Study on "Support to the observatory for the online platform economy" : final report.
Date: 2021-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Subjects: Internet site, cloud computing, consumer behaviour, data collection, data protection, digital economy, digital single market, electronic commerce, goods and services, provision of services, search engine, trade intermediary

 Study on "Support to the 
Observatory for the Online Platform 
Economy" 

 Final report 

[Written by] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The study was implemented by  

PPMI (the lead partner)  

Open Evidence 

Rand Europe and 

German Economic Institute (IW) 

Contract number: No LC-01109125    
SMART 2018/0034 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 
Digital Transformation 
Digital services and Platforms  

Contact: cnect-f2@ec.europa.eu 
European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels  

By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology and Directorate-
General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. 

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. 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

No third-party textual or artistic material is included in the publication without the Copyright holder’s prior consent to further 
dissemination. 

2021 – European Union. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study on "Support to the 
Observatory for the Online Platform 
Economy" 

Final report 

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 

2021 

 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. The Commission does 
not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. More information on the European Union is available on the 
Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF 

ISBN: 978-92-76-36345-3 

Doi: 10.2759/801457 

Catalogue number: KK-08-21-099-EN-N 

Manuscript completed in March, 2021 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021  

© European Union, 2021  

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  
12  December  2011  on  the  reuse  of  Commission  documents  (OJ  L  330,  14.12.2011,  p.  39).  Except  otherwise  noted,  the 
reuse  of  this  document  is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  (CC-BY  4.0)  licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).  This  means  that  reuse  is  allowed  provided  appropriate  credit  is  given  and 
any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought 
directly from the respective rightholders.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 8 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 9 

RÉSUMÉ ..................................................................................................................... 14 

RÉSUMÉ ANALYTIQUE .................................................................................................. 15 

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. 21 

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ................................................................................................... 22 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 28 

1. 

TASK 1: ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN PLATFORM ECONOMY .................. 29 

a. 
b. 
c. 

Introduction ............................................................................................... 29 
Measurement of the online platform economy ................................................ 29 
Monitoring of the implementation of the P2B Regulation .................................. 33 

2. 

TASK  2:  EVIDENCE  GATHERING  AND  HIGH-LEVEL  DATA  ANALYSIS  OF  EMERGING 
ISSUES IN THE ONLINE PLATFORM ECONOMY ......................................................... 34 

a. 
b. 

c. 
d. 

Data collection ........................................................................................... 34 
Analytical paper #6: The structure of the online platform economy post COVID-
19 outbreak ............................................................................................... 35 
Analytical paper #7: Multi-homing: obstacles, opportunities, facilitating factors.. 38 
Analytical  paper  #8:  Developments  concerning  B2B  platforms  and  emerging 
issues ....................................................................................................... 45 

3. TASK 3: ONLINE INFORMATION TOOL ........................................................................ 48 

a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 

The structure and functionalities of the online tool and portal ........................... 48 
Managing, maintaining and updating the portal .............................................. 50 
Website promotion activities ........................................................................ 50 
Website visitor entries ................................................................................. 55 

LIST OF ANNEXES 

Annex 1. List of platforms monitored under Task 1 

Annex 2. Measuring the online platform economy 

Annex 3. Monitoring the implementation of the Platform to Business Regulation 

Annex 4. Business user survey: methodological report 

Annex 5. Business user survey: descriptive analysis 

Annex 6. Analytical papers 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Traffic share of the 50 selected Online platforms .........................................31 

Figure 2. Visual representation of the promotional campaign......................................51 

Figure 3. Communications messages of Facebook ads campaigns ...............................52 

LIST OF TABLES  

Table 1. Dimensions to measure the online platform economy ...................................30 

Table 2. Indicators to measure the online platform economy ......................................31 

Table 3. Targeting parameters of Facebook ads campaigns ........................................52 

Table 4. Key Facebook ads metrics .........................................................................53 

Table 5. Posts in relevant Facebook groups ..............................................................54 

Table 6. Posts on Reddit and LinkedIn .....................................................................55 

Table 7. Platforms and business users in the panels ..................................................67 

LIST OF BOXES 

Box 1. Flagged issue: case 1 ..................................................................................56 

Box 2. Flagged issue: case 2 ..................................................................................56 

Box 3. Flagged issue: case 3 ..................................................................................57 

Box 4. Flagged issue: case 4 ..................................................................................58 

Box 5. Flagged issue: case 5 ..................................................................................59 

Box 6. Flagged issue: case 6 ..................................................................................59 

Box 7. Flagged issue: case 7 ..................................................................................61 

Box 8. Flagged issue: case 8 ..................................................................................62 

Box 9. Flagged issue: case 9 ..................................................................................62 

Box 10. Flagged issue: case 10 ..............................................................................63 

Box 11. Flagged issue: case 11 ..............................................................................63 

Box 12. Flagged issue: case 12 ..............................................................................64 

Box 13. Flagged issue: case 13 ..............................................................................64 

Box 14. Flagged issue: case 14 ..............................................................................65 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AI 
API 
B2B 
B2C 
CCIA 
CHAFEA 
DG CNECT 
DG EMPL 
DG RTD 
DG SANTE 
EC 
EEAS 
EU 
GDPR 
GIPO 
ICT 
IW 
JRC 
MFN 
ODR 
OE 
OLI 
OPE 
P2B 
SBS 
SME 
SWD 
T&C 

Artificial Inlelligence 
Application Programming Interface 
Business-to-business 
Business-to-customer 
Computer and Communications Industry Association 
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency 
DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 
DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
DG for Research and Innovation 
DG for Food and Safety 
European Commission 
European External Action Service 
European Union 
The EU General Data Protection Regulation 
Global Internet Policy Observatory 
Information and communication technologies 
German Economic Institute 
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 
Most favoured nation 
Online Dispute Resolution 
Open Evidence 
Online Labour Index 
Online Platform Economy 
Platform-to-business 
Structural business statistics 
Small or medium enterprise 
Staff Working Document  
Terms and conditions 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The  Observatory  on  the  Online  Platform  Economy  monitors  the  evolution  of  the  online 
platform economy, to advise and support the Commission in its policy  making in relation to 
online  platforms.  The  Observatory  looks  into  the  current  and  emerging  challenges  and 
opportunities for the EU; it also monitors the implementation of the Regulation on promoting 
fairness and transparency for business users of online platforms (P2B Regulation). 

The  Observatory  consists  of  a  group  of  independent  experts  and  a  dedicated  team  of 
Commission  officials,  supported  in its  work  by  the study  on  ‘Support to the  Observatory  on 
the  Online  Platform  Economy’.  The  study  was  implemented  in  2018-2020.  The  study  team 
undertook  an  economic  overview  of  the  European  platform  economy,  implemented  eight 
analytical papers, and developed an online tool that was used to present the activities of the 
Observatory and to reach out to stakeholders. 

8 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

In this executive summary, we present the highlights of the three tasks implemented by the 
team conducting the study on ‘Support to the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy’: 

  Task 1: Economic overview of the European platform economy 

  Task  2:  Evidence  gathering  and  high-level  data  analysis  of  emerging  issues  in  the 

online platform economy 

  Task 3: Online information tool 

The  objective  of  Task  1  was  to  provide  an  economic  overview  of  the  European  online 
platform economy, and to monitor its evolution. At the core of this task was the creation and 
continuous updating of the Data Lab, a database of indicators on online platforms, business 
users and business models. The Data Lab drew on multiple structured and unstructured data 
sources, and used a variety of techniques to produce an output consisting of relational data, 
graphs, texts, tables and infographics.  

In  order  to  measure  the  online  platform  economy,  we  developed  a  conceptual  framework 
consisting  of  three  dimensions:  economic  significance,  power  over  users,  and  the 
consequences  of  platforms’  power.  These  dimensions  were  operationalised  further  on  the 
basis  of  a number  of sub-dimensions  and more specific  indicators. The data were  updated 
continuously,  and  are  presented  in  the  ‘State  of  play’  section  of  the  Platform  Observatory 
website (www.platformobservatory.eu/state-of-play).  

As part of Task 1, between late 2020 and early 2021, we conducted preliminary monitoring of 
the implementation of the EU Platform-to-Business Regulation (P2B Regulation), drawing on 
a review of the terms and conditions of a sample of platforms, the results of the second wave 
of the business user survey, and a review of the issues reported on the Platform Observatory 
website. Based on this monitoring we identified three categories of platforms: 

  Platforms  that  appear  to  be  within  the  scope  of  P2B  Regulation  and  whose  T&Cs 
seem to have been adapted in response to the application of the P2B Regulation, or 
contain information on its provisions. 

  Platforms  that  appear  to  be  within the  scope  of P2B  Regulation and whose  publicly 
accessible  T&Cs  do  not  seem  to  have  been  adapted,  and  do  not  provide 
transparency on a number of topics covered by the P2B Regulation. 

  Platforms  which may  or  may  not  be  within  the  scope of  P2B  Regulation and whose 
T&Cs do not seem to have been adapted or updated in response to the application of 
the Regulation. 

The  businesses  surveyed  in  the  business  user  survey  had  not  noticed  any  significant 
changes  in  the  transparency  provided  by  the  platforms  they  use,  and  the  majority  of  them 
experienced  practices  that  appear  consistent  with  the  Regulation  (e.g.  advance  notice  of 
changes in the terms, and in the case of termination). Information on the effectiveness of the 
internal  complaint-handling mechanisms  was  not  yet  available.  Some  information  regarding 
issues related to the implementation of P2B Regulation was reported in business user online 
forums and on the Observatory website (the ‘Flag your issue’ functionality). These related to 
unexplained  account  restrictions  or  the  suspension  of  listings,  as  well  as  to  the  lack  of 
effective complaint-handling mechanisms. 

For Task 2, we produced eight analytical papers: 

  AP1: Platform data access and secondary data sources 

  AP2: Differentiated treatment of business users by online platforms 

9 

 
 
  AP3:  Transparency  in  the  business-to  business  commercial  relations  in  the  online 

advertising market 

  AP4: Online platforms with significant/strategic market status 

  AP5: Business user and third-party access to online platform data 

  AP6: Structure of the online platform economy post-COVID-19 outbreak 

  AP7: Multi-homing: obstacles, opportunities, facilitating factors 

  AP8: Developments concerning B2B platforms and emerging issues 

AP1:  Platform  data  access  and  secondary  data  sources:  our  research  showed  that  a 
significant  share  of  business  users1  express  dissatisfaction  with  regard  to  the  level  of  data 
access provided to them by online platforms. The business user survey showed that access 
to the data possessed by online platforms is of concern to around one-third of business users 
surveyed, who reported that they cannot access at least some data that is essential to their 
business. Generally, although the platforms collect and analyse large quantities of data, only 
a fraction of this is provided to other players. The platforms do not share either  the raw big 
data on day-to-day activities, or detailed data on customers and competitors. 

Businesses  that  need  more  data  than  they  can  obtain  from  platforms  pursue  two  broad 
strategies: (1) collect and analyse data themselves, from sources available to them; (2) rely 
on third-party providers (data brokers). Four-fifths of respondents to the business user survey 
(81%) indicated that they collected some data themselves; the most prevalent type of data is 
identification  details  of  own  customers  (57%  of  respondents  reported  collecting  such  data). 
This  is  followed  by  business  performance  data  (55%),  and  analysis  of  market  trends/ 
developments (55%). Furthermore, one-third of the companies surveyed (33%) reported that 
they use third-party sources (data brokers). Most of our interviewees – particularly those in 
the  e-commerce  sector  –  reported  using  the  services  of  third-party  data  and  analytics 
providers  (data brokers),  which allow  them  to  learn about their competitors, gain a  detailed 
market overview, and obtain actionable insights. 

AP2:  Differentiated  treatment  of  business  users  by  online  platforms:  defined  as 
applying dissimilar conditions to similar business users – can occur for different reasons. On 
the  one  hand,  the  technical  or  regulatory  framework  may  make  such  platform  behaviour 
necessary. On the other hand, online platforms may use differentiated treatment to increase 
their  revenues.  This  includes  platform  behaviour  that  aims  to  increase  the  benefits  for 
consumers,  e.g.  by  offering  individualised  services  or  ensuring  the  high  quality  of  the 
transactions  facilitated.  However,  differentiated  treatment  can  also  be  aimed  at  increasing 
revenue  for  the  platform  without  benefitting  its  consumers.  In  such  cases,  differentiated 
treatment undermines competition between the business users of online platforms and  – in 
case of vertically integrated platforms – between business users and the platform itself.  

AP3:  Transparency  in  the  business-to  business  commercial  relations  in  the  online 
advertising  market:  the  rise  of  online  advertising  and  programmatic  technologies  has 
significantly  impacted  the  functioning  of  (and  revenues  from)  advertising.  Programmatic 
advertising is the automation of the buying and selling of ad inventory using audience data to 
enable advertisers to show relevant ads to the audience at the right time and place. On the 
one hand, the automated trading of advertising has allowed supply and demand to be better 
matched,  enabling  publishers  to  sell  their  inventory  and  advertisers  to  easily  reach  a  large 
audience  on  different  websites.  On  the  other  hand,  the  distribution  of  digital  ad  spend 
revenues shows the increasing domination of a few players in the online advertising market, 
namely the online platforms. The vertical integration of online platforms and  their access to 
vast amounts of data provides them with competitive advantages and enables them to act as 

1  The  final  sample  size  of  the  business  user  survey  was  1,667  responses  from  nine  EU  Member  States.  In 
addition    41 interviews with business user were run. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
gatekeepers to business users. In addition, the automation of programmatic advertising has 
raised  concerns  about  the  transparency  of  processes  along  the  supply  chain  such  as  ad 
exchanges, ad placements, and the fees of intermediaries. The opacity of the ad tech value 
chain,  including  the  reliance  on  algorithms  and  the  vast  array  of  service  firms,  also  makes 
open  programmatic  advertising  ripe  for  fraud,  at  the  expense  of  advertisers.  To  address 
these  issues,  the  paper  suggested  remedies  including  responses  at  policy  level,  industry 
level and individual level. 

AP4:  Online  platforms  with  significant/strategic  market  status:  Evidence  from  the 
literature,  as  well  as  expert  opinions,  suggest  that  emerging  approaches  to  identifying  the 
market power of online platforms are still at an early stage in their development, with limited 
evidence as to how they may be used in practice. Further evidence is needed to determine 
whether  these  approaches  achieve  the  intended  market  outcomes  (e.g.  in  terms  of  market 
competitiveness,  or  effects  on  the  local  or  regional  economy).  At  present,  the  emerging 
approaches  appear  focused  on  the  economic,  regulatory  and  competition  aspects  of  the 
online  platform  economy.  Experts  suggest  that  the  emerging  approaches  also  need  to 
consider  broader  social  and  political  impacts  on  the  online  platform  ecosystem  when 
identifying  if  an  online  platform  has  strategic/significant  market  status.  Given  the  systemic 
interdependencies between online platforms, it is unlikely that a single emerging approach on 
its own will be effective in practice.  

AP5:  Business  user  and  third-party  access  to  online  platform  data:  Platforms  provide 
their  business  users  with  data  that  is  sufficient  to  process  transactions  and  manage  their 
business  (e.g.  data  about  their  own  listings,  prices,  sales,  transactions  and  business 
performance).  Platforms  also  provide  some  data  about  direct  customers.  Most  major 
platforms  also  share  some  data  about  the  broader  market,  including  overall  market  trends, 
best-selling  products  and  customer  profiles,  although  the  type  and  granularity  of  such 
information  differs  from  platform  to  platform.  Overall,  the  major  platforms  compete  for  their 
business users, and thus various metrics and dashboards are part of their value proposition. 
These metrics and dashboards are designed to help business users to know their customers, 
monitor their own business performance, and understand the broader market trends.  

However,  some  data  usually  is  not  provided  by  the  platforms,  despite  demand  from  their 
business users. Firstly, this concerns customer nominal data and contact details (especially 
pertinent to e-commerce and for Online Travel Agencies (OTAs). Secondly, the granularity of 
data  concerning  customer  profiles  is  also  often  considered  insufficient  by  businesses.  The 
key arguments made by the platforms for not providing customer data include personal data 
protection, as well as risks to the platforms’ own business models, because businesses who 
can contact their customers directly may decide to bypass the platform. Furthermore, some 
platforms argue that access to customer identification details may be used by businesses to 
send unwanted marketing messages. The majority of the businesses interviewed disagreed 
with these arguments. For example, they indicated that data protection can be managed at 
the level of individual businesses, as long as customers are kept well-informed and have the 
option to choose (opt-in) what specific uses are made of their data. 

When taking decisions to share or not to share data, online platforms must reconcile several 
competing  and  potentially  conflicting  imperatives.  If  a  specific  dataset  is  at  the  core  of  a 
platform’s  business  model,  it  is  unlikely  to  be  shared.  For  this  reason,  platforms  will  be 
reluctant  to  share  datasets  that  could  be  used  to  undermine  their  role  as  leading 
intermediaries  in  two-sided  markets.  Vertically  integrated  platforms  are  unlikely  to  share 
detailed  market-level  data,  which  could  assist  the  emergence  of  new  competitors  in  their 
market.  Yet  these  platforms  also  make  internal  decisions  on  what  information  from  their 
marketplace/app  store  can  or  cannot  be  shared  with  the  retail/app  development  division. 
Such  decisions  are  of  crucial  importance to many  businesses  that  compete  with the  goods 
and services sold by the platform itself. In addition, when taking decisions on data sharing, 
platforms consider the global competition. For example, several interviewees from platforms 
pointed out that they have detected abusive bots originating from China, crawling their pages 
or trying to use their APIs. Platforms see Chinese marketplaces as serious competitors that 

11 

 
 
are  not  competing  on  a  level  playing  field,  as  they  are  in  the  position  to  disregard  many 
regulations  with  which  European  companies  must  comply.  Finally,  the  lack  of  technical 
interoperability  between  different  platforms  is  also  a  constraint  impeding  data  sharing  and 
data portability.  

AP6:  Structure  of  the  online  platform  economy  post-COVID-19  outbreak:  Due  to 
COVID-19-related  lockdowns  and  social  distancing  measures,  many  activities  (work, 
communication,  education,  entertainment)  have  had  to  move  online,  increasing  the  use  of 
online services and their breadth of users. The closure of physical shops and restrictions on 
movement  have  created  economic  disruptions  and  severely  affected  those  sectors  most 
dependent on in-person activities such as the tourism, hospitality, transportation and event-
focused  sectors.  While  the  digitalisation  of  businesses  was  already  underway  across 
numerous sectors,  the  pandemic  has  considerably  accelerated  this  transition,  and  one  can 
expect  the  businesses  that  have  digitalised  their  processes,  moved  to  online  business 
models or increased their use of online platforms, will keep these in place beyond the crisis. 
Due  to  the  increase  in  the  use  of  online  platforms  for  work,  sales,  communication  and 
entertainment,  the  top  platforms  in  these  sectors  have  seen  an  increase  in  their  revenues 
during  2020.  Despite  the  COVID-19  crisis,  the  top  platforms  (Google,  Amazon,  Facebook, 
Apple, Microsoft) have also maintained the pace of their mergers & acquisitions activities in 
2020, demonstrating a continuation of their strategy to consolidate their core segments and 
expand into adjacent products and services. 

The COVID-19 crisis has confirmed the importance of digital services and online platforms in 
mitigating disruptions to physical activities; however, it also exposed their vulnerabilities with 
regard  to  containing  illegal  and  harmful  practices  online  such  as  scams,  false  claims  of 
cures, and disinformation. A range of new legislative initiatives and strategies have recently 
been unveiled by the Commission, addressing pre-existing issues that have been amplified 
by  the  pandemic  and  attempting  to  address  the  increasing  digitalisation  of  consumer  and 
business activities accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis. 

AP7: Multi-homing: obstacles, opportunities, facilitating factors: Most business users of 
online  platforms  (sellers,  producers,  content  creators,  advertisers,  hoteliers)  tend  to  multi-
home  in  the  sense  of  using  more  than  one  platform  to  sell  their  goods  and  services.  The 
extent of multi-homing varies depending on the specific market and the nature of the good or 
service  offered.  For  example,  if  a  business  sells  a  unique  product  that  is  the  best  fit  for  a 
specific, dedicated platform (e.g. handicrafts on Etsy, classic cars on eBay), such a business 
is  more  likely  to  single-home.  More  than  half  of  app  developers  single-home,  given  the 
complexities  of  developing  apps  for  the  different  and  incompatible  operating  systems  and 
app stores (Google Play, Apple App Store). 

Our analysis revealed cases in which actions taken by online platforms to ensure the loyalty 
of their business or end users (in effect, to foster single-homing) have become an issue from 
the  perspectives  of  public  interest  and  public  policy.  These  include  deliberate  actions  by 
platforms  that  wield  significant  market  power,  and  use  such  power  to  nudge  businesses to 
make choices that they would be unlikely to make in competitive markets. Online platforms 
consolidate  their  market  power  by  drawing  on  network  effects,  data  access  and  product 
innovation. Some platforms (e.g. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple) have also engaged in 
the  development  of  large  integrated  ecosystems  by  copying,  buying  out,  integrating  or 
discontinuing  competitor  platforms  as  well  as  using  exclusive  agreements  with  other 
platforms  or  market  players  to  entrench  their  dominant  position.  It  is  extremely  difficult  for 
new  platforms  to  enter  such  markets,  even  for  those  newcomers  pursuing  a  differentiation 
strategy. This limits the scope for innovation in the market, and deters possible entrants even 
further. 

Even  the  markets  where  businesses  appear  to  multi-home  are  clearly  dominated  by  one 
platform  –  for  example,  Amazon  in  ecommerce,  Booking.com  in  hotel  accommodation, 
Airbnb  in  short  term  accommodation,  Google  Search  in  online  search  and  advertising, 
Facebook in social media advertising; or by two platforms, as is the case among app stores, 

12 

 
 
with Google Play and Apple App Store. Markets have ‘tipped’, with some platforms creating 
ecosystems  within  which  most  end  users  find  it  convenient  to  single-home.  From  the 
perspective of business users, while there may be a variety of platforms operating within the 
pertinent markets, it still feels like single-homing. 

AP8:  Developments  concerning  B2B  platforms  and  emerging  issues:  Analysis  of  the 
literature  and  engagement  with  stakeholders  suggest  that  B2B  platform  services,  their 
characteristics,  and  the  regulatory  issues  surrounding  their  operations,  are  still  at  an  early 
stage of discussion. There is evidence in the literature which details the challenges faced by 
business  users,  including  issues  relating  to  power  imbalances,  particularly  for  small  and 
medium-sized  businesses.  In  addition,  the  use  of  data,  as  well  as  technical  and  legal 
obstacles relating to its use  and  transfer,  is  a topic  of  increasing  importance. Gaps  exist  in 
the literature concerning specific types of B2B platform services, including cloud services and 
cloud infrastructure services, as well as services relating to the industrial Internet of Things. 
There  was  consensus  among  interviewees  that  further  investigation  was  required  in  areas 
such as: the role and influence of platform intermediaries, the effects of self-preferencing by 
platforms, and the potential for establishing standards on data interoperability.  

Lastly, the online information tool at www.platformobservatory.eu was designed to:  

  Serve as an interface between stakeholders, the expert group and the Commission. 

  Present  in  a  succinct  and  interactive  manner  the  state  of  play  in  online  platform 

economy (emerging issues, key trends, indicators, policy initiatives). 

  Offer access to the various analyses and findings of the study. 

  Offer information on the complaint-handling and redress mechanisms put in place by 

the platforms. 

  Provide  a  space  for  business  users  to  anonymously  flag  problems  they  have 
encountered  in  dealing  with  online  platforms,  and  for  platforms  to  flag  issues  with 
business users. 

13 

 
 
 
 
Étude  sur  le  « Soutien  à l’Observatoire  sur l’économie  des  plateformes  en 
ligne » 

Résumé 

L’Observatoire  sur  l’économie  des  plateformes  en  ligne  surveille  l’évolution  de  l’économie 
des plateformes en ligne, afin de conseiller et de soutenir la Commission dans l’élaboration 
de ses politiques relatives aux plateformes en ligne. L’Observatoire examine les défis et les 
opportunités  actuels  et  émergents  pour  l’UE.  Il  surveille  également  la  mise  en  œuvre  du 
règlement visant à promouvoir l’équité et la transparence pour les utilisateurs professionnels 
de plateformes en ligne (règlement P2B). 

L’Observatoire est composé d’un groupe d’experts indépendants et d’une équipe dédiée de 
fonctionnaires  de  la  Commission,  soutenus  dans  leur  travail  par  l’étude  sur  le  « Soutien  à 
l’Observatoire sur l’économie des plateformes en ligne ». L’étude a été mise en œuvre entre 
2018 et 2020. L’équipe chargée de l’étude a entrepris de dresser un aperçu de l’économie 
des  plateformes  européennes,  élaboré  huit  documents  analytiques  (DA)  et  développé  un 
outil en ligne utilisé pour présenter les activités de l’Observatoire et pour communiquer avec 
les parties prenantes. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Résumé analytique  

Dans  ce  résumé  analytique,  nous  présentons  les  points  forts  des  trois  tâches  mises  en 
œuvre par l’équipe chargée de l’étude sur le « Soutien à l’Observatoire sur l’économie des 
plateformes en ligne » : 

  Tâche 1 : Aperçu de l’économie des plateformes européennes 

  Tâche 2 :  Collecte  de  preuves  et  analyse  de  données  de  haut  niveau  sur  les 

questions émergentes dans l’économie des plateformes en ligne 

  Tâche 3 : Outil d’information en ligne 

L’objectif  de  la  tâche 1  était  de  fournir  un  aperçu  de  l’économie  des  plateformes  en  ligne 
européennes et de suivre son évolution. La création et la mise à jour continue du Data Lab, 
base de données d’indicateurs sur les plateformes en ligne, les utilisateurs commerciaux et 
les modèles commerciaux, étaient au cœur de cette tâche. Le Data Lab s’est appuyé sur de 
nombreuses  sources  de  données  structurées  et  non  structurées  et  a  utilisé  diverses 
techniques pour produire un résultat composé de données relationnelles, de graphiques, de 
textes, de tableaux et d’infographies.  

Afin  de  mesurer  l’économie  des  plateformes  en  ligne,  nous  avons  développé  un  cadre 
conceptuel  composé  de  trois  dimensions :  l’importance  économique,  le  pouvoir  sur  les 
utilisateurs  et  les  conséquences  du  pouvoir  des  plateformes.  Ces  dimensions  ont  été 
opérationnalisées sur la base d’un certain nombre de sous-dimensions et d’indicateurs plus 
spécifiques.  Les  données  ont  été  mises  à  jour  en  permanence  et  sont  présentées  dans  la 
section « State of play » (État de la situation) du site Web de l’Observatoire des plateformes 
(www.platformobservatory.eu/state-of-play).  

Dans le cadre de la tâche 1, entre la fin de l’année 2020 et le début de l’année 2021, nous 
avons  effectué  un  suivi  préliminaire  de  la  mise  en  œuvre  du  règlement  « Platform  to 
Business »  (également  appelé  règlement  P2B),  en  nous  appuyant  sur  un  examen  des 
conditions générales d’un échantillon de plateformes, sur les résultats de la deuxième vague 
de  l’enquête  auprès  des  utilisateurs  professionnels  et  sur  un  examen  des  problèmes 
signalés  sur  le  site  Web  de  l’Observatoire  des  plateformes.  Sur  la  base  de  ce  suivi,  nous 
avons identifié trois catégories de plateformes : 

  Les  plateformes  qui  semblent  relever  du  champ  d’application  du  règlement  P2B  et 
dont les conditions générales semblent avoir été adaptées en réponse à l’application 
du règlement P2B ou contiennent des informations sur ses dispositions. 

  Les  plateformes  qui  semblent  relever  du  champ  d’application  du  règlement  P2B  et 
dont  les  conditions  générales  accessibles  au  public  ne  semblent  pas  avoir  été 
adaptées  et  ne  fournissent  pas  de  transparence  sur  un  certain  nombre  de  sujets 
couverts par le règlement P2B. 

  Les  plateformes  qui  peuvent  ou  non  relever  du  champ  d’application  du  règlement 
P2B et dont les conditions générales ne semblent pas avoir été adaptées ou mises à 
jour en réponse à l’application du règlement. 

Les entreprises interrogées dans le cadre de l’enquête auprès des utilisateurs professionnels 
n’avaient  pas  remarqué  de  changements  significatifs  dans  la  transparence  fournie  par  les 
plateformes qu’elles utilisent. La majorité d’entre elles ont connu des pratiques qui semblent 
conformes  au  règlement  (par  exemple,  notification  préalable  de  la  modification  des 
conditions et en cas de résiliation). Les informations sur l’efficacité des mécanismes internes 
de  traitement  des  plaintes  n’étaient  pas  encore  disponibles.  Certaines  informations 
concernant des problèmes liés à la mise en œuvre du règlement P2B ont été signalées dans 
les  forums  en  ligne  des  utilisateurs  professionnels  et  sur  le  site  Web  de  l’Observatoire 
(fonctionnalité  « Flag  your  issue »,  « Signalez  votre  problème »).  Elles  concernaient  des 

15 

 
 
restrictions  de  compte  inexpliquées  ou  la  suspension  de  cotations,  ainsi  que  l’absence  de 
mécanismes efficaces de traitement des plaintes. 

Pour la tâche 2, nous avons produit huit documents analytiques : 

  DA1 : Accès aux données de plateforme et sources de données secondaires 

  DA2 :  Traitement  différencié  des  utilisateurs  professionnels  par  les  plateformes  en 

ligne 

  DA3 :  Transparence  dans  les  relations  commerciales  interentreprises  sur  le  marché 

de la publicité en ligne 

  DA4 : Plateformes en ligne avec un statut de marché important/stratégique 

  DA5 : Accès des utilisateurs professionnels et des tiers aux données des plateformes 

en ligne 

  DA6 : Structure de l’économie des plateformes en ligne après l’épidémie de COVID-

19 

  DA7 : Multihébergement : obstacles, opportunités, facteurs de facilitation 

  DA8 : Développements concernant les plateformes B2B et questions émergentes 

DA1 :  Accès  aux  données  de  plateforme  et  sources  de  données  secondaires :  nos 
recherches  indiquent  qu’une  part  importante  des  utilisateurs  professionnels2  se  disent 
insatisfaits  du  niveau  d’accès  aux  données  que  leur  offrent  les  plateformes  en  ligne. 
L’enquête réalisée auprès des utilisateurs professionnels a montré que l’accès aux données 
détenues  par  les  plateformes  en  ligne  préoccupe  environ  un  tiers  des  utilisateurs 
professionnels  interrogés,  qui  ont  déclaré  ne  pas  pouvoir  accéder  à  au  moins  certaines 
données  essentielles  à  leur  entreprise.  En  règle  générale,  bien  que  les  plateformes 
collectent et analysent de grandes quantités de données, seule une fraction de celles-ci est 
fournie  aux  autres  acteurs.  Les  plateformes  ne  partagent  ni  les  « big  data »  brutes  sur  les 
activités quotidiennes, ni les données détaillées sur les clients et les concurrents. 

Les  entreprises  qui  ont  besoin  de  plus  de  données  qu’elles  ne  peuvent  en  obtenir  des 
plateformes poursuivent deux grandes stratégies : (1) collecter et analyser les données elles-
mêmes, à partir des sources dont elles disposent ; (2) s’en remettre à des fournisseurs tiers 
(courtiers  en  données).  Quatre  cinquièmes  des  personnes  interrogées  dans  le  cadre  de 
l’enquête  réalisée  auprès  des  utilisateurs  professionnels  (81 %)  ont  indiqué  qu’elles 
collectaient  elles-mêmes  certaines  données.  Le  type  de  données  le  plus  fréquent  est  celui 
des  données  d’identification  de  leurs  propres  clients  (57 %  des  personnes  interrogées  ont 
déclaré  avoir  collecté  ce  type  de  données).  Viennent  ensuite  les  données  sur  les 
performances  des  entreprises  (55 %)  et  l’analyse  des  tendances/évolutions  du  marché 
(55 %). En outre, un tiers des entreprises interrogées (33 %) ont déclaré utiliser des sources 
tierces (courtiers en données). La plupart des personnes interrogées (en particulier celles du 
secteur  du  commerce  électronique)  ont  déclaré  utiliser  les  services  de  fournisseurs  de 
données et d’analyses tiers (courtiers en données), qui leur permettent de se renseigner sur 
leurs  concurrents,  d’avoir  un  aperçu  détaillé  du  marché  et  d’obtenir  des  informations 
exploitables. 

2L'échantillon final de l'enquête auprès des utilisateurs professionnels était de 1 667 réponses provenant de neuf 
États membres de l'UE. En outre, 41 entretiens avec des utilisateurs professionnels ont été menés. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
DA2 :  Traitement  différencié  des  utilisateurs  professionnels  par  les  plateformes  en 
ligne : défini comme l’application de conditions différentes à des utilisateurs professionnels 
similaires,  peut  se  produire  pour  différentes  raisons.  D’une  part,  le  cadre  technique  ou 
réglementaire  peut  rendre  nécessaire  ce  comportement  de  plateforme.  D’autre  part,  les 
plateformes en ligne peuvent utiliser le traitement différencié pour augmenter leurs revenus. 
Il  peut  s’agir  d’un  comportement  de  plateforme  visant  à  accroître  les  avantages  pour  les 
consommateurs,  par  exemple  en  offrant  des  services  personnalisés  ou  en  garantissant  la 
haute qualité des transactions facilitées. Cependant, le traitement différencié peut également 
viser à augmenter les revenus de la plateforme sans profiter à ses consommateurs. Dans ce 
cas,  le  traitement  différencié  nuit  à  la  concurrence  entre  les  utilisateurs  professionnels  des 
plateformes  en  ligne  et  (dans  le  cas  de  plateformes  à  intégration  verticale)  entre  les 
utilisateurs professionnels et la plateforme elle-même.   

DA3 : Transparence dans les relations commerciales interentreprises sur le marché de 
la publicité en ligne : l’essor de la publicité en ligne et des technologies programmatiques a 
eu un impact significatif sur le fonctionnement de la publicité (et les revenus qu’elle génère). 
La  publicité  programmatique  est  l’automatisation  de  l’achat  et  de  la  vente  d’un  inventaire 
publicitaire à l’aide des données d’audience pour permettre aux annonceurs de montrer des 
publicités pertinentes au public, au bon moment et au bon endroit. D’une part, le commerce 
automatisé  de  la  publicité  a  permis  une  meilleure  adéquation  de  l’offre  et  de  la  demande, 
permettant  aux  éditeurs de  vendre  leur  inventaire et  aux  annonceurs  d’atteindre facilement 
un  large  public  sur  différents  sites  Web.  D’autre  part,  la  répartition  des  revenus  des 
dépenses publicitaires numériques montre la domination croissante de quelques acteurs sur 
le  marché  de  la  publicité  en  ligne,  à  savoir  les  plateformes  en  ligne.  L’intégration  verticale 
des plateformes en ligne et leur accès à de grandes quantités de données leur procurent des 
avantages  concurrentiels  et  leur  permettent  d’assumer  un  rôle  de  surveillance  auprès  des 
utilisateurs  professionnels.  En  outre,  l’automatisation  de  la  publicité  programmatique  a 
suscité  des  inquiétudes  quant  à  la  transparence  des  processus  tout  au  long  de  la  chaîne 
logistique, tels que les échanges et les placements d’annonces ainsi que les honoraires des 
intermédiaires.  L’opacité  de  la  chaîne  de  valeur  de  la  technologie  publicitaire,  y  compris  la 
dépendance aux algorithmes et le large éventail de sociétés de services, rend également la 
publicité  programmatique  ouverte  propice  à  la  fraude,  au  détriment  des  annonceurs.  Pour 
aborder  ces  problèmes,  le  document  a  suggéré  des  solutions,  incluant  des  réponses  aux 
niveaux politique, industriel et individuel. 

DA4 :  Plateformes  en  ligne  avec  un  statut  de  marché  important/stratégique :  les 
données  probantes tirées  de  la documentation, ainsi  que  les avis  d’experts,  suggèrent que 
les approches émergentes pour identifier le pouvoir de marché des plateformes en ligne sont 
encore  à  un  stade  précoce  de  leur  développement,  avec  des  preuves  limitées  quant  à  la 
façon  dont  elles  peuvent  être  utilisées  dans  la  pratique.  D’autres  éléments  de  preuve  sont 
nécessaires pour déterminer si ces approches permettent d’atteindre les résultats escomptés 
sur  le  marché  (par  exemple,  en  matière  de  compétitivité  du  marché  ou  d’effets  sur 
l’économie  locale  ou  régionale).  À  l’heure  actuelle,  les  approches  émergentes  semblent 
axées  sur  les  aspects  économiques,  réglementaires  et  concurrentiels  de  l’économie  des 
plateformes  en  ligne.  Les  experts  suggèrent  que  les  approches  émergentes  doivent 
également prendre en compte les impacts sociaux et politiques plus larges sur l’écosystème 
des plateformes en ligne lorsqu’il s’agit de déterminer si une plateforme en ligne a un statut 
de marché stratégique/important. Compte tenu des interdépendances systémiques entre les 
plateformes en ligne, il est peu probable qu’une seule approche émergente soit efficace en 
pratique.  

DA5 : Accès des utilisateurs professionnels et des tiers aux données des plateformes 
en  ligne :  les  plateformes  fournissent  à  leurs  utilisateurs  professionnels  des  données 
suffisantes  pour  traiter  les  transactions  et  gérer  leurs  activités  (par  exemple  des  données 
détaillées  sur 
transactions  et  performances 
commerciales).  Les  plateformes  fournissent  également  des  données  sur  les  clients  directs. 
La plupart des grandes plateformes partagent aussi certaines données concernant le marché 
au sens large, y compris les tendances générales du marché, les produits les plus vendus et 

leurs  propres  cotations,  prix,  ventes, 

17 

 
 
les  profils  des  clients,  bien  que  le type  et  la granularité  de  ces  informations  diffèrent  d’une 
plateforme à l’autre. Dans l’ensemble, les principales plateformes se font concurrence pour 
attirer les utilisateurs professionnels. Divers indicateurs et tableaux de bord font donc partie 
de leur proposition de valeur. Ces indicateurs et tableaux de bord sont conçus pour aider les 
utilisateurs  professionnels  à connaître leurs  clients,  à surveiller  leurs  propres  performances 
commerciales et à comprendre les tendances générales du marché.  

Cependant,  certaines  données  ne  sont  généralement  pas  fournies  par  les  plateformes, 
malgré  la  demande  de  leurs  utilisateurs  professionnels.  Premièrement,  cela  concerne  les 
données  nominatives  et  les  coordonnées  des  clients  (particulièrement  pertinentes  pour  le 
commerce électronique et pour les agences de voyages en ligne (OTA)). Deuxièmement, la 
granularité des données concernant les profils des clients est également souvent considérée 
comme  insuffisante  par  les  entreprises.  Les  principaux  arguments  avancés  par  les 
plateformes pour ne pas fournir les données des clients incluent la protection des données 
personnelles ainsi que les risques pour les propres modèles commerciaux des plateformes, 
car  les  entreprises  qui  peuvent  contacter  leurs  clients  directement  peuvent  décider  de 
contourner la plateforme. En outre, certaines plateformes font valoir que l’accès aux données 
d’identification des clients peut être utilisé par les entreprises pour envoyer des messages de 
marketing  non  désirés.  La  majorité  des  entreprises  interrogées  ne  sont  pas  d’accord  avec 
ces  arguments.  Par  exemple,  elles  ont  indiqué  que  la  protection  des  données  peut  être 
gérée  au  niveau  des  entreprises  individuelles,  à  condition  que  les  clients  soient  bien 
informés et qu’ils aient la possibilité de choisir (« opt-in ») les utilisations spécifiques qui sont 
faites de leurs données. 

Lorsqu’elles prennent la décision de partager ou non des données, les plateformes en ligne 
doivent  concilier  plusieurs  impératifs  divergents  et  potentiellement  conflictuels.  Si  un 
ensemble de données spécifique est au cœur du modèle commercial d’une plateforme, il est 
peu probable qu’il soit partagé. C’est la raison pour laquelle les plateformes seront réticentes 
à  partager  des  ensembles  de  données  qui  pourraient  être  utilisés  pour  affaiblir  leur  rôle 
d’intermédiaires  de  premier  plan  sur  les  marchés  bifaces.  Les  plateformes  à  intégration 
verticale sont peu susceptibles de partager des données détaillées au niveau du marché, ce 
qui  pourrait  favoriser  l’émergence  de  nouveaux  concurrents  sur  leur  marché.  Pourtant,  ces 
plateformes  prennent  également  des  décisions  internes  sur  les  informations  de  leur 
marketplace/magasin  d’applications  qui  peuvent  être  partagées  ou  non  avec  le  secteur  du 
développement  de  la  vente  au  détail/d’applications.  Ces  décisions  sont  d’une  importance 
cruciale pour de nombreuses entreprises qui sont en concurrence avec les biens et services 
vendus  par  la  plateforme  elle-même.  De  plus,  lorsqu’elles  prennent  des  décisions  sur  le 
partage  des  données,  les  plateformes  tiennent  compte  de  la  concurrence  mondiale.  Par 
exemple, plusieurs personnes interrogées sur des plateformes ont souligné qu’elles avaient 
détecté  des  bots  abusifs  originaires  de  Chine,  qui  exploraient  leurs  sites  ou  essayaient 
d’utiliser  leurs  API.  Les  plateformes  considèrent  les  marketplaces  chinoises  comme  des 
concurrents sérieux qui ne se battent pas à armes égales, car elles sont en mesure d’ignorer 
de  nombreuses  réglementations  auxquelles  les  entreprises  européennes  doivent  se 
conformer. Enfin, le manque d’interopérabilité technique entre les différentes plateformes est 
également une contrainte qui entrave le partage et la portabilité des données.  

DA6 :  Structure  de  l’économie  des  plateformes  en  ligne  après  l’épidémie  de  COVID-
19 :  en  raison  des  mesures de  confinement  et  de  distanciation sociale liées  au  COVID-19, 
de  nombreuses  activités  (travail,  communication,  éducation,  divertissement)  ont  dû  migrer 
sur  Internet,  ce  qui  a  augmenté  l’utilisation  des  services  en  ligne  et  l’éventail  de  leurs 
utilisateurs.  La  fermeture  des  magasins  physiques  et  les  restrictions  de  déplacement  ont 
créé  des  perturbations  économiques  et  ont  gravement  affecté  les  secteurs  les  plus 
dépendants des activités en personne, tels que les secteurs du tourisme, de l’hôtellerie, du 
transport et de l’événementiel. Alors que la numérisation des entreprises était déjà en cours 
dans de  nombreux  secteurs,  la  pandémie  a considérablement  accéléré  cette transition.  On 
peut  s’attendre  à  ce  que  les  entreprises  qui  ont  numérisé  leurs  processus,  adopté  des 
modèles  commerciaux  en  ligne  ou  accru  leur  utilisation  des  plateformes  en  ligne  les 
maintiennent  en  place  après  la  crise.  En  raison  de  l’accroissement  de  l’utilisation  des 

18 

 
 
plateformes  en  ligne  pour  le  travail,  la  vente,  la  communication  et  le  divertissement,  les 
principales plateformes de ces secteurs ont vu leurs revenus augmenter au cours de l’année 
2020.  Malgré  la  crise  du  COVID-19,  les  principales  plateformes  (Google,  Amazon, 
Facebook, Apple, Microsoft) ont également maintenu le rythme de leurs activités de fusions 
et acquisitions en 2020, ce qui témoigne de la poursuite de leur stratégie de consolidation de 
leurs segments clés et d’expansion dans des produits et services adjacents. 

La crise du COVID-19 a confirmé l’importance des services numériques et des plateformes 
en ligne pour atténuer les perturbations des activités physiques. Toutefois, elle a également 
mis en évidence leurs vulnérabilités en ce qui concerne la maîtrise des pratiques illégales et 
préjudiciables en ligne, telles que les escroqueries, les fausses allégations de traitements et 
la désinformation. Une série de nouvelles initiatives et stratégies législatives ont récemment 
été dévoilées par la Commission, abordant des problèmes préexistants qui ont été amplifiés 
par  la  pandémie  et  tentant  de  faire  face  à  la  numérisation  croissante  des  activités  des 
consommateurs et des entreprises accélérée par la crise du COVID-19. 

DA7 :  Multihébergement  :  obstacles,  opportunités,  facteurs  de  facilitation :  la  plupart 
des utilisateurs professionnels de plateformes en ligne (vendeurs, producteurs, créateurs de 
contenu, annonceurs, hôteliers) ont tendance à pratiquer le multihébergement, c’est-à-dire à 
utiliser  plusieurs  plateformes  pour  vendre 
leurs  biens  et  services.  L’étendue  du 
multihébergement  varie  en  fonction  du  marché  spécifique  et  de  la  nature  du  bien  ou  du 
service  proposé.  Par  exemple,  si  une  entreprise  vend  un  produit  unique  qui  convient  le 
mieux à une plateforme spécifique (par exemple, des objets artisanaux sur Etsy, des voitures 
anciennes sur eBay), elle est plus susceptible de pratiquer l’hébergement simple. Plus de la 
moitié  des  développeurs  d’applications  utilisent  l’hébergement  simple,  étant  donné  la 
complexité  du  développement  des  applications  pour  les  systèmes  d’exploitation  et  les 
magasins d’applications différents et incompatibles (Google Play, Apple App Store). 

Notre  analyse  a  révélé  des  cas  dans  lesquels  les  mesures  prises  par  les  plateformes  en 
ligne  pour  assurer  la  fidélité  de  leurs  utilisateurs  professionnels  ou  finaux  (en  fait,  pour 
promouvoir  l’hébergement  simple)  sont  devenues  un  problème  du  point  de  vue  de  l’intérêt 
public et de la politique publique. Il s’agit notamment d’actions délibérées de plateformes qui 
exercent un pouvoir de marché important et utilisent ce pouvoir pour inciter les entreprises à 
faire  des  choix  qu’elles  ne  feraient  probablement  pas  sur  des  marchés  concurrentiels.  Les 
plateformes  en  ligne  consolident  leur  pouvoir  de  marché  en  s’appuyant  sur  les  effets  de 
réseau,  l’accès  aux  données  et  l’innovation  des  produits.  Certaines  plateformes  (par 
exemple  Amazon,  Google,  Facebook,  Apple)  se  sont  également  engagées  dans  le 
développement  de  grands  écosystèmes  intégrés  en  copiant,  rachetant,  intégrant  ou 
abandonnant  des  plateformes  concurrentes  et  en  utilisant  des  accords  exclusifs  avec 
d’autres  plateformes  ou  acteurs  du  marché  pour  consolider  leur  position  dominante.  Il  est 
extrêmement  difficile  pour  les  nouvelles  plateformes  de  pénétrer  sur  ces  marchés,  même 
pour  les  nouvelles  venues  qui  poursuivent  une  stratégie  de  différenciation.  Cela  limite  les 
possibilités d’innovation sur le marché et dissuade encore davantage d’éventuelles nouvelles 
plateformes. 

Même les marchés ou les entreprises semblent pratiquer le multi hébergement peuvent être 
clairement  dominés  par  une  plateforme  (par  exemple,  Amazon  dans  le  commerce 
électronique,  Booking.com  dans  l’hébergement  hôtelier,  Airbnb  dans  l’hébergement  de 
courte  durée,  Google  Search  dans  la  recherche  et  la  publicité  en  ligne,  Facebook  dans  la 
publicité  sur  les  médias  sociaux)  ou  par  deux  plateformes,  comme  c’est  le  cas  parmi  les 
magasins  d’applications,  avec  Google  Play  et  Apple  App  Store.  Les  marchés  ont 
« basculé », certaines plateformes créant des écosystèmes au sein desquels la plupart des 
utilisateurs finaux trouvent pratique de recourir à l’hébergement simple. Du point de vue des 
utilisateurs  professionnels,  bien  qu’il  puisse  y  avoir  une  variété  de  plateformes  opérant  sur 
les marchés pertinents, cela ressemble toujours à un hébergement simple. 

DA8 :  Développements  concernant  les  plateformes  B2B  et  questions  émergentes : 
l’analyse de la documentation et l’engagement avec les parties prenantes suggèrent que les 

19 

 
 
services  de  plateformes  B2B,  leurs  caractéristiques  et  les  questions  réglementaires 
entourant  leurs  opérations  sont  encore  à  un  stade  précoce  de  discussion.  Il  existe  des 
preuves  dans  la  documentation  qui  détaillent  les  défis  auxquels  sont  confrontés  les 
utilisateurs professionnels, y compris les questions se rapportant aux inégalités de pouvoir, 
en  particulier  pour  les  petites  et  moyennes  entreprises.  En  outre,  l’utilisation  des  données 
ainsi  que  les  obstacles  techniques  et  juridiques  liés  à  leur  utilisation  et  à  leur  transfert 
constituent un sujet de plus en plus important. Il existe des lacunes dans la documentation 
concernant des types spécifiques de services de plateforme B2B, dont les services de cloud 
computing  et  les  services  d’infrastructure  en  cloud,  ainsi  que  les  services  liés  à  l’Internet 
industriel  des  objets.  Les  personnes  interrogées  s’accordent  à  dire  que  des  recherches 
supplémentaires sont nécessaires dans plusieurs domaines comme le rôle et l’influence des 
intermédiaires  des  plateformes,  des  effets  du  « self-preferencing »  (traitement  différencié) 
par  les  plateformes  et  le  potentiel  d’établissement  de  normes  sur  l’interopérabilité  des 
données.  

Enfin, l’outil d’information en ligne sur www.platformobservatory.eu a été conçu pour :  

  Servir d’interface entre les parties prenantes, le groupe d’experts et la Commission. 

  Présenter de manière succincte et interactive l’état de la situation de l’économie des 
plateformes  en  ligne  (questions  émergentes,  tendances  clés,  indicateurs,  initiatives 
politiques). 

  Offrir un accès aux différentes analyses et conclusions de l’étude. 

  Offrir des informations sur les mécanismes de traitement des plaintes et de recours 

mis en place par les plateformes. 

  Fournir un espace permettant aux utilisateurs professionnels de signaler de manière 
anonyme les problèmes qu’ils ont rencontrés dans leur utilisation des plateformes en 
les  utilisateurs 
ligne,  et  aux  plateformes  de  signaler 
professionnels. 

les  problèmes  avec 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Studie  zur  „Unterstützung  der  Beobachtungsstelle  für  die  Online-
Plattformwirtschaft“ 

Abstract 

Die  Beobachtungsstelle  für  die  Online-Plattformwirtschaft  dient  dazu,  die  Entwicklung  der 
Online-Plattformwirtschaft  zu  überwachen,  um  die  Kommission  bei  der  Politikgestaltung 
hinsichtlich  Online-Plattformen  mit  Empfehlungen  zu  unterstützen.  Dabei  werden  aktuelle 
und  entstehende  Herausforderungen  und  Chancen  für  die  EU  betrachtet.  Auch  die 
Umsetzung  der  Verordnung  zur  Förderung  von  Fairness  und  Transparenz  für  gewerbliche 
Nutzer von Online-Vermittlungsdiensten (P2B-Verordnung) werden von ihr überwacht. 

Die  Beobachtungsstelle  besteht  aus  einer  Gruppe  unabhängiger  Experten  und  einem 
spezialisierten  Team  von  Kommissionsbeamten,  deren  Arbeit  sich  auf  die  Studie  zur 
„Unterstützung  der  Beobachtungsstelle  für  die  Online-Plattformwirtschaft“  stützt.  Die  Studie 
wurde  im  Zeitraum  2018-2020  durchgeführt.  Die  Studiengruppe  erstellte  dabei  einen 
wirtschaftlichen  Überblick  der  europäischen  Plattformwirtschaft  sowie  acht  Analysepapiere 
und  entwickelte  ein  Online-Instrument,  um  die  Tätigkeiten  der  Beobachungsstelle 
vorzustellen und beteiligte Akteure zu erreichen. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Zusammenfassung 

In  dieser  Zusammenfassung  werden  die  wichtigsten  Ergebnisse  der  drei  Aufgaben 
vorgestellt,  die  im  Rahmen  der  Studie  zur  „Unterstützung  der  Beobachtungsstelle  für  die 
Online-Plattformwirtschaft“ ausgeführt wurden: 

  Aufgabe 1: Wirtschaftlicher Überblick der europäischen Plattformwirtschaft 

  Aufgabe  2:  Beweissammlung  und  Datenanalyse  auf  höherer  Ebene  von 

entstehenden Problemen in der Online-Plattformwirtschaft 

  Aufgabe 3: Online-Informationsinstrument 

Zielsetzung bei Aufgabe 1 war es, einen wirtschaftlichen Überblick der europäischen Online-
Plattformwirtschaft  zu  erstellen  und  deren  Entwicklung  zu  überwachen.  Wichtigster 
Bestandteil dieser Aufgabe war die Einrichtung und kontinuierliche Aktualisierung des „Data 
Lab“,  eine  Datenbank  mit  Indikatoren  für  Online-Plattformen,  gewerbliche  Nutzer  und 
Im  „Data  Lab“  wurden  mehrere  strukturierte  und  unstrukturierte 
Geschäftsmodelle. 
Datenquellen  einbezogen  sowie  eine  Reihe  von  Verfahren  angewandt,  um  als  Ergebnis 
relationale Daten, Diagramme, Texte, Tabellen und Infografiken zu erhalten. 

Zur  Messung  der  Online-Plattformwirtschaft  entwickelte  das  Studienteam  einen 
konzeptuellen  Rahmen  bestehend  aus  drei  Dimensionen:  wirtschaftliche  Bedeutung, 
Kontrolle über Nutzer der Plattformen und daraus resultierende Folgen. Diese Dimensionen 
wurden weiter operationalisiert und zwar ausgehend von einer Anzahl von Subdimensionen 
und  spezifischeren  Indikatoren.  Die  Daten  wurden  fortwährend  aktualisiert  und  werden  auf 
der  Website  der  Plattform-Beobachtungsstelle  im  Abschnitt  „State  of  play“  vorgestellt 
(www.platformobservatory.eu/state-of-play).  

Als  Teil  von  Aufgabe  1  wurde  zwischen  Ende  2020  und  Anfang  2021  eine  vorläufige 
Überwachung  der  Umsetzung  der  europäischen  P2B-Verordnung  durchgeführt.  Hierzu 
wurden  die  Überarbeitung  der  Nutzungsbedingungen  einer  Auswahl  von  Plattformen,  die 
Ergebnisse  der  zweiten  Welle  der  Befragung  der  gewerblichen  Nutzer  und  die  über  die 
Website der Beobachtungsstelle gemeldeten Probleme betrachtet. Basierend hierauf wurden 
drei Kategorien von Plattformen identifiziert: 

  Plattformen, für die die Anwendung der P2B-Verordnung zu gelten scheint und deren 
Nutzungsbedingungen dementsprechend überarbeitet wurden oder Informationen zu 
den geltenden P2B-Bestimmungen beinhalten 

  Plattformen, für die die Anwendung der P2B-Verordnung zu gelten scheint und deren 
öffentlich  zugänglichen  Nutzungsbedingungen  anscheinend  nicht  überarbeitet 
wurden und keine Transparenz hinsichtlich einer Anzahl von Themen aufweisen, die 
in der P2B-Verordnung geregelt werden 

  Plattformen, für die die Anwendung der P2B-Verordnung gelten mag oder auch nicht 
und  deren  Nutzungsbedingungen  anscheinend  nicht  bearbeitet  oder  aktualisiert 
wurden, um der Anwendung der Verordnung gerecht zu werden 

Die  an  der  Befragung  für  gewerbliche  Nutzer  teilnehmenden  Unternehmen  hatten  keine 
deutlichen  Änderungen  hinsichtlich  der  Transparenz  der  von  ihnen  genutzten  Plattformen 
bemerkt.  Die  Mehrheit  beobachtete  Vorgehensweisen,  die  konform  mit  der  Verordnung  zu 
sein scheinen (z. B. Vorabbenachrichtigung bei Änderungen von Nutzungsbedingungen und 
im  Falle  einer  Nutzungsbeendigung). 
internen 
Mechanismen  für  die  Bearbeitung  von  Beschwerden  lagen  noch  nicht  vor.  In  Online-Foren 
von  gewerblichen  Plattformnutzern  und  auf  der  Website  der  Beobachtungsstelle  (Rubrik 
„Flag  Your  Issue“)  wurden  einige  Angaben  zu  Problemen  bei  der  Anwendung  der  P2B-
Verordnung  gemacht.  Diese  standen  im  Zusammenhang  mit  unerklärlichen  Account-

Informationen  zur  Wirksamkeit  der 

22 

 
 
Einschränkungen  oder  der  Aufhebung  von  Einträgen  sowie  Mangel  an  wirksamen 
Mechanismen für die Bearbeitung von Beschwerden. 

Zu Aufgabe 2 zählten acht Analysepapiere: 

  AP1: Zugang zu Plattform-Daten und sekundäre Datenquellen 

  AP2: Differenzierte Behandlung gewerblicher Nutzer durch Online-Plattformen 

  AP3: Beziehungen zwischen den gewerblichen Nutzern im Online-Werbungsmarkt 

  AP4: Online Plattformen mit beträchtlicher/strategischer Marktposition 

  AP5: Gewerbliche Nutzer und Zugang Dritter zu den Daten der Online-Plattform  

  AP6: Struktur der Online-Plattformwirtschaft nach dem Ausbruch von COVID 

  AP7: Multi-homing: Hürden, Möglichkeiten, fördernde Faktoren 

  AP8: Entwicklungen betreffend B2B-Plattformen und neue Probleme 

AP1: Zugang zu Plattform-Daten und sekundäre Datenquellen: Die Untersuchung zeigte, 
dass  ein  bedeutender  Anteil  der  gewerblichen  Nutzer3  mit  dem  Umfang  an  Daten,  die  von 
den  Online-Plattformen  verfügbar  gemacht  werden,  nicht  zufrieden  ist.  Die  Befragung  der 
gewerblichen Nutzer ergab, dass der Zugriff auf im Besitz von Online-Plattformen befindliche 
Daten  für  ein  Drittel  der  befragten  Unternehmen  problematisch  ist,  da  sie  zumindest  auf 
einige der für ihr Gewerbe kritischen Daten keinen Zugriff haben. Obwohl in den Plattformen 
allgemein große Mengen an Daten erfasst und analysiert werden, erhalten weitere Beteiligte 
nur  Zugriff  auf  einen  Bruchteil  hiervon.  Die  Plattformen  machen  weder  die  Rohdaten  ihrer 
Tagesgeschäfte noch detaillierte Daten zu Kunden und Wettbewerbern zugänglich. 

Unternehmen,  die  mehr  Daten  benötigen,  als  sie  von  den  Plattformen  erhalten  können, 
verfolgen  zwei  breite  Strategien:  (1)  sie  erfassen  und  analysieren  selbst  Daten  aus 
verfügbaren Datenquellen; (2) sie greifen auf Daten von Dritten (Datenbrokern) zurück. 81 % 
der  befragten  gewerblichen  Nutzer  gaben  an,  einige  Daten  selbst  zu  erfassen;  vorwiegend 
werden personenbezogene Daten der eigenen Kunden erfasst (57 % der Befragten), gefolgt 
(55 %)  sowie  zur  Analyse  von  Markttrends/-
von  Daten  zum  Geschäftsergebnis 
entwicklungen  (55 %).  Darüber  hinaus  gab  rund  ein  Drittel  (33 %)  der  befragten 
Unternehmen an, dass sie auf Daten von Dritten (Datenbrokern) zurückgreifen. Die meisten 
Befragten – insbesondere jene im E-Commerce-Sektor – gaben an, die Dienste von Dritten 
(Datenbrokern)  für  Datenzugriff  und  -analyse  zu  nutzen,  was  es  ihnen  ermöglicht,  ihre 
Wettbewerber  besser  zu  kennen,  einen  genauen  Überblick  in  den  Markt  zu  erhalten  und 
wertvolle Einblicke zu erhalten. 

AP2:  Differenzierte  Behandlung  gewerblicher  Nutzer  durch  Online-Plattformen:  Eine 
differenzierte  Behandlung  der  gewerblichen  Nutzer  durch  Online-Plattformen  –  d. h.  die 
Anwendung  abweichender  Nutzungsbedingungen  für  ähnliche  gewerbliche  Nutzer  –  kann 
aus unterschiedlichen Gründen auftreten. Zum einen können technische oder regulatorische 
Rahmenbedingungen  dies  erfordern.  Zum  anderen  können  Plattformen  eine  differenzierte 
Behandlung vornehmen, um ihre Einnahmen zu steigern. Hierzu zählt auch, den Nutzen für 
Verbraucher  zu  erhöhen,  z. B.  durch  das  Anbieten 
individualisierter  Dienste  oder 
Sicherstellung  von  Transaktionen  von  hoher  Qualität.  Eine  differenzierte  Behandlung  kann 
allerdings  auch  darauf  abzielen,  die  Einnahmen  der  Plattform  zu  erhöhen  ohne  Nutzen  für 
Verbraucher. In solchen Fällen unterminiert eine differenzierte Behandlung den Wettbewerb 

3 Der endgültige Stichprobenumfang der Umfrage für Unternehmensnutzer betrug 1.667 Antworten aus neun EU-
Mitgliedstaaten. Darüber hinaus wurden 41 Interviews mit gewerblichen Nutzern geführt. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
 
zwischen  Unternehmen,  die  die  Plattform  nutzen,  und  im  Falle  von  vertikal  integrierten 
Plattformen zwischen den gewerblichen Nutzern und der Plattform selbst. 

AP3: Beziehungen zwischen den gewerblichen Nutzern im Online-Werbungsmarkt: Die 
Zunahme  von  Online-Anzeigen  und  programmatischer  Werbung  hat  die  Werbeverfahren 
(und  -einnahmen)  stark  beeinflusst.  Mit  programmatischer  Werbung  bezeichnet  man  den 
automatisierten  Ein-  und  Verkauf  von  Werbeflächen,  wobei  Nutzerdaten  dazu  genutzt 
werden,  Werbetreibenden  zu  ermöglichen,  potenziellen  Kunden  relevante  Anzeigen  zur 
richtigen  Zeit  an  der  richtigen  Stelle  zu  präsentieren.  Auf  der  einen  Seite  hat  dieser 
automatisierte  Anzeigenhandel  Angebot  und  Nachfrage  besser  zusammengeführt,  wobei 
Anbieter  von Werbeflächen  diese  zum  Kauf  anbieten  und Werbetreibende  eine  große  Zahl 
von potentiellen Kunden auf unterschiedlichen Websites erreichen können. Auf der anderen 
Seite  zeigt  die  Verteilung  der  Einnahmen  aus  Online-Werbung  die  zunehmende  Dominanz 
einiger weniger Akteure im Online-Werbemarkt, nämlich der Online-Plattformen. Die vertikale 
Integration  von  Online-Plattformen  und  ihr  Zugriff  auf  große  Datenmengen  ermöglichen 
ihnen  einen  Wettbewerbsvorteil  und  eine  machtvolle  Stellung  gegenüber  gewerblichen 
Nutzern. Darüber hinaus hat die Automatisierung von programmatischer Werbung Bedenken 
hinsichtlich  der  Transparenz  von  Prozessen  entlang  der  Lieferkette  hervorgerufen,  wie 
Austausch  von  Anzeigen,  Platzierung  von  Anzeigen  und  Gebühren  von  Zwischenhändlern. 
Fehlende  Transparenz  bei  der Wertschöpfungskette der  Anzeigentechnik  einschließlich der 
Abhängigkeit von Algorithmen und die große Anzahl  von Dienstleistern begünstigen Betrug 
bei frei verfügbarer programmatischer Werbung, und zwar auf Kosten der Werbetreibenden. 
Im  Analysepapier  werden  Lösungen  einschließlich  Maßnahmen  auf  politischer,  sektorieller 
und individueller Ebene vorgeschlagen, um diese Probleme zu beheben. 

AP4:  Online  Plattformen  mit  beträchtlicher/strategischer  Marktposition:  Basierend  auf 
der  Fachliteratur  und  den  Einschätzungen  von  Experten  lässt  sich  sagen,  dass  die 
entstehenden Ansätze zur Bestimmung der Marktbeherrschung von Online-Plattformen noch 
in einer frühen Entwicklungsphase sind und noch unklar ist, wie sie in der Praxis angewandt 
werden  können.  Darüber  hinaus  muss  nachgewiesen  werden,  ob  mit  diesen  Ansätzen  die 
beabsichtigten Marktbedingungen geschaffen werden (z. B. hinsichtlich des Wettbewerbs im 
Markt  oder  der  Auswirkungen  auf  die  lokale  und  regionale  Wirtschaft).  Zum  heutigen 
Zeitpunkt  scheinen  sich  die  entstehenden  Ansätze  auf  wirtschaftliche,  regulatorische  und 
wettbewerbsfördernde  Aspekte  der  Online-Plattformwirtschaft  zu  fokussieren.  Experten 
empfehlen  eine  breitere Berücksichtigung  auch  von  sozialen  und  politischen  Auswirkungen 
auf  das  Online-Plattformökosystem,  wenn  es  festzustellen  gilt,  ob  eine  Online-Plattform 
einen  strategischen/bedeutenden  Marktstatus  innehat.  In  Anbetracht  der  systematischen 
Wechselwirkungen  zwischen  Online-Plattformen  ist  es  unwahrscheinlich,  dass  ein  einziger 
Ansatz allein in der Praxis wirksam sein wird. 

AP5:  Gewerbliche  Nutzer  und  Zugang  Dritter  zu  den  Daten  der  Online-Plattform:  Von 
den  Plattformen  werden  gewerblichen  Nutzern  ausreichend  Daten  zur  Bearbeitung  von 
Transaktionen  und  Steuerung  ihres  Geschäfts  bereitgestellt  (z.B.  über  eigene  Einträge, 
Preise, Verkäufe, Transaktionen und Geschäftsergebnis). Die Plattformen stellen auch einige 
Daten  über  Direktkunden  bereit.  Die  meisten  größeren  Plattformen  teilen  außerdem  einige 
Daten  zum  breiter  gefassten  Markt,  einschließlich  allgemeiner  Markttrends,  meistverkaufter 
Produkte  und  Kundenprofile,  mit  je  nach  Plattform  abweichender  Informationsart  und 
Granularität. Die größten Plattformen konkurrieren um gewerbliche Nutzer und bieten daher 
vielfältige  Kennzahlen  und  Dashboards  als  Teil  ihres  Nutzenversprechens  an.  Diese 
Kennzahlen und Dashboards sollen gewerblichen Nutzern dabei helfen, ihre Kunden besser 
zu kennen, das eigene Geschäftsergebnis zu überwachen und die größeren Markttrends zu 
verstehen. 

Manche  Daten  werden  jedoch  auch  auf  Anfrage  der  gewerblichen  Nutzer  nicht  von  den 
Plattformen  zur  Verfügung  gestellt.  Erstens  handelt  es  sich  um  persönliche  Daten  und 
Kontaktdaten  der  Kunden  (trifft  besonders  bei  E-Commerce-Plattformen  und  Online-
Reiseagenturen  zu).  Zweitens  wird  die  Granularität  der  Daten  über  Kundenprofile  von  den 
Unternehmen  oft  als  unzureichend  betrachtet.  Die  wichtigsten  Argumente  der  Plattformen 

24 

 
 
dafür,  Kundendaten  nicht  bereitzustellen,  sind  der  Schutz  der  persönlichen  Daten  sowie 
Risiken  für  das  eigene  Geschäftsmodell,  da  Unternehmen,  die  ihre  Kunden  direkt 
kontaktieren können,  die  Plattform möglicherweise umgehen könnten.  Des Weiteren geben 
einige  Plattformen  an,  dass  Kundendaten  von  Unternehmen  für  Marketingkampagnen 
verwendet  werden  könnten.  Die  Mehrheit  der  befragten  Unternehmen  ist  hier  anderer 
Meinung. So gaben sie zum Beispiel an, dass der Schutz persönlicher Daten auf Ebene der 
individuellen Unternehmen geregelt werden kann, insofern Kunden gut informiert werden und 
auswählen können (Opt-in), wofür ihre Daten verwendet werden. 

teilen,  die 

ihre  Position  als 

Wenn  es  um  die  Entscheidung  geht,  Daten  anderen  zugänglich  zu  machen  oder  nicht, 
müssen  Online-Plattformen  mehreren  Erfordernissen  gerecht  werden,  die  potenziell 
widersprüchlich sind. Ist ein spezifischer Datensatz Hauptbestandteil des Geschäftsmodells 
der  Plattform,  so  wird  er  wahrscheinlich  nicht  für  andere  zugänglich  gemacht.  Aus  diesem 
führender 
Grund  zögern  Plattformen,  Datensätze  zu 
Zwischenhändler  in  zweiseitigen  Märkten  unterminieren  könnten.  Es  ist  unwahrscheinlich, 
dass vertikal integrierte Plattformen detaillierte Daten von der Markebene teilen, die für neue 
Wettbewerber  im  Markt  förderlich  sein  könnten.  Dabei  treffen  Plattformen  auch  interne 
Entscheidungen  darüber,  welche  Informationen  von  ihrem  Marktplatz/App-Store  mit  der 
Abteilung  für  Einzelhandel/App-Entwicklung  geteilt  werden  können  und  welche  nicht.  Für 
viele  Unternehmen,  die  mit  den  Waren  und  Diensten  konkurrieren,  die  auch  von  der 
Plattform angeboten werden, sind derartige Entscheidungen von großer Bedeutung. Zudem 
betrachten  Plattformen  bei  diesen  Entscheidungen  den  globalen  Wettbewerb.  So  wiesen 
zum  Beispiel  mehrere  Befragte  von  Plattformen  darauf  hin,  dass  sie  missbräuchliche  Bots 
aus  China  entdeckt  haben,  die  ihre  Website  per  Crawling  absuchen  oder  versuchen  ihre 
APIs  zu  benutzen.  Plattformen  sehen  chinesische  Marktplätze  als  ernstzunehmende 
Wettbewerber,  die  sich nicht  an  dieselben Wettbewerbsregeln halten,  da viele gesetzlichen 
Regelungen, die europäische Unternehmen einhalten müssen, für sie nicht verbindlich sind. 
Zuletzt  stellt  auch  die  fehlende  technische  Interoperabilität  zwischen  den  verschiedenen 
Plattformen eine Hürde für die Bereitstellung und Übertragung von Daten dar. 

AP6: Struktur der Online-Plattformwirtschaft nach dem Ausbruch von COVID: Aufgrund 
der  Lockdowns  und  Abstandsregeln  während  der  COVID-19-Panemie  mussten  zahlreiche 
Aktivitäten  (Arbeit,  Kommunikation,  Bildung,  Unterhaltung)  online  stattfinden,  wodurch  sich 
die  Nutzung  von  Online-Diensten  und  die  Zahl  an  Nutzern  erhöht  hat.  Die  Schließung  von 
Läden  und  Bewegungseinschränkungen  haben  wirtschaftliche  Störungen  verursacht  und 
jene  Sektoren  stark  getroffen,  die  am  meisten  vom  direkten  Kontakt  mit  Kunden  abhängig 
sind  wie  Tourismus-  und  Hotelbranche,  Personenverkehr  und  Veranstaltungssektor.  Zwar 
war  die  Digitalisierung  von  Unternehmen  in  zahlreichen  Sektoren  bereits  im  Gange.  Die 
Pandemie  hat  diese  Entwicklung  jedoch  maßgeblich  beschleunigt  und  es  ist  anzunehmen, 
dass  Unternehmen,  die  ihre  Geschäftsprozesse  digitalisiert  und  Online-Geschäftsmodelle 
eingeführt bzw. die Nutzung von Online-Plattformen erhöht haben, dies auch nach der Krise 
weiter  tun.  Durch  die  verstärkte  Nutzung  von  Online-Plattformen  für  Arbeit,  Vertrieb, 
Kommunikation  und  Unterhaltung  verzeichneten  die  führenden  Plattformen  2020  eine 
Umsatzsteigerung.  Trotz  der  COVID-19-Krise  haben  die  führenden  Plattformen  (Google, 
Amazon,  Facebook,  Apple,  Microsoft)  2020  ihre  Fusions-  und  Übernahmeaktivitäten 
fortgesetzt  und  somit  ihre  Strategie  der  Konsolidierung  von  Kerngeschäftsfeldern  sowie 
Ausweitung auf angrenzende Produkte und Dienste weiterverfolgt.  

Die COVID-19-Krise hat  bestätigt,  wie  wichtig  digitale  Dienste und Online-Plattformen  sind, 
um  Störungen  bei  physischen  Aktivitäten  abzuschwächen.  Dabei  traten  aber  auch 
Anfälligkeiten im Zusammenhang mit illegalen und schädlichen Online-Praktiken zu Tage wie 
Scams,  falsche  Versprechen  zu  Heilmitteln  und  Falschinformationen.  Von  der  Kommission 
wurde jüngst eine Reihe von legislativen Initiativen und Strategien vorgestellt, um auf bereits 
bestehende Probleme, die durch die Pandemie verstärkt wurden, zu reagieren, und um die 
beschleunigte  zunehmende  Digitalisierung  der  Aktivitäten  von  Verbrauchern  und 
Unternehmen zu regeln. 

25 

 
 
AP7:  Multi-homing:  Hürden,  Möglichkeiten, 
fördernde  Faktoren;  Die  meisten 
gewerblichen  Nutzer  von  Online-Plattformen  (Händler,  Hersteller,  Entwickler  von  Inhalten, 
Werbetreibende, Hoteliers) neigen dazu, mehr als eine Plattform zu nutzen (Multi  Homing), 
um  ihre  Waren  und  Dienste  zu  vertreiben.  Die  Zahl  der  genutzten  Plattformen  variiert 
abhängig vom spezifischen Markt sowie der Art der angebotenen Ware oder Dienste. Wenn 
ein Unternehmen beispielsweise ein bestimmtes Produkt vertreibt, dass am besten mit einer 
bestimmten Plattform zusammenpasst (z. B. Handarbeiten auf Etsy, Oldtimer auf eBay), so 
ist es wahrscheinlich, dass das Unternehmen nur diese nutzt (Single Homing). Mehr als die 
Hälfte der  App-Entwickler  entwickeln in Anbetracht  der  Komplexität  und  Inkompatibilität  der 
Operating  System  und  von  App  Stores  (Google  Play,  Apple  App  Store)  nur  Apps  für  eine 
Plattform. 

sind.  Hierzu 

Die  durchgeführte  Analyse  ergab  Fälle,  in  denen  die  von  Online-Plattformen  ergriffenen 
Maßnahmen  zur  Sicherung  der  Loyalität  ihrer  gewerblichen  Nutzer  und  Endnutzer  (d. h., 
dass diese keine andere Plattform nutzen) für das Gemeinwohl und die öffentliche Ordnung 
problematisch  geworden 
zählen  Maßnahmen,  mit  denen  eine 
Marktbeherrschung  verfolgt  wird,  und  diese  dazu  eingesetzt  wird,  Unternehmen  zu 
Entscheidungen  zu  bringen,  die  sie  nicht  in  Wettbewerbsmärkten  treffen  würden.  Online-
Plattformen  festigen  ihre  Marktbeherrschung  durch  Netzwerkeffekte,  Datenzugang  und 
Produktinnovation.  Einige  Plattformen  (z. B.  Amazon,  Google,  Facebook,  Apple)  haben 
zudem  damit  begonnen,  breitgefasste  integrierte  Online-Ökosysteme  zu  entwickeln,  indem 
sie  Plattformen  von  Konkurrenten  kopieren,  aufkaufen,  integrieren  oder  deren  Aktivitäten 
einstellen  und  exklusive  Vereinbarungen  mit  anderen  Online-Plattformen  oder  -Akteuren 
treffen,  um  ihre  dominante  Marktstellung  zu  zementieren.  Es  ist  sehr  schwierig,  für  neue 
Plattformen  solche  Märkte  zu  erschließen,  sogar  für  neue  Markteinsteiger  mit  einer 
Differenzierungsstrategie.  Hierdurch  wird  der  Raum  für  Innovation  im  Markt  eingeschränkt 
und mögliche Markteinsteiger noch mehr abgehalten. 

Selbst  die  Märkten,  wo  Unternehmen  auf  Multi  Homing  zurückzugreifen  scheinen,  können 
diese Märkte deutlich von einer Plattform dominiert werden – zum Beispiel durch Amazon für 
E-Commerce,  Booking.com  für  Hotelübernachtungen,  Airbnb  für  kurzfristige  Unterkünfte, 
Google  Search  für  Suchanfragen  im  Internet  und  Werbung,  Facebook  für  Werbung  in 
sozialen Netzwerken – oder durch zwei Plattformen, wie es bei den App Stores (Google Play 
und  Apple  Store)  der  Fall  ist.  Die  Märkte  haben  sich  immer  weiter  „zugespitzt“  und  einige 
Plattformen  entwickeln  Online-Ökosysteme,  die  die  meisten  Endnutzer  praktisch  finden,  so 
dass sie nur eine Plattform nutzen. Aus der Perspektive von gewerblichen Nutzern entsteht 
der  Eindruck  von  Single  Homing,  auch  wenn  es  möglicherweise  mehrere  operierende 
Plattformen im entsprechenden Markt gibt. 

AP8:  Entwicklungen  betreffend  B2B-Plattformen  und  neue  Probleme:  Die  Analyse  der 
Fachliteratur  und  Befragung  der  beteiligten  Akteure  ergab,  dass  B2B-Plattformdienste,  ihre 
Besonderheiten  sowie  Regulierungsfragen  im  Zusammenhang  mit  ihrem  Geschäftsbetrieb 
bisher  nur  wenig  diskutiert  wurden.  Es  gibt  detaillierte  Angaben  in  der  Fachliteratur  zu  den 
Herausforderungen, mit denen gewerbliche Nutzer konfrontiert sind, einschließlich Probleme 
hinsichtlich  unausgewogener  Marktmachtverhältnisse.  Dies  betrifft  besonders  kleine  und 
mittlere  Unternehmen.  Darüber  hinaus  sind  die  Verwendung  von  Daten  sowie  technische 
und  rechtliche  Hürden  hinsichtlich  Verwendung  und  Übertragung  von  Daten  Themen  von 
zunehmender  Bedeutung.  In  der  Fachliteratur  gibt  es  Lücken  bei  spezifischen  Formen  von 
B2B-Plattformdiensten  wie  Cloud-Dienste  und  Cloud-Infrastrukturdienste  und  Dienste  im 
Zusammenhang  mit  industriellem  IoT  (Internet  of  Things).  Die  Befragten  waren  sich  einig 
darüber, dass weitere Untersuchungen in Bereichen erforderlich sind wie etwa die Rolle und 
der Einfluss von Plattform-Zwischenhändlern, die Auswirkungen des eigenen Bevorteilen der 
Plattformen und das Potenzial für die Einführung von Standards für Dateninteroperabilität.  

Es wurde ein Online-Informationsinstrument auf www.platformobservatory.eu entwickelt, das 
Folgendes umfasst:  

  eine Schnittstelle zwischen beteiligten Akteuren, Expertengruppe und Kommission 

26 

 
 
  eine  kurze  und 

interaktive  Darstellung  des  aktuellen  Stands  der  Online-
Plattformwirtschaft (entstehende Probleme, wichtigste Trends, Indikatoren, politische 
Initiativen) 

  Zugang zu den unterschiedlichen Analysen und Ergebnissen der Studie 

 

Informationen  über  die  Mechanismen  für  die  Bearbeitung  von  Beschwerden  und 
Problembehebung, die von den Plattformen eingerichtet wurden 

  Eine  Anlaufstelle  für  gewerbliche  Nutzer,  um  Probleme,  die  im  Umgang  mit  Online-
Plattformen  auftraten,  anonym  mitzuteilen,  und  für  Plattformen,  um  Probleme  mit 
gewerblichen Nutzern mitzuteilen 

27 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

We hereby submit the final report for the study on "Support to the Observatory for the Online 
Platform Economy". The report  presents the final iteration of Task 1 (economic overview of 
the  online  platform  economy),  the  findings  with  respect  to  Task  2  (data  gathering  and 
analysis corresponding to the issues as agreed in advance with the Commission), as well as 
an update on the activities performed on the Observatory's online tool (Task 3).  

During the final phase the research team carried out and completed several data collection 
and analysis activities. 

  Under  Task  1,  we  continued  the  monitoring  and  economic  review  of  the  platform 
economy activities, in close cooperation with the Commission. We added a number of 
new  indicators  to  the  Data  Lab,  updated  the  data  on  the  existing  ones,  published  a 
report  on  the  implementation  of  P2B  regulation  and  presented  it  in  a  meeting  of 
eCommerce expert group (26 February 2021). 

  Under Task 2, we prepared three new analytical papers: on the structure of the online 
platform  economy  post  Covid-19  outbreak (AP6); multihoming  (AP7);  B2B  platforms 
(AP8). 

  Under  Task  3,  we  continued  the  communication  and  dissemination  activities, 
launched  campaigns to attract  the relevant  stakeholders  to the  online  web  tool,  and 
refreshed the landing page.  

This  report  is  structured  as  follows.  In  Chapter  1  we  present  the  final  results  of  Task  1.  In 
Chapter 2 we outline the results of the analytical papers 6, 7 and 8 that were prepared since 
the second interim report. In Chapter 3, we provide a final update on Task 3 – the online tool. 
Detailed  methodological  notes  concerning  the  implementation  of  Task  1  and  Task  2  are 
presented  in  the  annexes.  We  also  include  the  full  and  finalised  versions  of  the  eight 
analytical papers as well as the report on the implementation of the of P2B regulation. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  Task  1:  Economic  overview  of  the  European  platform 

economy 

a.  Introduction 

The  objective  of  Task  1  was  to  provide  an  economic  overview  of  the  European  online 
platform  economy  and  to  monitor  its  evolution.  The  core  of  this  task  was  the  creation  and 
continuous  update  of  the  Online  Platform  Economy  Data  Lab,  a  database  of  indicators  on 
online  platforms,  business  users,  and  business  models.  The  Data  Lab  draws  on  multiple 
structured  and  unstructured  data  sources  and  uses  a  variety  of  techniques  to  produce  an 
output consisting of relational data, graphs, texts, tables, and infographics. 

Following the establishment of a conceptual framework and based on the indicators collected 
in  the  Data  Lab,  we  developed  an  overview  and  measurement  of  the  online  platform 
economy.  The  Data  Lab  also  contributed  to  research  and  infographics  on  specific  themes, 
such as mergers and acquisitions or trade flows, and to providing data for analytical papers 
such as the paper on the impacts of COVID-19 on the online platform economy (see Task 2). 
Finally, as part of Task 1, we conducted a preliminary monitoring of the implementation of the 
EU  Platform  to  Business  Regulation  (“P2B  Regulation”),  drawing  on  a  review  of  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  a  sample  of  platforms,  the  results  of  the  second  wave  of  the  business 
survey, and a review of issues reported.    

b.  Measurement of the online platform economy 

In the first stage of the project, we developed a conceptual framework in order to define the 
online  platforms  in  the  scope  of  the  study.  Based  on  the  2016  Communication  on  online 
platforms4, we used the following definition of online platforms:  

“online spaces where users are brought together by a platform operator in order to facilitate 
an interaction (exchange of information, a commercial transaction, etc.)” 

The  study  focused  more  specifically  on  the  interactions  between  online  platforms  and 
business  users,  defined  as  “any  private  individual  acting  in  a  commercial  or  professional 
capacity who, or any legal person which, through online intermediation services offers goods 
or  services  to  consumers  for  purposes  relating  to  its  trade,  business,  craft  or  profession”.5 
The  scope  of  the  study  included  platforms  of  all  sizes  operating  in  the  EU,  categorised 
across the following types: 

  e-commerce marketplaces 

  online application stores 

  online search engines 

  social media platforms 

  online media platforms  

Following  the  definition  of  the  scope  and  taxonomy  of  online  platforms,  we  developed  a 
conceptual  framework  to  measure  the  online  platform  economy,  by  identifying  key 

4  European  Commission  (2016a).  Communication  Online  Platforms  and  the  Digital  Single  Market  Opportunities 

and Challenges for Europe, 25 May 2016, COM(2016) 288 final. 

5  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  promoting 

fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
dimensions and indicators. This framework, presented below, was elaborated based on the 
work  of  the  Expert  Group  of  the  Online  Platform  Observatory6,  the  review  of  other  existing 
approaches and the availability of indicators.   

Table 1. Dimensions to measure the online platform economy 

Platform size and importance 

Economic significance 

Volume of trade mediated by 
platforms 

Power over the users 

Data on data 

Business dependence on 
platforms 

Platforms’ share of consumer 
attention 

Acquisitions as competition 
strategy 

Consequences of the platforms’ power 

Platform volatility 

Platform transparency 

Other policy-related issues 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 

The  economic  significance  covers  the  general  aspects  of  online  platforms  and  can  be 
measured through: 

1.  Platform size and importance: established measurements of platform size may not 
always  be  adequate,  therefore  this  dimension  includes  different  indicators  (e.g. 
revenues, number of employees, market share etc.) 

2.  Volume  of  trade  mediated  by  platforms:  measuring the  size of  platform-mediated 

trade flows between countries (e.g. sales and purchases via online platforms). 

3.  Data  on  data:  platforms facilitate flows  of  data from  one party  to another,  and as a 
result also accumulate data for themselves, therefore data flows is also an important 
aspect of the platform economy. 

The  second  area of measurement  is  the  power  that  platforms  have over  their  users,  and it 
includes: 

1.  Business dependence on platforms: as platforms generate value for businesses by 
providing  them  with  access  to  demand  for  their  products,  businesses  become 
dependent on the platforms to different extents, and as a result vulnerable to certain 
changes  in  the  platforms’  policies  (e.g.  share  of  revenue  coming  through  online 
platforms channels).  

2.  Platform’s  share  of  consumer  attention:  captures  the  importance  of  the  platform 

(e.g. traffic share, bounce rate etc.). 

3.  Acquisitions  as  competitive  strategy:  can  determine  the  market  position  and 
dominance of the platform on the market (e.g. number of mergers and acquisitions). 

The final area of observation covers the consequences of platforms’ power, namely: 

1.  Platform volatility: changes in the technologies, policies and practices that make up 

an online platform that can influence businesses and other consumers. 

6 Expert Group for the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy (2020). Work stream on Measurement & 

Economic Indicators, Progress report. Retrieved from 
https://platformobservatory.eu/app/uploads/2020/07/ProgressReport_Workstream_on_Measurement_and_Ec
onomic_Indicators_2020.pdf  

30 

 
 
                                                 
2.  Platform  transparency:  capacity  of  platform  users  to  understand  the  regulations, 
terms  and  conditions,  mechanisms  of  the  platforms  can  influence  businesses  and 
other consumers. 

3.  Other potentially problematic and thus policy-relevant practices. 

In  order  to  provide  an  economic  overview  of  the  online  platform  economy  based  on  the 
above  conceptual  framework  and  key  indicators,  we  identified  the  most  important  online 
platforms  that  can  serve  as  a  proxy  for  measuring  and  monitoring  the  online  platform 
economy. We identified the top 50 platforms used across EU Member States based on their 
traffic share using Similarweb. The list of the top 50 platforms is displayed below. 

Figure 1. Traffic share of the 50 selected Online platforms 

Source: Authors’ elaboration, based on Similarweb data (July 2019) 

Annex  1  presents  the  full  list  and  main  characteristics  of  the  platforms  monitored  under 
Task 1.  

Following the conceptual framework and the selection of platforms, we collected data on the 
different  indicators  relevant  to  measure  the  online  platform  economy.  The  following  table 
presents the indicators gathered for each dimension with their sources. 

Table 2. Indicators to measure the online platform economy 

Dimension 

Sub-dimension 

Indicators 

Economic 
significance 

Platform  size  and 
importance 

Traffic  share  of  top  50  online  platforms, 
search engines and social media market 
Traffic share of search engines and social 
media market 
Total revenues of top 50 platforms 
Total employment from top 50 platforms 
Share  of  bookings  of  major  OTAs  in 
Europe 
OTA  share  of  hotel  overnight  bookings  in 
Europe 
Revenues  of  the  vacaction  rental  and  ride 
hailing segments in Europe 
Share  of  European  using  ride  hailing 
services 

Sources 

Similarweb 

Statcounter 

Crunchbase 
Crunchbase 
Statista (Hotrec) 

Statista (Hotrec) 

Statista 

Statista 
Automative 
Study, Deloitte) 

(Global 
Consumer 

31 

00,511,522,53googleyoutubefacebookamazontwitterebayinstagramyahooreddittwitchbookinglinkedinpinterestbingaliexpressduckduckgotaboolaallegroseznamolxoutbrainleboncoinvktripadvisoryandexokstartpagezalandoottoqwantairbnbcdiscountemagsubito.itmilanunciosrightmoveidealojeuxvideosapobolimediaargosidealistaimmobilienscout24ryanairbonprixtrivagoskyscannerceneoflickrWeighted average traffic share 
 
 
Dimension 

Sub-dimension 

Indicators 

Volume  of 
mediated 
platforms 

trade 
by 

Power  over  the 
users 

Data on data 
Business 
dependence 
platforms 

on 

Platforms’ share of 
consumer attention 
Acquisitions 
as 
competition 
strategy 

Consequences 
of  the  platforms’ 
power 

Platform 
transparency 

Platform volatility 

potentially 

Other 
problematic 
practices 

of 

enterprises 

Europe  taxi  app  market  shares,  revenues 
and number of users 
Market size of B2C e-commerce (share of 
GDP, revenue) 
Consumer spending on online shopping  
Share 
number 
and 
conducting online sales 
Share 
enterprises 
number 
and 
conducting  websales  via  own  website  or 
via marketplace and respective turnover 
Number of enterprises selling electronically 
to own country, other EU countries, rest of 
world 
Not available 
Share of enterprises paying to advertise on 
the internet 
Share  of  advertising  budget  on  online 
advertising  

of 

Turnover  from  online  platforms  sales  by 
enterprises 
E-commerce revenue share of companies 
Share of revenue via online platforms 
Dependency on online platforms 
Share of companies multi-homing 
Reasons for using only one platform  
Reasons 
for  difficulties 
platforms 
Traffic share of top 50 platforms 

to  use  other 

Number  of  mergers  and  acquisitions  from 
2013  to  2020  by  parent  companies,  by 
platforms,  by  country  of  acquirer  and 
acquiree  
Perception  by  enterprises  of  terms  and 
conditions clarity  
Perception by enterprises of search engine 
dispute resolution 
Perception by enterprises of data and use 
of information  
Perception  by  enterprises  on  access  to 
data on consumers  
Perception  by  enterprises  on  access  to 
data on companies  
Perception  by  enterprises  on  access  to 
commercial data 
Perception  by  enterprises  of  change  of 
transparency in terms and conditions  
Experience  of  enterprises  with  online 
platforms 

Occurrence  of  problems  with  online 
platforms 
Types  of  problems  experienced  by 
enterprises with online platforms 
Steps  taken  by  enterprises  to  remedy 
problems 

Sources 

Business of Apps 

Statista (Ecommerce 
Foundation) 
Statista (PostNord) 
Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Not available 
Eurostat 

PPMI Survey (First wave: 
November  2019,  Second 
wave: October 2020) 
Eurostat 

Statista (Eurostat) 
PPMI  survey  (First  wave: 
November  2019,  Second 
wave: October 2020) 

Similarweb 

Crunchbase 

Eurobarometer 439 
(2016) 

survey 

(second 

PPMI 
wave: October 2020) 
PPMI  survey  (First  wave: 
November  2019,  Second 
wave: October 2020) 
PPMI  survey  (First  wave: 
November  2019,  Second 
wave: October 2020) 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 

Drawing  on  the  indicators  collected,  we  developed  an  overview  of  the  online  platform 
economy structured around the three key dimensions (economic significance, power over the 
users, consequences of the platform’s power) and their sub-dimensions, covering at least the 
list  of top  50  platforms  identified  depending  on  the  sources available.  A  first  version of  this 
measurement of the online platform economy was published on the Observatory website in 
July 2020 under the section “State of Play” and was recently updated in February 2021 with 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
newly  available  data  including  the  second  wave  of  the  business  survey.  Annex  2  presents 
the latest version of this state of  play of the measurement of the online platform economy. 

c.  Monitoring of the implementation of the P2B Regulation 

The  EU  Regulation  on  platform-to-business  relations  (P2B  Regulation),  which  entered  into 
application on 12 July 2020, established a set of rules for online platform intermediaries and 
general  online  search  engines  to  create  a  fair,  transparent  and  predictable  business 
environment  for  businesses  users  of  online  platforms. Within  the  framework  of  Task  1,  we 
conducted  a  preliminary  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  First,  we 
reviewed the accessible terms and conditions of a sample of large and small online platforms 
and  small  engines  and  compared  them  against  the  provisions  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  In 
addition,  we  used  the  second  wave  of  the  business  survey  conducted  in  October  2020  to 
assess the implementation thus far from the perspective of business users of platforms. We 
also reviewed the issues reported on seller forums and on the Observatory page “flag your 
issue” to identify those related to the provisions of the P2B Regulation.  

The  full  methodology  and  results  of  this  preliminary  monitoring  exercise  are  presented  in 
research  section.
Annex  3  and  published  on 

the  Observatory  website 

the 

in 

33 

 
 
2.  Task 2: Evidence gathering and high-level data analysis of 

emerging issues in the online platform economy 

Task  2  was  running  throughout  the  lifecycle  of  the  project  and  resulted  in  eight  analytical 
papers,  analysing  the  most  important  issues  of  platform  economy.  The  data  collection  for 
each  analytical  paper  drew  on  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  emerging  questions  and 
used a set  of  analytical  tools, ranging from  desk  research  and interviews,  to panel  surveys 
and quantitative data analysis.  

In this  section  we present  the  progress  made under Task  2 since the  second  iterim report. 
We start with an overview of the data collection activities. Afterwards, we briefly present the 
summary results of the last three analytical papers (AP6, AP7 and AP8). In the annexes we 
include all analytical papers implemented during the course of the study. 

a.  Data collection 

The work on the three papers started with a wide literature search and review exercise. The 
review  of  academic  articles  followed  systematic  principles  and  was  complemented  by  desk 
research  to  gather  relevant  non-academic  publications.  Overall,  the  work  and  publications 
reviewed included academic articles and non-academic sources such as reports and studies 
from  public  authorities  and  industry  associations,  market  research,  expert  blogs,  etc. While 
the primary geographical focus was the EU, we also used literature and sources from outside 
the EU (e.g. Australia, United States) when relevant. 

The  time  to  publish  academic  articles  can  take  around  two  years  from  submitting  the  final 
draft  to  making  it  available  for  research  audiences.  Meanwhile,  the  platform  economy 
evolves very rapidly. Various trends and actors emerge, evolve and decline. Platform policies 
and practices also are in continuous change. Therefore, the analytical papers relied heavily 
on the additional targeted online desk research, focusing on narrow issues as represented in 
news  articles,  blog  records,  reports  form  regulatory  authorities  and  business  associations, 
and sources dedicated to various business users of online platforms. These sources helped 
us  identify  the  main  concerns  and  narratives  of  businesses  operating  on  various  platforms 
analysed in the three papers.  

The full lists of sources and literature used in the preparation of the three analytical papers, is 
provided at the end of each respective paper.  

We implemented an interview programme to gather in-depth insights from a diverse range of 
stakholders.  During  final  phase  of  the  study  we  implemented  60  interviews.  To  secure  the 
interviews,  we  built  on  the  connections  and  relationships  with  business  associations  and 
platforms  interviewed  in  the  earlier  rounds  of  research,  as  well  as  recruited  additional 
participants. More specifically, we focused on the following types of stakeholders: 

  Online  platforms:  social  media  platforms,  e-marketplaces,  app  stores  and 
accommodation  booking  platforms;  as  well  as  EU  level  industry  associations 
representing online platforms. 

  Associations of platform business users and platform business users themselves: app 
developers,  e-commerce  sellers  and  accommodation  service  providers,  users  of 
platform advertising services. 

  Competitors of major platforms in parts of the ad tech sector. 

  Experts in the topics of the analytical papers: platform data, advertising and definition 

of significant market power.  

 
 
The  interviews  were  conducted  following  a  semi-structured  interview  guide  tailored to  each 
stakeholder group or a specific stakeholder (based on their affiliations, research interests or 
experience,  etc.).  In  some  cases,  stakeholders  provided  additional  documentation  after  the 
interview. Following the interviews, we developed semi-structured interview notes to facilitate 
comparison by topic and question. 

Finally,  in  October  2020  we  carried  out  the  second  business  user  survey.  The  survey 
collected  responses  from  1,990  respondents  from  nine  selected  EU  Member  States: 
Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  the  Netherlands,  Spain 
and  Sweden.  The  survey  methodology  is  presented  in  Annex  4  and  descriptive  analysis  is 
included in Annex 5. 

b.  Analytical paper #6: The structure of the online platform economy 

post COVID-19 outbreak 

Rationale and objectives 

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a unique situation where confinement measures and 
closure of frontiers have led all sectors of industry and society to digitise at lightning speed in 
order to be able to pursue their activities. Although digitalisation of traditional sectors could 
already be observed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the latter has significantly accelerated 
its pace, and exposed the opportunities and weaknesses of the platform economy. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a unique situation where confinement measures and 
closure of frontiers have led all sectors of industry and society to digitise at lightning speed in 
order to be able to pursue their activities. Although digitalisation of traditional sectors could 
already be observed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the latter has significantly accelerated 
its pace, and exposed the opportunities and weaknesses of the platform economy.  

This analytical paper focuses on the structure of the online platform economy post COVID-19 
outbreak and is prepared in the context of the Study on "Support to the Observatory for the 
Online  Platform  Economy".    This  analytical  paper  will  analyse  three  key  dimensions  of 
impact: 

1.  Assessment of COVID-19 effect on online platforms, businesses and other users: the 

immediate, medium and potential long-term effect; 

2.  Possible  impact  on  the  structure  of  digital  markets  and  existing  incentives  for  M&A 

activities by large gatekeeper players; 

3.  Assessment of existing or potential political impacts of COVID-19. 

Methodological approach 

The  analytical  paper  is  based  on  literature  review  and  desk  research,  complemented  by 
semi-structured interviews and a survey with business users of online platforms. 

As a first step, we conducted a review of literature following systematic principles using the 
EBSCO,  ISI  Web  of  Science  and  Scopus  databases,  complemented  by  extensive  online 
desk  research  to  gather  all  relevant  (non-academic)  publications,  including  “grey”  sources, 
related  to  the  research  questions.  We  covered  publications  derived  from  a  variety  of 
information  sources,  including  reports  from  national  and  EU  public  authorities,  international 

 
 
 
organisations, business or consumer associations, expert blogs and market research reports. 
In addition, we conducted a review of data and statistics to support the research questions. 
We  explored  data  from  official  sources  such  as  Eurostat  (e.g.  Structural  business  statistics 
(SBS) and annual national accounts), Eurobarometer, Dealroom, the OECD, the World Bank, 
the World Economic Forum, as well as other market databases and sources such as Statista, 
Crunchbase,  Facebook/OECD  Future  of  Business  survey,  Internet  Live  Stats,  SimilarWeb, 
Statcounter, etc.  

As a second step, we conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and experts to 
collect additional evidence and perceptions to inform the three research dimensions. In total, 
we  conducted  22  interviews  with  stakeholders  from  various  groups,  including  large  and 
medium  online  platforms,  platform  associations,  business  associations,  consumer 
associations  and  experts.  The  interview  guides  were  developed  based  on  the  research 
questions and on the type of stakeholders.  

In  addition,  we  used  the  results  of  the  business  survey  (second  wave)  conducted  by  the 
Consortium for this Observatory support study. The survey was carried out in October 2020 
and collected 1,990 responses from business users of online platforms across Belgium, the 
Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden. 
This survey wave followed a first wave carried out in  November-December 2019 which had 
collected  1,667  responses.  For  the  purpose  of  the  present  analytical  paper,  the  survey 
included  questions  regarding  the  short  term  and medium-term  impacts  of  the  COVID  crisis 
on  the  business  users’  demand,  supply,  production,  revenues,  revenues  from  online 
platforms, support received from platforms during the crisis, multi-homing and switching.   

The finding from the literature review and desk research were then triangulated with the by 
semi-structured  interviews  and  the  business  survey  results  to  carry  out  the  analysis  and 
address the research questions.  

There were inherent limitations to analysing the medium to long-term impacts of the COVID-
19  crisis  on  the  economy  and behaviours.  First of  all,  this  is  due to the lack  of  robust  data 
and  consensus  to  establish  any  prediction.  Secondly,  the  current  crisis  lacks  points  of 
comparison due to its scale and different dimensions (sanitary and economic). Finally, as the 
crisis is still ongoing and vaccines are only starting to be rolled out, there is still uncertainty 
on how long the effects of the crisis will last.    

Short,  medium  and  potential  long-term  economic  and  behavioural  impacts  of 
the COVID-19 crisis 

the 

lockdown  measures,  most  activities 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  and the  preventive measures  implemented  by governments  have 
had  economic  and  behavioural  impacts  on  consumers,  businesses  and  online  platforms. 
(work,  communication,  education, 
With 
entertainment)  have  moved  online.  Due  to  the  impact  of  the  crisis  on  the  economy  and 
employment, consumers have consumed less or prioritised products more aligned with their 
immediate  needs  or  values.  The  COVID-19  crisis  has  increased  the  use  of  online  services 
and the breadth of users. It is difficult to forecast the extent to which these changes will last, 
but  new  habits  may  have  formed  during  the  pandemic,  and  due  to  the  lasting  uncertainty, 
consumers expect that the COVID-19 crisis will continue to affect their life, work and finances 
for an undefined period of time. At the same time, the restrictive measures have highlighted 
the importance of certain face to face activities, therefore it can be expected that consumers 
will go back to a mix of online and offline activities post COVID. 

The  pandemic  and  restrictions  are  severely  affecting  labour  markets,  economies  and 
companies,  including  global  supply  chains,  leading  to  different  business  disruptions  across 
sectors  in  terms  of  sales,  revenues  and  employment.  Overall,  at  least  half  of  businesses 

36 

 
 
have experienced a decrease in demand and revenues in spring 2020 due to the restrictions. 
Businesses  in  the  tourism,  hospitality,  transportation  and  event-focused  sectors  have 
experienced  the  hardest  economic  shocks  from  the  pandemic  and  social  distancing 
measures. The crisis also affected the operations of supply chains and led to a reduction of 
production. Although unemployment rates have been contained by government interventions, 
future economic outlooks appear negative and will depend on the duration of the COVID-19 
crisis, the rebound in demand after the crisis, and the government support measures. While 
the  digitalisation  of  businesses  was  already  underway,  the  pandemic  has  considerably 
accelerated  this  transition  and  it  can  be  expected  that  that  the  businesses  that  have 
digitalised their processes, moved to online business models or increased their use of online 
platforms  will  keep  these  in  place  beyond  the  crisis.  The  successive  business  surveys 
conducted for the Observatory study show an  increasing dependency of business users on 
online platforms in 2020, with limited switching and multihoming during the COVID-19 crisis 
despite  a  decrease  of  revenue  generated  through  the  platforms.  Recognising  that  their 
success is often linked to their business users, several platforms implemented measures to 
support their business users during the crisis, ranging from written guidelines to reduction of 
fees.   

Overall,  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  crisis  on  online  platforms  has  been  linked  to  the 
changes in consumer behaviour and businesses users’ economic situation and dependence. 
Data  suggest  that  the  traffic  share  and  revenues  have  increased  for  social  media,  search 
engines  and  some  national  marketplaces  while  they  have  decreased  for  platforms  in  the 
tourism  and  travel  sectors.  The  top  5  platforms  (Google,  Apple,  Facebook,  Amazon, 
Microsoft) have been quite resilient and recorded profits in 2020. In addition, the pandemic 
led to an acceleration of the digital transition of sectors that were still very much offline (e.g. 
health, education), and to the emergence of new platforms in these fields.  

Effects on mergers and acquisition activities 

Before  the  current  crisis,  the  top  online  platforms  such  as  Google,  Amazon,  Facebook, 
Apple, Microsoft (GAFAM), but also Verizon, demonstrated a high activity in the field of M&A, 
purchasing  a  large  number  of  companies  to  either  strengthen  their  current  products  and 
services  or  expand  into  adjacent  markets  and  consolidate  their  ecosystem.  Despite  the 
COVID-19  crisis,  the  GAFAM  have  maintained  the  pace  of  their  M&A  activities  over  2020, 
and  the  announced  deals  reflect  a  continuation of  their  previous  strategy.  Considering  that 
the  COVID-19  crisis  has  increased  the  reliance on  online  platforms  and did  not  affect  their 
revenues, one can expect that the large online platforms will  be able to continue their M&A 
activities in the future. 

Since  the  threshold  for  EU  merger  review  is  based  on  the  monetary  turnover  of  the  firms 
involved  in  the  concentration,  many  acquisitions  of  small  promising  firms  may  occur  below 
the radar of the EU competition authorities. However, the recent Digital Market Act proposes 
to  introduce  the  obligation  for  large  platforms  designated  as  gatekeepers  to  notify  the 
Commission of any intended concentration with another digital provider within the meaning of 
the EU Merger Regulation. This should enable the Commission to detect any acquisition of 
nascent potential rival that could foreclose competition. 

Political impacts of the COVID-19 crisis  

Digital issues have been high on the EU political agenda for the past decade, and continue to 
be  with  the  Digital  strategy  of  the  Von  der  Leyen  Commission  ‘Shaping  Europe’s  digital 
future’.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  as  companies  and  consumers  moved  online  for 
work, communication and entertainment, the response from online platforms to the spread of 

 
 
 
illegal  and  harmful  content  became  even  more  scrutinised  by  regulatory  and  consumer 
protection authorities. With the pandemic, some illegal activities become even more harmful 
when they can affect consumers’ health, for example with unsafe products or false claims of 
cures. Other practices such as the spread of disinformation may limit the effectiveness of the 
official  efforts  by  health  authorities  and  fuel  hatred  or  violence.  The  surge  of  phishing  and 
cyber-attacks  towards  essential  activities  have  also  exposed  the  weaknesses  and  risks  of 
digital  services.  The  measures  put  in  place  by  online  platforms  to  protect  consumers  from 
COVID-19 related scams and to tackle illegal content and disinformation have demonstrated 
their  capacity  to  detect  and  take  down  illegal  goods  and  content,  although  the  measures 
have been inconsistently applied across platforms and did not fully contain the flow of illegal 
and harmful goods and content online.  

The  pandemic  has  highlighted  the  dependence  on  online  services  and  exposed  their 
weaknesses, amplifying existing issues and confirming the need to regulate online platforms 
to  mitigate  the  issues  encountered  with  more  obligations,  transparency  and  accountability. 
The crisis has also highlighted the need to increase digital preparedness with better access 
to  digital  infrastructure  and  digital  literacy  to  avoid  excluding  some  parts  of  the  population 
and  enabling  citizens  to  identify  disinformation.  The  recently  announced  EU  legislative  and 
policy initiatives in the digital area already aim to tackle the short-term impacts of the crisis in 
terms  of  emerging  risks  and  needs,  while  the  long-term  impacts  remain  to  be  assessed  to 
define any additional long-term policies. 

c.  Analytical  paper  #7:  Multi-homing:  obstacles,  opportunities, 

facilitating factors   

Multi-homing  refers  to  a  situation  in  which  users  tend  to  use  several  competing  platform 
services  in  parallel.  This  applies  to  all  sides  of  the  market:  businesses  using  different 
platforms to sell their goods and services; customers (buyers, end users) switching between 
different platforms to buy the goods and services that they need. Multi-homing may help to 
counter  the  network  effects  and  subsequent  economic  power  that  large  platforms  benefit 
from.  If  business  users  as  well  as  their  customers  could  easily  change  platforms  or  use 
several  platforms  in  parallel  without  significant  costs  and  inconveniencies,  this  would  make 
markets  more  competitive  and  decrease  the  economic  power  of  large  platforms.  It  could 
lower barriers to entry for emerging new platforms and foster innovation. 

This  paper  explores  the  main  obstacles  and  opportunities  for  multi-homing.  We  focus 
primarily  on  multi-homing  by  business  users,  however,  we  also  explore  multi-homing  vs 
single-homing  among  the  consumers/  end  users,  because  it  impacts  significantly  the 
business user side of the market. The analysis is based on the existing literature and other 
data  sources,  including  blog  entries,  reports  by  public  authorities,  court  cases,  statistical 
data, etc. We carried out 25 interviews, implemented a survey of 1 990 business users in 9 
EU  countries and undertook four  case  studies that focused  on four  platforms that  emerged 
successfully within a specific market (Shopify, Airbnb, TikTok, Bolt). 

The analysis carried out in this paper showed that most business users of online platforms 
(sellers, producers, content creators, advertisers, hoteliers) tend to multi-home in the sense 
of using more than one platform to sell their goods and services. The extent of multi-homing 
varies  depending  on  the  specific  market  and the  nature  of  the good or service offered.  For 
example,  if  a  business  sells  a  unique  product  which  is  the  best  fit  for  a specific,  dedicated 
platform  (e.g.  handicrafts  on  Etsy,  classic  cars  on  eBay)  such  business  is  more  likely  to 
single-home.  More  than  half  of  all  app  developers  single-home,  given  the  complexities  of 
developing  apps  for  the  different  and  incompatible  app  stores  (Google  Play,  Apple  App 
Store).  

38 

 
 
On the other side of online platforms, the end users (buyers, renters, consumers, app users) 
tend to multi-home in the sense of having installed (or at least being aware of) about more 
than  one  platform  that  is  useful  for  the  tasks  they  want  to  implement.  For  example,  most 
buyers access several platforms for buying goods, services, liaising with friends, consuming 
social media, booking hotels or short-term accommodation. Nevertheless, when it comes to 
doing specific tasks (such as buying groceries, ordering food from local restaurants, ordering 
a  car  ride,  checking  weather)  user  preferences  tend  to  become  ‘sticky’,  i.e.  one  platform 
becomes  the  main  choice  most  of  the  time  due  to  habit,  convenience,  speed,  familiarity, 
network  of  friends,  etc.  However,  if  alternative  platforms  exist  and  users  can  switch  with 
relative ease, it constrains the market power of the ‘sticky’ platforms. Most end users single-
home when doing online searches where Google Search is by far the most prevalent search 
engine.  When  it  comes  to  downloading  and  using  apps,  most  end  users  single-home  on 
either  Google  Play  or  App  Store  as  these  are  the  dominant  app  stores  on,  respectively 
Android and iOS operating systems that are not compatible with each other.  

For  business  users  multi-homing  offers  a  number  of  advantages  and  may  be  part  of  the 
business strategy to increase sales, through: firstly, diversifying the user base in that some 
customer demographics may prefer one platform over the other; secondly, gaining access to 
a variety of geographical markets in that some platforms have a significant market position in 
individual  countries  (for  example,  in  e-commerce:  Allegro  in  Poland,  Bol.com  in  the 
Netherlands,  eMAG  in  Romania).  Further,  multi-homing,  at  least  in  theory,  could  be 
considered  a  diversification  strategy  because  it  gives  businesses  an  option  to  choose 
platforms  that  offer  the  best  service  and  to  move  away  from  platforms  that  impose 
unfavourable terms or charge high prices. Multi-homing also opens markets for competition 
from  new,  entrant  platforms:  if  businesses  are  willing  to  explore  new  ways  to  reach 
consumers, then it is easier for the new platforms to challenge the incumbents, which in turn 
offers new channels for businesses to multi-home.  

Yet  other  businesses  choose  to  single-home,  either  as  part  of  their  business  strategy  or 
due  to  limited  capacity  to  multi-home.  Single-homing  may  become  a  business  strategy  in 
cases  where  a  business  is  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  the  service  offered  by  the  platform, 
including  user  access  and  experience,  data  access,  other  terms  and  conditions,  conflict 
resolution.  In  some  cases,  no  other  platform  exists  that  could  be  used  to  reach  the  clients 
(this is pertinent for around 20% of businesses, according to the business user survey), for 
example,  when  businesses  sell  highly  specialised  products  and  services.  Sometimes, 
businesses  find  it  difficult  or  cumbersome  to  multi-home.  Especially  for  smaller 
businesses it may be difficult to operate on several platforms at the same time as they do not 
have the skills or technical means to manage several online sales channels. Furthermore, it 
takes time to  build the  client  network  and  reputation  (including  client  ratings,  reviews)  on  a 
platform.  Given  that  this  cannot  be  transferred  easily  between  platforms,  it  creates  a  ‘sunk 
cost’ decreasing the willingness to consider options for multi-homing.  

Generally, the markets that online platforms operate in are fast-paced and dynamic. Online 
platforms make business decisions in order to stay competitive in the market and maintain 
or grow their customer base. They invest in the development of their services and innovate 
constantly; they also analyse the vast amounts of data that they collect about their business 
users,  consumers  and  the  functioning  of  the  market  as  a  whole  to  offer  ever  more 
personalised,  targeted  and  well-timed  services.  In  most  cases,  these  are  sensible  market 
decisions.  Online  platforms  also  take  steps  to  ensure  the  loyalty  of  their  businesses  and 
consumers,  for  example,  by  designing  systems  of  incentives,  discounts,  bonuses,  bundled 
services and other measures.  

 
 
 
Differentiation  is  one  of  the  strategies  that  platforms  use  to  stay  competitive  or  enter  the 
market.  Differentiation  includes introducing  novel  services or features that  are  not  available 
on  the  other  platforms  (vertical  differentiation),  or  targeting  very  specific,  niche  audiences 
(horizontal  differentiation)7.  From  the  multi-homing  perspective  this  can  be  interpreted  in  a 
somewhat  contradictory  way.  On  the  one  hand,  one  may  argue  that  this  decreases  multi-
homing,  because  differentiated  platforms  serve  different  customer  base  and  thus  may 
complement rather than compete against each other. On the other hand, differentiation can 
be  favourable  to  multi-homing,  for  two  reasons:  a)  it  allows  new  entrants  to  overcome  the 
incumbency effect and to build a market presence; b) over time a successful entrant might try 
to  challenge  the  incumbent  by  adding  new  features  and  starting  to  compete  directly. 
Characteristic examples of such developments include Shopify, Airbnb, TikTok. 

Our analysis revealed cases when actions taken by online platforms to ensure loyalty of their 
business  or  end  users  (in  effect  –  to  foster  single-homing)  become  an  issue  from  the 
public  interest  and  public  policy  perspective.  These  include  deliberate  actions  of 
platforms  that  wield  significant  market  power  and  use  such  power  to  nudge  businesses  to 
make choices  that  would  be  unlikely  in  competitive markets. Online  platforms  develop  their 
market power by drawing on the network effects, data access and product innovation. Some 
platforms (e.g. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple) have also engaged in the development of 
large integrated  ecosystems  by  copying,  buying  out,  integrating  or  discontinuing  competitor 
platforms as well as using exclusive agreements with other platforms or market players in 
order  to  entrench  the  dominant  position.  For  new  platforms,  entering  such  markets  is 
extremely  difficult,  even  for  those  pursuing  the  differentiation  strategy.  This  limits  scope  for 
innovation on the market and deters possible entrants even further.  

Our analysis revealed cases, where businesses appear to multi-home in the sense of using 
several  platforms  to  sell  their  goods  or  services.  Nevertheless,  these  markets  are  clearly 
dominated  by  one  platform,  for  example,  Amazon  in  e-commerce,  Booking.com  in  hotel 
accommodation,  Airbnb in  short-term  accommodation,  Google  Search  in  online  search and 
advertising,  Facebook  in  social  media  advertising;  or  two  platforms,  as  is  the  case  with 
Google Play and Apple App Store among the app stores. Markets have ‘tipped’, with some 
platforms creating ecosystems within which most end users find it convenient to single-home. 
From the perspective of business users, while there might be a variety of platforms operating 
in the pertinent markets, it still feels like single-homing. The key reasons include: 

The businesses (sellers of goods and services, hotels, app developers) find themselves in a 
position where they must be on the platform if they want to reach most of their potential users 
(buyers,  renters).  The  dominant  platform  cannot  be  substituted  by  any  other  platform  or 
platforms without a loss, by the business user, of a significant share of consumers. 

The dominant platform imposes terms and conditions that business users feel are unfair or 
unfavourable  to  them,  but  they  comply  as  they  feel  that  they  do  not  have  a  choice.  Such 
terms and conditions concern, for example, the commission charged by the platform as well 
as limits to data access. 

Platforms also exert influence over the pricing strategies used by businesses, with explicit or 
implicit sanctions of delisting or decrease in ranking if the business refuses, for example, to 
offer discounts or other amenities. 

Multi-homing could be facilitated by taking actions in several directions: 

7  Belleflamme,  P.  (2020b).  An  introduction  to  the  economics  of  platform  competition  –  Part  2.  Retrieved  from 

http://www.ipdigit.eu/2020/04/an-introduction-to-the-economics-of-platform-competition-part-2/ 

40 

 
 
                                                 
  Firstly,  by  creating  a  framework  that  allows  business  users  and  end  users  to  use 
multiple  platforms  and  switch  easily,  in  particular  through  data  portability  and 
interoperability;      

  Secondly, by identifying the dominant, gatekeeper platforms and mandating them to 
open  up  data  access  as  well  as  prohibiting  actions  that  lock  in  users  and  stifle 
competition;  

  Thirdly,  by  adapting  competition  policy  to  the  fast-changing  digital  markets  and 
complementing  the  current  regulatory  regime  with  innovative  tools  and  enforcement 
mechanisms. 

1)  Create  a  framework  that  allows  business  users  and  end  users  to  use  multiple 
platforms and switch easily, in particular through data portability and interoperability      

Whereas single-homing may be a deliberate business choice (or choice of convenience for 
the  end  users),  this  paper  has  shown  that  in  some  cases  multi-homing  is  precluded  by 
information  asymmetries,  lack  of  skills  or  technical  means  to  use  several  platforms  at  the 
same  time,  or  sunk  costs  involved  in  rebuilding  the  client  (friends,  users)  networks  and 
reputation  on  other  platforms.  Data  portability  facilitated  by  better  interoperability  among 
different platforms (platform ecosystems) would help to address such issues.   

In  the  EU,  the  right  to  personal  data  portability  has  been  introduced  in  Article  20  of  the 
GDPR,  which  states  that  data  subjects  ‘shall  have  the  right  to  receive  the  personal  data 
concerning  him  or  her,  which  he  or  she  has  provided  to  a  controller,  in  a  structured, 
commonly  used  and  machine-readable  format  and  have  the  right  to  transmit  those  data  to 
another controller without hindrance from the controller to which the personal data have been 
provided’8.  The  scope  of  GDPR  is  still  relatively  limited  in  that  it  allows  private  persons  to 
move the ‘provided’ data from one service provider to another (thus, this does not include, for 
example,  the  ‘inferred’  data)9.  In  order  to  facilitate  multi-homing  in  the  online  platform 
environment: 

the right to data portability of persons should be enhanced by expanding the scope of data 
that is subject to portability and individual control of users, such as machine- generated data, 
in line with the European strategy for data10; 

the right to data portability should be expanded to business users; it should be applicable to 
data  that  has  been  provided  by  business  users,  as  well  as,  to  the  extent  it  is  technically 
feasible, to data generated by transactions between these business users and their clients.  

The key preconditions for data portability and interoperability are:  

8 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of 
natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and 
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). 

9 For more details see Gineikytė, V. et al. (2020) Business user and third-party access to online platform data. 

Analytical paper 5. Observatory on the Online Platform Economy. 
https://platformobservatory.eu/app/uploads/2020/09/Analytical-Paper-5-Business-user-and-third-party-
access-to-data_final.pdf 

10  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament, the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  A  European  strategy  for  data.  Brussels,  19.2.2020 
COM(2020) 66 final. 

 
 
 
                                                 
  defining  data  to  be  ported;  whereas  including  the  provided  (or  volunteered  data)  is 
the  other  categories  of  data 

relatively  uncontroversial,  decisions  concerning 
(observed, inferred) are more complex;  

  developing common standards for interoperability. 

Implementation of data portability and interoperability are technically complex, cost-intensive, 
and  subject  to  competing  interests.  Side-effects  that  are  impossible  to foresee  in  advance, 
are likely. For example, agreeing on a set of common standards for interoperability is time-
consuming, costly and might exclude smaller platforms. Another example, if businesses are 
granted the right to seamlessly transfer their transaction data from one platform to another, 
this means that private data of their consumers is also ported, which might not necessarily be 
welcome by these consumers. Further, the ‘inferred’ data might be generated by proprietary 
algorithms and be subject to copyright protection.  

Therefore, the requirement for data portability and data interoperability should be expanded 
gradually,  by  involving  all  the  sides  concerned  and  by  testing  different  approaches. 
For  example,  the  Data  Transfer  Project  was  launched  in  2018  with  contributors  including 
Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter. In consideration of Article 20 of GDPR, the 
project aims at ‘building a common framework with open-source code that can connect any 
two  online  service  providers,  enabling  a  seamless,  direct,  user  initiated  portability  of  data 
between  the  two  platforms’  ‘so  that  all  individuals  across  the  web  could  easily  move  their 
data between online  service providers  whenever  they  want’11.  Similarly,  in the  area of  non-
personal  data,  the  Regulation  on  a framework  for  the  free  flow  of  non-personal  data  in  the 
European  Union12  indicates  (Article  6)  that  European  Commission  should  encourage  and 
facilitate  the  development  of  self-regulatory  codes  concerning  ‘the  best  practices  for 
facilitating  the  switching  of  service  providers  and  the  porting  of  data  in  a  structured, 
commonly used and machine-readable format’.  

that 

the  most  promising  path 

An  earlier  analytical  paper  for  the  observatory  of  the  Online  Platform  Economy  has 
towards  better  data  portability  and 
demonstrated 
interoperability includes a mix of public sector as well as marker-led initiatives13. In addition to 
the Data Transfer Project, the self-regulatory solutions offering access to data may be based 
on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory terms) principles as well as opening 
access  to  data  through  data  pools  or  data  trusts.  The  EU  institutions  as  well  as  national 
authorities  should  provide  an  enabling  framework  for  such  initiatives  by  facilitating  the  joint 
action  of  the  stakeholders,  encouraging  the  inclusion  of  the  smaller  partners,  providing 
support for standard development and research. In some specific cases however mandated 
data  access  and  interoperability  can  be  justified.  These  are  the  cases  when  large, 
dominant platforms use their data advantage in a way which significantly hinders competition 
in  the  market,  acts  as  a  barrier  to  multi-homing,  and  deters  new,  entrant  platforms  from 
challenging the incumbent. This issue is addressed in the next recommendation.   

2)  Identify  the  dominant  gatekeeper  platforms  and  address  practices  that  these 
platforms use to entrench their dominant position and limit multi-homing 

This paper demonstrated that although businesses that depend on online platforms for most 
of  their  sales  tend  to  use  more  than  one  platform,  some  platforms  in  the  fields  of  e-

11 https://datatransferproject.dev/  
12  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1807  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018  on  a 

framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union. 

13  Gineikytė,  V.  et  al.  (2020)  Business  user  and  third-party  access  to  online  platform  data.  Analytical  paper  5. 
Economy. 

Observatory 
https://platformobservatory.eu/app/uploads/2020/09/Analytical-Paper-5-Business-user-and-third-party-
access-to-data_final.pdf 

Platform 

Online 

the 

on 

42 

 
 
                                                 
commerce, OTAs, app distribution, social media advertising, online search advertising are in 
effect  unavoidable  business  partners.  Given  that  a  significant  share  of  their  end  users 
(buyers,  consumers)  tend  to  single-home  on  one  side  of  the  market,  the  businesses  must 
operate  on  these  platforms;  otherwise  they  would  lose  access  to  a  significant  part  of  the 
market.  This  gives  such  platforms  significant  market  power.  The  largest  platforms  have 
significant data advantage, which is used to make their services ever more personalised and 
targeted, which in effect makes them even more indispensable for business users and end 
users.  By  using  their  financial  clout  to  acquire,  integrate  or  ‘kill’  the  emerging  competing 
platforms  such  platforms  also  limit  the  emerging  platforms  that  may  challenge  their 
incumbent status.   

The  P2B  regulation  refers  to  certain  intermediation  service  providers  that  ‘have  superior 
bargaining power, which enables them to, in effect, behave unilaterally in a way that can be 
unfair  and  that  can  be  harmful  to  the  legitimate  interests  of  their  businesses’  users  and, 
indirectly, also of consumers in the Union’14. In the inception impact assessment on the ex-
ante  regulatory  instrument,  the  Commission  listed  a  number  of  policy  options  that  are 
considered  in  view  of  the  large  online  platforms  that  act  as  gatekeepers  and  in  particular 
could ‘establish clear obligations and prohibited practices’15. The Commission is to publish its 
specific  proposals  for  the  Digital  Services  Act  and  Digital  Markets  Act  by  mid-December 
2020, including the criteria for defining the large gatekeeper platforms16.  

In  view  of  evidence  presented  in  this  paper,  we  suggest  that  a  limited  number  of  such 
gatekeeper  platforms  should  be  identified,  at the  EU  level,  based  on  criteria  such  as those 
presented by  the  Centre  of  Regulation  in  Europe17:  (1)  size of  the  platform,  (2) gatekeeper 
position, (3) enduring gatekeeper position, (4) ecosystem orchestrator. The number of such 
platforms should be limited18, however the European Commission should have the power to 
continuously monitor such online platforms and regularly update this list. Further, in order to 
foster multi-homing, several practices should be prohibited, first and foremost: 

Practices  that  aim  to  lock  in  the  end  users  (buyers,  consumers)  and  keep  them  single-
homing on the platform. Such practices include actions that exploit information asymmetries 
and limit consumer choice by nudging them to follow default, pre-installed options, limit data 
portability, make it difficult to change pre-installed options.  

Practices that aim to lock in the business users and deviate from good commercial conduct. 
In  particular  this  concerns  clauses  that  tie  in  business  users  to  exclusive  contracts,  or 
practices that influence the pricing policies of businesses via explicit or implicit threat of lower 
ranking or delisting.  

Further, the gatekeeper platforms should be mandated to ensure open access to data that 
is essential to their business users or which  is at the core of the market and without which 

14  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  promoting 

fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (Recital 2). 

15  European  Commission  (2020)  Digital  Services  Act  package:  Ex  ante  regulatory  instrument  for  large  online 
platforms  with  significant  network  effects  acting  as  gate-keepers  in  the  European  Union’s  internal  market. 
Inception Impact Assessment. 02/06/2020.  

16  The  European  Commission  adopted  a  package  consisting  of  its  proposals  for  the  Digital  Services  Act  and 
Digital  Markets  Act  on  15  December  2020.  This  paper  was  produced  and  submitted  before  this  date, 
therefore the specific proposals for DSA and DMA are not reflected upon in this paper.  

17 Centre of Regulation in Europe (2020) Digital Markets Act: Making economic regulation of platforms fit for the 
digital age, Recommendations Paper, https://cerre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CERRE_DIGITAL-
MARKETS-ACT_November20.pdf  

18 For example, in 2019-2020 the US Congress investigated four dominant platforms: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, 

and Google 

 
 
 
                                                 
any  new,  emerging  platforms  could  not  operate  successfully.  The  data  access  could  be 
granted  though  better  interoperability,  access  to APIs  or  data  sharing.  Given  the  extremely 
sensitive nature of such data (as it may include personal data or confidential business data 
about  competitors),  the  specific  categories  of  data  to  be  opened  are  to  be  defined  by  the 
Commission,  in  discussion  with  the  national  authorities,  independent  experts  and  in 
consultation with the market players. The modalities of data sharing will be specific to each 
gatekeeper platform.  

3)  Adapt EU competition policy to the fast-changing digital markets and complement 
the current regulation with new, innovative tools and enforcement mechanisms 

In  essence,  multi-homing  is  necessary  as  a  sign  of  vibrant,  competitive  markets.  Equally, 
customer  loyalty  is  important  for  businesses  and  online  platforms,  because  this  is  a  pre-
condition  for  their  market  success.  Nevertheless,  when  large  online  platforms  exploit  their 
gatekeeper  position  and  market  power  to  lock  in  their  business  users  and  end  users,  this 
limits  competition,  raises  barriers  to  entry  and  eventually  incurs  high  costs  for  businesses, 
consumers, other platforms and society as a whole. Currently, competition policy is the main 
public policy tool for investigating and alleviating anti-competitive behaviour.  

The  European  Commission  has  already  fined  Google  for  abusing  its  dominance  in  online 
search (2017), for imposing illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and network 
operators (2018), and for abusing its market dominance by imposing restrictive clauses in its 
contracts with third party websites that prevented competitors from placing search adverts on 
the commercially most significant websites. In 2019-2020 the Commission opened anti-trust 
investigations  against  Amazon  (concerning  Amazon’s  use  of  marketplace  sellers’  data  and 
self-preferencing) and Apple (concerning mandatory use by app developers of Apple’s own 
in-app purchase system). Likewise, in the US, the US Department of Justice filed a complaint 
against Google for the exclusionary agreements it enters into with other market players. 

The competition policy will continue playing a pivotal role in preserving competition in the 
digital markets and applying remedies. However, given that antitrust cases usually take years 
to  investigate  and  to  complete,  a  clear  need  exists  for  a  more  flexible  and  complementary 
institutional mechanism. Such mechanism could monitor the online platform environment and 
take actions that would help to prevent the emergence of monopoly positions and/ or could 
be used to apply remedial actions in a more agile manner. Based on a series of consultations 
and discussions19, the European Commission suggested a New Competition Tool ‘to address 
the structural competition problems that prevent markets from functioning properly and tilt the 
level  playing  field  in  favour  of  only  a  few  market  players’20.  While  the  Commission’s 
suggestions  concerning  the  specific  shape  and  scope  of  such  a tool  are  to  be  revealed  by 
mid-December 2020, based on the analysis presented in this paper such a tool  should be 
used for:   

  continuously  revisiting  the  criteria  used  for  defining  the  large  platforms  with 

gatekeeper power  

  monitoring  the  practices  used  by  the  large  platforms  with  gatekeeper  power  and 
that  should  be 

identifying  anti-competitive  (prohibited)  practices  or  practices 
mandatory for such platforms 

19 Crémer Jacques, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye Heike Schweitzer (2019) Competition policy for the digital era, 

Final report,  Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  

20 European Commission (2020) Inception Impact Assessment on New Competition Tool (‘NCT’). 

44 

 
 
                                                 
  setting the standards for data portability and interoperability, identifying the categories 
of data that the large platforms with gatekeeper power should make available to their 
business users and other platforms  

 

initiating  remedial  actions  in cases  of  suspected  anti-competitive behaviour  by  large 
online platforms.     

d.  Analytical paper #8: Developments concerning B2B platforms and 

emerging issues 

Background 

The  influence  of  the  economic  and  social  activity  facilitated  by  online  platforms,  the  online 
platform  economy,  has  grown  significantly.  The  products  and  services  offered  by  online 
platforms  have  scaled  rapidly  to  become  a  core  part  of  modern-day  societies.  Regulatory 
authorities have increasingly questioned the concentration of market power in the hands of a 
small number of online platforms, and a small group of online platforms is considered to hold 
an  influential  position,  narrowing  market  access  to  potential  competitors  and  acting  as  a 
‘gatekeeper’.  With  regard  to  issues  of  contestability  and  fairness  within  the  online  platform 
economy, consumer-facing (B2C) platforms have received a significant amount of attention; 
however,  developments  within 
remain 
underexplored. Lack of trust in platforms is seen to have hampered the initial emergence of 
B2B  markets.  Business  users,  particularly  SMEs,  may  be  concerned  over  the  trading 
practices of such platforms.  

(business-facing)  B2B  platform  space 

the 

The European Commission has identified policy options, such as the Digital Markets Act and 
the  Digital  Services  Act,  to  ensure  that  online  platform  ecosystems  remain  fair  and 
contestable.  In  particular,  B2B  platform  services,  such  as  cloud  services  and  the  Industrial 
Internet of Things play an important role in shaping the online platform ecosystem. The aim 
of  this  analytical  paper  is  to  understand  developments  concerning  B2B  platforms,  and  the 
emerging issues that they may face and that they give rise to.   

Research approach 

The  findings  of  this  analytical  paper  have  been  identified  using  two  research  methods:  a 
targeted literature review, and semi-structured interviews with academic experts and industry 
stakeholders. 

The  targeted  literature  review  was  intended  to  offer  perspectives  on  the  characteristics  of 
B2B platform service; whether specific B2B services pose a risk to market contestability; the 
risks  and  harmful  practices  that  influence  the  competitiveness  of  B2B  services,  as  well  as 
possible mitigation measures; factors that may reduce choice for business users with regard 
to B2B platforms; and any risks or obstacles relating to the use of data from business users, 
its potential impacts on the online platforms themselves. In addition, in consultation with DG 
CONNECT and DG GROW, additional supplementary literature searches were undertaken to 
increase  the  information  available  on  B2B  platforms  within  an  industrial  context,  including 
B2B  platforms  relating  to the  Industrial  Internet of  Things,  B2B  platform contestability  in an 
industrial setting, and B2B online intermediation.  

The  semi-structured  interviews  aimed  to  gain  expert  and  industry  perspectives  on  B2B 
platform services as well as to identify gaps in the literature. We were particularly interested 
in  seeking  inputs  from  interviewees  on  the  following  high-level  topics:  (a)  characteristics  of 
B2B platforms and services; (b) differences between B2B and B2C platforms and services; 

 
 
 
(c)  potentially  harmful  practices  and  factors  contributing  to  risks  to  contestability  in  the 
context of online B2B platforms; (d) potential measures to ensure the contestability of online 
B2B  platform  services,  as  well  as  and  intermediation  in  the  B2B  context;  and  (e)  potential 
implications for policy and policymakers when considering the fairness and contestability of 
online  B2B  platform  services.  In  total,  we  conducted  13  stakeholder  interviews.  These 
covered a range of countries and stakeholder groups, including academia, industry, and the 
public sector.      

Research findings 

Through a review of the literature and stakeholder interviews, this study highlighted several 
key  elements  relating  to  B2B  platform  services.  The  characterisation  of  B2B  platforms  is 
dependent on several factors including network effects, economies of scale, the possibility of 
multi-homing, capacity constraints and differentiation of services. The assessment of whether 
or not a B2B platform is multi-sided is likely to depend on the specific service that it offers, as 
well as whether it enables third party transactions.  

When  assessing  risks  to  future  contestability  with  regard  to  specific  B2B  platform  services, 
the quality of service offered to business user, and the ability of users to multi-home, are all 
potential indicators of whether there is a competitive bottleneck in the platform ecosystem. In 
addition, if platforms are dominant within the B2C ecosystem, they may be able to leverage 
this  within  the  B2B  platform  market.  Furthermore,  where  incumbent  online  B2B  platforms 
hold a lot of data, this may affect the entry of new platforms into the existing market.   

Analysis  of  the  factors  contributing  to  either  fairness  or  contestability  in  the  B2B  online 
platform market, shows that several characteristics or behaviours are important to consider. 
Platforms may insist on exclusive contracts that lock-in business users, reducing their ability 
to multi-home. Closed platform ecosystems can result in technical lock-ins and lead to a high 
cost  of  switching.  In  addition,  the  extent  to  which  there  is  heavy  vertical  integration,  or 
whether  there  is  single-or  multi  homing  on  both  sides  of  the  platform,  are  key  factors  that 
could impact the degree of contestability.  

The  potential  harmful  practices  in  which  B2B  platform  services  may  engage  include  self-
preferencing, limited data portability and data access. Potential measures to mitigate harmful 
practices include restricting platforms from applying self-preferencing, and the introduction of 
data interoperability across platforms.  

The  costs  of  multi-homing  and  switching,  and  the  dependence  of  business  users  on  data 
held  by  platforms,  are  likely  to  be  important  factors  that  diminish  the  bargaining  power  of 
business  users.  In  addition,  B2B  platform  practices  such  as  the  tying  and  bundling  of 
services make it harder for business users to multi-home, increasing the risk of platform lock-
in. In particular, small and medium-sized businesses are likely to be at particular risk, due to 
their lack of bargaining power.  

Finally,  regarding  the  use  of  data,  the  monopolisation  of  data  by  incumbent  platforms  has 
been suggested as a barrier to new entrants to the market, and platforms have incentives to 
limit  data  sharing  and  enforce  exclusivity.  The  barriers  to  data  sharing  are  both  legal  and 
technical.  Technical  barriers  may  include  a  lack  of  interoperability  or  data  standardisation, 
while legal barriers may relate to uncertainty surrounding data ownership or data protection. 
Indeed, many platforms cite user protection and privacy to justify their restrictive data sharing 
policies.    

Reflections on the findings 

46 

 
 
Analysis  of  the  literature  and  engagement  with  stakeholders  suggest  that  B2B  platform 
services, their characteristics, and the regulatory issues surrounding their operations are still 
at an early stage of discussion. There is evidence in the literature about the challenges faced 
by  business  users,  including  issues relating  to  power  imbalances,  particularly  for small  and 
medium  sized  businesses.  In  addition,  the  use  of  data,  as  well  as  technical  and  legal 
obstacles relating to its use and transfer, are a topic of increasing importance. Gaps exist in 
the literature concerning specific types of B2B platform services including cloud services and 
cloud infrastructure services, as well as services relating to the Industrial Internet of Things 
services,  and  there  was  consensus  among  interviewees  that  further  investigation  was 
needed in several areas. These include the role and influence of platform intermediaries, the 
effects  of  self-preferencing  by  platforms,  the  potential  for  establishing  standards  on  data 
interoperability.  As  measures  are  introduced  to  mitigate  risks  to  the  fairness  and 
contestability  of  the  online  platform  economy,  ongoing  investigation  and  analysis  will  be 
required to assess the consequences of such measures. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Task 3: Online information tool 

The online information tool was designed to: 

  Serve as an interface between stakeholders, the expert group and the Commission. 

  Present  in  a  succinct  and  interactive  manner  the  state  of  play  in  online  platform 

economy (emerging issues, key trends, indicators, policy initiatives). 

  Offer access to the different analyses and findings of the study. 

  Offer information on complaint-handling and redress mechanisms put in place by the 

platforms. 

  Provide a space for business users to anonymously flag problems they encountered 
in dealing with online platforms and for platforms to flag issues with business users. 

 

Inform  about  hearings  and  workshops initiated  by  the  Commission,  the Observatory 
and other relevant stakeholders active in the field of online platform economy. 

The  website  developed  for  Task  3  is  ‘at  arm’s-length  from  the  Commission’.  The  website 
operates  at  https://platformobservatory.eu;  it  has  been  developed  in  discussion  with  the 
Client and revised continuously to improve readability and user experience. 

Further  in  this  report  we  present  the  website  structure,  key  functionalities  and  the 
communication campaigns implemented during the lifecycle of the study.  

a.  The structure and functionalities of the online tool and portal 

The online tool has a number of functionalities requested in the Technical Specifications and 
discussed  during  the  Kick-off,  Inception  and  Interim  meetings,  emails  and  calls.  In  this 
section we present each current section in more detail. 

The landing page 

We  aimed  to  make  the  landing  page  clear  and  attractive,  as  well  as  inviting  for  the 
stakeholders  to  submit  their  views.  On  this  page,  we  briefly  present  the  Observatory  and 
introduce three key sections of the website: 

  State of play 

  News and events 

  Share your views 

  Each of the sections is described below.  

About 

The  section  ‘About’  presents  the  Observatory,  all  the  streams  of  its  work  and  the  people 
involved. It consists of the introductory text (outlining the goals, activities and composition of 
the Observatory) and the following sub-sections: 

 

 

‘Expert group’, presenting the main tasks of the experts and providing their profiles.  

‘Support study’, presenting the contractor organisations and profiles of the core team. 

48 

 
 
In the ‘Support study’ section we have further added the profiles of researchers involved  in 
this study, across the contractor organisations.  

News and events  

The  ‘News  and  events’  section  provides  information  about  the  Observatory  meetings  and 
events as well as news related to the Regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for 
business  users  and  other  key  Commission’s  initiatives  in  platform  economy.  The  section 
does  not  focus  on  the  events  organised  by  stakeholders,  but  covers  the  workshops  and 
consultations organised by the Observatory. The research team makes a continuous effort to 
keep this section up to date. 

State of play 

The  ‘State  of  play’  section  provides  an  overview  of  the  online  platform  economy  in  Europe 
(key  facts  and  current  state  of  affairs).  Since  the  Interim  Report  1,  this  section  has  been 
developed substantially, to present some of the key monitoring data from the Data Lab. The 
fully-functioning 
here: 
https://platformobservatory.eu/state-of-play/.  

state-of-the-art 

presented 

section 

is 

Research 

This ‘Research’ section is designed to present a repository of relevant papers on the online 
platform economy, including:  

  Analytical  reports  prepared  as  part  of  Task  2  of  this  assignment  (in  the  sub-section 

‘Support study’) 

  Outputs of the expert group (in the sub-section ‘Expert group’), including their reports 

and meeting materials. They are published in a chronological sequence.  

  Links to other research studies (in the sub-section ‘Other studies’), carefully selected 
based  on  their  relevance.  While  the  scope  of  this  section  was  at  first  on  studies 
implemented  or  procured  by  the  European  Commission,  we  have  added  relevant 
external reports and upgraded the referencing system accordingly (by adding external 
link icons). We will continue adding studies proposed by the Commission as well as 
upload  new  major  reports  relevant  for  the  online  platform  economy  on  our  own 
initiative.   

Take part in a survey 

The ‘Take part in a survey’ section provides a possibility for the stakeholders to take part in 
the open survey and opt-in for the panel of platforms or the panel of business users. In order 
to collect as many inputs from stakeholders as possible, both, the ‘Take part in a survey’ as 
well as the ‘Flag your issue’ (see below) sections are accessible from the landing page of the 
website. When the open business users survey was active, we included references to it both 
on the landing page and in the ‘Panel of business users’ sub-section.  

The online tool collects some personal data (names, surnames, email addresses). Its usage 
and  handling  are  conducted  in  line  with  the  policy  of  the  consortium  as  presented  in  the 
Inception report, and explained to the users in the ‘Privacy policy’ section of the website.  

 
 
 
Flag your issue 

Initially  this  section  presented  an  online  form  to  be  filled  out  by  business  users  who  faced 
problems  in  their  relations  with  online  platforms.  Following  an  agreement  with  the 
Commission,  we  have  upgraded  the  ‘Flag  your  issue’  section  by  also  allowing  platform 
representatives  to  flag  any  issues  they  face  in  their  relationship  with  business  users  (in 
addition  to  business  users  being  able to flag  their  issues  with  platforms).  This  change  was 
necessary to make the website more balanced and allow stakeholders on both sides to share 
their  positions.  As  agreed  with  the  Commission,  we  have  translated  the  ‘Flag  your  issue’ 
submission form to French and German, in addition to English.  

b.  Managing, maintaining and updating the portal 

The online tool is hosted on the domain purchased by the contractor. We have put in place 
procedures and allocated resources/ working days to regularly maintain and update the tool 
and portal. The team working on Task 3 consists of the Task leader and includes a dedicated 
communication  &  social  media  specialist,  as  well  as  IT  support.  The  Task  leader,  together 
with  the  dedicated  experts,  is  responsible  for  managing  the  business  portal.  Whenever 
needed, other experts from the team contribute to Task 3.  

Results  of  Tasks  1  and  2  are  feeding  into  Task  3.  As  mentioned,  dashboards  and 
accompanying  narratives  from  Task  1  (economic  analysis  and  database)  have  been  made 
part  of  the  Observatory  website.  They  have  been  continuously  updated.  Analytical  papers 
resulting  from  Task  2  were  published  in  the  ‘Research’  section.  We  have  used  the  online 
portal to recruit participants to take part in the  interviews as well as in the surveys (through 
‘Take part in a survey’ part of the website).  

c.  Website promotion activities 

We have taken several steps to attract relevant stakeholders to the website: 

  Disseminated  the  website  link  to  business  and  online  platform  associations,  as  well 
as  interviewed  platforms,  and  business  users.  It  was  accompanied  by  a  brief 
presentation of the website, description of its main functionalities and their usefulness 
for the stakeholders. 

  Posted  this  information  on  relevant  social  media  channels  (Facebook,  Twitter, 

LinkedIn, Reddit) 

  Reacted to comments on relevant posts on LinkedIn. 

  Used paid advertising to boost the reach of our promotional campaign (launched two 

Facebook ads campaigns). 

In this section we present these activities in more detail. 

Consortium partner websites and social media channels 

To  raise  awareness  about  the  online  tool,  as  well  as  attract  and  encourage  relevant 
stakeholders to participate in the Observatory research, we prepared tailored communication 
messages.  They  have  been  edited  by  a  professional  language  editor  and  disseminated 
through the consortium partners’ websites and social media channels (Facebook, Twitter and 
LinkedIn, Reddit). In addition, we have reacted with comments to relevant posts on LinkedIn. 
In  order  to  boost  the  reach  of  our  promotional  messages,  we  have  launched  two  targeted 

50 

 
 
Facebook ads campaigns. A visual representation of our promotional campaign is displayed 
in Figure 2.  

Figure 2. Visual representation of the promotion campaign 

Facebook ad campaigns 

To promote the website, we launched one five-day long Facebook ads campaign (active on 
4-8 December 2019) and one nine-day long campaign (active on 20-26 December 2019 and 
on  30-31  December  2019).  Further  campaigns  were  launched  on  19  August  2020  and  24 
February 2021. The screenshots of the ads messages are presented in Figure 3. 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Communications messages of Facebook ads campaigns 

The  targeting  parameters  of  the  advertising  campaigns in terms  of  demographics,  interests 
and  behaviour  are  summarised  in  Table  3  below.  While  the  first  campaign  was  aimed  at 
attracting  online  platforms  and  their  business  users  to  sign  up  to  the  panels,  the  second 
campaign focused on encouraging business users to flag their issues with platforms. In the 
second campaign, we also changed the targeting strategy by widening the target age group 
from 22-35 to 22-50 and altered the location parameter by listing all EU27 countries. During 
the  third    and  fourth  campaigns,  we  have  reverted  to  the  original  targetting  strategy  to 
maximise the number of possible placements outside of the Facebook application, but within 
a wider scope of the Facebook Audience Network. 

Table 3. Targeting parameters of Facebook ads campaigns 

Campaign 1 

Campaign 2 

Campaign 3 

Campaign 4 

in 

living 

Location: 
Europe 
Age: 22-35 
Gender:  all  (women  and 
men) 
People  who  match:  E-
Merchant; 
Commerce 
Payments; 
Amazon 
Amazon.com; 
Booking.com; 
eBay; 
eCommerce;  PayPal  for 
Business 
Placements: automatic 
(recommended) 

Location:  living  in  EU27 
countries 
Age: 22-50 
Gender:  all  (women  and 
men) 
People  who  match: 
Amazon.com, 
Expedia 
HomeAway, 
(website),  eCommerce, 
Airbnb,  eBay,  Expedia 
hotels 
or 
Booking.com;  PayPal  for 
Business 
Placements:  Facebook 
News  Feed;  Facebook 
Search; 
In-article 
(engage  people  who  are 
reading 
from 
publishers), 
Facebook 
Instant Articles 

content 

flights 

Location:  living  in  EU27 
countries 
Age: 22-35 
Gender:  all  (women  and 
men) 
People  who  match: 
Amazon.com; 
Expedia 
HomeAway; 
(website);  E-commerce; 
Airbnb; 
or 
Booking.com; Job title: E-
Commerce Merchant 
Placements: automatic 
(recommended) 

EBay 

Location:  living  in  EU27 
countries 
Age: 22-35 
Gender:  all  (women  and 
men) 
People  who  match: 
Amazon.com, 
Expedia 
HomeAway, 
(website),  E-commerce, 
Airbnb, 
or 
Booking.com; Job title: E-
Commerce Merchant 
Placements:  automatic 
(recommended) 

EBay 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The objective/ optimisation goal of both campaigns was unique link clicks, which is a proxy 
estimate  for  Observatory  website  visits  (landing  page  views).  Key  metrics  measuring  the 
impact of the Facebook ads are summarised in Table 4 below.  

Table 4. Key Facebook ads metrics 

Metric 
(estimated) 

Reach 

Impressions 

Unique 
clicks 

link 

Metric explanation 

Campaign 
1 results 

Campaign 
2 results 

Campaign 
3 results 

Campaign 
4 results 

30,248 

5,366 

30,000 

17,883 

46,301 

9,370 

90,135 

37,882 

344 

46 

308 

791 

to 

is  different 

Reach is a measure of exposure – the 
number of people who saw the advert 
at  least  once  during  an  ad  campaign. 
Reach 
impressions, 
which  may  include  multiple  views  of 
the  ad  by  the  same  people.  People 
who  are  exposed  to  the  ad  are  more 
likely to engage. 
Impressions  measure  how  often  the 
ads  were  on  screen  for  the  target 
audience. An impression is counted as 
the number of times an instance of an 
ad  is  on  screen  for  the  first  time. 
Example:  If  an  ad  is  on  screen  and 
someone  scrolls  down,  and 
then 
scrolls  back  up  to  the  same  ad,  that 
counts  as  one  impression.  If  an  ad  is 
on  screen  for  someone  two  different 
times  in  a  day,  that  counts  as  two 
impressions. 
Facebook  defines  links  clicks  as  ‘the 
number of clicks on links within the ad 
that  led  to  destinations  or  experience, 
on or off Facebook’. Note that ‘unique’ 
link  clicks  metric  counts  people,  not 
actions,  so  that  clicks  by  the  same 
people are not double-counted. 
Link  clicks  measure  the  interest  that 
the  ad  generates  amongst 
the 
audience. 

Source: compiled by PPMI based on information available on Facebook 

On 15 January 2020, in line with the instructions from the Commission, we have introduced 
an alternative to Google Analytics – Piwik. This allows us to monitor and analyse the website 
traffic,  and  respectively  report  concrete  metrics  to  the  Commission,  including  those  on  the 
effectiveness of website promotional activities.  

Facebook groups 

To increase the reach of business users of online platforms and encourage them to take part 
in the Platform Observatory research activities, we have reached out to relevant social media 
groups. We have implemented four campaigns: in late 2019, in mid-2020, in late 2020 and 
early 2021. 

During the first campaign our outreach has focused on groups and forums linked to platforms 
in  e-commerce,  and  tourism/  accommodation  and  hospitality  sectors.  We  have  invested 
considerable  effort  into  getting  accepted  to  these  groups,  getting  permissions  from 
administrators  and  when  allowed,  posting  promotional  messages  about  the  Observatory 
research activities and engagement possibilities. In total, we enquired with administrators of 
21 Facebook groups throughout November-December, 2019. Our efforts are summarised in 

 
 
 
Table 5 below. For each of the groups, we have tailored the posts to relate them better to the 
audience.  The  group  members  were  informed  about  the  Observatory  work,  encouraged  to 
sign up to the panel of business users, flag their issues with platforms and participate in the 
open  survey  (while  it  was  still  active).  The  size  of  groups  (the  number  of  members)  varies 
between  several  hundred  to  tens  of  thousands.  In  cases  in  which  the  status  of  the  post  is 
‘pending’, we sent reminder messages to group administrators.  

The second and the third promotional campaigns have followed the same strategy as the first 
one. To encourage business users to flag their issues with platforms on our website, we once 
again  attempted  to  join  online  communities  (i.e.  Facebook  groups)  discussing  platforms  in 
the  e-commerce,  tourism/  accommodation  and  hospitality  sectors.  As  during  the  previous 
campaign, it often took extra effort to be accepted into the communities as well as to make 
posts to be approved by the group administrators. During the second campaign, we reached 
out to 13 relevant Facebook groups, eight of them shared our message. The largest group 
has  almost  50,000  members,  while  the  smallest  group  consists  of  almost  700  members. 
Throughout  the  course  of  the  third  campaign,  we  joined  17  Facebook  groups  and 
successfully  communicated  our  message  in  10  of  them.  The  largest  community  that  we 
reached out has 106,000 members, whereas the smallest – more than 800 members.  

During  the  fourth  campaign,  we  reached  out  to  previously  identified  Facebook  groups  and 
shared  our  message  in  11  relevant  communities.  The  largest  group  consists  of  more  than 
138,000 members, while the smallest community has over 800 members. 

In  our  posts  to  the  Facebook  groups,  we  introduced  the  Observatory,  as  well  as  the  latest 
state of play overview. We invited the participants to sign up to the panel of business users 
and platforms. The overview of the results of both campaigns is presented in the table below. 

Table 5. Posts in relevant Facebook groups 

Audience/ sector 

Status 

Facebook group name 

E-commerce 

Posted 

Post pending administrator 
approval 

Not allowed by administrator 

Accommodation 

Posted 

‘Amazon sellers’ 
‘Etsy, Amazon, Ebay - prekyba užsienyje’ 
‘Amazon FBA Prekyba Lietuva’ 
‘EBAY SELLERS’ 
‘Ebay sellers worldwide’ 
‘Flipkart, Udaan, Amazon, eBay Sellers’ 
‘E-Commerce’ 
‘e-commerce online business owners tips and tricks’ 
‘Business Entrepreneur E-commerce Startups’ 
 ‘Vandeurs marketplaces’ 
‘Ebay dropshipping Lietuva’ 
‘ETSY SELLERS ONLY’ 
‘Etsy Sellers Support Group’ 
‘Amazon Seller and Reviewers’ 
‘Amazon International Seller Group’ 
‘Sellers Helping Sellers on Amazon and Ebay’ 
‘Poochies Pack - Help for eCommerce Sellers’ 
‘Bookings.com & AirBNBs.com’ 
‘AirBnb hosts’ 
‘Airbnb Host Club’ 
‘Airbnb,  Expedia,  TripAdvisor,  HomeAway,  VRBO  - 
Best Hosting Tips’ 
‘Airbnb Vilnius Hosts’ 
‘Airbnb Professional Hosts’ 
‘Booking.com Host’ 
‘Airbnb  Host  Community  -  Vent,  Recommend,  and 
Discuss’ 

54 

 
 
In  addition  to  communication  through  Facebook,  we  also  posted  our  messages  in  other 
social  media  networks,  such  as  LinkedIn groups,  Reddit  forums,  and  asked  for  the  help  of 
relevant  blog  authors.  In  total,  our  message  was  posted  to  10  LinkedIn  groups  with  390 to 
227,400  members.  We  have  also  personally  asked  people  who  share  their  experiences  in 
relevant  LinkedIn  communities  to  provide  their  feedback  by  getting  involved  and  flagging 
their  issue  on  the  website.  Furthermore,  we  reached  out  to  13  subreddits  in  Reddit,  which 
contain 220 to 106,000 members and are devoted to e-commerce, tourism/ accommodation 
and hospitality platforms. Additionally, in an effort to gather experience-based responses, we 
approached  several  active  Reddit  discussants  via  the  site’s  direct  messaging  functionality. 
The authors of relevant blogs have not  yet responded to our requests. The specific groups 
targeted are listed in the table below. 

Table 6. Posts on Reddit and LinkedIn 

Channel 

Linkedin 

Status 

Posted 

Reddit 

Posted 

Group name 

- 

Practices 

‘Club 
Europe 
Ecommerce 
Connecting the Digital Leaders’ 
‘eCommerce Merchants‘ 
‘Amazon Sellers & FBA’ 
‘Amazon  (FBA),  Ebay  and  Online 
Sellers’ 
‘eBay Sellers Discussion Group’ 
‘E-Commerce Network’ 
‘e-Commerce 
Best 
Sharing’ 
‘Airbnb Hosts – Global’ 
‘Club  E-commerce  Europe 
Connecting the Digital Leaders’ 
‘*e-commerce / online drop shipping 
and fulfilment partners’ 
‘EtsySellers’ 
‘amazonsellers’ 
‘airbnb_hosts’ 
‘AirBnB’ 
‘Ebay’ 
‘eBaySellerAdvice’ 
‘Expedia’ 
‘Etsy’ 
‘ecommerce’ 
‘eBaySellers’ 
‘EbayProSellers’ 
‘Amazonsellercentral’ 

- 

Ecommerce Platforms (blog) 

Contacted – no answer 

N/A 

d.  Website visitor entries 

A  number  of  platform  business  users  who  had faced  problems  in their relations with online 
platforms, have shared their experience by submitting the ‘Flag your issue’ form. The entries 
are  informative,  detailed  and  of  high  quality,  not  requiring  any  further  clarification  with  the 
respondents. If need be, all the respondents agreed to be contacted. We present the entries 
in the boxes below.  

 
 
 
 
 
Box 1. Flagged issue: case 1 

Submitted: 22 November, 2019 

Platform: /…anonymised/ 

Field of operation: antiques/ vintage 

Theme: unfair (perceived) treatment by the platform; unresponsive and ineffective 
redress mechanism 

The issue: 

‘I  inadvertently  listed  some  genuine  tortoiseshell  items  which  were  against  /platform/ 
rules. As a "punishment" they forbad me to list anything made from imitation tortoiseshell 
even though these were compliant with their rules. They forced me to remove items for 
which  I  had  paid  advance  listing  fees  and  would  not  refund the  fees  in  question.  For  6 
months  I  obeyed  their  stipulations  even  though  I  was  paying  the  same  fees  as 
competitors  to  whom  the  stipulation  did  not  apply.  After  this  time,  I  listed  some  items 
which I believed were still in compliance, but they decided I had broken their rules again 
and  closed  all  my  shops.  I  appealed  but  the  appeal  process  was  a  joke  and  merely 
rubber stamped the decision which was made by people with no knowledge of antiques 
or vintage or the items I was selling. The affair ended in a childish dispute about exactly 
what comprised a "tortoiseshell" pattern.’ 

‘The affair ended in a childish dispute about exactly what comprised a 
‘tortoiseshell’ pattern.’ 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘After  my  appeal  was  denied  I  contacted  numerous  officials  in  /platform/  with  an  action 
plan showing that I acknowledged my errors and showing how I intended to comply with 
their  rules going forward. This  included  re-training  staff  and keeping  stock for /platform/ 
completely  separate  from  that  for  other  platforms.  I  received  no  replies  to  my 
communications and was simply ignored. I also paid an outstanding bill which meant that 
I had paid in advance for items which they would not allow me to list.’ 

‘I received no replies to my communications and was simply ignored’ 

Box 2. Flagged issue: case 2 

Submitted: 23 November, 2019 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: handicrafts  

Theme: Transparency and fairness of platform rules; platform changing rules without 
warning or notice; platform responsiveness 

The issue: 

56 

 
 
‘/platform/  has  no  warning  rules  published,  explaining  how  it  evaluates  the  customer 
friendliness of a shop. The corresponding rules were added to the platform help articles 
without a date. There was also no notification of the seller by email or announcement in 
the so-called shop dashboard. The rules mention that a shop will be cautioned or closed 
by /platform/ if customers have opened three or more so-called ‘cases’ against the seller 
since the first sale of the shop (which may be a decade ago). A ‘case’ is also considered 
to be included if this case has been decided in favour of the seller.’ 

‘This is not the first time that /platform/ has made changes without notice’ 

‘There are also no precautions to prevent competitors from using this rule to open cases 
and thereby force a seller out of the market.  

Another problem is that the seller is warned according to these rules or that his shop can 
be  closed  if  a  product  was  not  delivered  in  the  period  that  the  shop  indicated  as 
expected. However, since the seller only has an influence on the time until a product is 
given  to  the  sender  (DHL  or  similar  service  provider)  and  not  over  the  delivery  time 
(responsibility over which lies with the service provider), these rules are unfair. This is not 
the first time that /platform/ has made changes without notice.’ 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘I,  like  many  others,  contributed to the thread in the  /platform/ forum  with my  objections 
and wrote an email to /platform/ Germany. The email has not been answered, and there 
are  no  replies  from  /platform/  in  the  forum  either.  In  the  case  of  a  previous  change 
(preference for products in the search algorithm that are delivered free of charge when an 
order of $ 35 and more is placed), /platform/ responded to all objections only with general 
and ready-made answers, so that nothing else can be expected here.’ 

‘/platform/ responded to all objections only with ready-made answers’ 

Box 3. Flagged issue: case 3 

Submitted: 14 December, 2019 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: jewellery 

Theme: platform review algorithm/ platform measurement of platform-based online store 
customer service 

The issue: 

‘/platform/ has introduced a rate of order deficiency to measure the quality of online store 
customer service. If a shop has more than 1% of bad reviews, it can be placed under 
supervision or (after two warnings) even closed. 

There are three problems with this: 

 
 
 
1) /platform/ writes on reviews: ‘a low rating means a star rating of 1 or 2 stars that has 
been given for an item from your shop. even if a rating is being edited, it will not be 
removed from this list.’ A customer wrote me a very positive review, but then accidentally 
tapped 2 stars when selecting the number of stars and then corrected this error within a 
few minutes. /platform/ still counts this as a poor rating. 

2) If customers buy several products from /platform/ when placing an order, they can 
write a review for each individual product. /platform/ calculates the percentage of bad 
reviews based on the orders, not the items sold. as an example, i sell 400 items as part 
of 100 orders, receive 399 positive reviews and one bad. /platform/ scores this a poor 
rating as 1%. If the aforementioned customer with the accidental 2-star rating had bought 
three items from me and gave five stars for each (luckily with only one error), only the 
‘bad’ rating is counted. 

3) After the delivery deadline, customers can press the "I did not receive the goods" 
button. This is considered the opening of a case. If the goods have already been 
delivered according to the tracking stored with /platform/, the case is automatically closed 
in favour of the shop. nevertheless, these case reports now suddenly count as defective 
orders and are also subject to the 1% rule. 

Overall, one can hardly avoid the impression that /platform/ intentionally designs as many 
order defects as possible in order to be able to reintroduce the overruled regulation, at 
the discretion and without reason, through the back door.’  

‘One can hardly avoid the impression that /platform/ intentionally designs as 
many order defects as possible in order to <…> reintroduce the overruled 
regulation <…> through the back door’ 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘I did not try to solve the problem. I am also far below 1% with the bad rating because I 
have  quite  a  lot  of  orders.  This  message  comes  more  out  of  solidarity  with  the  many 
colleagues, who are suddenly over one percent because of cases closed in their favour 
and who have to fear for the future of their shops. many shop owners have also tried to 
speak to /platform/. a petition is circulating. no way, /platform/ just doesn't respond.’  

‘many shop owners have also tried to speak to /platform/. a petition is 
circulating. /platform/ just doesn't respond.’ 

Box 4. Flagged issue: case 4 

Submitted: 20 February, 2020 

Platform: generic – ecommerce platforms  

Field of operation: eCommerce 

Theme: creating account on ecommerce platforms 

The issue: 

58 

 
 
‘Plenty of ecommerce platforms do not accept for account creation some valid but rare 
email addresses extensions like mine which is ".email", this is a daily pain’. 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘If ever complaining to these platforms, there are never any answers to the raised claims 
and there is not support ticketing systems so that the user could track his complaints. 
There is only a wild email that unsatisfied users can send to a generic address or a web 
email sent that you can submit through a formular interface but that you loose the track 
as soon as it has been sent’. 

Box 5. Flagged issue: case 5 

Submitted: 4 June, 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: eCommerce 

Theme: P2B Regulation 

The issue: 

can you please clarify under Article 4 of the P2B Regulation, whether a platform can still 
include a termination for convenience right? 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

Not applicable 

Box 6. Flagged issue: case 6 

Submitted: 31 July 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: eCommerce 

Theme: unfair competition 

The issue: 

‘Please  note  that  I  understand  you  do  not  deal  with  complaints.  However,  I  have  a 
complaint,  which  I  am  going  to  submit  to  one  or  more  EU  competition  authorities.  I  am 
using the format of my complaint below only to set out the issue comprehensively and not 
as a complaint.’ 

Summary of complaint 

I submit that a manufacturer in the EU is unlawfully preventing me selling and customers 

 
 
 
buying from me in the EU certain of their products. The manufacturer is asserting that he 
has a lawful selective distribution agreement that allows him to do so. I say that he has 
not. 

Detail  of complaint 

my complaint is that i have been unfairly stopped from competing in the sales of certain 
'jabra' brand earphones on /anonymised platform/. 

Since 2006, I have run an internet business buying and selling goods. This is the nature 
of  my  business.  It  is  called  internet  arbitrage.  My  business  is  registered  in  France  with 
SIRET  number  /…./.  The  manufacturer  of  this  brand  is  /…the  manufacturer…/  and  my 
complaint is against the manufacturer. 

On /…/ I bought three of the same headphones in different colours. I bought them online 
from /platform/ to resell on /the same platform/. Half of these I bought using my business 
account. That is, /platform/, with this account status, has recognised me as a business 
buyer and not necessarily an end user or an authorised reseller of the manufacturer. I 
had listed them on /platform/ for sale to consumers in this country, amongst others. I do 
not have my own website so I can only sell on third party marketplaces and principally 
/platform/. 

I listed these earphones for sale on /platform/  on the (date). Some weeks later, I 
received messages from /platform/ that the sale of these earphones in two of the colours 
had been blocked. The reason given to /platform/ was 'exclusive distribution rights' 
infringed. Later (date) I received a letter from solicitors in the UK acting for the 
manufacturer. The letter required me to immediately stop selling the earphones in any 
shop or website. the reason given for this action was that the manufacturer had a 
selective distribution agreement (SDA) and I was not part of that agreement. 

I wrote back to these solicitors to say that I believed that their client was breaching EU 
and national competition law by banning my sale of their client's goods. In the solicitors 
letter, they had demanded proof of purchase of the goods. I immediately supplied them 
copies of my /platform/ purchase invoice – confirming that they had been legitimately 
sourced by me. 

The solicitors wrote back not accepting my arguments, however, they invited me to seek 
to become an authorised reseller. To allow me to do that they provided me with the SDA 
to which I must seek to be authorised reseller under. This gave me an opportunity to 
examine these terms. 

Following that examination, I wrote back to the solicitors (date) pointing out several 
matters and these matters, which follow, are important as to the factual and legal basis of 
my complaint to you that the manufacturer has acted unlawfully in stopping me 
competing in the marketplace. I have listed these below. The first is a factual point and 
the second and third are points of law. 

1. The earphones may not meet the legal requirements necessary to make them subject 
to a SDA. 

2. It is clear that the manufacturer sells directly to /paltform/ as a reseller. However, under 
the SDA the only capacity in which /platform/ can sell is as an authorised reseller. It is 
impossible for /platform/ to comply with a very important condition of the SDA that would 

60 

 
 
allow it to become an authorised reseller. That condition relates to 'transshipping'. 
Essentially, that requires an authorised reseller to only sell to 'end users' or other 
authorised resellers. However, as I pointed out to the solicitors in a written response, 
/platform/ is completely indiscriminate as to whom it sells. /platform/ as a pre-condition of 
sale, does not demand from their customers what their status is as a buyer of goods, in 
order to prevent them purchasing. Therefore, they must sell and have sold to 
unauthorised resellers such as myself. This means that for the goods concerned either 
(a) /platform/ itself is an unauthorised reseller but being supplied directly by the 
manufacturer or (b) /paltform/ is an authorised reseller but being allowed to breach the 
SDA on a daily basis. In either event I submit that, as a matter of law, the manufacturer 
does not have a lawful SDA because in (a) it permits the sale to /platform/ outside the 
SDA or in (b) the manufacturer is knowingly in breach of it's own SDA . 

3. The solicitors have responded that irrespective of any argument in 2 above, their client 
is protected by the vertical block exemption regulations (VBER). I submit that they are 
not, the reason being that the VBER exists only to protect a lawful SDA. An unlawful SDA 
such as in this case because of point 2 above cannot be protected by the VBERS. 

So, in my view, the manufacturer has unlawfully blocked or prohibited my right to sell the 
named products. This prevents competition in the marketplace. I believe this represents a 
breach of my national and EU rights to fairly compete and to provide a fully competitive 
market to consumers within the EU. 

this is my complaint’. 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘Yes. See above issue but also it is impossible effectively to resolve the issue directly with 
/platform/. /platform/, solely at the manufacturer or producers (the complainant) request, 
immediately  blocks  the  listing(s).  /platform/  informs  you  of  a contact  e-mail  to approach 
the  complainant.  However,  if  the  complainant  chooses  to  ignore  your  contact  then, 
irrespective of the fairness of your case, the listing(s) remain blocked’.  

Box 7. Flagged issue: case 7 

Submitted: 31 July 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: tourist accommodation/ OTAs 

Theme: cancellation/ refund 

The issue: 

‘/platform/ has a subsection of its GDT terms and conditions for hosts/ partners 3.2.3.2 
which allows them to override your cancellation policy, give guests full refund, but not list 
the extenuating circumstances under which guests will get a refund against your policy, 
and their policy published saying it is all only your policy. 

So, they have a refund policy with no published reasons for a refund, that they won’t tell 

 
 
 
hosts, so we cannot discuss options with guests, because we don’t know if they the 
guests can just tell /platform/ afterwards, and secret reasons get them a free cancellation! 

We have requested a list of Extenuating Circumstances and been refused the information 
as hosts.  

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘They refused to answer in our email requested information list of Extenuating 
Circumstances. They ignore request for why they gave refunds to our clients against our 
policy’. 

Box 8. Flagged issue: case 8 

Submitted: 28 August 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: eCommerce 

Theme: support from the platform 

The issue: 

‘I wrote /platform/ by their "support" form and by direct mail. I have never got an answer, 
at every time my support requests were closed with "This request is complete" note but 
with not a word of response from /platform/. 

A month ago they have created one more form for EU based entrepreneurs. I asked them 
about mediators according to EU regulation 2019/1150, but there was no answer again. 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘The appeal path on /platform/ does not exist. No chance to get information or correct our 
shop to meet their policies at a pinch’. 

Box 9. Flagged issue: case 9 

Submitted: 31 August 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: medical 

Theme: items taken off site without explanation 

The issue: 

‘we have been a /platform/ user for approx. 2 months and our items, manly gloves, have 
been taken down 2 times, without explanation, we usually sell every day and noticed no 
sales for a couple days and after investigation we find for a 2nd time our product has 
been deleted, we changed our formata and took all PPE products off our site and just had 

62 

 
 
gloves and old coins, it was not coins they were more than 50 years old, so it had to be 
gloves yet there is maybe 100's if not1000's of sellers selling the same thing as us. how 
do we resolve this. we were always getting notices from them of what a great job we 
were doing. help please jeff’ 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘no response from them, we are a very small 2 person business’ 

Box 10. Flagged issue: case 10 

Submitted: 7 November 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: Costume Jewellery 

Theme: marketplace removes the listing 

The issue: 

‘We sell charms that are compatable with other brands. It is within marketplace policy that 
compatibility with other brands is acceptable within a listing. If a brand owner complains 
about this then the marketplace removes the listing immediately with no opportunity for 
redress.’ 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘Yes, currently being sued by one brand owner for trade mark infringement for saying my 
brand is compatable with theirs.’ 

Box 11. Flagged issue: case 11 

Submitted: 22 November 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: eCommerce 

Theme: account was banned without giving any reason 

The issue: 

‘The /platform/ banned my account from getting access to the platform without giving any 
reason . According to the EU directive 2019/1150 they didn't notify me about the changes 
of the terms or the conditions in the term of 15 days and didn't provide any reason for 
suspend my services, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/RO/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150. For more than 15 days i can't post , modify , 
delete without getting any reason and provide any solution.’ 

 
 
 
The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘They don't provide any reason for more than 7 days and don't have any issue solving 
platform that is active and transparent.’ 

Box 12. Flagged issue: case 12 

Submitted: 16 December 2020 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: eCommerce 

Theme: las plataformas se quedan con mis activos  

The issue: 

‘dicen que se rompe en binomio y se quedan con los activos que se compran y no se 
pierde hasta que se pierde te apuran con el coste de custodia.’ 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘lo denucie ala comision de fraude y en adicae.’ 

Box 13. Flagged issue: case 13 

Submitted: 29 January 2021 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: audiovisual systems 

Theme: no protection in Europe for multinational online sales platforms 

The issue: 

‘Our company is located in Spain, we bought an LED display of 60sqm in May 2020 
through /platform/ "Trade Assurance Service" that protects the buyer’s purchase, focused 
in two mains aspects (quality and time of delivery). The display had a value of $ 60,000, 
the seller was based in Shenzhen, China. 

The seller tried several times to deceive us by trying to supply us with a material of worse 
quality than the agreed one, he sent us false certification documents, fake sample, avoid 
inspection dates and we obtained a certification from the manufacturer of the led chip of 
the product was not original, so with several reliable proofs of the deception we decided 
to request a refund of money paid to /platform/. The seller failed to supply us with 
anything because we discovered the deception before he sent it to us so we requested to 
/platform/ full refund and compensation for it. 

Please note that /platform/ in the TRADE ASSURANCE SERVICE offers FULLY 
REFUND UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES:Not just one, BUT ALL* have been 

64 

 
 
breached by this seller and /platform/ didn't recognize any 

Not ship out products at all=>NONE has been delivered (except sample) 

Fail to deliver produts in compliance with product description and specifications=>(fact1) 
NON NATIONSTART chip led 

Failure to provide valid documentation=>(fact2) FAKE NATIONSTART certification 

Any other material breach of purchase contract=> 

(fact3) try to INCREASE COST of project(4000$) when discovered the deceiving 
attempt=> 

(fact3) CHANGE OF SCHEDULED DATES for 2nd aging 

Regarding sample purchase contract: 

Any other material breach of purchase contract=>(fact4) FAKE CERTIFICATION,(fact 5) 
Not made with Nationstart chip led 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘Contrary to what we might think, /platform/ instead of protecting us through its "Trade 
Assurance" service did not assume any responsibility and directed us to the Shenzen 
arbitration court after 6 months of mediation. We have felt cheated by /platform/ because 
what it offers us is the same as if /platform/ had not intervened in this purchase. 

/Platform/ failed to abide by any of its rules regarding "buyer protection"  

We have been investigating but according to the /platform/ rules document we would 
have to file a court proceeding in Hong Kong. 

We miss some kind of protection in Europe for multinational online sales platforms that 
direct legal claims to tax havens such as Hong Kong, I think that whoever sells in Europe 
must submit to the jurisdiction of the continent. It can be seen in the link of the /platform/ 
rules that we attach, that Russia protects its market better than Europe, regarding 
/platform/. 

Box 14. Flagged issue: case 14 

Submitted: 2 February 2021 

Platform: anonymised 

Field of operation: hosting properties 

Theme: platform deactivated account for no reason 

 
 
 
The issue: 

‘I will try to be as concise as possible to give you an idea of what has happen. In the 
beginning of November, and out of the blue, /platform/ decided to de-activate my account 
(with 350 reviews!) and all the properties listed. For the last 3 months, /platform/ other 
than a vague explanation, refused to give me an answer as to why this has happened. 
They were using the general term of “ fraudulent reservations”. But the issue is that I am 
only responsible for fulfilling the reservations… I have nothing to do with the payments, I 
have no idea what kind of guests are coming to stay to villas… I have no previous record 
of any guest, until they arrive! 

For 3 months now, /platform/, was NOT giving me the slightest hint as to what has 
happened, until I put pressure and on the 27th of January, they told me that four 
reservations are suspected for “money mule scams”! Clearly, I had NO IDEA what it 
meant before the /platform/ agent mentioned it, I HAD NO IDEA it could happen, and I 
WAS NOT INVOLVED in any of the things mentioned or being associated. In fact I am 
very offended. 

The situation here is that, someone goes to the store, to buy milk that has expired and 
the blame goes to the cleaner of the store! This is the perfect analogy. I dont control the 
payments of the guests. This is being done solely through /platform’s/ infrastructure 
which I dont have access to. /Platform’s/ responsibility to monitor the payment, if they 
have incompetency to monitor those (payments), why do we have to get punished when I 
have done absolutely nothing wrong! 

I had made several attempts to resolve the matter, and no one wanted to hear my side…. 
They didnt even bother. /Platform/ devalued me, I was belittled and humiliated. I repeat, 
that the account had 350 reviews, 95% of those STELLAR. To be noted I have reported 
SEVERAL messages from potential /platform/ guests, with people who “promise lots of 
reservations outside of /platform/”. 

/Platform/ is abusing its position and uses illegal practices! 

Currently, I am trying to report this behaviour, and as I am not "a consumer" there is 
nowhere to get help, or to have this matter investigated. 

Until this gap in the legal framework is fixed, where can I get advice from? 

The appeal process/ resolution: 

‘/Platform/ has blocked my account without having done anything wrong, and although I 
have appealed to their decision, they never bothered.’ 

Panels of business users and of platforms  

By the date of submission of this final report, a number of valid platforms and business users 
have signed up to the panels of platforms and business users, respectively (see table below) 
via the online tool.  

Table 7. Platforms and business users in the panels 

Panel 

Platforms 

Name of business 

Raven 

66 

 
 
Panel 

Name of business 

Bolt 
Smart Adserver 
TUI Group 
Expedia 
Microsoft 
Trustpilot 
Amazon 
Allegro 
Allied for startups 
Apple 
METRO Markets GmbH 
eDreams ODIGEO 
Computer  &  Communications  Industry  Association 
(CCIA) 
Etsy 
Szekelylykapu 
ECAS Deals 
Huawei 
Independent Retail Europe 
BBVA 
ACT – The App Association 
HOTREC 
OLX Group 
European Hotel Forum 
Association of European Radios - AER 
Stitcherswonderland 
Nielsen 
Walnut Creek Home Stores 
Georgilas Cave House 
Sorbonne Nouvelle Université 
Jsc Jewellery 
Poortman 
Product XYZ 
El Vinagrato 
Mamilade Ausflugstipps GmbH 
Adireto 
Teldrive Telecomunicaciones 
Yes soft 
The  European  Travel  Agents'  and  Tour  Operators' 
Associations (ECTAA) 
Association  of  television  and  radio  sales  houses 
(EGTA) 

Business users 

 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. 
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

68 

 
 
 
 
[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

  Doi: 10.2759/801457 

ISBN: 978-92-76-36345-3