COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the 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  SWD(2023) 300 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the  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 {COM(2023) 525 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

1.1.  Context .................................................................................................................... 3 

1.2.  Specific provisions and objectives of the Regulation.............................................. 4 

1.3.  Scope of the Regulation........................................................................................... 6 

1.4.  Scope of the first preliminary review of the Regulation ......................................... 7 

1.5.  Methodology............................................................................................................ 8 

2.  MAIN FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 10 

2.1.  Baseline and results – transparency and accessibility (Articles 3 to 10) ............... 10 

2.1.1.  Article 3 – terms and conditions ............................................................................ 10 

2.1.2.  Article 4 – Restriction, suspension and termination .............................................. 12 

2.1.3.  Article 5 - Ranking ................................................................................................ 13 

2.1.4.  Article 6 – Ancillary goods and services ............................................................... 14 

2.1.5.  Article 7 – Differentiated treatment ...................................................................... 14 

2.1.6.  Article 8 – Specific contractual terms ................................................................... 15 

2.1.7.  Article 9 – Access to data ...................................................................................... 15 

2.1.8.  Article 10 – Most Favoured Nation clauses .......................................................... 16 

2.2.  Conclusions – transparency and accessibility (Articles 3 to 10) ........................... 16 

2.2.1.  Informed businesses .............................................................................................. 17 

2.2.2.  Contractual rights .................................................................................................. 17 

2.3.  Baseline and results – due process and redress mechanisms (Articles 11 to 15) .. 19 

2.3.1.  Article 11 – internal complaint-handling system .................................................. 19 

2.3.2.  Article 12 – Mediation........................................................................................... 19 

2.4.  Conclusions – due process and redress mechanisms (Articles 11 to 15) .............. 20 

2.4.1.  Complaint handling ............................................................................................... 20 

2.4.2.  Mediation ............................................................................................................... 22 

2.4.3.  Need for public enforcement ................................................................................. 24 

2.5.  Codes of conduct (Article 17) ............................................................................... 28 

2.6.  Limited awareness ................................................................................................. 29 

3.  COMPLEMENTARITY WITH OTHER EU ACTS ................................................ 30 

3.1.1.  Oversight – spotting potential non-compliance ..................................................... 31 

3.1.2.  Research – automated tracking of terms and conditions ....................................... 31 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

OISs 

OISPs 

T&C 

OTA 

Online intermediation services  

Online intermediation service providers  

Terms and conditions  

Online travel agency 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Context  

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 EU Regulation on platform-to-business relations ('the P2B Regulation')1 was the 
first  horizontal  regulation  for  the  platform  economy. Until  then,  platforms  were 
covered  by  sets  of  different  and  piecemeal  rules  and  the  harmful  practices  by  these 
practices were not regulated in their entirety.  

The  new  rules  were  aimed  to  create  a  fair,  transparent  and  predictable  business 
environment  for  smaller  businesses  and  traders  on  online  platforms  when  using  online 
intermediation  services  (OISs)  and  online  search  engines  (OSEs).  As  well  as  granting 
businesses more predictability in their relationships with platforms, and giving access to 
effective means to address problems,  the P2B Regulation was also meant to encourage 
businesses’ use of online platforms  as a means  to  achieve  growth. Clearer rules at  EU 
level were envisaged to provide platforms with a predictable regulatory environment and 
enable them to scale up in a less fragmented single market.  

The impact assessment preceding adoption of the P2B Regulation2 confirmed that online 
intermediation services can be crucial for the commercial success of business users, who 
use  such  services  to  reach  consumers.  Online  search  engines  are  also  key  to  the 
commercial  success  of  all  businesses  that  operate  websites.  However,  as  these  become 
increasingly important  and relied upon by many businesses for market  access, they can 
behave  in  a  way  that  can  cause  significant  economic  harm  to  business  users.  The 
problematic trading practices (‘P2B practices’) addressed by the P2B Regulation can be 
harmful as they limit (national and cross-border) sales and innovation, ultimately to the 
detriment of consumers. 

These rules have now been directly applicable in all Member States for almost 3 years – 
since 12 July 2020.  

In  the  meantime,  other  pieces  of  EU  legislation  that  complement  or  reinforce  the 
provisions of the P2B Regulation have been adopted. These include the Digital Markets 
Act3  and  the  Digital  Services  Act4  or  the  proposed  directive  on  improving  working 
conditions in platform work5.  

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. 
2  Impact  assessment  of  the  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for  business  users  of  online  intermediation  services  |  Shaping 
Europe’s digital future, SWD(2018) 138 final. 
3  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. 

2 

 
 
 
1.2. Specific provisions and objectives of the Regulation 

The P2B Regulation regulates two aspects of the relationship between business users and 
online  intermediary  service  providers  (OISPs).  The  first  set  of  rules  relates  to 
transparency and accessibility, while the second  focuses on dispute resolution methods. 
Hence, the Regulation has a two-fold aim: increasing business users’ access to clear and 
transparent information and providing them with means to protect their rights. The third 
part of the P2B Regulation concerns measures to enforce these new rules.  

The  P2B  Regulation  takes  a  contract-based  approach  and  requires  OISPs  and  search 
engines  to  provide  transparency  in  their  terms  and  conditions  (T&Cs)  about  various 
aspects  that  directly  affect  their  relationship  with  business  users  and  corporate  website 
users.  

Article  3  requires  OISPs  to  provide  information  in  their  T&Cs  on  the  grounds  for 
suspension  and  termination,  on  any  additional  distribution  channels  and  affiliate 
programmes,  on  the  ownership  and  control  of  intellectual  property  rights  of  business 
users, and to notify business users of any T&C changes with a 15-day notice on a durable 
medium.  

In addition, Articles 4 to 10 of the Regulation require that OISPs provide a statement 
of reasons for termination to business users with at least 30 days’ notice (Art. 4); and set 
out  in  their  T&Cs:  (i)  the  parameters  used  for  ranking  (Art.  5);  (ii)  information  on 
ancillary  goods  and  services  provided  (Art.  6);  (iii)  information  on  the  use  of 
differentiated treatment (Art. 7); (iv) information on business users’ access to data (Art. 
9); (v) information  on the restrictions to  offer different  conditions  through other means 
(Art. 10); and (vi) further specific contractual terms (Art. 8).  

Ranking  transparency  takes  a  very  central  role  in  the  P2B  Regulation,  this  helps 
understand  some  of  the  crucial  benefits  that  business  users  have  from  transparent  and 
detailed terms  and conditions. These include the ability to compare different providers’ 
terms and conditions, and to understand how to balance service/product investment with 
investments in paid ranking.  

According to Recital 24 of the P2B Regulation: ‘Predictability entails that providers of 
online  intermediation  services  determine  ranking  in  a  non-arbitrary  manner.  Providers 
should therefore outline the main parameters determining ranking beforehand, in order to 
improve  predictability  for  business  users,  to  allow  them  to  better  understand  the 
functioning  of  the  ranking  mechanism  and  to  enable  them  to  compare  the  ranking 
practices of various providers.’ 

This mention of ‘non-arbitrary’ ranking refers to the wider need for the private-law terms 
and  conditions  of  online  intermediation  services  to  respect  the  fundamental  rights  of 
business  users,  including  their  right  to  impart  information.  The  Digital  Services  Act 

4  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. 
5  Proposal  for  a  DIRECTIVE  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  on 
improving working conditions in platform work, COM/2021/762 final. 

3 

 
 
makes  this  interplay  between  fundamental  rights  and  intermediary  services’  terms  and 
conditions explicit in its Article 14(4): ‘Providers of intermediary services shall act in a 
diligent,  objective  and  proportionate  manner  in  applying  and  enforcing  the  restrictions 
referred  to  in  paragraph 1,  with  due  regard  to  the  rights  and  legitimate  interests  of  all 
parties involved, including the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service, such as 
the freedom  of expression, freedom  and pluralism  of the media, and other fundamental 
rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Charter.’  

The  second  set  of  rules  (Articles  11–14  of  the  P2B  Regulation)  focuses  on  dispute 
resolution methods. It obliges online intermediation services – except platforms that are 
small enterprises – to put in place an easily accessible and free-of-charge internal system 
to  handle  business  users’  complaints.  The  system  should  allow  business  users  to  lodge 
complaints  regarding  platform  non-compliance  with  the  P2B  Regulation,  technological 
issues, or platform measures related to online intermediation services that directly affect 
the complainant. Platforms are obliged to duly consider all the complaints, process them 
swiftly and effectively,  and provide easy-to-understand information on the outcomes of 
this  process  to  the  complaining  business  users  (Article  11(2)).  The  access  to,  and 
functioning of, the complaint-handling system itself should be presented in detail in the 
platform  T&Cs  (Article  11(3)).  At  the  same  time,  up-to-date  information  on  the 
functioning  and effectiveness  of the internal  complaint-handling system  (i.e. number of 
complaints  logged,  types  of  complaints,  time  needed  to  process  them  and  outcomes) 
should be available publicly (Article 11(4)).  

Under Article 12, OISPs should identify in their T&Cs two or more mediators with 
whom they are willing to engage to reach an agreement with business users on the out-of-
court  settlement  of  disputes  over  the  provision  of  the  online  intermediation  services 
concerned.  The  mediators  identified  by  the  platform  should:  (i)  be  impartial  and 
independent;  (ii)  provide  affordable  services  for  business  users;  (iii)  be  able  to  provide 
their  services  in  the  language  of  the  terms  and  conditions  that  govern  the  contractual 
relationship;  (iv)  be  easily  accessible  and  able  to  provide  their  services  without  undue 
delay;  and  (v)  have  a  sufficient  understanding  of  general  business-to-business 
commercial relations.  

Additionally, in line with Article 12(4), OISPs should bear a reasonable proportion of 
the total costs of mediation in each individual case. This reasonable proportion should be 
based on the suggestion  of the mediator while taking  into consideration  other elements 
such as the size and financial strength of the parties relative to one another. At the same 
time,  the  parties  concerned  are  not  prevented  from  initiating  judicial  proceedings  any 
time before, during or after the mediation process. OISPs defined as small enterprises as 
per the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC6 are not subject to this requirement, and 
thus do not need to identify at least two mediators in their T&Cs. 

The  Regulation  also  encourages,  in  Article  13,  setting  up  of  specialised  mediators.  
Under  this  provision,  the  Commission  should  closely  cooperate  with  Member  States  to 
encourage OISPs and associations representing them to individually or jointly set up one 

6 European Commission (2003). Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of 
micro,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (notified  under  document  number  C(2003)  1422), 
2003/361/EC.  Available at: 
 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ECELEX:32003H0361&from=EN. 

4 

 
 
or  more  organisations  providing  mediation  services  which  meet  the  requirements  in 
Article  12(2)  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  Specialised  mediators’  specialist  knowledge  is 
meant to give both parties more confidence in the mediation process and in the likelihood 
of a satisfactory outcome7.  

At the same time, the P2B tries to make it easier for business users to opt for recourse to 
judicial proceedings if they chose to do so. Article 14 of the P2B Regulation establishes 
the  possibility  for  organisations  with  an  interest  in  representing  business  users  to  bring 
actions before competent national courts in the EU to stop or prohibit non-compliance by 
online  platforms  with  the  P2B  Regulation.  The  article  grants  this  right  to  organisations 
and associations, as well as to public bodies that have a legitimate interest in representing 
businesses that use online platforms. To bring an action before competent national courts, 
such organisations must be designated by the Member State in which they reside.  This 
right afforded to designated organisations does not affect the rights of businesses that use 
online platforms to act before competent national courts on their own behalf.  

The  third  element  of  the  P2B  Regulation  focuses  on  enforcement.  Pursuant  to  Article 
15(1)  of  the  P2B  Regulation,  Member  States  are  required  to  ensure  its  adequate  and 
effective  enforcement.  Article  15(2)  requires  Member  States  to  lay  down  rules  that  set 
out  the  measures  applicable  to  infringements  of  the  Regulation  and  ensure  they  are 
the  measures  be  effective, 
implemented.  That  provision  further  requires 
proportionate and dissuasive. These provisions  also require Member States to lay down 
specific  national  implementing  measures  to  address  infringements  of  the  P2B 
Regulation. Member States may not rely on existing general procedural rules in national 
administrative  or  civil  law  without  duly  amending  these  by  clearly  specifying  their 
relevance for enforcement of the P2B Regulation.  

that 

1.3. Scope of the Regulation  

The  P2B  Regulation  applies  to  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  and  online 
search engines insofar as they provide their services to business users to enable them to 
reach consumers in the EU.  

Under  the  P2B  Regulation,  a  provider  of  online  intermediation  services  is  defined  as  a 
natural or legal person that provides, or offers to provide, ‘online intermediation services’ 
which  qualify  as  such  when  they  meet  the  following  criteria:  (i)  they  constitute 
information society services within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive 
(EU)  2015/153515;  (ii)  they  allow  ‘business  users’  to  offer  goods  or  services  to 
'consumers’; (iii) with a view to facilitating the initiating of ‘direct transactions’ between 
the  business  users  and  the  consumers,  regardless  of  where  the  direct  transactions  are 
ultimately  concluded;  and  (iv)  they  are  provided  to  ‘business  users’  on  the  basis  of 
contractual relationships between the provider of the services and the business users. 

Examples  of  online  intermediation  services  covered  by  the  P2B  Regulation  include 
online  e-commerce  marketplaces  (including  collaborative  sites  on  which business  users 
are  active),  online  software  applications  services  such  as  application  stores,  and  online 
social media services. It is not relevant whether the transactions between business users 

7 European Commission (n.d.) Questions and Answers Establishing a Fair, Trusted and Innovation Driven 
Ecosystem in the Online Platform Economy.  
 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=68300. 

5 

 
 
and  consumers  that  these  services  intermediate  involve  any  monetary  payment  or 
whether they are concluded in part offline. However, the Regulation does not apply to: (i) 
peer-to-peer  online  intermediation  services  without  the  presence  of  business  users;  (ii) 
pure  business-to-business  online  intermediation  services  which  are  not  offered  to 
consumers; (iii) online advertising tools and online advertising exchanges, which are not 
provided with the aim of facilitating the initiation of direct transactions and which do not 
involve  a  contractual  relationship  with  consumers8.  For  the  same  reason,  search  engine 
optimisation  software  services  and  services  which  revolve  around  advertising-blocking 
software are not covered by the Regulation. Not does it apply to online payment services, 
since they do not themselves meet the applicable requirements, but are rather inherently 
auxiliary  to  the  transaction  for  the  supply  of  goods  and  services  to  the  consumers 
concerned.  

In  addition,  some  rules  for  online  intermediation  services  do  not  apply  to  small 
enterprises9  (i.e.  rules  on  setting  up  internal  complaint-handling  systems  and  indicating 
two mediators in the terms and conditions).  

1.4. Scope of the first preliminary review of the Regulation 

Many of the priority items for evaluation included in the P2B Regulation’s review clause 
(Article 18) have, following the entry into force of the P2B Regulation, been taken up in 
separate  instruments,  notably  the  Digital  Markets  Act  (DMA),  the  Digital  Services  Act 
(DSA)  and  the  proposed  directive  on  improving  working  conditions  in  platform  work. 
Specifically,  Article  18(c),  (d),  (e)  and  (f)  respectively  concern:  (i)  unfair  commercial 
practices  resulting  from  the  dependence  of  business  users  on  online  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’. Concerning Article 18(b), the 
assessment  was  not  possible  since  no  codes  of  conducts  have  been  established,  to  this 
end a follow-up action is provided in this report. 

All of the above priority items have been taken up in acts other than the P2B Regulation 
and therefore were not part of this preliminary assessment. Once the proposed Platform 
Work  Directive  will  be  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  there 
should no longer be a gap in 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. 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. For example, the Digital Markets Act applies to 
online intermediation services as well as to operating systems, and it precisely addresses 

8 Article 2(2) of the P2B Regulation. 
9 As defined in Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and 
medium-sized  enterprises  (notified  under  document  number  C(2003)  1422).  2003/361/EC.  Available  at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ECELEX:32003H0361&from=EN.   

6 

 
 
the issues of unfair commercial practices, unfair competition and other negative effects of 
imbalanced bargaining positions between business users and core platform services. 

Therefore,  and  because  of  certain  Covid  related  delays  in  implementing  the  necessary 
enforcement structures by the national governments and parliaments under Article 15 of 
the  P2B  Regulation,  and  the  relatively  short  period  of  its  applicability,  this  document 
therefore presents a preliminary implementation report, instead of a full review of the 
P2B Regulation.  

This  preliminary  implementation  report  takes  the  form  of  both  a  factual  report 
detailing the degree of implementation and effects of the P2B Regulation.  

The  report  is  based  on  the  findings  and  analysis  performed  by  the  Commission 
departments, informed by an external study10. The Expert Group for the Observatory on 
the Online Platform Economy issued its own opinion on the first evaluation of the P2B 
Regulation11, which is also taken into account in the preliminary report. The contractor’s 
final  report  reviewed the state of play of the P2B Regulation’s implementation  and  the 
effects of its application since it started to apply on 20 July 2020. The report built on an 
extensive  data  collection  and  consultation  exercise  and  analysis,  including  over  300 
interviews with various types of stakeholders, four international focus groups, a business 
user survey in eight Member States, a review of the terms and conditions of a selection  
of  300  online  intermediation  services,  and  extensive  desk  research  and  a  literature 
review.  

1.5. Methodology  

This report is based on the methodology used by the external study12. It focused on the 
effectiveness of the P2B Regulation in the two years since it has been applicable (since 
July 2020).  To achieve this, the study team used a variety of tools, such as the interview 
programme, focus groups with platforms’ business users, review of the platform Terms 
and Conditions, business user survey, as well as the in-house COM work following the 
implementation of the P2B Regulation in the EU Member States.   

The  research  questions  and  analytical  framework  used  by  the  study  team  were 
operationalised  considering  the  types  of  platforms  and  sectors  covered  by  the  P2B 
Regulation, as well as the main objectives of the overall Regulation and its provisions. 

Categorisation of sectors of the online platform economy used in the study.13 

Type of platforms 
Online 
Amazon, eBay, Allegro, Bol.com, etc.) 

e-commerce  marketplaces 

(e.g., 

Business users 
Businesses  offering  consumer  goods,  including 
specialty goods (e.g., paintings). 

10  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5.  
11  Opinion  of  the  Expert  Group  for  the  EU  Observatory  on  the  Online  Platform  Economy  for  the 
Evaluation of the P2B Regulation (to be published on its website).. 
12Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5   
13Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Online 
Hotels.com, TripAdvisor, etc.) 

travel  agencies 

(e.g.,  Booking.com, 

Online application stores (e.g., Apple App Store, 
Google Play Store, Samsung Galaxy Apps, etc.) 
Specialised  services  platforms  (e.g.,  Treatwell, 
Groupon, Uber, Deliveroo, etc.) 

Online  search  engines  (e.g.,  Google,  Bing, 
Yahoo, etc.) 
Social  media  platforms  used 
for  business 
purposes  (e.g.,  Twitter,  Facebook,  Instagram, 
YouTube, WhatsApp, Google My Business, etc.) 

short-term 

rent  providers, 

Hotels, 
travel 
agencies  and  tour  organisers,  airlines,  car  rent 
companies, restaurants. 
App developers.  

and 

individual 

Companies 
entrepreneurs 
operating  in  all  sectors  not  mentioned  above, 
offering  services  to  consumers.  This  category 
also  covers  delivery,  ride-hailing  and  domestic 
services. 
Companies  operating  in  all  sectors  that  provide 
goods and/ or services to consumers. 
Companies  operating  in  all  sectors  that  provide 
goods and/ or services to consumers. 

At  the  output  level,  the  study  examined  the  extent  to  which  the  specific  articles  of  the 
Regulation  were implemented. Depending  on the article, the implementation  concerned 
changes  in  either  the  platform  Terms  and  Conditions,  platform  websites,  or  actions 
implemented  by  enforcement  authorities.  Where  relevant,  the  factual  information  was 
accompanied  by  the  comments  by  platforms  or  experts.  This  analysis  relied  on  an 
extensive review of platform websites and documents, interviews and literature review. 

At the result level, the research team investigated the effects that the actions implemented 
by  platforms  and  authorities  had  on  the  platform  business  users  and  corporate  website 
users: whether they feel better informed about platform policies and practices, have better 
access  to  complaint  handling  mechanisms  or  are  notified  about  changes  in  platform 
policies  or  practices.  This  part  of  the  analysis  relied  on  the  review  of  internet  sources, 
literature review, business user survey, interviews, focus groups, and case studies. 

The impacts and added value analysis then looked into the broader implications that the 
P2B  Regulation  had  on  the  European  platform  economy.  It  relied  on  the  synthesis  of 
outputs and results analysis, as well as additional insights from interviews, focus groups 
and literature review.  

The  assessment  of  the  efficiency  of  the  P2B  Regulation  relied  mostly  on  the  interview 
data. The study team  run altogether 308 interviews, including all types of stakeholders: 
platforms,  business  or  corporate  business  users,  business  associations,  national 
enforcement  authorities  as  well  as  experts,  mediators,  and  others.  The  interviews  were 
run both at national level in 27 Member States, by national experts and also at EU level.    
Given  the  diversity  and  large  numbers  of  platform  business  users,  the  interview 
programme primarily targeted those who had experienced some kinds of issues with the 
platforms that they use. Platforms were primarily targeted based on the list of platforms 
selected for the T&C review (a sample of 300 platforms). Both large and small platforms 
were covered in the interview programme.  

In addition, the study team conducted a manual review of the T&Cs of the 300 platforms 
and  developed  a  solution  for  future  automated  review.  The  selection  of  platforms  was 
agreed with the Commission services and meant to ensure the representativeness in terms 
of size and type of platforms.   

8 

 
 
Classification of reviewed platforms in terms of size, type and industrial ecosystem14 

Size 

e
g
r
a
L

m
u
i
d
e
M

l
l
a
m
S

Type 

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

e
c
a
l
p
t
e
k
r
a
m
e
c
r
e
m
m
o
c
-
E

A
T
O

g
n
i
l
i
a
H
e
d
i
R

Industrial Ecosystem 

s
e
r
o
t
s

p
p
a

e
n
i
l
n
O

a
i
d
e
m

l
a
i
c
o
s

e
n
i
l
n
O

s
e
n
i
g
n
e

h
c
r
a
e
s

e
n
i
l
n
O

d
o
o
f
-
i
r
g
A

n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C

l
a
r
u
t
l
u
C
&
e
v
i
t
a
e
r
C

l
a
t
i
g
i
D

l
i
a
t
e
R

h
t
l
a
e
H

121 

68 

111 

159 

28 

18 

23 

32 

13 

17 

10 

33 

21 

12 

42 

85 

2 

e
v
i
t
o
m
o
t
u
A

,
t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

,
y
t
i
l
i
b
o
M
40 

y
m
o
n
o
c
E

l
a
i
c
o
S
&
y
t
i

m
i
x
o
r
P

m
s
i
r
u
o
T

33 

32 

The  study  team  also  run  a  survey  of  business  users  of  platforms  to  gather  their 
perceptions on the transparency and fairness of T&C and the effectiveness of the internal 
complaint handling systems. The sample consisted of 1068 valid responses from business 
users from 8 EU Member States of different sizes, where around two thirds of the sample 
was composed of smaller businesses users.15   In addition, the contractor relied also on 14 
case studies illustrating the implementation of the P2B Regulation by platforms and four 
focus  groups  that  grouped  the  business  and  corporate  users  in  the  following  sectors: 
social media, SEO specialists, hospitality and app developers.16   

The work by the study team, in particular as regards the provisions on the enforcement of 
the  P2B  Regulation  by  the  Member  states  was  complemented  by  the  Commission 
services  work  on  ensuring  the  proper  implementation  by  the  Member  States  of  the 
provisions on enforcement (Art. 14 and 15 P2B).  

2.  MAIN FINDINGS  

2.1. Baseline and results – transparency and accessibility (Articles 3 to 10) 

2.1.1.  Article 3 – terms and conditions 

Significant numbers of business users have structurally reported that they find the terms 
and  conditions  used  by  online  intermediation  services  unclear.  Notwithstanding  the 
widespread fear of retaliation among business users that the Commission documented in 
the preparatory work for the P2B Regulation, surveys conducted in 2014, 2016, and 2017 
showed that more than 30% of users, including ´heavy users´, disagreed that  terms  and 
conditions  were  generally  clear.  A  2020  assessment  of  the  contracts  of  online 
intermediation  services  providers  showed  that  more  than  half  did  not  even  have  terms 
and conditions that are specific for business users.  

14  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5. 
15  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5; p. 20.  
16  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5; p. 22-23.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For  the  interpretation  of  all  of  these  results,  where  sometimes  a  seemingly  important 
proportion  of  business  users  is  relatively  positive  about  their  dealings  with  online 
intermediation services, it is important to consider that the terms and conditions cannot 
be negotiated by business users and that  elements  such as  the  clarity of these contracts 
matters especially when issues arise in practice. This finding was confirmed in interviews 
conducted with business users as part of this preliminary implementation report, i.e. that 
business users rarely read the terms and conditions thoroughly.  

Notwithstanding, it is noted in the impact assessment underpinning the P2B Regulation 
that  terms  and  conditions  of  online  intermediation  services  are  generally  perceived  as 
unclear – even for legal experts.17 Equally, the present preliminary implementation report 
finds that all terms and conditions under analysis require at least 16 years of education in 
order to understand them. 

The  preliminary  implementation  analysis  shows  a  limited  positive  trend  regarding  the 
clarity of terms and conditions, relative to the baseline, with only 13% disagreeing that 
terms  and  conditions  are  plain  and  intelligible.  Interviews  with  business  users  however 
show equal numbers stating that the level of transparency and clarity  regarding what is 
mandated by the P2B Regulation as, on the one hand, sufficient, and, on the other hand, 
low.18 Business users also point out the general complexity of terms and conditions, and 
the  use  of  legal  jargon.  These  qualitative  insights  support  the  notion  that  regulators 
should look both at the required contractual transparency as well as at the experience of 
business  users  in  practice.  The  P2B  Regulation  in  this  regard  also  requires  online 
intermediation services to report on the effectiveness of their internal complaint-handling 
mechanism, pursuant to Article 11. This is an important provision to give more insights 
into the level  of friction in  P2B relationships  – although many business  users may still 
fear retaliation, or biased proceedings, and therefore shy away from using this platform-
internal system. This is discussed in more detail in section 2.3.1. 

Beyond  the  general  clarity  of  terms  and  conditions,  Article  3  of  the  P2B  Regulation 
requires these to be easily available at all stages of the contractual relationship, including 
the pre-contractual  stage, in  order for prospective business  users to  be able to  make an 
informed  decision.  The  preliminary  implementation  assessment  found  a  slightly  higher 
percentage of online intermediation services having terms and conditions that are specific 
to  business  users  –  and  therefore  potentially  compliant  with  the  P2B  Regulation.  A 
significant number of online intermediation services however does not make their terms 
and  conditions  available  without  the  need  to  register  or  log-in,  which  could  be 
problematic  given  the  need  to  make  these  easily  accessible  including  in  the  pre-
contractual  stage.  The  limited  improvement  for  isolated  online  intermediation  services 
that  was  observed  in  this  regard  does  not  alter  that  finding.  Half  of  the  larger  online 

17 Commission Staff Working Document (2018) 138 final, of 26 April 2018, p. 11. 
18  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5. 

10 

 
 
intermediation services in addition spread the relevant contractual provisions over several 
documents. 

Importantly,  a  large  number  of  online  intermediation  services  does  not  set  out  the 
grounds for suspension or termination of accounts, and half of those that do, do not give 
detailed grounds.19 With suspension and termination remaining the key issue experienced 
by business users in terms of business impact, the ability to understand the grounds for 
these  platform  actions  is  an  essential  pre-condition  to  a  functioning  dispute  settlement 
system. This finding should therefore be read together with those concerning Article 11 
of the P2B Regulation.   

Finally, regarding the mandatory notice period that online intermediation services should 
offer  business  users  for  changes  to  their  terms  and  conditions,  only  around  half  of  all 
online  intermediation  services  indicate  that  they  offer  a  15-day  notice  period,  as 
mandated  by  the  P2B  Regulation.20  Importantly,  the  P2B  Regulation  sets  the  15-day 
period  as  a  minimum  and  requires  longer  notice  period  for  technical  or  commercial 
adaptations  that may be  required by business  users. The preliminary analysis could  not 
confirm  whether  notice  period  were  respected  in  practice.  At  the  same  time,  the 
automated  tracking  of  terms  and  conditions  through  the  newly  established  online 
repository showed 10 online intermediation services making changes to their terms and 
conditions that were relevant from the perspective of the P2B Regulation. 

Overall,  there  appears  to  be  a  lack  of  clarity  of  terms  and  conditions  that  remains 
prevalent in the online platform ecosystem. The negative effects for business users of this 
lack of clarity could be compounded by specific potential breaches of other elements of 
Article 3 of the P2B Regulation. Importantly, Article 3 of the P2B Regulation operates in 
concert with  Article 11  of the P2B Regulation, as  well as with  all other Articles of the 
Regulation,  and  it  appears  that  online  intermediation  services  generally  fail  to  comply 
fully,  and  comprehensively,  with  -  the  purpose  of  -  Article  3  of  the  P2B  Regulation. 
Some initial positive effects of the Regulation were nonetheless observed. 

2.1.2.  Article 4 – Restriction, suspension and termination 

The  results  of  this  first  preliminary  analysis  point  to  an  improvement  of  the  situation 
relative  to  that  prevailing  prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  A  2020 
assessment  of  a  subset  of  online  intermediation  services  showed  that  they  all  list  the 
reasons  for  restrictions,  suspension  and  termination  in  their  terms  and  conditions  – 
although  sometimes  only  in  very  general  terms.  App  developers  and  business 
associations report positive changes directly linked to the P2B Regulation.21 

19  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5. 
20  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5. 
21  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5. 

11 

 
 
At the same time, 15% of the 2022 survey sample of business users whose accounts had 
been  suspended,  restricted  or  delisted  mentioned  that  they  did  not  receive  any 
explanation.  Immediate  terminations  continue  to  be  reported,  as  well  as  issues 
experienced  by  business  users  in  particular  regarding  a  lack  of  clarity  of  statements  of 
reasons  for  restrictions,  suspensions  and  termination,  regarding  a  lack  of  clarity  of  the 
reasons for such actions set out in terms and conditions and regarding a lack of guidance 
on those reasons. The suspension and termination of accounts continues to be a common 
topic  of  business  users´  complaints,  and  is  reported  as  the  key  issue  for  those  business 
users that experience it (4.4% of respondents to the 2022 survey). A specific concern in 
this  regard  is  the  general  vagueness  of  the  contractual  terms,  including  regarding 
restrictions, suspensions and terminations, which may allow certain online intermediation 
services to, to some extent, ´ignore´ the required notice period under the P2B Regulation 
– sometimes relying on the exception included in Article 4(3) of the P2B Regulation. 

2.1.3.  Article 5 - Ranking 

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. To the extent they did, this transparency made it possible to draw 
up an automated word cloud of the most frequently used notions in ranking.  

This  example  does  not  reflect  the  potential  of  the  substantive  transparency  that  online 
platforms have to provide, but rather that platforms’ published terms and conditions can 
be automatically indexed and tracked over time. In this way, business  users, as well as 
other  stakeholders  including  researchers,  regulators  and  broader  civil  society,  can 
observe and record changes, perform research, conduct inquires and much more. 

12 

 
 
In this context, the Commission’s Joint Research Centre will host and maintain a public 
and open-source repository of the terms and conditions for business users of [over 300] 
online  platforms  indexed  to  date.  Automated  tracking  is  one  of  various  ways  in  which 
transparency  facilitates  the  agency  business  users  and  Europeans  have  over  how  they 
engage with information online. 

For  ranking  specifically,  the  word  cloud  example  itself  shows  that  many  of  the  most 
frequently  used  notions,  including  ‘popularity’  and  ‘relevance’,  are  highly  generic  and 
could describe the overall ranking system, rather than individual parameters used within 
(different) ranking algorithms that together make up the ranking system. The evaluation 
study  in  this  regard  showed  that  online  platforms  diverge  widely  in  terms  of  the 
additional  information  they  provide  to  help  business  users  understand  these  generic 
notions.  

The evaluation study concludes that ‘the current ecosystems of platforms, their business 
users,  and  providers  of  OSE  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. 

2.1.4.  Article 6 – Ancillary goods and services 

Online  intermediation  services  generally  provide  few  details  regarding  ancillary  goods 
and  services  that  are  offered  to  consumers  through  their  platforms,  and  this  situation 
remains  unchanged  relative  to  the  baseline.  An  important  finding  in  this respect  is  that 
different online intermediation  services  as  well as business  users  appear to use or have 
different  understandings  of  what  are  such  ancillary  goods  and  services.  This  cannot, 
however, be a reason not to be transparent in this regard; Article 6 of the P2B Regulation 
is precisely meant to shed light on the business implications for business users dealing on 
specific online intermediation services – with goods and services offered as ancillary to 
business  users’  own  goods  or  services  are  part  of  the  experience  of  business  users’ 
customers. A detailed description of the meaning of ancillary goods and services is also 
included  in  the  Regulation.  The  preliminary  analysis  also  shows  that  a  limited  number 
(9%)  is  able  to  provide  some  level  of  transparency  on  ancillary  goods  or  services  – 
without prejudice to the question of whether this transparency is sufficient.22  

2.1.5.  Article 7 – Differentiated treatment 

As  explained  in  section  1,  the  P2B  regulation  focuses  on  the  transparency  of  online 
platforms  that  engage  in  a  differentiated  treatment  between  their  products  and  services 
compared to those of their business users. Before the entry into force of the regulation, 

22  Study  on  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  on  promoting  fairness  and  transparency  for 
business users of online intermediation services (the P2B Regulation), ISBN 978-92-68-06114-5. 

13 

 
 
favouring of own products  or services by online platforms was identified as one of the 
three most commonly experienced problematic practices by surveyed business users23. 

In the context of this preliminary review, the T&C of 300 platforms were reviewed and 
only  6  of  them  stated  the  existence  of  differentiated  treatment  between  business  users, 
including their own goods and services. As for the remaining 294 platforms, the absence 
of mention to any differentiated treatment cannot be used to conclude with certitude that 
these  platforms  do  comply  or  not  with  the  transparency  obligation.  Nonetheless,  some 
elements can indicate that the compliance is likely low when considering that even large 
platforms  alleged  to  engage  in  this  behaviour  or  having  been  fined  for  it24,  did  not 
mention any differentiated treatment in their T&C. Moreover, the data gathered for this 
preliminary  review  show  that,  even  for  the  6  platforms  that  mention  a  differentiated 
treatment in their T&C, only 3 fully complied with the Regulation by detailing the main 
economic, commercial or legal considerations for engaging in this practice25.  

2.1.6.  Article 8 – Specific contractual terms 

The data gathered for this preliminary review show that 56.9% of the 300 T&C reviewed 
include provisions on how business users can terminate their account. With an important 
difference  existing  between  large  platforms  (74.3%)  and  small  platforms  (40.5%).  Yet, 
the data also show that the inclusion of such provision in the T&C differs particularly by 
sectors. In the digital industry 84.3% of the platforms provide for such provisions in their 
T&C, while a lower presence exists in the transport, retail and tourism sectors with 40% 
and 50% providing for this provision. 

2.1.7.  Article 9 – Access to data  

The preliminary review of the data gathered showed that 61% of the platforms provide 
information related to the processing and access to data in their T&C26, with most of the 
time the information provided in general terms. At the same time, the data show that the 
level  of compliance with  Article 9 is  relatively similar be it large platforms  (69.9%) or 
smaller  one  (55.9%).  However,  some  differences  exist  between  sectors,  for  instance 
while  around  69%  of  e-commerce  platforms  and  app  stores  provide  the  information 
related to access to data, only 46% of OTAs provide for such information in their T&C. 

The different interviews conducted showed a relative medium level of awareness among 
interviewees,  with  56%  agreeing  that  they  are  aware  of  how  platforms  collect  and  use 

23  Synopsis  Report  on  the  Public  Consultation  on  the  Regulatory  Environment  for  Platforms,  Online 
Intermediaries and the Collaborative Economy. 
24  See  for  example:  The  Italian  Competition  Authority’s  Decision  in  the  Amazon  Logistics  Case:  Self-
preferencing 
at: 
Available 
https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/the-italian-competition-authoritys-decision-in-the-
amazon-logistics-case-self-preferencing-and-beyond/ 
25 See the Study on the implantation of the P2B Regulation, from page 73.  
26 See the Study on the implementation of the P2B Regulation, page 85. 

International. 

Competition 

Beyond. 

Policy 

and 

14 

 
 
their  company  data27.  However,  in  some  sector  (hospitality)  a  common  concern  among 
business users is the insufficient access to the client-related statistics and customer data, 
and unclarity on how this information can be used.  

2.1.8.  Article 10 – Most Favoured Nation clauses  

Prior to the adoption of the P2B Regulation, the information on the MFN clauses where 
mainly available due to the antitrust investigations conducted against certain platforms of 
the e-commerce and hospitality28.  

The  preliminary  review  and  the  data  gathered  show  that  out  of  290  T&C  reviewed,  11 
contained information about MFN clauses. Yet, as for the remaining 279 of platforms no 
such  information  was  included  in  their  T&C.  However,  this  data  does  not  allow  to 
establish whether the platforms are in compliance or not, in fact, it is possible that such 
provisions are negotiated in biliteral contracts with business users. Following interviews 
of  business  users  in  2022,  17%  of  the  business  users  interviewed  faced  restrictions  to 
offer  different  prices  on  their  own  websites  relative  to  the  prices  offered  through 
platforms (most of whom used OTAs or collaborative platforms)29.  

2.2. Conclusions – transparency and accessibility (Articles 3 to 10) 

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 a crucial element to tackle the 
asymmetric relationship between online platforms and the business users. For one thing, 
it  enables  business  users  to  better  know  their  rights,  contractual  obligations  and  other 
elements  essential  to  conduct  business  in  a  stable  manner.  At  the  same  time,  it  creates 
conditions  for small  businesses to  grow by having easy access  to  the entire  EU  market 
and ensure innovation by providing new services and products. 

For  instance,  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. These are explained in Section 
2.2.    

The  preliminary  evaluation  identified  several  examples  that  confirmed  this  important 
potential that transparency provides. However, this potential remains unrealised due to a 
widespread lack of awareness among all stakeholders of the rights and obligations in the 

27 Business user survey for EU Observatory of Platform Economy,  Q061-Q46 (‘To which extent do you 
agree with the following statements? I am aware of how the online platform(s) that we use collect and use 
our company data)’) 
28 See Study on the implementation of the P2B Regulation, pages 91-92. 
29 Study to support the EU Platform Observatory the platform observatory 2022.  

15 

 
 
P2B  Regulation  and  supplemented  by  a  low  level  of  pro-active  enforcement  from 
national authorities.  

These examples will be discussed in each of the sub-headings below, while Chapter 2.3 
discusses  the  lack  of  awareness  and  the  need  for  public  enforcement  to  achieve  the 
potential of transparency and of the P2B Regulation more broadly. 

2.2.1.  Informed businesses  

As observed in the evaluation study, transparency on ranking offers significant potential, 
namely  ‘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  optimising  the 
online presence of business users can include their advertising strategies. 

The findings  in  the previous  sections regarding  a prevailing  lack of transparency could 
mean  that  even  where  transparency  is  provided  today,  it  falls  short  of  the  P2B 
Regulation’s  requirements.  In  this  regard,  the  ranking  guidelines  mention  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’  and  that 
‘the  description  required  may  be  general,  but  that  it  should  give  users  an  adequate 
understanding and, moreover, should at least be based on ‘actual data on the relevance of 
the  ranking  parameters  used’.  This  underlines 
importance  of  meaningful 
transparency as a precondition for compliance with the P2B Regulation, and an ability to 
achieve its potential. 

the 

2.2.2.  Contractual rights   

Ranking transparency, as described in the previous section, 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 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.  Article  6(5)  of  the  Digital  Markets  Act  in  this  regard  already 
bans  more  favourable  treatment  in  ranking  and  related  indexing  and  crawling,  and  the 
P2B Regulation provides additional transparency around differentiated treatment in data 
access, in pricing and in access terms for ancillary services. 

The broader concept of mandatory transparency as contractual rights can perhaps be best 
understood  when  looking  at  the  P2B  Regulation  as  a  whole.  Article  3  on  terms  and 
conditions, Article 4 on statements of reasons for suspensions and restrictions, Article 5 
on  ranking,  Article  6  on  ancillary  goods  and  services,  Article  7  on  differentiated 
treatment, Article 8 on specific contractual terms, Article 9 on access to data, Article 10 

16 

 
on  restrictions  to  offer  different  conditions  through  other  means  and  Article  11  on  the 
functioning  of  internal  complaint-handling  mechanisms  all  require  the  relevant 
information to be included in the terms and conditions of online intermediation services. 
This  has  the  effect  of  actually  ‘fleshing  out’  the  contracts  that  tend  to  be  unilaterally 
imposed  by  providers  of  online  intermediation  services  and  that  govern  platform-to-
business relations.  

These substantiated terms and conditions also have to be made available at all stages of 
the  commercial  relationship  between  business  users  and  providers  of  online 
intermediation services, including in the pre-contractual stage. This specific requirement 
of Article 3(1)(b) should then facilitate business users’ effective choices. 

This  potential  of  the  P2B  Regulation  is  of  course  largely  dependent  on  compliance  by 
providers of online intermediation services, both in  adapting their terms  and conditions 
and in acting in accordance with those terms and conditions in practice. In the sections 
dealing  with  enforcement,  the  importance  of  public  authorities  playing  their  part  in 
enabling this potential is discussed in detail. 

The  study  underpinning  this  report  and  staff  working  document  contains  important 
findings in relation to contractual transparency, as set out below.  

The transparency practice of platforms has somewhat increased since the P2B Regulation 
became  applicable,  but  this  has  not  yet  reached  a  sufficient  level.  Alignment  with  the 
transparency requirements is disparate and only partially with the different provisions of 
the P2B Regulation, where the level of information provided is not sufficient. The study 
shows  noticeable  improvements,  also  confirmed  by  business  users,  in  particular  SMEs, 
on transparency ranking (Article 5) in the hospitality sector. Here, a large proportion of 
online travel  agencies (OTAs) explain their ranking  parameters  and in  more detail  than 
other online intermediation services from other sectors (e.g. e-commerce). 

By contrast, on the issue of compliance with Article 330, the study shows that 100 out of 
290 online intermediation services under review did not have, or did not make available, 
terms and conditions that are specific to business users. For those online intermediation 
services that did have such terms and conditions, compliance with several of the specific 
transparency provisions in the P2B Regulation remains lacking.  

Nonetheless, even for those online intermediation services that set out these grounds in 
their  terms  and  conditions,  143  of  them  did  not  provide  detailed  grounds.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  in  the  hospitality  and  e-commerce  sector,  where  business  users 
(mainly micro and small enterprises) continue to face issues due to unclear and generic 
grounds  for  suspension  or  termination.  The  study  showed  that  the  vaguely  formulated 
grounds (e.g. breach of T&Cs) lead to ‘loopholes’ with regard to the notice period. 

With  online  intermediation  services  currently  not  sufficiently  implementing  the 
Regulation’s  transparency  rules,  these  rules  have  not  yet  translated  into  significant 

30 Article 3 of the P2B Regulation requires that providers of online intermediations services ensure that: (i) 
their terms and conditions are drafted in plain and intelligible language; (ii) are easily available to business 
users  at  all  stages  of  the  commercial  relationship;  (iii)  set  out  the  grounds  for  the  decision  to  suspend, 
terminate or impose any other restrictions; (iv) include information on additional distribution channels; and 
(v) provide information regarding the effects of the T&Cs on the ownership and control of business users’ 
intellectual property rights. 

17 

 
 
changes  in  how  well-informed  business  users  are  with  regard  to  these  services’ 
behaviour. It also has not yet resulted in increased fairness. 

These  findings  reiterate  that  effective  compliance  requires  a  genuine,  well-thought-
through and consistent effort by online intermediation services to live up to the spirit and 
the  letter  of  the  P2B  Regulation.  For  the  potential  of  contractual  transparency  to  be 
achieved, the information provided must be meaningful and respected in practice.  

2.3. Baseline  and  results  –  due  process  and  redress  mechanisms  (Articles  11  to 

15) 

2.3.1.  Article 11 – internal complaint-handling system 

In  studies  conducted  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  P2B  Regulation,  a  significant 
friction in resolving disputes with online intermediation services was observed.  

The present preliminary implementation analysis hints at the situation remaining similar, 
with 11% of business users included in the 2022 survey bringing issues into the internal 
complaint-handling system, and 8% of these indicating that their issue was not resolved, 
with  a  further  48%  reporting  that  it  was  partially  resolved.  There  are  different  reasons 
brought  forward  by  business  users  for  the  lack  of  effectiveness  of  these  complaint-
handling systems, including the length of the proceedings, biased proceedings, a general 
lack  of  effectiveness  and  more.  Business  users  also  explained  that  these  perceived 
shortcomings,  as  well  as  prior  bad  experiences,  may  deter  the  broader  use  of  these 
systems. 

The practical reality of the functioning of internal complaint-handling is crucial to assess 
going  forward,  as  it  may  be  disconnected  from  the  contractual  descriptions  of  these 
systems.  Automation  also  stands  out  as  a  particular  issue,  with  the  largest  online 
intermediation  services,  which  also  appear  to  use  the  greatest  degree  of  automation  in 
complaint-handling,  appearing  to  have  the  most  issues  reported  by  business  users.  
Notwithstanding  the  need  to  focus  on  the  practical  workings  of  the  internal  complaint-
handling  systems,  the  preliminary  implementation  analysis  also  shows  that  there  for 
some online intermediation services there  appears  to  be  a  complete lack  of compliance 
even  with  the  transparency  obligations  of  Article  11.  This  concerns  the  obligations  to 
provide  detailed  information  about  the  functioning  of  the  internal  complaint-handling 
systems and to report statistics about their functioning included in, respectively, Articles 
11(3) and 11(4) of the P2B Regulation.  

2.3.2.  Article 12 – Mediation 

The  data  available  before  the  adoption  of  the  P2B  Regulation  showed  that  the  use  of 
mediation service was very low, for instance in  a study of 2017 it was found that only 
6%31  of  business  users  resorted  to  mediation  services.  The  low  level  was  also  later 

31  Ecorys  (2017).  Business-to-Business  relations  in  the  online  platform environment.  Final  report  for  the 
European Commission, FWC ENTR/300/2013/FC-WIFO. Ecorys. Luxembourg:Publications Office of the 
European  Union.  Available  at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/04c75b09-4b2b-
11e7-aea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

18 

 
 
confirmed prior the entry into force of the P2B regulation, where out of the 997 business 
users having experienced disputes with the platforms, only 12% of them had recourse to 
mediation32. 

As  explained  in  section  1,  the  obligation  to  provide  for  mediation  services  in  case  of 
dispute,  problems  are  applicable  only  to  large  and  medium-sized  platforms.  In  this 
preliminary review, the data gathered show that out the 179 platforms concerned by the 
obligation under article 12, only 25 platforms provided in their T&C, at least two names 
of mediators.  

2.4. Conclusions – due process and redress mechanisms (Articles 11 to 15)   

2.4.1.  Complaint handling 

The  fair  and  transparent  complaint-handling  process  introduced  by  the  Platform-to-
Business  Regulation  has  been  a  key  element  of  procedural  fairness  in  the  relations 
between online intermediation services and their business users.  

The  P2B  Regulation  (Article  11)  requires  any  medium  and  large  online  intermediation 
services to provide an internal system for handling complaints of their business users and 
sets some requirements on how they should operate. As confirmed by the findings of the 
final study report, internal complaint-handling systems are the most widely available and 
used mechanism for addressing complaints and solving business user issues in the online 
intermediary  environment.  However,  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  pointing  to  clear  
improvement in the situation since the Regulation came into force.  

This  finding  should  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  lack  of  compliance  with  the  P2B 
Regulation’s relevant transparency rules, which require platforms to include information 
on  access  to  their  complaint  handling  in  the  terms  and  conditions.  This  lack  of 
compliance is especially seen among smaller platforms. Only less than a half of reviewed 
platforms presented access to complaint handling in their T&Cs and very few platforms 
published reports on the functioning of their complaint-handling systems. The available 
reports demonstrate that not all business user complaints are solved, and some platforms 
still do not disclose this information in their reports33.  

Not all of those having issues with platforms have ever taken any steps to resolve them. 
The contractor's research showed that in most cases, only businesses facing some issues 
tend  to  read  a  platform’s  terms  and  conditions  and  look  for  more  information  on 
complaint handling and dispute settlement. As a result, not many business users are able 
to  assess  the  sufficiency  of  options  for  redress  and  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
complaint-handling mechanism.  

However,  there  are  indications  that  those  that  have  had  recourse  to  the  internal 
complaint-handling systems found them effective, reported receiving the needed support 

32  Observatory  business  survey  November  2019.  Study  on  ‘Support  to  the  Observatory  for  the  Online 
Platform Economy’. Observatory on the Online Platform Economy. 
33 After reviewing 179 platforms, the research team identified only 19 such reports (10.6%), see Study on 
evaluation and review of the Platform to business regulation. 

19 

 
 
 
from the platform to address their complaints, and reported that their issues were solved 
satisfactorily. 

The  seriousness  of  the  issue  complained  about  is  another  factor  that  plays  a  role  in 
assessing the effectiveness of the new rules on complaint handling. Business users who 
had  more  important  complaints  reported  various  difficulties  in  the  resolution  of  their 
complaints.  These  included  long  waiting  periods,  persistent  vagueness  in  the  platform 
responses and difficulties with accessibility of the systems. However, the main issue in 
the relationships between platforms and their business users is getting individualised and 
specific  support  from  platforms.  The  study  shows  that  the  issues  faced  when  using  the 
complaint-handling system may actually deter business users from having recourse again 
to  it.  This  applies  in  particular  to  micro  business  in  the  hospitality  sector,  social  media 
platforms and retail, as for these business users the process is too resource-intesive. 

The  most  problematic  seem  to  be  systems  run  by  the  largest  platforms,  as  they  mostly 
rely on automated complaint-handling systems. The lack of a human counterpart makes it 
more  diffcult  to  ensure  that  complaints  are  duly  considered,  that  the  complexity  of  the 
issue  is  taken  into  account  and  that  the  complaint  resolution  is  communicated  in  an 
individualised manner.  

The  issues  most  commonly  complained  about  by  business  users  include  technical 
problems,  poor  quality  of  customer  service,  limitations  on  payment  methods,  lack  of 
transparency of platform policies, lack of access  to  data, sudden changes to  contractual 
terms,  unfair  T&C,  discrimination  over  pricing/access  to  data,  various  types  of  unfair 
behaviour  by  consumers  or  competitors  (e.g.  fake  reviews,  black  hat  tactics,  etc.),  and 
suspension or termination of business accounts34. It is important to note that most of these 
issues  reported  are  addressed  as  obligations  of  the  online  platforms  under  the  P2B 
Regulation. 

On the other hand, the business users of platforms that implemented P2B provisions cite 
some  improvements  are  visible  as  regards  the  business  users  of  platforms  that 
implemented  P2B  provisions  concerning  the  suspension  and  termination  of  business 
users’  accounts.  Such  business  users  now  receive  information  on  the  potential 
termination/restriction  of  accounts,  and  use  the  internal  complaint-handling  systems  to 
address them and get guidance from the platforms.   

Interestingly,  platforms  that  are  small  enterprises  and  thus  excluded  from  the 
requirements of Article 11 often comply without problems with the requirements of the 
internal  complaint-handling  procedures.  They  usually  provide  contact  persons  for 
businesses to reach out to directly with their questions and concerns. These interactions 
are usually not  automated, and business  users  receive personalised support. In business 
relationships with large platforms, platform internal dispute settlement system is usually 
the first step that platform business users take. 

Overall, introducing rules on internal complaint handling has led to some improvements, 
although the situation is far from  ideal. For business users of big platforms, the biggest 
problem is the lack of individualised and specific support, whereas for smaller platforms 
the  issue  remains  the  lack  of  information  on  access  to  internal  complaint  handling. 
However,  the  fact  that  overall  not  many  business  users  had  recourse  to  internal 

34 See Study on Evaluation and Review of the Platform to Business Regulation, p.100. 

20 

 
 
complaint-handling  systems  makes  it  difficult  to  draw  conclusions  as  to  their 
effectiveness.  On  the  other  side,  most  business  users  who  had  recourse  to  the  internal 
complaint  handling  found  that  their  issues  were  fully  (42.7%)  or  partially  resolved 
(47.9%). 

2.4.2.  Mediation 

Under Article 12 of the P2B, medium and large online platforms are obliged to identify 
in  their  terms  and  conditions  at  least  two  independent  mediators  with  whom  business 
users  can  initiate  mediation  to  resolve  disputes  with  the  platform.  The  mediators 
identified  by  the  platform  should  fulfil  certain  requirements,  such  as  impartiality  and 
independence.  

As demonstrated  by the  contractor’s assessment, the use of mediation to solve disputes 
between platforms and business users is  still limited35. The vast  majority of OISPs and 
search engines did not have any experience of going through P2B mediation. Similarly, 
all mediators interviewed by the contractor agreed that the number of dispute resolution 
cases  related  to  the  P2B  Regulation  was  lower  than  what  they  had  initially  expected. 
Only  tens  of  cases  of  mediation  have  been  identified  2  years  after  the  P2B  Regulation 
began to apply. 

The  contractor’s  research  also  shows  that  most  business  users  had  never  heard  of 
mediation  being  used  to  resolve  disputes  with  platforms  or  that  they  did  not  have 
sufficient  information  on  mediators  available  to  attempt  to  reach  an  out-of-court 
settlement. 

The lack of recourse to mediation can be linked, at least somewhat, to the lack of clarity 
or  of  any  information  in  the  T&C  as  regards  mediation,  with  platforms  not  specifying 
when business  users could  contact  mediators and mediation centres or how the process 
works. 

Moreover,  the  study  showed  that  most  large  and  medium-sized  platforms  did  not  list 
mediators  in  their  T&Cs,  leading  to  platforms’  non-compliance  with  their  obligations 
under Article 12 P2B. The research revealed that only around 35% of the reviewed large 
and medium-sized platforms to whom this obligation applies have named mediators that 
they  are  willing  to  engage  with  in  their  T&Cs36.  For  many  platforms,  it  is  difficult  to 
identify mediators that could be mentioned in their T&Cs, as there are not too many of 
them specialising in P2B relationships. The study identified only seven mediation centres 
in the EU providing mediation services related to the P2B Regulation.  

Most  online  intermediation  services  that  included  a  mediator  in  their  terms  and 
conditions  refer  to  the  Centre  for  Effective  Dispute  Resolution  (CEDR),  based  in 
London,  or  to  the  European  association  e-POM,  which  provides  online  mediation 
services  specialised  in  disputes  between  online  marketplaces  and  their  business 
customers.  In  France,  the  government  launched  a  mediation  centre  specialised  in  B2B 

35 For instance, the CEDR has recorded 30 cases since July 2020; Polimeni Legal a total of around 10-15 
cases, while the Mediator of Enterprises has had 102 cases since 2020.  
36 From the sample of 179 large and medium-sized platforms that were assessed by the contractor, only 25 
provided the name of at least two mediators in their T&Cs for business users and referred to two mediation 
centres.  

21 

 
 
disputes,  the  Mediator  of  Enterprises37.  However,  even  in  cases  where  platforms 
introduced  the  relevant  information  and  expressed  their  willingness  to  engage  in 
mediation in their T&Cs, some business users remain sceptical about the impartiality of 
mediators or fear damaging their business relations with the platform, on which they are 
often  dependent.  Perceptions  of  costs  and  resolution  periods  further  contribute  to  this 
dispute resolution method being avoided.  

To improve business users’ awareness  about  the  benefits  of mediation  and the  relevant 
P2B provisions, some mediation centres ran several communication campaigns38. One of 
them – CEDR – tried to smooth the process for business users to engage in mediation by 
offering  templates  for  them  to  fill  in39.  However,  these  measures  did  not  seem  to  have 
been effective in increasing the number of mediation cases the CEDR received. 

Among  surveyed  business  users  who  knew  and  used  mediation  to  resolve  a  dispute 
(12.6%),  the  main  difficulties  identified  when  using  mediation  services  concerned  the 
procedure’s length, its cost and the lack of enforcement of the resolution. Many business 
users  (42%  of  those  surveyed  by  the  contractor)  found  the  procedure  too  long. 
Additionally, 35% found the procedure too expensive, while 33% of them  claimed that 
the resolution was ultimately not enforced.  

Another  important  finding  of  the  study  is  that  most  national  authorities  in  charge  of 
monitoring  and  implementing  the  P2B  Regulation  who  were  interviewed  by  the 
contractor were not aware of any mediation cases in relation to the P2B Regulation. They 
were also often not aware of any mediators dealing with disputes between platforms and 
business users. Nor does there seem to be any collaboration between national authorities, 
platforms and their associations to set up new specialised mediators in accordance with 
Article  13.  However,  at  least  seven  mediation  centres  were  also  identified  as  relevant 
specialised mediators for P2B mediation.  

List of relevant centres providing P2B mediation  

Mediation centres / 
Mediators 
CEDR 

UK 

Location  Description 

Includes a panel of mediators located throughout 
Europe covering 22 languages, enabling them to 
operate on a pan-European basis. They also have two 
specialised schemes to deal with complaints directed 
at Google and Amazon. 
Online mediation portal that facilitates the 
appointment of mediators for specific cases related to 
platform-to-business relationships. 
Mediation centre specialised in B2B disputes, which 
expanded its services to offer mediation services in 
cases related to the P2B Regulation. Seems to be 
focused only on the German market as its website is 
only available in German. 

e-POM 

Online 

DE 

Bundesverband 
Onlinehandel 
(German Federal 
Association of E-
Commerce – 

37 In 2019, several platforms operating in France signed a Charter of E-commerce and committed to using 
the Mediator of Enterprises to resolve persistent disputes with their business users. 
38 See: https://bvoh.de/bvoh-hilft-haendlern-bei-streitbeilegung-mit-marktplaetzen/.   
39 The CEDR’s dedicated website on the P2B Regulation is available here: https://www.cedr.com/p2b/.   

22 

 
 
Location  Description 

Mediation centres / 
Mediators 
BVOH) 
Reuling Schutte 

Centrum Mediacji 
Lewiatan 
(Lewiatan 
Mediation Centre) 

Mediator of 
Enterprises 

NL 

PL 

FR 

Polimeni Legal 

IT 

Centre specialised for 10 years in providing alternative 
dispute resolution for businesses, and in particular in 
providing mediation services. 
Centre specialised in B2B mediation, including P2B 
cases. Part of the Konfederacji Lewiatan 
(Confederation Lewiatan) which represents 4 100 
enterprises and their employees’ interests in 
connection with the EU institutions. 
Mediation centre established in 2010 by the French 
government. Provides P2B mediation services to 
signatories of the Charter of E-Commerce. 
Mediation centre specialised in e-commerce and 
digital marketplaces. Has handled around 10 to 15 
mediation cases related to the P2B Regulation. 

Source: PPMI own data based on interviews and desk research. 

Overall, the contractor’s research showed that this dispute resolution method is still not 
widely used by platforms and their business users. This is mainly because business users 
have  low  awareness  of  the  possibility  to  use  mediation  and  its  benefits,  as  well  as 
platforms’ lack of compliance with the obligations to indicate at least two mediators in 
their T&C and provide relevant information on how to use this procedure. On a positive 
note, the share of business  users  who indicated having  resorted to  mediation to  resolve 
business disputes was higher for the contractor’s 2022 survey than for previous surveys.  

2.4.3.  Need for public enforcement  

intermediation  services  comply  with 

One of the  evaluation  study report’s key conclusions is  that the most effective ways  to 
ensure  online 
the  P2B  Regulation  were 
monitoring/investigations,  proactive  communication  with  providers  and  awareness 
raising among  business  users (public enforcement). In Member States that relied solely 
on  enforcement  via  courts  (private  enforcement)  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  P2B 
rules,  its  effectiveness  proved  very  limited.  The  Commission  also  opened  infringement 
proceedings against eight Member States for failure to comply with Article 15 of the P2B 
Regulation.  

Article 15 requires Member States to  ensure  adequate and effective enforcement of the 
Regulation.  The  article,  introduced  by  Council  and  the  Parliament  during  the  ‘trilogue’ 
negotiations  on  the  original  Commission  proposal,  reiterates  Member  States’  Treaty 
obligations.  Member  States  are  required  to  lay  down  rules  setting  out  measures 
applicable to infringements and ensure they are implemented. The measures provided for 
are required to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.  

23 

 
 
 
By the end of June 2023, 21 Member States had adopted national legislation setting out 
measures  to  enforce  the  P2B  Regulation40.  Meanwhile,  four  more  Member  States  are 
envisaging  or  have  started  legislative  procedures  to  adopt  such  national  legislation  on 
public enforcement41.  More importantly,  so far 15  42 Member States  have  implemented 
the Regulation by appointing a public authority responsible for its effective enforcement.  

So far, enforcement authorities have not  been  appointed  in  11 Member States.  In those 
countries,  private  enforcement  through  courts  is  the  only  recourse  for  business  users. 
However,  some  of  those  Member  States  have  already  prepared  draft  legislation  giving 
enforcement powers to public authorities.  

Member  States  that  have  or  are  planning  to  appoint  enforcement  authorities  have 
entrusted P2B Regulation enforcement mostly to authorities responsible for competition 
or consumer protection. Some Member States have appointed authorities responsible for 
communication or telecommunications, technology, or economic policy more broadly43. 

the  study 

team  shows 

that  monitoring  and  proactive 
Evidence  gathered  by 
communication with platforms is the most effective way to ensure platform compliance. 
Most  Member  States  that  monitor  platform  compliance  with  the  P2B  Regulation  have 
detected cases of potential shortcomings in platforms’ T&Cs. Some Member States have 
already launched  official  investigations  into  platform behaviour.  The  evidence suggests 
that  non-compliance  notices  (or  injunction  orders)  are  an  effective  way  to  encourage 
platforms to remedy their behaviour. Authorities in France, Italy and Ireland reached out 
to potentially non-compliant platforms following their monitoring exercise. As a result of 
this  outreach,  platforms  either  made  changes  to  their  T&Cs  or  committed  to  doing  so. 
Similarly,  several  public  enforcement  authorities  received  complaints  from  business 
users concerning online platforms.  

Even if the enforcement authorities were not able to deal with individual complaints, the 
presence of an enforcement authority enables businesses to draw attention to platforms’ 
non-compliance and to seek redress for potential wrongdoing.  

For the time being, most Member States report few or no complaints/cases. As evidenced 
by the study, this may be largely due to lack of awareness of the rights stemming from 
the P2B Regulation.  

As regards the fines that can be imposed on platforms for non-compliance with the P2B 
Regulation, in 13 Member States44 courts can rule on the level of the fine to be imposed, 
based on the damage incurred by the plaintiff. The fines applicable to  infringements  of 
the P2B Regulation vary greatly between Member States. In some Member States, fines 
can go up to EUR 5 million (FR, PT), while in others the amounts are significantly lower 
–  up  to  EUR 5 000  (IE)  or  EUR 14 000  (LV).  Some  fines  are  also  determined  as  a 
percentage of company turnover. For example, in Romania if an OISP is given a warning 
and is found in violation of the law again within 2 years, a fine is issued ranging between 

40 AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO, SE. Last update: 
2 May 2023. 
41 NL, PL, SK, SI. Last update: 2 May 2023. 
42 BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, LU, LV, PT , RO. 
43 For a detailed overview of the measures adopted by each Member States see the study report – Tables 14 
and 15.   
44 AT, BG, DE, DK, FI, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL, SE, SI, SK. Last update: 8 June 2022. 

24 

 
 
0.1% and 1% of the OISP’s turnover. In addition, some Member States have put in place 
additional fines in situations where an online platform fails to comply with the injunction 
order. This is the case in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Romania. In other Member States 
the level of fines applicable varies depending on the applicable article of the Regulation 
(EE,  ES)  or  on  the  size  of  the  non-compliant  online  platform  (HR,  PT).  Finally,  the 
administrative  procedure  of  injunction  in  France  allows  the  Direction  générale  de  la 
concurrence, de la  consommation et  de la répression  des fraudes (DGCCRF) to  issue a 
daily fine to a platform in cases where it fails to comply with the order within the given 
time period.  

At the same time, the evaluation study report also points to the limited effectiveness of 
private enforcement. The Member States that rely solely on enforcement by courts have 
chosen either general courts45 or specialised ones46 for this purpose. Member States that 
have entrusted specialised courts with the task of enforcing the Regulation have primarily 
done so due to the speedier proceedings associated with those types of courts.  

However, business users are unlikely to seek judicial redress as they fear retaliation. Nor 
do they wish to jeopardise their relationship with platforms and view this is as a costly 
and  lengthy  process.  Furthermore,  online  platforms  have  more  resources  and  dedicated 
legal  departments,  further  contributing  to  the  power  imbalance  between  small  business 
users and online platforms. Evidence shows that business users may be unlikely to pursue 
redress regarding concepts such as transparency and fairness as this type of information 
may be less clear to them. Most of the court cases analysed by the contractor concerned 
suspension  of  business  user  accounts,  rather  than  provision  of  limited  information  in 
platforms’  T&Cs.  Finally,  analysis  of  court  cases  in  Germany  reveals  that  in  several 
cases German courts dismissed actions for injunctive relief as they ruled that the business 
user could not have derived individual rights directly from the P2B Regulation. 

The  implementation  of  Article  14  of  the  P2B  Regulation,  aimed  at  remedying  this 
imbalance  of  power,  has  also  been  found  insufficient  to  ease  the  process  of  seeking 
judicial  redress.  Only  three  Member  States  (AT,  IE,  ES)  had  designated  authorities  by 
October  202247  and  one  has  withdrawn  its  notification  in  the  meantime  due  to  non-
compliance with all the requirements in Article 14. Therefore, the possibility provided by 
the P2B for competent national associations to represent business users in courts in their 
disputes  with  platforms  did  not  seem  to  have  resulted  in  easier  access  to  court 
proceedings. In fact, no relevant court cases have been observed in these countries since 
the  Regulation  came  into  effect.  This  is  also  the  case  in  most  other  EU  countries.  The 
study  team’s  findings  identified  a  number  of  reasons  why  so  few  bodies  have  been 
designated  so  far.  These  include  a  low  level  of awareness,  lack  of  resources  among 
associations, strict criteria they have to meet to be designated, and the fact that often the 
relevant national associations represent both business users and online platforms.  

As demonstrated by the evidence gathered by the study team, private enforcement results 
in limited compliance by platforms due to low risk of detection linked to the absence of 

45 BG, DE, HU, LT, PL, SI, SK. Last update: 11 May 2022. 
46 AT, FI, LU, MT, SE. Last update: 11 May 2022. 
47  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, 
PUB/2021/796, OJ C 402, 5.10.2021, p. 5–6. 

25 

 
 
an enforcement authority. Other important factors include limited awareness among both 
platforms and business users of their rights/obligations and fear of retaliation by business 
users.  The  study  team’s  research  showed  that  stakeholders  in  countries  that  launched 
public  consultations  when  the  P2B  Regulation  was  enforced  or  that  adopted  a  public 
enforcement approach were generally more aware of the Regulation than those based in 
countries  that  relied  solely  on  private  enforcement  and  that  have  not  undertaken 
awareness-raising measures.  

As  a  result,  few  court  cases  related  to  the  P2B  Regulation  have  been  identified  so  far. 
The  study’s  findings  point  to  the  conclusion  that  enforcement  via  courts  can  act  as  a 
supplementary tool to compensate damage incurred by business users, rather than as an 
enforcement mechanism. Since business users can always seek enforcement of the P2B 
and  compensation  for  any  incurred  damages  before  competent  national  courts,  private 
enforcement  should  be  rather  seen  as  an  add-on  to  the  public  enforcement  providing 
redress  to  business  users48.  The  figure  below  illustrates  the  limited  effectiveness  of 
private enforcement versus public enforcement.  

Limited effectiveness of private enforcement 

Source: PPMI 

As demonstrated above, relying solely on private enforcement of the P2B Regulation 
has proved ineffective in ensuring that platforms comply with the P2B rules.  

The  study  team’s  research  clearly  showed  that  platform  compliance  was  highest  in 
Member  States  that  appointed  an  enforcement  authority  that  actively  monitored 
compliance  and  raised  awareness  of  P2B  rules  among  business  users  and  platforms.  In 
countries with no public enforcement, business users’ awareness of their rights under the 

48  Synnott,  A.,  Daly  K.  (2022)  ‘Chapter  1  Public  V.  Private  Enforcement:  Why  Competition  Litigation 
Won’t  Solve  The  Public  Enforcement  Deficit’,  The  Public  Competition  Enforcement  Review,  Law 
Business Research Ltd, London, 2022. 

26 

 
 
 
 
P2B Regulation and the resulting platform compliance were very low. The interviews run 
by  the  contractor  concluded  that  without  public  enforcement,  platforms  have  little 
incentive  to  comply  with  the  Regulation  as  there  is  a  low  risk  of  penalties  for  non-
compliance.  

The fact  that  thus  far  court cases related to  the  P2B Regulation  were identified only  in 
four  Member  States  (Germany,  Netherlands,  France  and  Sweden)  further  proves  the 
limited effectiveness of the approach based purely on private enforcement. 

As  regards  the  approaches  taken  by  the  enforcement  authorities  in  ensuring  online 
platform compliance, they can be divided into two categories: proactive and reactive.  

A proactive approach involves active monitoring of platforms’ T&Cs to detect platform 
non-compliance.  A  total  of  six  Member  States49  have  chosen  to  monitor  platform 
compliance.  Some  authorities  that  proactively  monitor  the  Regulation  have  already 
detected  cases  of  potential  platform  non-compliance.  Generally,  national  enforcement 
authorities have the right to launch administrative investigations into platform behaviour. 
Prior  to  launching  a  formal  investigation,  they  can  issue  non-compliance  notices  to 
platforms,  informing  online  platforms  of  suspected  breaches  and  warning  of  potential 
investigations if the behaviour is not amended.  

However, most Member States have chosen to ensure platform compliance by reacting to 
complaints  from  business  users  rather  than  proactively  checking  compliance  (reactive 
approach).  

It should be underlined that even where Member States provide for public enforcement, 
business  users  can  still  seek  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  and  compensation  for  any 
incurred damages before competent national courts. 

2.5. Codes of conduct (Article 17) 

Article  17  of  the  P2B  Regulation  mandates  the  Commission  to  encourage  OISPs  and 
their  associations  to  draw  up  of  codes  of  conduct  together  with  their  business  users, 
including SMEs and their representative organisations. These codes of conduct should be 
able  to  contribute  to  the  Regulation’s  proper  application,  by  taking  into  account  the 
specific  features  of  the  various  sectors  where  OISPs  are  involved,  and  the  specific 
characteristics of SMEs.  

The Commission should particularly encourage the drafting of codes of conduct intended 
to contribute to proper application of Article 5 on the presentation of ranking parameters, 
as well as the adoption and implementation of sector-specific codes of conduct by OISPs, 
where such sector-specific codes of conduct exist and are widely used. 

The  evidence  gathered  by  the  study  team  and  the  overview  by  the  Commission,  which 
also looked at the information shared in the June 2022 P2B workshop, pointed to limited 
take-up of codes of conduct by the OISPs.  

There  are  a  number  of  reasons  for  this  low  take-up.  Firstly,  as  pointed  out  by  some 
platforms, the P2B Regulation’s entry into force coincided with the start of the COVID-

49 ES, IE, FR, IT, LV, PL. Last update: 11 May 2022.  

27 

 
 
19  pandemic,  meaning  that  platforms  had  other  priorities  to  deal  with  at  the  time.  In 
addition, the negotiations and recent adoption of adoption of the Digital Markets Act and 
Digital  Services  Act  meant  that  platforms’  attention  was  focused  on  other  areas  of 
regulation.  

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  probable  that  platforms  will  link  the  development  of  the 
codes of conduct mandated by the DSA with those encourgaed by the P2B Regulation. 
The DSA encourages: (i) the drawing up of voluntary codes of conduct to contribute to 
the  proper  application  of  the  DSA  with  a  reporting  mechanism  and  monitoring  by  the 
Commission (Article 45); and (ii) the drawing up of specific codes of conduct to increase 
transparency in the online advertising ecosystem (Article 46).  

A number of business associations and platforms interviewed by the contractor expressed 
support  for  self-regulation  in  the  form  of  voluntary  codes  of  conduct.  They  considered 
that  such  codes  of  conduct  work,  as  businesses  are  usually  motivated  by  this 
collaborative  approach  and  have  a  better  understanding  of  their  environment  than 
legislators. In their view, codes of conduct can be a good way to indicate good practices 
and educate smaller businesses on how to be compliant.  

Some  business  users  pointed  out  that  the  development  of  codes  of  conduct  can  be 
burdensome in terms of the extent of voluntary measures agreed and that it was difficult 
to  reach  an  agreement  between  the  different  stakeholders.  For  platforms,  the  potential 
implementation costs constituted a barrier. 

As  a  consequence,  very  limited  action  has  been  taken  since  the  adoption  of  the  P2B 
Regulation to encourage the development and adoption of codes of conduct. As a result, 
codes  of  conduct  do  not  seem  to  play  a  significant  role  in  implementation  of  the  P2B 
Regulation.  

However, as underlined by the expert opinion of the Observatory expert group, given the 
short time since the P2B Regulation came into force, this does not appear to be a cause 
for concern. Nevertheless, the experts recommend that in future codes of conduct could 
be used to concretise the application of the P2B Regulation, especially in such sectors as 
hotel bookings and online marketplaces50.    

2.6. Limited awareness 

The evidence gathered by the study team revealed different levels of awareness about the 
P2B Regulation.  Relevant  national  associations and  the biggest platforms seemed to  be 
more informed about the P2B Regulation than other stakeholder groups.  

Awareness  was  generally  low  among  all  stakeholder  groups  in  countries  with  no 
public enforcement, as there have been little to no awareness-raising measures in those 
countries. Business users appear to be the group with the least knowledge about the P2B 
Regulation.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  survey  conducted  for  another  study  run  for  the 
European  Commission,  on  ‘Support  to  the  Observatory  for  the  Online  Platform 
Economy’. When asked whether business users have any experience with enforcement of 

50  Opinion  of  the  Expert  Group  for  the  EU  Observatory  on  the  Online  Platform  Economy  for  the 
Evaluation of the P2B Regulation (to be published on its website). 

28 

 
 
the  P2B  Regulation,  91%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  had  no  experience  or  had 
never  heard  of  it51.  The  low  level  of  awareness  among  business  users  would  partially 
explain  why  only  seven52  Member  State  authorities  reported  receiving  any  type  of 
complaint from business users concerning online platform behaviour53.  

Several  Member  States  that  appointed  an  enforcement  authority  have  run  continuous 
awareness-raising  campaigns  about  the  P2B  Regulation.  Even  though  this  is  not  a 
requirement  under  the  P2B  Regulation,  such  measures  are  helpful  in  raising  awareness 
about the Regulation among both business users and online platforms. 

Based on these findings, we can  conclude that proactive awareness raising about the 
P2B  Regulation  helps  ensure  better  compliance.  It  also  helps  to  incentivise  business 
users  to  submit  complaints  to  enforcement  authorities.  This  is  especially  pertinent  in 
countries that do not monitor platform compliance with the Regulation, but rather react to 
business  user  complaints.  Proactive  communication  is  also  helpful  in  informing 
platforms about their obligations under the Regulation. To this end, Dutch and Italian 
enforcement authorities have put together guidelines for online platforms clarifying how 
to  comply  with  the  P2B  Regulation54.  Collaboration  with  national  associations  in 
reaching out to both stakeholder groups seems a particularly effective method. 

In  some  countries  that  rely  solely  on  private  enforcement,  public  authorities  do 
nonetheless  undertake some awareness-raising activities  about  the P2B Regulation, one 
such  example  being  the  Maltese  Communication  Authority.  Similarly,  in  Sweden,  the 
National Board of Trade (Kommerskollegium) is responsible for providing information to 
the public and giving advice when a complaint is lodged.  

3.  COMPLEMENTARITY WITH OTHER EU ACTS  

The P2B Regulation, including its Article 11 on internal complaint handling, applies to 
all  medium-sized  and  large  provider  of  online  intermediation  services.  Therefore  its 
scope  goes  beyond  the  Digital  Markets  Act  (Regulation  (EU)  2022/1925)  and  extends 
this legal certainty to business building on a mix of ‘gatekeeper’ core platform services 
and  other  online  intermediation  services  –  including  those  that  may  interoperate  with 
gatekeepers. 

The P2B Regulation was the first step towards a comprehensive legal framework for the 
platform  economy;  this  has  since  been  complemented  by  the  adoption  of  the  DSA  and 
the DMA. However, these instruments are all 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 will require further attention, in line 
with  the  Opinion  of  the  Expert  Group  for  the  Observatory  on  the  Online  Platform 
Economy.  

51 Kantar Public (2022) Business user survey conducted for a study on ‘Support to the Observatory for the 
Online Platform Economy’, N.318.   
52 AT, BE, DK, ES, FR, IE, SI, PL. Last update: 11 May 2022. 
53 Last update 11 May 2022.  
54  By 
available  online: 
https://www.acm.nl/system/files/documents/guidelines-platform-to-business-regulation.pdf,  while  Italian 
guidelines were being revised. 

the  draft  Dutch  guidelines  were  made 

end  of  2022, 

the 

29 

 
 
3.1.1.  Oversight – spotting potential non-compliance 

The transparency of the P2B Regulation can help enforcement authorities to identify and 
investigate  unfair  behaviour  and  perform  in-depth  testing  of  any  claimed  justifications 
for,  for  example,  differentiated  treatment.  In  this  regard,  Article  6(5)  of  the  Digital 
Markets Act already bans more favourable treatment in ranking and related indexing and 
transparency  around 
crawling,  while 
differentiated  treatment  in  data  access,  in  pricing  and  in  access  terms  for  ancillary 
services.  

the  P2B  Regulation  provides  additional 

The study underpinning the report and this staff working document confirms this specific 
potential of the P2B Regulation: ‘transparency can be a potent tool enabling authorities to 
monitor,  learn,  and  –  if  needed  –  address  developments  in  the  platform  economy. 
However, enforcement of the Regulation by public authorities is either altogether lacking 
or remains insufficient – especially with regard to proactive approaches that involve the 
monitoring  of  platforms.  It  should  be  expected  that  after  addressing  the  issues  of 
enforcement and with  the DMA in  place, the transparency  rules of the P2B Regulation 
will not only become more relevant, but also more impactful’. 

3.1.2.  Research – automated tracking of terms and conditions 

As  mentioned  in  Section  2.1.2,  the  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  launches,  in 
parallel to this report and staff working document, a public and open-source repository of 
the terms and conditions for business users of [over 600] online platforms that have been 
indexed  to  date.  Automated  tracking  is  one  of  various  ways  in  which  transparency 
facilitates  the  agency  business  users  and  citizens  have  over  how  they  engage  with 
information online. 

This  is  one  practical  example  of  where  the  EU’s  support  for  open-source  technologies 
can  come  together  with  user-centric  regulation,  to  give  our  societies  and  business 
communities the tools to operate online with a sense of control over what they are doing. 

The EU has also recently launched the European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency, 
whose mission is to improve our collective understanding of how algorithms work. Part 
of its work is to provide scientific and technical expertise to the European Commission’s 
exclusive supervisory  and  enforcement  role of  the  systemic  obligations  on  very  large 
online  platforms  (VLOPs)  and  very  large  online  search  engines  (VLOSEs)  under  the 
Digital  Services  Act.  The  DSA  contains,  among  other  things,  crucial  transparency 
obligations for citizens. Similar to the P2B Regulation, citizens should know the reasons 
for  termination  and  suspension  of  their  accounts,  and  they  should  be  given  the  main 
parameters  used  by  online  platforms  in  their  recommender  systems.  Thus,  the 
transparency rules in the P2B Regulation can also be of use for other EU legislations. 

The importance of contractual transparency, including for research, is therefore only set 
to  increase  as  the  Commission  and  EU  Member  States  continue  to  implement  the  P2B 
Regulation, the Digital Services Act and possible future initiatives such as the AI Act and 
the European Media Freedom Act. 

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

30