COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document 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  SWD(2023) 337 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document 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 {COM(2023) 649 final} - {SEC(2023) 347 final} - {SWD(2023) 334 final} - {SWD(2023) 335 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on alternative dispute resolutions for consumer disputes.  

A.  Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

This initiative aims to address three overarching problems that have been identified at EU 
level:  (1)  The  ADR  Directive  is  not  fit  for  digital  markets,  (2)  Low  engagement  in  ADR 
among businesses and consumers, (3) ADR is not sufficiently used in a cross-border context. 

The causes of these problems are clustered in two groups: “megatrends and market related 
drivers” and “enforcement related drivers”.  
The  former  comprehends:  quick  growth  and  increased  concentration  of  e-commerce  and 
online advertising, increased cross-border shopping, including with traders located outside the 
EU, consumer disputes in digital markets going beyond contractual issues, significant rate of 
non-compliance with EU consumer law.  
The latter comprehends: access barriers to ADR (lack of awareness and costs of procedures) 
and  increased  use  of  private  online  dispute  resolution  (PODR)  systems  operated  by  online 
marketplaces. 

The consequence  of these problems  for  consumers  is  a total  annual  detriment  of EUR 383 
million.  

What is the initiative expected to achieve? 

The  general  objective  of  this  intervention  is  to  ensure  the  proper  functioning  of  the  single 
market and achieve a high level of consumer protection by enabling consumers and traders to 
resolve  their  disputes  in  an  efficient  and  effective  manner,  irrespective  of  their  country  of 
residence or establishment. 

This  initiative  will  pursue  the  following  three  specific  objectives:  (1)  make  ADR  fit  for 
digital markets; (2) improve consumers’ and traders’ engagement in ADR; (3) enhance cross-
border ADR. 

What is the added value of action at EU level? (subsidiarity) 

The  rapid  evolution  of  digital  markets  together  with  the  rise  of  new  business  models  and 
commercial  practices  poses  a  new  set  of  challenges  to  consumers  shopping  online.  Due  to 
borderless nature of digital technologies, the emergence of new types of threats concerns EU 
consumers  irrespective  of  their  country  of  residence  and  requires  a  rapid,  consistent  and 
effective  response  by  public  authorities,  whose  action  should  be  constrained  by  their 
jurisdictional  bounders.  Without  EU  action,  national  interventions  are  likely  to  produce 
enforcement gaps and distortion of the single market. 

B.  Policy options 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or 
not? If not, why? 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
In order to have sizeable impacts, the measures are grouped coherently into four alternative 
policy options differing from each other by the nature and the intensity of the intervention: A) 
Non-regulatory  intervention;  B)  procedural  and  geographical  scope  amendments;  C) 
substantive scope amendments with some additional obligations to traders (preferred option); 
D) Architectural changes with increased harmonization. 
The  measures  proposed  under  the  preferred  option  are:  widening  the  geographical  and 
material scope of the ADR Directive to cover any disputes between a trader and a consumer 
involving a breach of EU consumer protection provisions; requiring online marketplaces that 
provide PODR services  to  meet  the quality  standards  expected by  consumers from certified 
ADR  entities  with  self-certification;  replacing  the  European  ODR  platform  with  new  cost-
effective signposting tools; introducing a duty of reply for traders who receive a notification 
of a new consumer dispute from an ADR entity; encouraging bundling of cases when an ADR 
entity  receives  similar  cases;  granting  ECCs  a  new  role  to  provide  specialised  assistance 
services  to  ADR  in  cross-border  complaints;  and  establishing  a  mechanism  where  trade 
associations, upon providing a self-certification, are authorized to set up cross-border dispute 
settlement systems. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option? 

In general, stakeholders are in favor of enhancing the EU ADR framework and adapting it for 
digital markets, particularly by:  

•  broadening the geographical and material scope of the ADR Directive;  
• 
• 
• 

increasing trader participation in ADR, and ensuring enforcement of ADR outcomes;  
facilitating cross-border ADR;  
introducing safeguards for vulnerable consumers who are lack digital skills.  

Some  stakeholders  (mainly  consumer  organisations)  have  called  for  making  participation  in 
ADR  mandatory  for  traders,  but  this  change  is  opposed  by  several  Member  States  who  see 
potential conflicts with their constitutional rules regarding access to justice.  
The  enhancement  of  collective  ADR  has  also  been  identified  as  an  important  goal  for  the 
revision.  This  mechanism  is  already  present  in  the  national  legislation  of  several  Member 
States, but its uptake remains limited. Stakeholders have urged the Commission to take action 
in  promoting  the  use  of  collective  ADR.  At  the  same  time,  the  importance  of  entrusting  to 
Member  States  the  implementation  of  collective  ADR,  in  accordance  with  the  minimum 
harmonization approach of the Directive, has been highlighted.   
Given that some stakeholders were initially cautious about the possibility of discontinuing the 
ODR  platform,  the  Commission  discussed  the  available  data  with  them  and  addressed  their 
concerns.   

C.  Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 
The preferred option is an effective way of achieving the specific objectives, as well as being 
efficient, in particular for consumers, and ensuring a high level of coherence. 

The option would bring a total benefit on consumers in the form of reduction of detriment of 
EUR 33 million annually. 

The same would apply for the Commission with an estimated total benefit of EUR 500,000 
annually for the replacing of ODR Platform. 

2 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
The option would bring a total benefit for businesses of EUR 634 million annually (EUR 
264  million  annually  for  the  reduction  of  information  disclosure  obligations  +  EUR  370 
million annually for the replacing of ODR Platform). 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 

Adopting the preferred option would result in  additional recurrent costs for businesses of 
EUR 38.6 million annually (EUR 2.6 million annually for duty of reply + EUR 25 million 
annually for ADR entities for extra disputes + EUR 11 million annually for putting platforms 
in compliance). 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 

SMEs are the wide majority of businesses, they will also be the main beneficiaries of the cost 
savings  deriving  from  removing  the  current  information  requirements  both  relating  to  the 
ODR platform  and  ADR. 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. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

No. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 

Both businesses and consumers would enjoy a better level of fundamental rights by fostering 
a level playing field and reducing consumers’ detriment.  

Proportionality? 

The preferred option maintains the current minimum harmonization approach of the Directive 
and does not require MS to make ADR mandatory. It achieves its specific objectives through 
measures that do not go beyond what is strictly necessary. While broadening the scope of the 
Directive to reflect novel forms of disputes arising in digital markets, the voluntary nature of 
ADR ensures  that the amendments  will not result in  unproportioned costs for ADR entities, 
NCAs  and  businesses.  Proportionality  is  observed  also  with  regards  to  the  measure 
concerning  Private  On-line  Dispute  Resolution  (“PODR”).  By  providing  for  a  self-
certification  mechanisms  for  online  marketplaces  to  show  that  their  PODR  abide  by  high-
quality  standards,  the  relevant  measure  in  the  preferred  option  does  not  impose  excessive 
burden  on  these  traders.  The  duty  of  reply  is  expected  to  increase  business  engagement  in 
ADR. This  measure will entail  some costs for businesses, but  these costs will be more than 
offset by the removal of disclosure obligations for those businesses who do not intend nor are 
obliged  to  participate  in  ODR.  Finally,  the  enhancement  of  cross-border  ADR  will  be 
achieved  only  by  granting  a  new  specific  role  to  the  existing  ECCs  and  by  allowing  trade 
association to set up cross-border dispute settlement systems.  

D.  Follow up  

When will the policy be reviewed? 

The Commission will monitor the implementation of the policy chosen, if adopted, after its 
adoption. A list of core progress indicators have been identified in line with the objectives of 
the policy action. These indicators can serve as the basis for its evaluation, as well as possible 
targets to be achieved seven years after the entry into application of the revised Directive. 

3