Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes, as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161 and (EU) 2020/1828
Date: 2023-10-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, consumer protection, digital content, digital single market, electronic commerce, goods and services, provision of services, third country, trade dispute

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.10.2023  COM(2023) 649 final 2023/0376 (COD)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes, as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Text with EEA relevance) {SEC(2023) 347 final} - {SWD(2023) 334 final} - {SWD(2023) 335 final} - {SWD(2023) 337 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 
Directive  2013/11/EU1  on  consumer  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR  Directive)  gives 
EU consumers the possibility to resolve their disputes stemming from contractual obligations 
against  traders  established  in  the  EU  using  quality  out-of-court  procedures.  The  main 
objective  is  to  ensure  that  in  all  Member  States,  ADR  entities  which  comply  with  common 
quality  criteria  can  be  accessed  to  resolve  disputes  across  all  consumer  market  sectors  fast, 
amicably, in  an affordable  and  fair manner.  This legislation has been key to provide  a high 
level of consumer protection in the internal market enabling consumers to resolve low-value 
disputes  for  which  they  are  reluctant  to  go  to  court,  due  to  the  cost  and  time  that  might  be 
involved.  For  traders,  the  Directive  contributes  to  help  them  retain  a  good  reputation,  in 
participating in ADR procedures and complying with ADR outcomes.  

The  Directive,  however,  was  drafted  more  than  10  years  ago  and  does  not  cater  well  for 
disputes resulting  from  new  consumer market  trends.  Indeed,  EU  consumers  are purchasing 
much more online including from non-EU traders. Unfortunately, this goes in parallel with an 
increased exposure to  unfair practices  - through  online  interfaces  - that  materially distort or 
impair,  either  on  purpose  or  in  effect,  the  ability  of  recipients  of  the  service  to  make 
autonomous  and  informed  choices  or  decisions  (dark  patterns),  hidden  advertising,  fake 
reviews, distorted price presentations or lack of important pre-contractual information. These 
trends  also  impact  offline  purchases  to  a  certain  extent  as  consumers  are  increasingly 
influenced  by  digital  marketing  affecting  the  consumers’  affinity  for  specific  brands  and 
traders.  These  developments  jeopardise  consumer  trust  in  digital  markets  and  exploit 
consumer  vulnerabilities.  This  means  that  consumers  need  efficient  procedures  to  handle 
disputes which are becoming more and more complex.  

The 2023 Commission evaluation of the implementation of the ADR Directive across the EU 
concluded that ADR, notably cross-border ADR, is still under-used in many Member States 
due to a number of factors such as costs, complex procedures, language and applicable law. 
The scope of the ADR Directive, which is narrowly defined, is not fit to resolve a wide range 
of  disputes  that  arise,  notably  in  digital  markets.  The  approach  of  minimum  harmonisation 
taken  in  the  ADR  Directive  has  enabled  Member  States  to  tailor-make  their  own  ADR 
framework  which  tally  with  their  culture,  investment,  resources,  infrastructure,  awareness, 
etc.  Against  this  background,  the  Commission  announced  the  Consumer  Enforcement 
Package in its legislative Work Programme for 20232 which foresaw Commission’s proposals 
with  targeted  amendments  to  the  ADR  Directive  and  the  repeal  of  the  Online  Dispute 
Resolution (ODR) Regulation3. 

This  proposal  aims  at  maintaining  the  current  minimum  harmonisation  approach  and 
only amending it to make it better fit to modern consumer markets.  

1 
2 

3 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013L0011  
See Row 8 of Annex II (Refit) https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-documents/commission-work-
programme/commission-work-programme-2023_en  
Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0  

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
 
The objectives of the revised ADR Directive are to: 

• 

• 

• 

make the ADR framework fit to digital markets by explicitly covering a broad range 
of  EU  consumer  rights  that  may  not  be  explicitly  described  in  contracts  or  which 
relate to pre-contractual stages;  

enhance the use of ADR in cross-border disputes through more customised assistance 
to consumers and traders; 

simplify  ADR  procedures  to  the  benefit  of  all  actors;  including  reducing  reporting 
obligations  of  ADR  entities  and 
traders  whilst 
encouraging  traders  to  increase  their  engagement  in  ADR  claims  through  the 
introduction of a duty to reply.  

information  obligations  of 

To attain these objectives, the following elements are put forward in this proposal: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Scope of application: clarifying and broadening the material and geographical scope 
of the ADR Directive to cover:  

all  kinds  of  EU  consumer  law  disputes  (i.e.  not  limited  to  those  relating  to  a 
contract). A problem with the current Directive is that its scope is narrowly defined 
and  thus  may  exclude  disputes  related  to  pre-contractual  stages  or  statutory  rights 
such as switching of service providers or to be protected against geoblocking; 

covering  disputes  between  EU  consumers  and  non-EU  traders  (that  will  be  able  to 
participate in the ADR procedures on a voluntary basis, in the same way as for EU 
traders). 

Duty to reply:  requiring  that traders reply  to  an ADR entity  enquiry, whether they 
intend  to  participate  in  the  proposed  ADR  process  or  not  (but  not  imposing 
participation in ADR processes). 

Information obligations: removing the obligation upon traders to inform consumers 
about ADR entities in case they do not intend to engage.  

Cross-border  ADR:  conferring  upon  relevant  bodies  and  especially  European 
Consumer  Centres  (ECCs)  a  new  supporting  role  in  assisting  and  signposting 
consumers  in  cross-border  disputes  and  for  the  Commission  to  introduce  user-
friendly  digital  tools  to  help  consumers  being  signposted  to  a  competent  body  to 
resolve their disputes. 

In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’4, the 
Commission  has  stressed  the  importance  of  a  regulatory  system  that  ensures  that  Union 
objectives  are  reached  at  minimum  costs.  It  has  committed  therefore  to  a  fresh  push  to 
rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens 
by  25%,  without  undermining  the  related  policy  objectives.  Hence,  the  ADR/ODR  review 
features under the Rationalisation Package.  

Reporting  requirements  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  correct  enforcement  and  proper 
monitoring  of  legislation.  Their  costs  are  overall  largely  offset  by  the  benefit  they  bring,  in 
particular,  in  monitoring  and  ensuring  compliance  with  key  policy  measures.  Reporting 
requirements can however also impose disproportionate burdens on stakeholders, particularly 

4 

COM (2023) 168 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
 
 
affected  SMEs  and  micro-companies.  Their  cumulation  over  time  can  result  in  redundant, 
duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods 
of collection. By further streamlining the ADR framework across the EU, the initiative should 
generate cost savings and less administrative burden both for the ADR competent authorities 
and  traders  in  line  with  the  REFIT  and  “one-in-out-out”  principles  and  also  contribute  to  a 
greater level-playing field for EU and non-EU traders. 

Streamlining reporting obligations and reducing administrative burden is therefore a priority. 
In this context, the present proposal aims to simplify initiatives included in consumer redress 
by: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

removing ADR information obligations for traders;  

ADR  entities  would  have  to  provide  biennial  reports  of  their  activities  instead  of 
yearly reports to the ADR Competent Authorities and they no longer have to report 
on their cooperation within networks of ADR entities which facilitate the resolution 
of cross-border disputes, if applicable; 

ADR entities will no longer have to provide to competent authorities every two years 
assessment of the effectiveness of their cooperation within networks of ADR entities, 
the training provided to their staff and an assessment of the effectiveness of the ADR 
procedure offered by the entity and of possible ways of improving its performance. 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The ADR Directive is a procedural directive providing quality criteria to be applied by ADR 
entities in a similar manner across the Union and the procedures for Member States to accredit 
such  entities,  monitor  their  compliance  with  the  criteria  and  ensure  an  effective  level  of 
transparency about the existence and functioning of such entities.  

The amendments proposed aim to ensure that all consumer disputes, in particular those arising 
on  digital  markets,  including  non-contractual  obligations,  and  those  related  to  extra-
contractual statutory rights can be dealt with by ADR entities. In clarifying and extending the 
scope of the ADR Directive, amendments will increase its consistency with existing consumer 
legislation  by  permitting  ADR  entities  to  deal  with  a  broader  range  of  disputes  which  are 
specified in its annex. The improvements will therefore positively affect  the achievement of 
objectives in the policy area. 

The proposal is also part of a first package of measures to rationalise reporting requirements.  
This  is  a  step  in  a  continuous  process  looking  comprehensively  at  existing  reporting 
requirements,  with  a  view  to  assess  their  continued  relevance  and  to  make  them  more 
efficient. The rationalisation introduced by these measures will not affect the achievement of 
objectives  in  the  policy  area.  Nevertheless,  saving  costs  and  time  invested  in  reporting 
obligations,  which  do  not  improve  the  ADR  process  in  any  way,  is  to  the  advantage  of  the 
businesses and ADR entities. 

Consistency with other Union policies 

Article 21 Digital Services Act on out-of-court dispute settlement is without prejudice to the 
ADR Directive (Art. 21(9)). Furthermore, it regulates how users of intermediary services can 
complain  about  content  moderation  decisions  of  the  intermediary  in  relation  to  illegal  or 
harmful content, including where the service provider decides not to take action following a 
notice.  Even  if  such  illegal  content  or  content  that  is  otherwise  incompatible  with  the 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
 
intermediary  terms  and  conditions  may  concern  a  third-party  trader’s  bad  commercial 
practices, the dispute pursuant to Article 21 DSA will be settled between the intermediary and 
the recipient  concerned  by  the content moderation decision and is  limited to the restrictions 
applicable to the  content  or account  in question.  The ADR Directive will remain applicable 
for  consumer  disputes  with  the  third  party  trader  that  generally  concern  how  to  get  money 
back,  how  to  get  faulty  product  repaired,  how  to  stop  a  contract  that  was  based  on  unfair 
terms,  etc.  The  ADR  Directive,  therefore,  provides  complementary  means  to  consumers  so 
that they resolve issues linked to illegal commercial practices of the trader and not to content 
moderation performed by the intermediary.  

Under the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), the Commission ensures 
that  its  legislation  is  fit  for  purpose,  targeted  to  the  needs  of  stakeholders  and  minimises 
burdens  while  achieving  its  objectives.  These  proposals  are  therefore  part  of  the  REFIT 
programme,  reducing  the  complexity  of  reporting  burdens  arising  from  the  EU  legal 
environment.  

While  certain  reporting  requirements  are  essential,  they  need  to  be  as  efficient  as  possible, 
avoiding overlaps, removing unnecessary burdens and using as much as possible digital and 
interoperable solutions. 

The  rationalisation  introduced  by  the  targeted  amendments  to  the  ADR  Directive  will  not 
affect the achievement of objectives in the policy area, for the following reasons: 

• 

• 

Compulsory  ADR  information  on  traders’  website  is  not  effective  for  those  traders 
who  do  not  intend  to  engage  in  ADR  procedures  and  are  not  obliged  to  do  so  in 
accordance with national or EU law. On the contrary traders who actively engage on 
ADR will be free to promote this fact to their customers in an adequate manner. 

Reporting obligation of ADR entities are simplified to reduce the frequency of their 
reports  from  one  year  to  two  years.  This  will  allow  to  have  more  information  to 
compile  and  thus  a  better  data  basis  to  assess  their  functioning  on  a  medium  term 
horizon. Some items should not be mandatory as it is for ADR entities to decide what 
information is most relevant to publish and or transmit to competent authorities. Cost 
and time saved should be used to other purposes such as training their staff. 

2. 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  the  proposed  revised  ADR  Directive  is  Article  114  TFEU  on  internal 
market  completion,  with  due  regard  to  Article  169  TFEU5.  It  confers  upon  the  EU  the 
competence  to  enact  measures  for  the  approximation  of  national  rules  regarding  the 
establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  By  creating  a  high  level  of  consumer 
protection, the proposal aims to help the internal market function smoothly. 

Subsidiarity  

The revised ADR directive will provide improved access to all consumers and traders to high 
quality  and  cost-efficient  out-of-court  dispute  resolution  adapted  to  digital  markets.  Making 

5 

Article 169 TFEU states that the objectives of promoting the interests of consumers and ensuring a high 
level of consumer protection can be achieved through measures adopted pursuant to Article 114 TFEU. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
 
 
ADR  simpler  and  more  cost-effective  to  solve  disputes  with  a  cross-border  dimension, 
promoting  the  bundling  of  similar  cases  in  one  procedure  help  increasing  the  efficiency  of 
dispute  resolution  including  in  a  cross-border  context.  This  in  turn  should  boost  consumer 
trust  in  online  shopping  but  also  consumption  of  tourism  and  travel  services  within  the  EU 
and beyond.  

The objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone 
and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved 
by  the  EU.  EU  action  would  ensure  a  consistently  high  level  of  consumer  protection,  more 
consumer trust in ADR and more networking and exchange of best practices at EU level (e.g. 
on  the  use  of  digital  tools  to  make  ADR  more  cost-efficient  and  consistent,  case-handling 
procedures, sector-specific ADR, etc). 

The  reporting  requirements  that  are  simplified  are  imposed  by  EU  law.  Rationalisation  is 
therefore  better  done  at  EU  level  to  ensure  legal  certainty  and  consistency  of  reporting  for 
data comparability purposes when evaluating the implementation and progress of ADR across 
the Member States. 

Proportionality 

The  impact  assessment  carried  out  a  proportionality  test  to  ensure  that  proposed  policy 
options  are  proportionate  based  on  costs  and  resources.  The  proposal  has  an  ambitious  and 
future-proof approach leading to higher benefits for consumers and society in general thanks 
to an extension and clarification of the scope. This will allow more disputes to be addressed 
out  of  court,  increasing  the  consumer  trust  in  markets  and  making  markets  more  efficient. 
Easier dispute resolution is also facilitating consumer after sales management for businesses 
while  their  transparency  burden  will  be  decreased.  The  introduction  of  a  duty  for  traders  to 
reply to requests from ADR entities will allow procedures to be swifter as it will be rapidly 
clear  whether  the  trader  agrees  to  engage  or  not.  The  proposal  does  not  go  beyond  what  is 
strictly necessary to achieve its objectives.  

It  maintains  the  minimum  harmonisation  approach,  providing  a  degree  of  flexibility  for  the 
Member  States  including  in  deciding  whether  trader  participation  in  ADR  is  mandatory  or 
voluntary, or mixed depending on the market sectors.  

Despite  the  high  number  of  consumers  using  dispute  resolution  systems  provided  by  online 
market  places  as  part  of  their  intermediary  services,  the  Commission  is  not  proposing  to 
regulate such services. Instead, it adopted a recommendation addressed to online marketplaces 
and EU trade associations, to make it clear that their dispute resolution systems are important 
alternative  dispute  resolution  tools,  which  can  resolve  many  consumer  disputes  and  greatly 
improve access to cross-border disputes. If these systems are set up in-house, they should be 
in line with the quality criteria in the ADR Directive to ensure independence and fairness for 
both  consumers  and  traders  parties  in  the  dispute.  Furthermore,  the  ODR  Regulation  is 
proposed to be repealed as it does not bring a significant benefit in terms of access to quality 
ADR for online consumers. This repeal will substantially decrease the burden for businesses 
as  the  obligation  for  all  online  traders  established  in  the  EU  to  provide  a  link  to  the  ODR 
platform and maintain a dedicated email address are abolished.  

The  rationalisation  of  reporting  requirements  to  ADR  entities  reduces  the  administrative 
burden by introducing some changes to existing requirements that do not affect the substance 
of the wider policy objective. The proposal is limited to those changes that are necessary to 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
ensure efficient reporting without changing any of the substantial elements of the legislation 
concerned. 

Choice of the instrument 

The chosen instrument is a Directive amending Directive 2013/11/EU. A directive is binding 
as to the result of achieving the functioning of the internal market, but it leaves to the national 
authorities  the  choice  of  form  and  methods. This  will  enable  Member  States  to  amend  the 
legislation  in  force  (as  a  result  of  having  transposed  Directive  2013/11/EU)  to  the  extent 
necessary  to  ensure  compliance,  hence  minimising  the  impact  of  such  a  reform  on  their 
legislative systems.  

In  parallel  to  this  review,  it  is  proposed  to  repeal  Regulation  (EU)  No  524/20136  on  online 
dispute resolution (ODR) for consumer disputes and to discontinue the ODR platform that it 
provides due to the inefficiency of this system and disproportionate costs for EU businesses. It 
is  therefore  necessary  to  amend  EU  Directives  which  contain  references  to  the  ODR 
Regulation. 

3. 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 
In  2023,  the  Commission  carried  out  a  fully-fledged  evaluation7  in  line  with  the  5  criteria 
(effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  EU  added  value)  in  the  Better  Regulation 
Toolbox.  The  main  question  of  the  exercise  was  to  assess  to  what  extent  has  the  ADR 
Directive  assisted  consumers  to  resolve  their  disputes  with  traders  in  a  satisfactory  manner 
and  in  line  with  its  harmonised  quality  requirements  as  spelt  out  in  Chapter  II  of  the  ADR 
Directive. 

Overall, the ADR Directive has been correctly implemented by all Member States. Given the 
minimum harmonisation approach, Member States decide on the governance, architecture and 
structure of the national ADR framework. Trader participation varies widely across Member 
States,  depending  on  whether  their  participation  is  mandatory  or  voluntary,  whether  the 
outcome is binding or not, or whether there are name and shame practices, inter alia.  

Access  to  ADR  depends  on  fees,  available  assistance,  user-friendly  procedures,  awareness, 
etc. There are many barriers in accessing ADR, notably in cross-border cases (in relation to 
applicable  law,  language,  costs,  complex  procedures).  Investments  by  ADR  entities  in 
digitalisation have proved to make ADR cheaper in the long-term and improve consistency in 
ADR  outcome.  ADR  costs  vary  significantly  between  Member  States  depending  on  the 
existing  infrastructure,  funding  model,  number  of  ADR  entities  accredited  and  monitored, 
consumer and trader fees as well as whether there were previously existing ADR structures. 
The  lack  of  data  on  costing,  makes  it  difficult  to  calculate  the  cost-effectiveness  of  ADR. 
However, compared to costs that would be incurred by consumers, traders and Member States 

6 

7 

Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2009/22/EC (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 1. 
The evaluation is also being published as a package with the proposal. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
if  all  consumer  disputes had  to  be  dealt  with  in court,  the  ADR  system  is  much  more  cost-
efficient.  Some  cost  savings  could  possibly  be  made  by  reducing  certain  reporting  burdens 
that have been assessed as disproportionate by many stakeholders.  

The  restriction  of  the  scope  to  traders  established  in  the  EU  is  however  depriving  many 
consumers from accessing fair redress systems. In crises situations, e.g. COVID-19 pandemic 
and the recent energy crisis, ADR procedures proved to be important mechanisms to deal with 
the increased number of consumer issues that the crises generated. These crises therefore do 
not  question  the  relevance  of  the  Directive,  but  the  question  is  whether  certain  mechanisms 
should  be  strengthened  notably  to  allow  ADR  entities  to  deal  with  more  cases  at  the  same 
time through bundling of cases. 

The  minimum  harmonisation  approach  has  been  welcomed  and  it  has  been  strongly 
recommended  by  stakeholders  to  be  maintained.  ADR  entities  benefitted  from  EU-level 
actions which offered them a platform for exchange of best practices and financial assistance 
to  improve  their  infrastructure  including  their  case-handling,  capacity  building  and  ADR 
awareness.  

The evaluation conclusions triggered the Commission to reflect on a legislative proposal 
to amend the current ADR Directive to make it better fit notably for digital markets. 

Stakeholder consultations 

For an evidence-based approach in its policy-making, the Commission: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

carried  out  two  multi-lingual  public  consultations  with  a  backward  and  forward-
looking approach on ADR; and published a Call for Evidence which highlighted the 
policy measures for the revision of the ADR Directive on its Have your Say website;  

organised  various  physical  and  hybrid  consultation  workshops  including  the  ADR 
assembly 2021; a panel discussion at the Consumer Summit and Cross-border ADR 
roundtable in 2022; 

designed  a  questionnaire  to  help  ADR  competent  authorities  compiling  their  ADR 
national reports 2022 in line with Article 26 ADR Directive; 

took part in various events to collect feedback on how ADR could be improved (eg. 
anniversary events of ADR entities, ADR network events of FIN-Net and Travel-net, 
information sessions, etc); 

commissioned a study which focused on the implementation of ADR on the ground 
in 4 jurisdictions and an ADR behavioural study; 

looked  into  recent  position  papers  on  ADR  by  main  stakeholders  including  ECC-
Net8, BEUC9, etc. 

As vast majority of stakeholders across all categories emphasised the need to revise the ADR 
Directive  by  widening  its  scope  to  explicitly  include  disputes  related  to  consumer  statutory 
rights independently of the existence or not of a contract or what is in the contract, making the 
ADR  framework  more  accessible  and  thus  cost-effective,  in  particular  to  deal  with  cross-
border disputes. There have been divergent views on whether to incentivise collective ADR 
through the bundling of cases due to limited resources and capacity of some ADR entities. In 
the  context  of  the  open  public  consultation,  58%  of  the  111  respondents  expressed  their 

8 
9 

https://www.eccnet.eu/publications  
https://www.beuc.eu/sites/default/files/publications/beuc-x-2022-062_adr_position_paper.pdf  

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
 
support for collective ADR. The cross-border roundtable also concluded that collective ADR 
should be encouraged as a way to ensure the sustainability of ADR entities in times of crisis. 
However,  stakeholders  highlighted  that  the  design  of  collective  ADR  should  be  left  to  the 
Member States.  

Some stakeholders believe that upgrading the role of ODR contact points to become de facto 
ADR  contact  points  would  notably  improve  the  potential  to  resolve  cross-border  disputes.  
The  majority  of  stakeholders  thought  that  the  ODR  platform  being  ineffective,  it  was 
necessary  to  provide  user-friendly  tools  for  better  consumer  signposting  on  their  redress 
possibilities and the possible ADR entities to use.  

Stakeholders  also  stressed  that  ECCs  play  a  very  important  role  to  assist  consumers  with 
problems  with  their  cross-border  purchases.  For  example,  the  informal  ministerial  on 
consumer  affairs  organised  by  the  Czech  Council  Presidency  in  September  2022  confirmed 
that  all  Member  States  are  satisfied  with  the  assistance  provided  by  the  ECC-Net  to 
consumers in their cross-border disputes and see their role strengthened in the future.  

The  participants  at  the  ADR  Assembly  of  2021  emphasized  the  importance  of  reducing 
reporting obligations for ADR entities to free up resources that could be used to expand their 
outreach.  

Collection and use of expertise 

The Commission commissioned three ADR-related studies to external contractors: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Data  collection  study:  i.e.  to  analyse  the  feedback  received  from  the  backward-
looking public consultation, the national ADR reports submitted to the Commission 
from  all  EU  Member  States,  Norway  and  Iceland,  and  5  case  studies  which  were 
based on desk research and interviews in the following sectors (e-commerce, travel, 
finance, AI in ADR, and accreditation of ADR entities).  

ADR behavioural study on how to nudge consumers to use ADR and how would AI-
assisted  lawbot  assist  consumers  better  understand  their  redress  and  find  the  right 
ADR entity. 

A legal study which looked into academic literature on ADR/ODR in 4  EU Member 
States.  

All studies will be published on the Commission ADR page: 
https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-
your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-consumers_en   

The  proposal  to  reduce  the  reporting  burden  have  been  identified  following  a  process  of 
internal  scrutiny  of  existing  reporting  obligations  and  based  on  the  experience  from 
implementation  of  the  related  legislation.  Since  this  is  a  step  in  the  process  of  continuous 
assessment of reporting requirements arising from EU legislation, the scrutiny of such burden 
and of their impact on stakeholders will continue. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
 
 
Impact assessment 

The  Impact  Assessment  analysed  4  different  options.  The  preferred  one  referred  to  the 
extension of the material scope of the Directive, the simplification of cross-border ADR and 
the introduction of the duty of reply for traders.  

This option would make the number of potential ADR disputes increase by about 4.5% as a 
direct  consequence  of  the  extension  of  the  material  scope  of  the  Directive  to  consumer 
disputes  going  beyond  strict  contractual  issues,  as  additional  disputes  concerning  statutory 
rights  that  are  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  a  contract  or  related  to  questions  stemming  from 
consumer  rights  such  as  switching  between  service  providers,  discrimination,  price 
transparency  and  pre-contractual  information,  or  portability  of  content  could  be  included. 
Currently, as seen in the problem definition of the impact assessment, there are approximately 
2,250,000 consumers experiencing issues and who potentially would like to resolve them with 
ADR.  However,  this  high  number  of  consumers  interested  in  ADR  decreases  substantially 
when it comes to  actually requesting an ADR procedure.  This  is  due to  various phenomena 
such  as  the  lack  of  knowledge  about  existing  ADR  entities,  long  delays  to  be  expected  etc. 
Consumers balance the amount of their loss with the burden they foresee and will decide to 
request  an  ADR  procedure  only  if  the  amount  in  question  is  relatively  high.  ADR  bodies 
perform  eligibility  tests  for  example  on  the  scope  of  rights  concerned  and  on  the  type  of 
evidence  to  be  provided  in  relation  to  previous contacts  with  the  trader.  These  tests,  reduce 
further  the  number  of  cases  that  are  finally  subject  to  an  ADR  process.  According  to  data 
transmitted by 23 national competent authorities, only 300,000 cases per year on average, in 
the whole EU are accepted as eligible to be resolved through an ADR procedure.  About half 
of those will not proceed as traders are in most cases not obliged to agree to participate, or the 
trader and consumer agree to settle the dispute before the ADR process is finished, or cannot 
find an acceptable solution and decide to abandon the ADR process.  

Of the 2,250,000 consumers interested in  carrying out an  ADR, approximately 4.5% have a 
dispute  that  today  would  fall  outside  the  scope  of  the  ADR  Directive  and  would  thus  be 
ineligible  for  ADR  (100,000  disputes).  Therefore,  potential  disputes  with  this  measure 
increase from 300,000 actual disputes to 400,000. For each eligible dispute, a notification is 
sent by the ADR entity who receives a complaint to the business concerned for initiating the 
dispute  out-of-court.  Out  of  these  400,000  notifications  sent  by  ADR  entities  to  businesses, 
240,000 would become disputes,10 while approximately 128,000 would go unanswered.11  

If a duty to reply is introduced in the Directive, it is estimated that the cost for businesses to 
send  a  single  reply  is  around  EUR  20  (including  preparation,  processing  and  sending), 
resulting in a total cost for businesses of EUR 2.6 million per year, or EUR 23 million in 10 
years.12  A  share  of  the  128,000  potential  disputes  for  which  businesses  would  now  have  to 
reply13  could  turn  into  actual  disputes,  with  negative  answers  from  businesses  resulting  in 
enhanced certainty for consumers, who could decide to bring their claim (or not) elsewhere. 
Out  of  the  128,000  potential  disputes,  it  is  estimated  that  approximately  77,000  would  turn 

10 
11 

12 
13 

The ratio 180,000/300,000 applying now to 400,000.  
96,000 as seen in the problem definition, i.e. 32% of total, which out of 400,000 is 128,000. It is 
unknown how many unanswered notifications are from SMEs and how many from large businesses.  
3% discount factor applies for actualising values.  
Note that, as seen in the Evaluation (Annex 6), in six Member States trader participation is already 
always required (DK, HU, IS, LT, LV, SK). In other seven Member States trader participation is 
mandatory in specific sectors (AT, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, NL) and in further four, trader participation is 
required under specific circumstances (BE, HR, PT, SE). For simplicity in the calculation, these 
estimates do not take into consideration this, which is acknowledged as a limitation. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
into  actual  disputes14  (mostly  those  linked  to  businesses  previously  unaware  of  ADR,  for  a 
total of nearly 200,000 new disputes under this policy option15). If consumers win 90% of the 
times (with businesses accepting the ADR outcome), it would reduce detriment  by EUR 33 
million annually,16 i.e. EUR 290 million in 10 years. However, handling these 200,000 new 
disputes might cost up to EUR 60 million annually17 (EUR 527 million in 10 years) for ADR 
entities,  which  could  be  funded  in  various  ways18.  Enabling  the  bundling  of  similar  cases 
against a specific trader by ADR entities would generate savings for them (as a result of more 
efficient handling), offsetting their costs by EUR 11 million annually (i.e. EUR 97 million in 
10  years)19.  The  net  extra  costs  for  ADR  entities,  taking  into  account  economies  of  scale, 
could range from EUR 0 to EUR 49 million annually (EUR 25 million on average), or from 
EUR 0 to EUR 430 million in 10 years (EUR 215 million on average). ADR entities incurring 
costs  can  also  pass  them  on  to  the  traders,  knowing  that  they  would  still  save  compared  to 
going  to  court.  The  duty  of  reply  would  replace  the  current  requirement  to  disclose 
information  on  ADR,  for  businesses  who  do  not  intend  nor  are  obliged  to  resolve  disputes 
through  ADR  (64%20  of  traders)21.  It  is  known  from  the  Impact  Assessment  linked  to  the 
current  ADR  Directive22  that  the  inflation  adjusted  cost  of  providing  information  to 
consumers  is  about  EUR  310  per  business.23  This  is  mostly  a  one-off  cost.  Every  year,  for 
newly  established  businesses  who  do  not  adhere  to  any  ADR  entities,24  the  total  savings 
would amount to EUR 99 million annually,25 i.e. EUR 870 million in 10 years; a share of the 
costs stemming from “adding information on ADR in contracts, invoices, receipts, websites, 
brochures/leaflets”26 would then be saved also for current businesses, for a total of EUR 165 
million  per  year,  i.e.  EUR  1.4  billion  in  10  years  (EUR  2.3  billion  in  10  years  in  total  as 
savings for businesses).  

Granting  ECCs  (or  other  bodies)  a  supporting  role  means  that  ECCs  would  have  to  assist 
translating 
ADRs  with  questions  about  applicable 

in  other  Member  States, 

law 

14 

15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 

Applying the same logic that approximately 60% of businesses, if solicited by ECCs, normally find an 
agreement with the consumers. Hence 60% of businesses who are solicited to reply would reply 
positively.  
300,000-180,000 in the baseline +77,000. 
200,000*90%*EUR 185. 
EUR 300 per dispute, see problem definition. 
However, one must take into account that ADR entities would experience economies of scale after a 
certain point, and only marginal costs of adding extra disputes should be taken into account. Also, the 
costs that these additional disputes entail pre-empt larger costs to be incurred by several parties if the 
cases end up in court. 
This is a conservative estimate related to potential savings. It takes into account the number of potential 
disputes (380,000) and assumes that only 10% of them are bundled together. Considering that the 
average value of a dispute is EUR 300, the savings amount to EUR 11 millions  
Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, consumers-
conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu). 
In the behavioural study on ADR/ODR it was found that “information provided on ADR entity websites 
does not seem to be a major driver of usage”. This applies especially if the trader who has to disclose 
this information does not intend to engage. 
Impact Assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on Alternative Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes (Directive on consumer 
ADR) and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Online Dispute 
Resolution for consumer disputes (Regulation on consumer ODR) {COM(2011) 793 final} {SEC(2011) 
1409 final}. 
EUR 254 x 1.2217 as cumulative inflation between 2012 and 2023 (in 2013dollars.com/Europe). 
Eurostat: 500,000 new wholesalers and retailers every year in the EU x 64% = 320,000. 
320,000 (see footnote above) x EUR 310 (costs for traders to comply with obligation information). 
35% of the total costs (2011 Impact Assessment), i.e. EUR 109. We assume 10% of them would need 
reprint every year, for a cost of EUR 11 per existing business who does not adhere to an ADR entity 
(23,000,000 x 64% = 15,000,000).  

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
correspondence and documents relevant for the case, etc. This is estimated to require about 50 
full  time  equivalents  (FTEs)  in  the  whole  EU,  re-absorbing  the  equivalent  number  of  posts 
acting as ODR contact points in the Member States. This zero-cost measure27 would in turn 
further decrease consumer detriment and save costs to the ADR entities.  

Social  impacts:  The  certainty  to  rapidly  obtain  an  answer  to  their  complaints  brought  to  a 
proper  ADR  would  reduce  drastically  the  stress  of  consumers  who  would  better  assess  the 
feasibility of the various possibilities to resolve disputes. The extended scope of application of 
the  Directive  would  also  reduce  court  backlogs  as  currently  consumers  can  only  have  their 
solution in court. Replacing the ODR Platform would have no social impact on employment 
as  MS  contact  point  (about  50  FTEs  throughout  the  EU)  would  be  absorbed  by  ECCs  with 
new cross-border ADR responsibilities. 

Environmental  impacts:  Expanding  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  include  extra-contractual 
disputes  would  allow  consumers  to  seek  redress  for  damages  resulting  from  unfair 
commercial practices, including those related to  misleading  green  claims. The possibility of 
obtaining  redress  against  greenwashing  through  ADR  would  reinforce  the  efforts  of  public 
consumer protection authorities and contribute to achieving the goals of the European Green 
Deal strategy. Within the same context, consumers would also be able to file ADR claim on 
other  cases  with  environmental  impact  such  as  those  related  to  misleading  pre-contractual 
information with regards to energy contracts or to environmental claims.  

The  proposal  concerns  limited  and  targeted  changes  of  legislation  in  view  of  rationalising 
reporting  requirements.  They  are  based  on  experience  from  implementing  legislation.  The 
changes  do not  have significant  impacts  on the policy, but  only ensure a more efficient  and 
effective implementation. Their targeted nature and the lack of relevant policy options make 
an impact assessment not necessary. 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

The measures in  the proposed review will provide the following opportunities for improved 
efficiency, calculated on an annual basis: 

• 

• 

EUR 370M  ongoing  adjustment  cost  savings for businesses (replacing  of EU ODR 
Platform); 

EUR  264M  ongoing  adjustment  cost  savings  for  businesses  (removal  of  ADR 
disclosure of information obligations). 

The preferred option comes with the following small annual adjustment costs: 

• 

• 

• 

EUR 2.6M ongoing adjustment costs for businesses (from duty of reply); 

EUR 25M ongoing adjustment costs for ADR entities (handling additional disputes);  

EUR 11M related to compliance for private ODR platform providers. 

This  total  of  EUR  39  million  per  year  is  highly  compensated  by  the  EUR  634  million  of 
annual cost savings coming from simplification.  

It is not known how many disputes are with SMEs and how many are with large businesses, 
so the costs associated to the duty of reply could in principle be shared with SMEs. However, 
as SMEs are the wide majority of businesses, they will also be the main beneficiaries of the 

27 

ODR contact points are funded by MS budget, while ECC are co-financed by the EU. In shifting these 
jobs, Member States would have less expenses and the EU some more.  

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
 
information provision cost savings both connected to the replacing of the ODR platform and 
ADR  in  general.  Competitiveness  of  EU  SMEs  will  be  impacted  positively  by  this  option, 
because the savings can be used to boost the attractiveness of their prices, and possibly foster 
innovation. 

A behavioural study conducted on ADR information requirements, showed that the currently 
requirement for traders to clearly disclose on their websites the ODR link does not positively 
impact  on  consumer’s  intention  to  use  ADR.  Thus,  removing  it  would  not  produce  any 
negative consequences on consumer engagement in ADR. Businesses operating online would 
not need to maintain an e-mail address for ODR correspondence, saving  EUR 100 per year. 
The total benefit for businesses would then be EUR 370 million saved per year, i.e. EUR 3.3 
billion in 10 years. Also, newly established businesses in the EU in the next 10 years would 
not  incur  costs  to  provide  ODR  information  on  their  website,  but  this  estimate  is  already 
included in the calculations linked to the removal of ADR information.  

Fundamental rights 

The Commission proposal has an overall positive impact on fundamental rights. The widened 
material and geographical scope of the Directive would ensure that consumers have access to 
private redress for a broader range of disputes, thereby reinforcing their right to an effective 
remedy as laid down by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU). 
Although the introduction of a duty of reply would require traders to  examine any potential 
disputes forwarded to  them by ADR entities, the fact  that businesses are not  obliged by the 
Directive to participate in ADR ensures that their freedom to conduct business is observed. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The  review  to  the  ADR  Directive  will  not  imply  new  financial  obligations  for  the 
Commission, hence no additional human and administrative resources are required for it. To 
support the new provisions added in the ADR Directive, existing credits earmarked to support 
consumer  redress  in  the  Single  Market  Programme  2021-202728  will  be  used  to  improve 
access to the list of ADR entities which is already published by the Commission as part of the 
ODR platform, or to support European Consumer Centres to assist better consumers who seek 
advice  on  cross-border  redress  solutions.  The  Single  Market  programme  also  permits  the 
awarding  of  grants  to  ADR  entities  to  improve  their  cost-efficiency  for  example  through 
digitalisation or training of their staff.  

5. 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The  amending  directive  does  not  change  the  Commission’s  monitoring  obligations  as 
provided  by  article  26  of  the  ADR  directive:  i.e.  it  will  provide  a  report  assessing  the 
efficiency of the ADR directive (as amended) every four years based on existing data sources 

28 

Regulation (EU) 2021/690 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing 
a programme for the internal market, competitiveness of enterprises, including small and medium-sized 
enterprises,  the  area  of  plants,  animals,  food  and  feed,  and  European  statistics  (Single  Market 
Programme) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 99/2013, (EU) No 1287/2013, (EU) No 254/2014 and 
(EU) No 652/2014 (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 153, 3.5.2021, p. 1–47 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
including the national reports that competent authorities have to produce also every four years 
to the Commission.  

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

As  the  present  directive  is  an  amending  directive,  the  following  descriptions  are  made  in 
relation to the ADR directive articles which are amended. 

Article 2 – Scope 

The  ADR  Directive  current  scope  is  limited  to  disputes  which  stem  from  contractual 
obligations  for  the  sale  of  goods  or  services.  Through  this  revision,  the  Commission  is 
proposing to extend the scope to voluntary ADR processes against any traders selling goods 
or services, including digital content and digital services, to consumers residing in the EU and 
to disputes related to pre-contractual stages during which consumer rights exist irrespective of 
whether  the  consumer  ultimately  concludes  a  contract.  This,  for  example,  relates  to 
misleading advertising, missing, unclear or misleading information, unfair terms or guarantee 
rights.  Moreover,  the  extended  scope  aims  to  cover  disputes  related  to  other  key  statutory 
rights of consumers such as the right not to be subjected to geo-blocking practices, to switch 
telecommunication providers or to access to basic financial services.  

Article 4 – Definitions 

The definitions of “domestic disputes” and “cross border disputes” in the ADR Directive are 
in line with the current scope and therefore, make reference only to contractual disputes with 
traders established in the Union. The Commission is proposing to modify those definitions, in 
order  to  cover  all  disputes  related  to  key  statutory  rights  of  consumers.  Moreover,  the  new 
definition of a “cross-border dispute” aims to also cover cases where the trader is established 
outside of the Union. 

Article 5 – Access to ADR entities and ADR procedures 

As  it  stands  now,  Article  5(1)  provides  for  the  Members  States  to  ensure  the  existence  of 
ADR  entities  compliant  with  the  requirements  of  ADR  Directive  that  deal  with  disputes 
between consumers and  traders established in their respective territories.  With the proposed 
extension  of  the  scope,  traders  established  outside  of  the  EU  may  also  participate  (on  a 
voluntary  basis)  to  ADR  procedures.  Therefore,  the  Commission  proposes  to  create  an 
obligation for Member States to establish ADR entities that will have the competence to deal 
with such disputes between consumers and non-EU traders.  

In order to safeguard consumers with limited digital literacy skills, Article 5(2)(a) refers to the 
possibility  for  vulnerable  consumers  to  send  and  access  documents  in  a  non-digital  format, 
upon request. Article 5(2)(b) accentuates the needs of vulnerable consumers to have an easy 
access to ADR procedures by means of inclusive tools, while Article 5(2)(c) ensures the right 
for the revision of an automated procedure by a natural person. Article 5(2)(d) strengthens the 
possibility already existing in certain Member States for ADR entities to bundle similar cases 
against  one  specific  trader  to  save  ADR  resources  and  time  for  the  trader  and  consumers 
concerned, giving the right to the consumers concerned to object to such bundling.  

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
Article  5(4)(a)  clarifies  that  although  consumers  are  obliged  to  try  to  resolve  the  dispute 
bilaterally with the trader, ADR entities should not put in place disproportionate rules on how 
to contact the trader before being able to proceed to ADR.  

Article 5(8) introduces the duty to reply on traders with the objective to incentivise them to 
participate  more  in  ADR.  Although  they  are  not  obliged  to  participate  in  ADR,  unless 
specifically provided for in national legislation or EU sector-specific legislation, it is proposed 
that they are obliged to reply to a request by an ADR entity, within a period not exceeding 20 
working days, as to whether they plan to participate in an ADR process against them, or not. 

Article 7 – Transparency 

The  amendment  from  “annual”  activity  reports  published  by  ADR  entities  to  “biennial” 
activity  reports  is  intended  to  alleviate  the  administrative  burden  and  costs  for  such  entities 
Although  cooperation  is  encouraged,  Article  7(2)(h)  is  deleted,  hence  ADR  entities  will  no 
longer be required to report on cooperation of ADR entities within networks of ADR entities 
to facilitate cross-border dispute resolution. 

Article 13 – Consumer Information by Traders 

The  Commission  is  proposing  to  delete  Article  13(3)  which  imposes  on  traders  to  provide 
information on ADR to  consumers whether or not they intend to use an ADR process. This 
article is  redundant  with  Article 13(1)  for traders which commit to  engage in  ADR while it 
obliges traders not willing to engage in ADR to inform consumers about this fact. The result 
is  that  such  an  information  discourages  consumers  to  opt  for  an  ADR  process.  It  is 
counterproductive and an unjustified burden imposed on traders.  

Article 14 – Assistance for Consumers 

In  view  of  low  ADR  uptake  in  cross-border  cases,  the  Commission  proposes  to  boost 
consumer  assistance  by  creating  ADR  contact  points  by  preference  as  part  of  the  European 
Consumer  Centres  which  have  already  a  strong  role  in  assisting  consumers  for  their  cross-
border purchases. These ADR contact points will promote the use of ADR, assist consumers 
and  traders  in  ADR  processes  e.g.  providing  machine  translation,  signposting  consumers  to 
the competent ADR entity, explaining the different procedures, assisting with the submission 
of the complaint, etc. Such points may also assist in domestic cases should the Member States 
agree. 

Article 19 – Information to be notified to competent authorities by dispute resolution entities 

The  Commission  is  proposing  to  delete  Articles  19(3)(f)-(h)  by  which  ADR  entities  are  to 
inform  ADR  competent  authorities  about:  a)  an  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  ADR 
networks,  b)  information  on  trainings  provided  to  staff  and  c)  an  assessment  of  how  they 
intend to improve their performance. This is intended to reduce the administrative burden of 
the  ADR  entities  and  rather  shifting  the  saved  resources  to  handling  more  disputes  or 
investing in productivity improvements. 

Article 20 – Role of the competent authorities and of the Commission 

In addition to Article 20(4) which requires Commission to publish the list of accredited ADR 
entities – currently published in the ODR platform website – new Article 20(8) provides that 
the  Commission  is  to  develop  and  maintain  user-friendly  tools  to  improve  signposting  of 

EN 

14 

  EN 

consumers,  in  other  words  to  ensure  that  people  looking  for  information  on  how  to  solve  a 
consumer dispute will be able to rapidly get an answer on the best ADR entity to contact for 
their case. The new tools will integrate the existing multilingual list of ADR entities and will 
provide  interactive  solutions  for  consumers  to  seek  the  best  ADR  entities  for  their  specific 
disputes. These tools should also offer information about other redress mechanisms and links 
to the newly set ADR contact points. 

Article 24 – Communication 

Article 24(4) obliges Member States to communicate the names and the contact details of the 
designated ADR contact points by a certain date.  

EN 

15 

  EN 

2023/0376 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes, 
as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161 and (EU) 2020/1828 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 114 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Having regard the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1 was adopted in 
order to ensure that consumers within the Union have access to high quality alternative 
dispute resolution (“ADR”) procedures to resolve the contractual disputes arising from 
the  sale  of  goods  or  provision  of  services  by  traders  established  in  the  Union  to 
consumers  resident  in  the  Union.  It  provides  for  the  availability  of  ADR  procedures 
for  all  types  of  domestic  and  cross-border  consumer  disputes  within  the  Union, 
ensuring  that  ADR  procedures  meet  minimum  quality  standards.  It  requires  Member 
States to monitor the performance of ADR entities. To increase consumer awareness 
and promote the use of ADR, it also provides that traders should be required to inform 
their  consumers  of  the  possibility  to  settle  their  dispute  out-of-court  through  ADR 
procedures. 

In  2019  the  Commission  adopted  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive 
2013/11/EU and of Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council2 which revealed that Directive 2013/11/EU has led to increased coverage 
of  consumer  markets  by  quality  ADR  entities  throughout  the  Union.  However,  the 
report  also  identified  that  consumer  and  business  uptake  of  ADR  procedures  was 
lagging behind in some sectors  and Member States. One reason for this was the low 
level of awareness of traders and consumers about such procedures in Member States 
where they had only recently been introduced. Another reason was the lack of trust of 
consumers  and  traders  in  unregulated  ADR  entities.  Data  provided  by  national 

1 

2 

Directive  2013/11/EU  of  the European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 21  May 2013 on  alternative 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2009/22/EC (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63). 
Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending  Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2009/22/EC (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 1). 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
competent authorities in early 2022, as well as the evaluation of the implementation of 
the  Directive  2013/11/EU  conducted  in  2023,  suggest  that  the  uptake  remained 
relatively stable (apart from a small increase of cases related to Covid-19 pandemic). 
Most stakeholders consulted in the context of that evaluation confirmed that the lack 
of  awareness  and  understanding  of  ADR  procedures  by  consumers,  low  engagement 
by traders, gaps in ADR coverage in certain Member States, high costs and complex 
national  ADR  procedures  and  differences  in  the  competences  of  ADR  entities,  are 
frequent factors hindering the uptake of ADR procedures. There are additional barriers 
in cross-border ADR like language, lack of knowledge of the applicable law, as well 
as specific access difficulties for vulnerable consumers.  

Since at  least  two out  of five online transactions made by consumers  residing in  the 
Union  are  with  traders  based  in  third  countries,  the  scope  of  Directive  2013/11/EU 
should  be  extended  to  allow  those  third  country  traders  willing  to  participate  in  an 
ADR  procedure  to  do  so.  No  procedural  impediments  should  hinder  consumers 
residing  in  the  Union  from  resolving  disputes  against  traders,  irrespective  of  their 
establishment,  if  the  traders  accept  to  follow  an  ADR  procedure  through  an  ADR 
entity established in a Member State.  

The complexity of consumer disputes has evolved significantly since the adoption of 
Directive 2011/13/EU. Digitilisation of goods and services, the growing importance of 
e-commerce  and  digital  advertising  in  the  formation  of  consumer  contracts  has 
resulted  in  a  rise  in  the  number  of  consumers  being  exposed  to  misleading  online 
information  and  manipulative  interfaces  preventing  them  from  making  informed 
purchasing  decisions.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  clarify  that  contractual  disputes 
arising from the sale of goods or services include digital content and digital services, 
and  to  extend  the  scope  of  Directive  2011/13/EU,  beyond  such  disputes  so  that 
consumers are also able to seek redress for practices harming them at a pre-contractual 
stage, irrespective of whether they later become bound by a contract. 

(3) 

(4) 

(5)  Moreover,  Directive  2011/13/EU  should  also  cover  consumer  rights  arising  from 
Union  legislation  which  governs  relationships  between  consumers  and  traders  when 
there is no relationship of a contractual nature, with respect to the right to access and 
to pay for goods and services without undergoing discrimination based on nationality, 
place  of  residence  or  of  establishment,  as  provided  for  in  Articles  4  and  5  of 
Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council3; the right to 
open  and  switch  bank  accounts  as  provided  for  in  Articles  9,  10,  11,  and  16  of 
Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament  and of the Council4 and to  not  be 
discriminated  against  as  provided  for  in  Article  15  of  that  Directive;  the  right   to 
receive  transparent  information  on  retail  conditions  for  roaming  calls  and  SMS 
messages as provided for in Articles 13, 14 and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2022/612 of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council5,  the  right  to  price  transparency  in  air  fares 
and  rates  as  provided  for  in  Article  23  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1008/2008  of  the 

3 

4 

5 

Regulation  (EU)  2018/302  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  February  2018  on 
addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, 
place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) 
No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 60I, 2.3.2018, p. 1).  
Directive  2014/92/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014  on  the 
comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment 
accounts with basic feature (OJ L257, 28.8.2014, p. 214). 
Regulation (EU) 2022/612 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 on roaming 
on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 115, 13.4.2022, p. 1). 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council6.  Therefore,  it  should  be  provided  that 
disputes arising in relation to such categories of consumer rights can be dealt with in 
ADR procedures.  

(6)  Member  States  should  have  the  right  to  apply  ADR  procedures  also  to  disputes  that 
relate  to  other  non-contractual  rights  stemming  from  Union  law,  including  rights 
stemming from Articles 101 and 102 TFEU or rights of users provided in Regulation 
(EU)  2022/1925  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council7.  This  is  without 
prejudice of public enforcement of those rules.  

(7)  Where a dispute arises between a provider of an online platform and a recipient of that 
service in relation to that provider's activities in moderating illegal or harmful content 
on its platform, Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council8  on  out-of-court  dispute  settlement  applies  to  that  dispute,  in 
accordance with Article 2(4) of that Regulation, given that it lays down more detailed 
rules in relation to such disputes. 

(8) 

(9) 

The  definitions  of  ‘domestic  dispute’  and  ‘cross-border  dispute’  should  be  adapted 
accordingly to reflect the extension of the scope of Directive 2013/11/EU.  

To  ensure  that  ADR  procedures  are  well-suited  for  the  digital  age  where 
communication takes place online, including in a cross-border context, it is necessary 
to ensure swift and fair processes for all consumers. Member States should ensure that 
ADR  entities  established  in  their  territories  have  the  competence  to  provide  dispute 
resolution procedures in disputes between traders established outside of the Union and 
consumers residing in their territory. 

(10)  Member States should ensure that ADR should enable consumer to initiate and follow 
ADR procedures also offline if requested. It should also be ensured that when digital 
tools  are  provided,  those  can  be  used  by  all  consumers,  including  vulnerable 
consumers  or  those  with  varying  levels  of  digital  literacy.  Members  States  should 
ensure  that,  upon  request,  parties  to  the  disputes  always  have  access  to  a  review  of 
automated procedures by a natural person.  

(11)  Member  States  should  also  enable  ADR  entities  to  bundle  similar  cases  against  a 
specific  trader,  to  make  ADR  outcomes  consistent  for  consumers  subjected  to  the 
same  illegal  practice,  and  more  cost-efficient  for  ADR  entities  and  for  traders. 
Consumers  should  be  informed  accordingly  and  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to 
refuse from having their dispute bundled. 

(12)  Member  States  should  also  not  allow  the  introduction  of  disproportionate  rules  as 
regards the reasons that an ADR entity may invoke to refuse the handling of a dispute, 
such  as  the  obligation  to  use  the  company  escalation  system  after  a  first  negative 
contact with the complaints handling service, or the obligation to prove that a specific 
part of a company’s after sales service was contacted. 

6 

Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 
on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3). 

7 
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) (OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1). 

8  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 (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1) 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
 
(13)  Under  Directive  2013/11/EU,  Member  States  may  introduce  national  legislation  to 
make trader participation in ADR compulsory in sectors they deem fit, in addition to 
sector-specific Union legislation which provides for mandatory participation of traders 
in ADR. To encourage traders’ participation in the ADR procedures and to ensure due 
and swift ADR procedures, traders should be required, especially in cases where their 
participation is not compulsory, to respond within a specific period to enquiries made 
by ADR entities on whether they intend to participate to the proposed procedure. 

(14)  To reduce information and reporting requirements and to save costs for ADR entities, 
national  competent  authorities  and  traders,  reporting  and  information  requirements 
should be simplified and the amount of information provided by ADR entities to the 
competent authorities should be reduced. 

(15)  To provide effective assistance to consumers and traders in cross-border disputes, it is 
necessary  to  ensure  that  Member  States  establish  ADR  contact  points  with  clearly 
defined tasks. European Consumer Centres (“ECCs”) are well placed to perform such 
tasks, as they are specialised in assisting consumers with issues with their cross-border 
purchases, but Member States should also be able to choose other bodies with relevant 
expertise.  Those  designated  ADR  contact  points  should  be  communicated  to  the 
Commission. 

(16)  Despite  the  fact  that  ADR  procedures  are  meant  to  be  simple,  consumers  may  be 
assisted by a third party of their choice during ADR procedures. Member States should 
ensure that such assistance is provided in good faith to allow a fair procedure and in 
full transparency, in particular regarding the possible fees required in exchange for the 
assistance. 

(17)  To ensure that consumers are able to easily find a suitable ADR entity, especially in a 
cross-border  context,  the  Commission  should  develop  and  maintain  a  digital 
interactive tool that provides information about ADR entities’ main characteristics and 
links to the webpages of the ADR entities, as notified to it. 

(18)  Therefore, Directive 2013/11/EU should be amended accordingly. 

(19)  As  Regulation  (EU)  No  524/2013  is  to  be  repealed  by  a  separate  act,  it  is  also 
necessary  to  amend  Directives  (EU)  2015/23029,  (EU)  2019/216110  and  (EU) 
2020/182811 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as a consequence of that 
repeal, 

9 

10 

11 

Directive  (EU)  2015/2302  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2015  on 
package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 
2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  repealing  Council  Directive 
90/314/EEC (OJ L 326, 11.12.2015, p. 1). 
Directive  (EU)  2019/2161  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  November  2019 
amending  Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  and  Directives  98/6/EC,  2005/29/EC  and  2011/83/EU  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union 
consumer protection rules (OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7). 
Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general 
product  safety,  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1025/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  and  Directive  (EU)  2020/1828  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  and  repealing 
Directive  2001/95/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Council  Directive 
87/357/EEC (OJ L 135, 23.5.2023, p. 1). 

EN 

19 

  EN 

 
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 
Amendments to Directive 2013/11/EU 

Directive 2013/11/EU is amended as follows:  

1. 

In Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

‘1. This Directive shall apply to procedures for the out-of-court resolution of disputes between  
consumers  resident  in  the  Union  and  a  traders  offering  goods  or  services,  including  digital 
content  and  digital  services,  to  those  consumers,  through  the  intervention  of  an  ADR  entity 
which proposes or imposes a solution or brings the parties together with the aim of facilitating 
an amicable solution concerning one of the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

contractual  obligations  stemming  from  sales  contracts,  including  for  the  supply  of 
digital content, or service contracts; 

consumer  rights  applicable  to  non-contractual  and  pre-contractual  situations  and 
provided in Union law concerning: 

(i) 

unfair commercial practices and terms, 

(ii) 

compulsory precontractual information, 

(iii)  non-discrimination on the basis of nationality or place of residence, 

(iv)  access to services and deliveries, 

(v) 

remedies in case of non-conformity of products and digital content, 

(vi) 

right to switch providers, and 

(vii)  passenger and travellers’ rights. 

Member States may apply the ADR procedures set out in this Directive, also to categories of 
disputes other than those listed the first subparagraph, point (b).’.  

2. 

In Article 4(1), points (e) and (f) are replaced replaced by the following: 

‘(e)  ‘domestic  dispute’  means  a  dispute  between  a  consumer  and  a  trader,  related  to 
contractual  obligations  and/or  consumer  rights  provided  in  in  Union  laws  as  referred  to  in 
article  2(1),  where  the  consumer  is  resident  in  the  same  Member  State  as  that  in  which  the 
trader is established; 

(f)  ‘cross-border  dispute’  means  a  dispute  between  a  consumer  and  a  trader,  related  to 
contractual obligations and/or consumer rights provided in Union acts as referred to in article 
2(1), where the consumer is resident in a Member State other than the Member State in which 
the trader is established or where the consumer is resident in a Member State and the trader is 
established outside of the Union;’. 

3. 

(a) 

Article 5 is amended as follows: 

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

‘1.   Member States shall facilitate access by consumers to ADR procedures and shall ensure 
that  disputes  covered  by  this  Directive  and  which  involve  a  trader  established  on  their 
respective  territories,  or  a  trader  not  established  in  the  territory  of  any  Member  State  but 
offering  goods  or  services,  including  digital  content  and  digital  services,  to  consumers 

EN 

20 

  EN 

residing in their respective territories, can be submitted to an ADR entity which complies with 
the requirements set out in this Directive.’; 

(b) 

in paragraph 2, points (a) to (d) are replaced by the following:  

‘(a)  ensure  that  consumers  can  submit  complaints  and  the  requisite  supporting  documents 
online  in  a  traceable  manner  and  ensure  that  consumers  may  also  submit  and  access  these 
documents in a non-digital format upon request;  

(b) offer digital ADR procedures through easily accessible and inclusive tools; 

(c)  grant  the  right  to  the  parties  to  the  dispute  to  request  that  the  outcome  of  the  ADR 
procedure be reviewed by a natural person when the procedure was carried out by automated 
means; 

(d) may bundle similar cases against one specific trader into one procedure, under condition 
that the consumer concerned is informed and does not object to that;’ 

(c) 

in paragraph 4, point (a) is replaced by the following: 

 ‘(a)  the  consumer  did  not  attempt  to  contact  the  trader  concerned  in  order  to  discuss  the 
complaint  and  seek,  as  a  first  step,  to  resolve  the  matter  directly  with  the  trader,  without  
introducing disproportionate rules about the format of such contact’; 

(d) 

the following paragraph 8 is added: 

‘8. Member States shall ensure that traders established in their territories that are contacted by 
an  ADR  entity  from  their  country  or  from  another  Member  State,  inform  that  ADR  entity 
whether,  or  not,  they  accept  to  participate  in  the  proposed  procedure  and  reply  within  a 
reasonable period of time that shall not exceed 20 working days.’. 

4. 

(a) 

Article 7, paragraph 2 is amended as follows: 

in the introductory phrase, the first sentence is replaced by the following: 

‘Member States shall ensure that ADR entities make publicly available on their websites, on a 
durable  medium  upon  request,  and  by  any  other  means  they  consider  appropriate,  biennial 
activity reports’. 

(b) 

5. 

6. 

point (h) is deleted. 

In article 13, paragraph 3 is deleted. 

Article 14 is replaced by the following: 

‘Article 14 

Assistance for consumers 

1.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that,  with  regard  to  cross-border  disputes,  consumers  and 
traders  are  able  to  obtain  assistance  to  access  the  ADR  entity  or  entities  competent  to  deal 
with their cross-border dispute.  

2. Each Member State shall designate an ADR contact point in charge of the task referred to 
in  paragraph  1.  Each  Member  State  shall  communicate  the  name  and  contact  details  of  its 
ADR  contact  point  to  the  Commission.  Member  States  shall  confer  responsibility  for  the 
operation  of  the  ADR  contact  points  on  their  centre  belonging  to  the  European  Consumer 

EN 

21 

  EN 

Centres Network, or, if not possible, on consumer organisations or on any other body dealing 
with consumer protection. 

3.  The  ADR  contact  points  shall  facilitate  communication  between  the  parties  and  the 
competent ADR entity, which may include, in particular: 

(a) 

assisting with the submission of the complaint and, where appropriate, relevant 
documentation; 

(b)  providing  the  parties  and  ADR  entities  with  general  information  on  EU 

consumer rights; 

(c) 

(d) 

providing the parties with explanations on the procedural rules applied by the 
specific ADR entities; 

informing  the  complainant  party  of  other  means  of  redress  when  a  dispute 
cannot be resolved through an ADR procedure. 

4. Member States may grant ADR contact points the right to provide assistance referred to in 
this  Article  to  consumers  and  traders  when  accessing  ADR  entities  also  with  regard  to 
domestic disputes. 

5. Member States shall ensure that any actors assisting consumers in cross-border or domestic 
disputes, act in good faith to allow parties to the dispute to reach an amicable settlement and 
provide  relevant  information  to  consumers  in  full  transparency,  including  information 
regarding procedural rules and any applicable fees.’. 

7. 

8. 

In Article 19(3), points (f), (g) and (h) are deleted. 

In Article 20, the following paragraph is added:  

‘8. The Commission shall develop and maintain a digital interactive tool that provides general 
information on consumer redress and links to the webpages of the ADR entities notified to it 
in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.’. 

9. 

In article 24, the following paragraph 4 is added:  

‘4.  By  [insert  date]  Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  names  and 
contact details of the ADR contact points designated in accordance with Article 14(2).’. 

Article 2 
Amendment to Directive (EU) 2015/2302 

In Article 7(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302, point (g) is replaced by the following: 

‘(g)  information  on  available  in-house  complaint  handling  procedures  and  on  alternative 
dispute  resolution  (‘ADR’)  mechanisms  pursuant  to  Directive  2013/11/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council12 and, where applicable, on the ADR entity by which the trader 
is covered;’. 

Article 3 
Amendment to Directive (EU) 2019/2161 

In Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2019/2161, point (b) is replaced by the following: 

12 Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute 
resolution  for  consumer  disputes  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive  2009/22/EC 
(Directive on consumer ADR) (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63).’ 

EN 

22 

  EN 

 
‘(b) submit a complaint to the competent centre of the European Consumer Centres Network, 
depending on the parties involved.’. 

Article 4 
Amendment to Directive (EU) 2020/1828 

In Annex I to Directive (EU) 2020/1828, point (44) is deleted. 

Article 5 
Transposition 

1. 

By [ dd/month/year  -  1 year after  entry into force], Member States shall adopt  and 
publish the measures necessary to comply with Article 1 of this Directive. They shall 
immediately inform the Commission thereof. 

They shall apply those measures from [date]. 

2. 

By [dd/month/year… 1 year after entry into force of Regulation xx/…. [the proposal 
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Regulation 
(EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumers]], Member States shall 
adopt and publish the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of this 
Directive. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof. 

They shall apply those measures from [insert date]. 

3. 

4. 

When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, they shall 
contain a  reference to  this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the 
occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be 
laid down by Member States. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main measures 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 6 
Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 7 
Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

23 

  EN