This supports the need to look at the issue 
of consumers’ access to content, in particular audiovisual content, in the broader context of 
accompanying  the  industry  in  its  recovery  and  transformation  in  the  Commission’s  future 
media  and  audiovisual  action  plan.  The  Commission  will  engage  with  stakeholders  in  a 
dialogue  to  identify  how  to  foster  better  circulation  of  audiovisual  content  across  the  EU, 
while  proposing  actions  to  support  the  industry’s  recovery66.  The  Commission  will  also 

65  Such  as  specific  rules  on  non-discrimination  for  electronic  communications  services,  allowing  for  fair-use 
policies  of  roaming  services,  EU  rules  on  access  to  basic  payment  accounts,  or  patients’  non-discrimination 
rights for health services, see SWD sec. 3.2.-3.5.  
66 For instance for the  AV sector the COVID crisis had immediate effects and is likely to have  also deferred, 
more  profound  effects,  as  noted  by  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory,  which  started  to  track  supporting 
see  https://rm.coe.int/the-european-audiovisual-industry-in-the-time-of-covid-
measures 
19/16809ec9cb. For the immediate effects the Commission intervened with a temporary framework for state aid 
that  has  allowed  Member  States  to  adopt  a  number  of  support  measures  and  sector  specific  measures  in  the 

regard, 

this 

in 

13 

 
 
                                                           
 
pursue its efforts to support the sustainability of other sectors, such as the music sector in the 
framework  of  the  dedicated  initiative  “Music  Moves  Europe”,  based  on  an  integrated 
approach of European support to the sector67. 

In  the  meantime,  eliminating  existing  barriers  and  ending  discrimination  against  customers 
remains  a  priority  of  the  Commission.  The  following  immediate  follow-up  actions  are 
proposed.  

  Firstly,  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  the  full  potential  of  the  current  Regulation  is 
realised.  This  requires:  (i)  full  implementation  by  Member  States;  (ii)  greater 
cooperation  among  competent  authorities  and  the  Commission  within  the  new  CPC 
network;  (iii)  further  guidance  on  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and  on  its 
relationship with the broader non-discrimination framework of the Services Directive.  
  Secondly, there is a need for continued awareness-raising activities among traders and 
consumers about their obligations and rights. The Commission should be involved in 
these activities, alongside stakeholders and competent authorities.  

  Thirdly,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  market  developments  on 
customers’  access  to  offers  in  the  single  market,  also  in  view  of  the  forthcoming 
implementation of other e-commerce measures of the digital-single-market strategy.  
  Finally, the Commission will gather feedback from stakeholders on the conclusions of 
this first short-term report and the underpinning findings and evidence (including on  
the  availability  of  copyright-protected  content).  Stakeholders  could  also  provide 
relevant feedback on the short- and medium-term effects of the COVID-19 crisis that 
could not be taken into account in this report.  

The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the  impact  of  the  regulation  on  the  basis  of 
evidence  collected  and  feedback  from  stakeholders,  as  well  as  implementation  of  DSM 
measures, and aims at taking stock before end of 2022 on progress in further reducing cross-
border  barriers,.  It  will    specifically  assess  the  progress  achieved  on  the  availability  of 
audiovisual  content  following  the  dialogue  with  industry.  The  outcome  of  this  monitoring 
will  determine  whether  the  Commission  will  then  consider  proposing  amendments  to  the 
Regulation or any other follow-up measures, including appropriate legislative intervention. 

frame of the Creative Europe programme i.e. flexibility introduced in the MEDIA actions and an adaptation of 
the  cultural  and  Creative  sectors  guarantee  facility  allowing  for  more  flexibility  with  repayment  of  loans  and 
encouraging financial institutions to lend more money to cultural and creative sectors. Further, the Commission 
adopted an unprecedented recovery plan for Europe to repair and prepare for the next generation, recognizing 
that  the  cultural  and  creative  industries,  including  audiovisual  and  media,  form  an  important  industrial 
ecosystem.    
67 See the measures referred to in SWD sec. 3.1.2.4, taking into account also the post-COVID-19 landscape.  

14