REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the first preliminary review on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services
Date: 2023-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: Internet site, consumer protection, contract terms, digital single market, electronic commerce, goods and services, provision of services, search engine, trade intermediary, web surfer

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.9.2023  COM(2023) 525 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the first preliminary review on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services {SWD(2023) 300 final}  
 
 
Context 

This  report  contains  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the  state  of  implementation  of  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 (the platform-
to-business or ‘P2B Regulation’)1.  

The  P2B  Regulation  has  applied  since  12  July  2020.  It  was  the  first  general  framework 
applicable to what are called ‘online intermediation services’. These services intermediate for 
a  very  large  number  of  both  large  and  small  undertakings,  or  ‘business  users’,  within  the 
internal  market.  The  P2B  Regulation  aims  to  create  a  fair,  transparent  and  predictable 
business environment for these business users, which can depend to differing degrees on such 
online intermediation services to reach their customers. The P2B requirements are designed to 
ensure that business users, in particular SMEs that can have limited bargaining power relative 
to the online platforms, should be able to conduct their business in a predictable manner  (e.g., 
relying on transparency as regards rankings) and are not exposed to unnecessary costs when 
facing  issues  with  the  online  platform  (e.g.  suspension  of  the  business  account,  or  products 
and services being blocked by the platform). This is of particular relevance for businesses and 
notably SMEs in key ecosystems, such as tourism, retail and cultural and creative industries 
ecosystems.  In  addition,  the  P2B  Regulation  can  also  be  a  tool  to  ensure  that  fairness  and 
transparency  help  smaller  platforms  to  grow  and  innovate  in  a  common  legal  framework 
shared with bigger platforms, in a levelled playing field. To ensure that online intermediation 
services comply with the P2B requirements, its enforcement is within the competence of the 
Member States. 

Article 18 of the P2B Regulation contains a review clause that lists several priority items for a 
full  evaluation.  Specifically,  Article  18(c),  (d),  (e)  and  (f)  respectively  concern:  (i)  unfair 
the  dependence  of  business  users  on  online 
commercial  practices  resulting  from 
intermediation  services;  (ii)  unfair  competition  by 
integrated  providers  of  online 
intermediation  services;  (iii)  imbalances  affecting  business  users  of  operating  systems;  and 
(iv) possible effects of the ‘business user’ definition on ‘bogus self-employment’.  

The P2B Regulation remains relevant to all of the priority items mentioned above, through the 
existing  transparency  and  redress  provisions.  At  the  same  time,  other  acts  of  EU  law 
complement the P2B Regulation to take up the priority items mentioned above, which could 
have necessitated a full evaluation of the P2B Regulation. Notably, since the P2B Regulation 
started to  apply,  the EU  has proposed or adopted several  new  laws of relevance to  the P2B 

1  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  PE/56/2019/REV/1,  OJ  L  186, 
11.7.2019, p. 57–79. 

1 

 
 
 
Regulation’s objectives. These include the Digital Markets Act (DMA)2, the Digital Services 
Act (DSA)3 and the proposed directive on improving working conditions in platform work4.  

This  report  accordingly  presents  only  the  state  of  play  on  the  implementation  of,  and 
compliance with, the P2B Regulation, but it does not contain a preliminary assessment of the 
above  priority  items.  It  also  identifies  several  avenues  for  follow-up  to  improve  the 
implementation  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  The  report  is  based  on  surveys  of  business  users  of 
platforms,  stakeholder  interviews  (308  interviews  of  platforms,  business  users  and  their 
association, enforcement authorities, experts), expert analyses of the terms and conditions of 
online intermediation services (sample of 300 platforms), focus groups, case studies and desk 
research. 

The  remainder  of  this  report  will  deal  with  the  main  findings  of  this  preliminary 
implementation assessment. 

Overall, this preliminary implementation report finds: (i) initial positive effects of the EU’s 
P2B Regulation, while noting that its full potential is not yet reached; (ii) a current lack of 
compliance  by  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  with  this  Regulation,  coupled 
with a lack of awareness among business users; and (iii) complementarity with other EU 
acts. 

1.  Effects and full potential of the EU’s Platform-to-Business Regulation 

The  P2B  Regulation  gives  business  users  enforceable  transparency  rights  in  their  contracts 
with  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  and  of  online  search  engines.  These  rights 
enable  business  users  to  make  more  informed  business  decisions  regarding,  amongst  other, 
their choice of which of these services to use, how to optimise ranking strategies and how to 
resolve possible disputes with the relevant providers of these services. 

This  crucial  effect  of  the  P2B  Regulation  is  already  observed  in  practice.  The  preliminary 
analysis  conducted  for  this  report  shows  first  improvements  in  the  form  of  a  limited 
compliance with the P2B Regulation relative to  the baseline.5  It can be strengthened further 

2  Regulation  (EU)  2022/1925  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  September  2022  on 
contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 
(Digital Markets Act) (Text with EEA relevance) PE/17/2022/REV/1 OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1–66. The Digital 
Markets  Act  already  applies  and  specifically  covers  issues  of  unfairness  of  online  intermediation  services,  as 
well as interoperability issues involving operating systems  – the issues included in Article 18(c), (d) and (e). It 
addresses  precisely  the  issues  of  unfair  commercial  practices,  unfair  competition  and  other  negative  effects  of 
imbalanced bargaining positions between business users and core platform services. 
3  Regulation  (EU) 2022/2065 of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council of  19  October  2022 on  a  Single 
Market  for  Digital  Services  and  amending  Directive  2000/31/EC  (Digital  Services  Act)  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance) PE/30/2022/REV/1 OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102.  
4 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on improving 
working conditions in platform work, COM/2021/762 final. Once the proposed Platform Work Directive will be 
adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  there  should  no  longer  be  a  gap  in  the  protection  of 
persons  working  through  digital  platforms  as  regards  transparency  of  algorithms  and  complaint-handling, 
regardless  of  whether  those  people  are  ‘business  users’,  platform  workers  or  (genuine)  self-employed  persons 
performing  platform  work,  as  the  relevant  individuals  will  benefit  from  the  protections  of  either  the  P2B 
Regulation or the Platform Work Directive. 
5 See Staff working document accompanying this report, from page 10.   

2 

 
 
 
 
by ensuring that the P2B Regulation achieves its full potential. The following sections on (a) 
contractual transparency as legal rights and on (b) due process in complaint-handling explain 
the effects and full potential of the P2B Regulation in more detail. 

a)  Contractual transparency as legal rights 

The  first  pillar  of  the  P2B  Regulation  involves  granting  economic  actors  in  the  EU  with 
enforceable rights and redress in contract.  

Transparency as prescribed by the P2B Regulation needs to be implemented in the private-law 
contracts  of  online  intermediation  services  and  therefore  translates  directly  into  contractual 
rights for business users. Transparency is also crucial in order to conduct business in a stable 
manner  on  online  platforms.  The  importance  of  online  platforms  as  gateways  for  business 
users  to  reach  their  customers  may  be  even  more  important  in  specific  sectors  such  as 
hospitality, retail and audio-visual. In these sectors, online platforms are sometimes the main 
or only access for providing their services and products across the internal market.  

As  the  P2B  Regulation  spells  out  the  key  commercial  issues  of  ranking,  differentiated 
treatment, access to data and various others, it offers business users clarity on their contractual 
rights related to these topics. This is in contrast to the lack of any rights that they frequently 
faced  before  the  Regulation  began  to  apply.  In  addition,  the  Regulation  provides  concrete 
procedural rights that are also key to dispute settlement, such as the right to obtain prior notice 
of  contractual  changes  or  of  any  restriction,  suspension  or  delisting  of  products,  services  or 
accounts.  The  same  applies  to  the  right  to  engage  with  the  mediators  that  online 
intermediation services have to list in their private-law contracts. 

Ranking transparency helps understand some of the crucial benefits that business users have 
from  transparent  and  detailed  terms  and  conditions.  In  fact,  transparency  on  ranking  offers 
significant potential, by introducing more predictability for business users on what influences 
their  position  in  the  presentation  of  offerings  on  platforms,  so  that  they  could  improve  the 
presentation of their goods and services. 

If  properly  implemented,  in  line  with  the  objective  of  ranking  transparency  as  set  out  in 
Article 5(5), business users will gain an understanding of how far the quality of their product 
and  services  determine  their  ranking.  This  will  allow  them  to  optimise  service  and  product 
quality and online presence, the latter including, for example, website design and the design 
of their presence in online intermediation services, and help in their advertising strategies to 
optimise their online presence. 

Implementation 

Only around a third of all online intermediation services and online platforms under review in 
the  P2B  evaluation  study  listed  information  on  their  ranking  parameters  in  their  terms  and 
conditions. This example does not reflect the full potential of the substantive transparency that 
online platforms have to provide. 

However,  this  exercise  showed  that  platforms’  published  terms  and  conditions  can  be 
automatically  indexed  and  tracked  over  time.  In  this  way,  business  users,  as  well  as 
stakeholders  including  researchers,  regulators  and  broader  civil  society,  can  observe  and 
record  changes,  perform  research,  conduct  inquires  and  much  more.  On  this  basis,  the 
Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  will  host  and  maintain  a  public  and  open-source 

3 

 
 
repository  of  the  terms  and  conditions  for  business  users  of  over  300  online  platforms  that 
have  been  indexed  to  date.6  Automated  tracking  is  one  of  various  ways  in  which  mandated 
transparency  offers  practical  tools  for  business  users  and  citizens  for  informing  themselves 
about their online activities. 

Conclusions 

The evaluation study concludes that ‘the current ecosystems of platforms, their business users, 
and providers of search-engine optimisation services have developed and adapted to operating 
under conditions of opaqueness with regard to ranking algorithms’. This may clarify the wide 
divergence  among  business  users’  perceptions  of  whether  they  have  clarity  on  ranking 
parameters:  10%  of  businesses  users  surveyed  for  this  report  mention  receiving  little  or  no 
information on ranking parameters, and an additional 42% mention having a moderate level 
of information. 

Transparency in general, and specifically on the main ranking parameters are the core of the 
P2B Regulation. In Article 5 of the P2B Regulation, the co-legislators took account the need 
to change the status quo, by requiring providers of online intermediation services and online 
search  engines  to  be  more  transparent  than  had  been  the  case  up  until  then.  Moreover, 
providers  of  these  services  can  give  more  meaningful  transparency  without  creating 
conditions in which consumers can be deceived, or without it leading to other consumer harm.  

Article  5(6)  of  the  Regulation  makes  it  clear  that  the  transparency  obligation  is  without 
prejudice  to  Directive  (EU)  2016/943  on  trade  secrets7.  The  ranking  guidelines  clarify  that 
this clause means that: ‘Providers therefore cannot refuse to disclose, for example, the main 
parameters based on the sole argument that it has never revealed any of its parameters in the 
past or that the information in question is commercially sensitive’8. The potential of Article 5, 
for  which  this  additional  transparency  is  required,  is  also  summarised  in  the  ranking 
guidelines,  and  it  is  important  to  recall  just  how  critical  this  baseline  transparency  is: 
‘Businesses trading online therefore do not always know the reasons for their performance in 
ranking  or  whether  and  how  they  could  perform  better,  potentially  with  the  help  of  paid 
ranking, despite their ability to reach customers critically depending on this knowledge’9. 

Ranking transparency is one example of a range of transparency obligations that translate into 
direct contractual rights and tangible benefits for EU businesses trading online, whether large 
or  small.  Another  example  is  the  obligation  in  Article  7  of  the  Regulation.  That  article 
requires online intermediation services to describe any differentiated treatment that they may 
apply in relation to goods or services they offer themselves as opposed to those of third-party 
business  users.  Such  transparency  can  help  enforcement  authorities  in  particular  to  identify 
and investigate unfair behaviour and to perform in-depth testing of any justifications claimed 
for  such  differentiated  treatment.  In  this  regard  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  P2B 
Regulation,  Article  6(5)  of  the  DMA  has  banned  more  favourable  treatment  in  ranking  and 
related  indexing  and  crawling;  nonetheless  the  P2B  Regulation  provides  additional 
transparency around differentiated treatment in data access, in pricing and in access terms for 

6 The database is currently available here and will move to a Commission domain shortly after publication of this 
report. 
7 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of 
undisclosed  know-how  and  business  information  (trade  secrets)  against  their  unlawful  acquisition,  use  and 
disclosure (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1–18. 
8 Ranking guidelines, point 82. 
9 Ranking guidelines, point 13. 

4 

 
 
 
ancillary  services.  As  our  societies  continue  to  move  to  online  intermediation  services,  it  is 
imperative to achieve the P2B Regulation’s full potential. 

Nonetheless,  as  further  explained  in  Section  2  of  this  report,  the  full  potential  of  the  P2B 
Regulation’s  transparency  provisions  may  crucially  depend  on  business  users  having 
sufficient  awareness  of their rights,  and on online intermediation  services and online search 
engines  having  sufficient  awareness  of  their  obligations.  The  community  of  business  users 
and  other  actors  may  currently  lack  a  frame  of  reference  to  measure  the  degree  of 
transparency they receive and may not be aware of how additional transparency on the main 
ranking parameters, differentiated treatment and more could help them do business better. 

b)  Due process in complaint handling 

Objectives of the P2B Regulation 

In the study underpinning the P2B Regulation10, the Commission explained that: ‘Reasons for 
business users not to take any steps at all notably include the perceived ineffective nature of 
existing  redress  mechanisms,  a  fear  of  damaging  the  business  relationship  with  the  online 
platform and the difficulty of available procedures. (…) Other important factors that limit the 
effectiveness  of  judicial  redress  are  linked  to  (1)  lack  of  knowledge  of  judicial  redress 
possibilities  due  to  the  small  size  of  the  companies,  (2)  disproportionate  costs  of  seeking 
international  judicial  redress,  especially  for  the  microenterprises  and/or  where  jurisdictional 
redress  would  involve  the  jurisdiction  of  a  third  country,  and  (3)  judicial  redress  being  too 
lengthy.’  The  P2B  Regulation  therefore  requires  online  intermediation  services  to  provide 
transparency,  effective  and  speedy  internal  complaint-handling  procedures  and  access  to 
mediators with which they are willing to engage. 

Pursuant  to  Article  3(1)(c),  business  users  shall  obtain  an  exhaustive  list  of  the  reasons  for 
which their accounts can be suspended or terminated or restricted in any other way. This also 
applies  to  prospective  business  users,  given  that  Article  3(1)(b)  requires  the  terms  and 
conditions  in  which  those  reasons  have  to  be  included  to  be  made  available  in  the  pre-
contractual  phase.  An  actual  restriction  of  accounts  should,  pursuant  to  Article  4,  be 
accompanied  by  a  statement  of  reasons,  which  cross-references  the  specific  ground  for  the 
restriction  –  out  of  those  listed  in  the  terms  and  conditions.  Full  termination  of  an  account 
even requires the statement of reasons to be provided at least 30 days in advance, and likely 
much longer. Article 11 of the Regulation clarifies that any restriction should then open the 
way  for  the  business  user  concerned  to  an  easily  accessible  and  free  internal  complaint-
handling  system  of  the  online  intermediation  services.  Moreover,  the  complaint  should  be 
handled  within  a  reasonable  time  frame  and  based  on  principles  of  transparency,  equal 
treatment  and  proportionality,  and  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  should  report 
annually on the performance of their internal complaint-handling systems. Finally, Article 12 
gives  business  users  the  possibility  to  try  to  engage  in  mediation  with  one  of  at  least  two 
mediators  that  online  intermediation  services  have  to  list  in  their  contracts.  Access  to  these 
mediators  is  not  conditional  upon  first  going  through  the  online  intermediation  services’ 
internal complaint handling. 

10  COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  Accompanying  the  document 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency 
for business users of online intermediation services, SWD/2018/138 final. 

5 

 
 
 
All of these procedural rights for business users add up to a legally codified EU-wide system 
for  complaint  handling  by  online  intermediation  services.  Together  with  transparency 
translating  into  contractual  rights  (cf.  Section  1a  above),  harmonised  complaint  handling 
holds  the  potential  to  be  a  step-change  in  doing  business  online.  This  would  enhance  legal 
certainty  for  businesses,  allowing  them  to  make  optimal  use  of  the  efficiencies  that  online 
intermediation services offer.  

Implementation 

Effective  implementation  is  the  key  to  achieving  that  full  potential.  However,  the  P2B 
Regulation  is  at  present  not  effectively  enforced  in  all  EU  Member  States,  and  awareness 
among  business  users and online intermediation services is  insufficient.  This  will be further 
explained in Section 2 below. 

Consistency is a part of this required effective implementation. The first mandatory reporting 
on the functioning and effectiveness of internal complaint handling under Article 11(4) of the 
P2B  Regulation  was  implemented  by  only  19  out  of  179  online  intermediation  services 
studied.  The  results  of  the  reporting  show  wide  divergence  in  how  providers  of  online 
intermediation services understand the notion of ‘complaint’. 

Table 1. Summary of selected platform reports on the functioning of complaint-handling 
systems 

Platform 

Time 
period 

Number 
of 
complaint
s lodged 

Main 
complaint 

types 

of 

Average 
time 
process  

to 

Outcome  

Apple 

July  2020 
July 
– 
2021 

12 

Decisions  to  restrict, 
remove 
suspend  or 
apps and developers 

11.25 days 

Google 
(incl. 
YouTube
) 

July  2020 
July 
– 
2021 

3 263 776 

Appeals against policy 
enforcement  decisions 
business 
regarding 
accounts, 
users’ 
content,  or  goods  or 
(87%); 
services 
about 
complaints 
policies 
platform 
(4%); 
app/platform 
technical  issues  (3%); 
account  management 
verification 
(3%); 
process 
(1%); 
miscellaneous (2%) 

Within 
24 
hours  (71%); 
24-48  hours 
(9%);  more 
than  2  days 
but  less  than 
week 
a 
1 
(14%); 
or 
week 
more (6%) 

6 

In  two  cases, 
apps 
were 
restored; 
others related 
to 
repeated 
violations 

Enforcement 
decision 
upheld 
(51%); 
enforcement 
decision 
overturned 
(26%);  issue 
resolved  (20 
other 
%); 
(3%) 

 
 
Amazon 

2020 

284 577 

Facebook 

June  2021 
– 
July 
2022 

209 

Vinted 

2021 

15 427 

Apple 
App 
Store 

13 July 20
21 
12 July 20
22 

– 

64 

Product  display  and 
listings  (65%);  FBA11, 
refunds 
orders 
and 
registration, 
(23%); 
account  access  and 
settings 
(6%); 
advertising and add-on 
services (5%) 

Non-compliance 
(109); 
technological 
issues (86); other (14) 

Order  quality  (2 636); 
items 
catalogue 
(1 515);  shipping  and 
delivery 
(3 008); 
payments  and  safety 
usability 
(6 673); 
(1 595) 

The 
original 
restriction,  suspension 
or  termination  action 
was upheld in 60 of 64 
cases 

3.7 days 

were 
to 
seller’s 

90% 
resolved 
the 
satisfaction 

57.5 hours 

186 
complaints 
resolved 

1.6 days 

No 
information 

4.83 days 

No 
information 

This  wide  divergence  in  the  number  of  complaints  and  their  outcomes  (12  complaints  for 
Apple  with  only  two  overturned,  and  more  than  3  million  complaints  for  Google  with  26% 
overturned)  suggests  that  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  have  very  different 
interpretations of the notion of complaint and that some are possibly not complying with this 
obligation. In this regard, Article 11 of the P2B Regulation has a very broad scope, covering 
any ‘measures taken by, or behaviour of, that provider which relate directly to the provision of 
the  online  intermediation  services,  and  which  affect  the  complainant’,  as  well  as  any 
‘technological issues which relate directly to the provision of online intermediation services, 
and which affect the complainant. 

Heightened  awareness  of  business  users  will  also  increase  demand  for  independent  and 
impartial  mediators  with  increasing  specialist  knowledge  of  platform-to-business  relations. 
This  would  result  from  more  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  seeking  to  comply 
with Article 12 of the P2B Regulation. Currently, only 25 of the 179 large and medium-sized 
online  intermediation  services  under  consideration  provided  the  name  of  at  least  two 
mediators in their T&Cs for business users.12 An additional 35 online intermediation services 
mention only one mediation organisation in their T&Cs. Most of this second group also refer 
to the same mediation organisation, which happens to be based outside the EU.  

11 Fulfilment by Amazon. 
12 Study on Evaluation of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business 
users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), page 119. 

7 

 
 
 
 
The  Commission  is  not  aware  of  online  intermediation  services  jointly  setting  up  any 
specialised  mediation  bodies,  as  recommended  by  Article  13  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  This 
indicates  that,  to  date,  there  may  only  be  a  very  limited  number  of  specialised  mediators 
active in the area of platform-to-business relations.    

The Commission intends to work with online intermediation services and their representative 
bodies and organisations to encourage them to set up such specialised mediators under Article 
13  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  will  reach  out  to  the  relevant 
stakeholders immediately after publication of this report. 

Specialised  mediators  could  also  improve  complaint  handling  by  online  platforms  more 
generally.  The  Commission  will  therefore  further  encourage  the  setting  up  specialised 
mediators foreseen in Article 13 of the P2B Regulation. In this regard, the possibility for such 
mediators to obtain certification pursuant to Article 21 of the DSA could facilitate their work 
as independent and capable actors. Certification under the DSA will namely confirm that the 
relevant  mediators comply  with  the  strict  impartiality  and independence requirements in  the 
DSA. 

2.  Main  findings:  Limited  compliance  and  awareness  of  the  EU’s  Platform-to-

Business Regulation 

As set out in section 1, the P2B Regulation has important effects in terms of legal certainty 
and  due  process  for  business  users.  In  this  regard,  as  is  explained  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document  accompanying  this  report,  a  significant  sample  of  online  intermediation  services 
for example go some way to complying with the P2B Regulation. Also,  some of the largest 
online  intermediation  services  recently  started  to  report  some  statistics  on  their  internal 
complaint-handling,  and  some  of  these  also  list  at  least  one  mediation  organisation  in  their 
terms  and  conditions.  Also,  the  majority  of  business  users  surveyed  as  part  of  this 
implementation  report  said  they  now  received  advance  notices  whenever  the  specific 
platforms that they use updated their terms and conditions.13  

However,  as  described  in  the  following  sections  2(a)  and  2(b),  providers  of  online 
intermediation services and of online search engines do not comply sufficiently with the P2B 
Regulation  to  date.  This  lack  of  compliance  is  coupled  with  a  broader  lack  of  awareness 
among both business users as well as providers of online intermediation services and of online 
services engines of their respective rights and obligations. This means that the full potential of 
the P2B Regulation is not achieved at present. 

a)  Platforms fail to give full effect to the rules 

The  study  underpinning  this  report  found  that  overall  the  degree  of  alignment  of  online 
platforms with the P2B Regulation is low. This lack of implementation could also be related 
to, and contribute to, the corresponding lack of awareness of the P2B Regulation. 

In total, the study found that 123 online intermediation services (42.4%) had achieved a low 
level of alignment with the Regulation’s requirements regarding contractual transparency. The 
alignment  of  another  128  online  intermediation  services  (44.1%)  was  assessed  as  medium, 
and  that  of  only  49  online  intermediation  services  (16.9%)  was  assessed  as  relatively 
significant. These findings have no bearing on whether any of the services effectively comply 

13 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying this report. 

8 

 
 
 
with  the  required  standard  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  However,  in  many  cases,  the  basic 
information provided, for example on ranking, is potentially insufficient14.  

For example, as reported in the same study, only a third of all the terms and conditions of the 
online  platforms  under  review  contained  information  on  the  main  ranking  parameters,  and 
even  in  those  cases  the  descriptions  were  provided  in  rather  general  terms.  It  was  also  not 
clear in all cases whether the descriptions effectively responded to the obligation in Article 5 
of the P2B Regulation.  

As  regards  transparency  on  differentiated  treatment,  as  prescribed  by  Article  7,  the  review 
showed that very few online intermediation services include any information – whereas 11% 
of business users surveyed in 2022 indicated having experienced such differentiated treatment 
where  it  concerned  ranking  alone.  A  2021  study  found  that,  for  e-commerce  online 
intermediation  services  that  also  sold  their  own  products  or  services,  nearly  53%  of 
respondents experienced self-preferencing.  

As regards the obligation under Article 9 to describe the technical and contractual access to 
data  for  business  users,  the  information  provided  was  often  described  in  general  terms,  and 
interviewees  in  the  study  underpinning  this  report  generally  could  not  link  the  information 
provided to the P2B Regulation. One interviewee explained it may rather have resulted from 
an  attempted  GDPR  compliance  effort.  It  appears  that  the  lack  of  actual  access  to  data 
generated  through  business  user  activities  on  the  major  online  platforms  remains  the  major 
issue. Moreover, many business users, both SMEs and large businesses, found that the rules 
governing how they could use client-related statistics and other customer data are themselves 
also unclear.  

As mentioned in Section 1 above, increased compliance with the P2B Regulation should lead 
to clearer data access policies, which in turn will clarify business users’ contractual rights, or 
the  lack  thereof.  This  transparency  then  offers  more  possibilities  for  online  intermediation 
services  to  distinguish  themselves  based  on  data  access  policies,  for  example  giving  more 
access,  limiting  their  own  access,  and  explaining  more  clearly  and  extensively  how  they 
understand the need for GDPR compliance to play a role in setting data access policies. 

As regards compliance with the rules on notice periods in Article 3 of the P2B Regulation, the 
perceptions  of  stakeholders  varied  substantially.  While  many  large  online  intermediation 
services point out in their terms and conditions that they follow procedures and notice periods 
in line with the Regulation (i.e. its Articles 3(2), 3(5), 4, 11), their actual compliance in the 
relevant  situations,  as  assessed  by  business  users,  is  disputable.  Some  interviewees  (mostly 
micro and small enterprises) from the hospitality and e-commerce sectors pointed out that the 
grounds  for  suspension  and  termination  in  the  terms  and  conditions  remain  unclear  and 
generic,  where  for  instance  ‘breach  of  terms  and  conditions’  leads  to  loopholes  about  the 
notice period, which could have a negative impact on the business continuity. This shows that 
the  transparency  has  not  yet  reached  the  necessary  and  adequate  level  in  order  to  allow 
business users to be well-informed of all of their rights and obligations. 

14 The Ranking Guidelines in this regard confirm that: ‘the description to be provided has to go beyond a simple 
enumeration  of  the  main  parameters,  and  provide  at  least  a  ‘second  layer’  of  explanatory  information (6). 
Providers  could,  for  example,  consider  describing  the  company-internal  ‘thought  process’  that  was  used  for 
identifying  the  ‘main  parameters’  as  a  way  to  also  derive  the  ‘reasons  for  their  relative  importance’.’ 
Commission  Notice  Guidelines  on  Ranking  Transparency  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council (2020/C 424/01), point 22. 

9 

 
 
 
Internal complaint-handling systems are the most widely available and used option of redress 
in the online platform environment. This reflects the fact that online intermediation services 
have  a  strong  interest  in  being  able  to  communicate  with  their  business  users,  for  example 
regarding technical issues. The fact that there are communication options in place, however, 
does  not  mean  that  the  relevant  online  intermediation  services  provide  the  required 
effectiveness  in  the  form  of,  for  example,  other  required  elements,  duly  considering 
complaints and swiftly and effectively processing them.  

The effectiveness of internal complaint-handling mechanisms is currently further reduced by 
the lack of clarity of certain terms and concepts, including the notion of ‘complaint’ under the 
P2B Regulation. This term should be given a broad interpretation under the P2B Regulation, 
extending  to  any  ‘measures  taken  by,  or  behaviour  of’  the  relevant  provider  of  online 
intermediation services, which ‘affect the complainant’. In this regard, only 69 out of the 179 
larger online intermediation service providers included the information required under Article 
11(3)  about  access  to  and  functioning  of  the  internal  complaint-handling  process15.  Even 
fewer  providers  publish  annual  reports  on  the  processing  of  complaints  by  their  internal 
complaint-handling mechanism, as required under Article 11(4).  

As already mentioned in Section 1, the few reports that were issued also show a likely widely 
varying  interpretation  of  the  notion  of  ‘complaint’  under  the  P2B  Regulation.  The 
effectiveness  of  internal  complaint  handling  is  further  impeded  by  the  lack  of  effective 
compliance with Articles 3 and 4 in terms of unclear terms and conditions and a lack of notice 
provided  for  restrictions  of  services.  Whereas  a  significant  proportion  (43%)  of  issues  is 
reported to be fully resolved through the internal complaint-handling system, the 2022 survey 
underpinning this report also shows that a larger proportion is only partially resolved, or not at 
all (48% and 8% respectively).  

A smaller share of business users also reported persistent vagueness of platform responses and 
long  waiting  periods.  These  problems  are  the  most  common  among  business  users  of  the 
largest  platforms,  whose  internal  complaint-handling  systems  are  reported  to  be  highly 
automated,  with  standardised  procedures  and  generic  responses.  Getting  individualised  and 
specific  support  is  reported  as  being  one  of  the  main  issues  in  P2B  relationships  for  many 
business users.  

Other forms of redress enshrined in the P2B Regulation – mediation and courts – are pursued 
by business users in very rare cases. Courts especially seem to be the very last resort, and for 
the  largest  business  users  only.  Most  businesses  still  do  not  even  consider  this  as  a  viable 
option because of the cost involved, low perceived chance of success, and fear of retaliatory 
actions by online platforms.  

The  P2B  Regulation  introduced  mediation  as  one  way  to  respond  to  the  issue  of  business 
users’ reluctance to use the courts, but this option has not yet been used widely by them. Only 
few  online  intermediation  services  have  included  in  their  terms  and  conditions  the  required 
information under Article 12 of the P2B Regulation on two mediators that they are willing to 
engage with, and the use of mediation is  still only  marginal (only  several  dozen  cases were 
reported in the study report16).  

15 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying this report. 
16 Ibid. 

10 

 
 
 
Recourse to mediation is also reported as remaining limited. This is a direct result of a lack of 
awareness  of  this  new  contractual  possibility,  rather  than  a  result  of  any  difficulties 
experienced by the limited number of business users that actually used mediation services to 
solve disputes with online intermediation services. The difficulties experienced related to the 
length of proceedings, their cost and non-binding nature, and the perceived partisan nature of 
the  mediator  given  the  many  cases  brought  by  a  limited  number  of  online  intermediation 
services. This finding reinforces the need for further awareness raising. 

To  date,  no  codes  of  conduct  for  the  areas  regulated  in  the  P2B  Regulation  have  been 
established.  This  is  linked  to  the  limited  awareness  and  lack  of  compliance,  and  is 
understandable given the short time since the P2B Regulation came into force. However, as 
recommended in the opinion17 of the Expert Group for the Observatory on the online platform 
economy,  codes  of  conduct  could  be  used  to  operationalise  the  application  of  the  P2B 
Regulation.  In  particular,  codes  of  conduct  for  the  application  of  the  P2B  Regulation  in 
certain  sectors  (e.g.  hotel  booking  platforms,  online  retail  marketplaces)  could  help  raise 
awareness  and  give  online  intermediation  services  and  their  business  users  further 
opportunities to build trust.  

The  lack  of  full  and  effective  compliance  is  accompanied  by  a  lack  of  awareness  of  the 
contractual rights and redress possibilities the Regulation offers – both among business users 
and smaller online platforms. The lack of compliance and awareness  also likely  impact  one 
another. The study underpinning this report found that the level of awareness among business 
users, associations and platforms alike tends to be lower in EU Member States that did not put 
in place any public enforcement system as required by article 15 of the Regulation18.  

b)  Member State actions on enforcement and awareness raising are insufficient 

Members  States  are  increasingly  implementing  systems  to  enforce  the  P2B  Regulation,  as 
provided  for  in  its  Article  15.  On  26  January  2023,  the  Commission  initiated  infringement 
proceedings  against  eight  Member  States  who  at  that  time  had  not  taken  any  action  under 
Article  15  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  This  followed  continuous  contacts  on  the  topic  of  public 
enforcement of the P2B Regulation between the Commission and Member States, including 
through regular meetings of the e-commerce expert group.19 In the meantime, some of those 
Member States have adopted national rules to provide an enforcement system as required in 
Article 15.  

By the end of June 2023, 21 Member States20 had adopted national laws to enforce the P2B 
Regulation,  while  future  legislation  preparing  the  ground  for  enforcement  of  the  P2B 
Regulation  is  envisaged  in  a  further  four  Member  States21.  A  total  of  15  Member  States 
currently enforces the P2B Regulation through a public authority responsible for its effective 
enforcement22. 

17 See the Opinion of the Expert Group on their website, to be published shortly after this report.  
18 See Staff Working Document accompanying this report, page 27. 
19 
groups/consult?lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=1636. 
20  AT,  BE,  BG,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  HR,  IE,  IT,  LU,  LV,  MT,  PT,  RO,  SE.  Last  update: 
4 August 2023. 
21  NL, PL, SK, SI. Last update: 4 August 2023. 
22 BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, LV, LU, PT, RO, August 2023.  

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-

11 

 
 
 
In  view  of  business  users’  low  awareness  of  their  rights  under  the  P2B  Regulation  and  the 
resulting  low  number  of  complaints  or  court  cases  based  on  the  Regulation,  some  Member 
State  authorities  have  also  run,  or  are  planning  to  run,  awareness-raising  campaigns.  
Awareness  raising  is  key  for  effective  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  and  the  Commission 
recognises the need to support and engage in these activities. The Commission thus plans to 
organise joint communication campaigns with Member State authorities.  

c)  Informal network of P2B enforcement authorities  

A group of Member State authorities responsible for enforcing the P2B Regulation decided to 
set  up  an  informal  P2B  network  (the  ‘steering  group’)23.  To  support  the  exchange  of 
information and coordinate enforcement activities (e.g. sweeps) a P2B Wiki was set up, with 
almost  all  Member  States24  represented.  During  the  meetings  (and  via  the  Wiki  space), 
enforcement  authorities  or  Member  State  authorities  responsible  for  P2B  Regulation 
implementation and awareness raising organise calls for information, share information about 
relevant court rulings and guidelines adopted by the enforcement authorities, or organise joint 
monitoring and enforcement actions such as sweeps. These exchanges are important not just 
for the authorities taking part in enforcement but also for other authorities who can learn from 
the exercise and become incentivised to participate more actively in the future.  

Some  enforcement  authorities  have  drafted  and  adopted  guidelines  for  online  platforms  and 
online search engines on how to interpret certain provisions of the P2B. This is non-binding 
guidance that does not interpret the Regulation, and which is meant to help especially smaller 
providers  of  online  intermediation  services  and  of  online  search  engines  that  may  be  active 
within a single Member State. These guidance documents take the form of practical tips in the 
relevant  local  languages. This  is another example of a voluntary initiative by Member State 
authorities.  So  far  Italy’s  AGCOM25  and  the  Netherlands’  ACM26  have  published  such 
enforcement guidance, which are available on their respective websites. Official guidelines on 
the  substantive  provisions  of  the  Regulation  are  provided  in  the  Commission´s  Notice  on 
ranking transparency, as explained in the following section.  

d)  Commission actions taken so far under the P2B Regulation 

In  addition  to  launching  infringement  proceedings  against  Member  States  that  have  not 
implemented Article 15 of the Regulation, the Commission also published a notice on ranking 
guidelines pursuant to Article 5(7) of the P2B Regulation27.  

The Commission also maintains an overview of designated entities28 pursuant to Article 14(6) 
of  the  Regulation.  So  far  only  Austria  and  Ireland  have  designated  such  organisations, 
associations or public bodies. 

3.  Complementarity with other EU acts  

23 BE, DK, FR, IE, NL (IT joined in 2023).  
24 23 Member States are part of the P2B Wiki and the informal network of P2B enforcement authorities.  
25 Platform to business - AGCOM  
26 ACM publishes draft guidelines regarding the rules for online platforms and search engines | ACM.nl  
27  Commission  Notice  Guidelines  on  ranking  transparency  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council 2020/C 424/01, C/2020/8579. 
28 List of designated organisations, associations and public entities drawn up and published pursuant to Article 
14(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and 
transparency for business users of online intermediation services (2021/C 402/05). 

12 

 
 
 
The P2B Regulation  was the first step towards  providing a  comprehensive legal framework 
for the platform economy; this has since been complemented by the adoption of the DSA and 
the DMA. These instruments are at an early stage of implementation. While the relationship 
between the P2B Regulation and the DSA and DMA is well delineated, the interactions and 
complementarity  between  them  should  have  the  close  attention  of  the  Commission  and  of 
national enforcement bodies, in line with the Opinion of the Expert Group for the Observatory 
on the Online Platform Economy.  

Specifically,  the  P2B  Regulation,  including  its  Article  11  on  internal  complaint  handling, 
applies to all medium-sized and large providers of online intermediation services. Therefore 
its  scope  goes  beyond  the  DMA.  This  means  that  business  users  of  online  intermediation 
services have more legal certainty to build an online presence spanning both ‘gatekeeper’ core 
platform services under the DMA and other online intermediation services.  

The  DSA  mirrors  and  specifies  the  ranking  transparency  obligation  in  Article  5  of  the  P2B 
Regulation, for the benefit of all Europeans citizens. It also ensures the systematic availability 
of  redress  mechanisms  and  the  required  clarity,  availability  and  consistent  application  of 
online platforms’ terms and conditions. 

Moreover,  the  proposed  European  Media  Freedom  Act29  refers,  in  Article  17,  to  the  P2B 
Regulation.  The  aim  is  to  make  it  clear  that  media  providers,  as  business  users  of  online 
intermediation services, should be offered due process guarantees in content moderation. 

4.  General conclusions and proposed follow-up actions by the Commission  

This  first  preliminary  review  shows  the  existing  effects  of  the  P2B  Regulation:  since  its 
adoption  online  intermediation  services  have  become  more  transparent  (e.g.  information  on 
the  terms  &  conditions,  setting  up  internal  complaint  handling,  establishing  reasons  for 
suspending or terminating account and listing). Yet, the level of compliance by platforms is 
still too low, with differences depending on the size of the platform but also on the obligation 
(e.g.  while  establishing  a  list  of  reasons  for  suspension  or  termination,  they  still  remain  too 
vague in concrete for the business user).  

The  review  at  the  same  time  reveals  that  problems  persist  in  reaching  the  objectives  of  the 
P2B Regulation. The rules on transparency and dispute settlement remain as relevant as ever, 
but are not given full effect in practice. Yet, this  report and the data gathered show that the 
rules can be the appropriate solution for solving the problems still faced by business users if 
applied  fully  and  correctly.  This  report  identifies  a  number  of  factors  that  can  explain  why 
increased transparency has not led to notable changes in platform behaviour on certain issues. 
In  particular,  low  level  of  awareness  among  business  users  of  their  rights,  insufficient 
enforcement by national authorities which bring a limited compliance by online platforms. All 
these factors need to be tackled, so to increase the implementation and the effectiveness of the 
P2B regulation, that are to be evaluated in the next report. 

On  implementation  and  enforcement,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  work  closely  with 
Member States and competent national authorities. To tackle the low level of awareness and 
address the shortcomings identified in the review, the following actions are proposed: 

29 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing 
a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending 
Directive 2010/13/EU, COM/2022/457 final. 

13 

 
 
 
•  Firstly, it is important to ensure that business users, associations and online platforms 
are aware of the rights and obligations stemming from the P2B Regulation. To do so, 
the Commission will work with Member States to disseminate information in different 
sectors and for all players, via different channels  including informational campaigns, 
business  networks  and other tools  (e.g. YourEurope). The Commission  also  plans  to 
organise  further  workshops  with  business  users,  online  intermediation  services  and 
other stakeholders from different sectors. 

•  Secondly, the level of awareness varied from sector to sector (e.g. in hospitality or e-
commerce).  For  each  sector,  specific  tools  could  be  used  to  raise  awareness,  for 
instance  using  the  transition  pathways30  as  leverage  in  order  to  establish  possible 
tailored action plans. 

•  Thirdly,  the  relative  level  of  alignment  on  mediation  is  generally  higher  for  larger 
online intermediation services31.  Therefore, the Commission plans to follow-up with 
SME  platforms,  together  with  Member  States  and  their  authorities,  as  a  matter  of 
priority. 

•  Finally, codes of conduct should be used to operationalise the application of the P2B 
Regulation.  The  Commission  plans  to  explore  establishing  codes  of  conduct  in  the 
hotel  bookings  and  online  marketplace  sectors  in  the  near  future.  It  will  convene 
online intermediation services and Member State authorities to act on this issue. 

30 “Co-creation of a transition pathway for a more resilient, digital and green retail Ecosystem”, SWD(2023) 283 
final. 
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-
07/SWD_2023_283_F1_STAFF_WORKING_PAPER_EN_V4_P1_2864349.PDF 
31  For  example,  comparison  of  the  results  of  the  2020  and  2022  surveys  showed  that  several  major  online 
platforms from different sectors of the platform economy (online travel agencies, e-commerce marketplaces, app 
stores, etc.) have revised their T&Cs to provide more clarity and detail.  

14