REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws
Date: 2024-07-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, advertising, consumer policy, consumer protection, digital economy, digital technology, infringement of EU law, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.7.2024  COM(2024) 311 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws  
 
 
Table of Contents 

Part I: The context ........................................................................................................................... 3 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 

2.  The CPC Regulation in short ................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.  Scope and objectives ........................................................................................................ 4 

2.2.  Activities .......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.1.  Mutual assistance requests ........................................................................................ 5 

2.2.2.  Alerts and external alerts .......................................................................................... 5 

2.2.3.  Coordinated actions .................................................................................................. 5 

2.2.4. 

Sweeps ...................................................................................................................... 6 

2.2.5.  Other activities .......................................................................................................... 6 

3.  Key market developments since the adoption of the CPC Regulation .................................... 6 

3.1.  Quick growth of e-commerce, online advertising and market concentration .................. 7 

3.2. 

Increased cross-border shopping, including from non-EU traders .................................. 8 

3.3.  Emerging digital business models .................................................................................... 9 

3.4.  Misleading sustainability claims ...................................................................................... 9 

3.5.  High  rate  of  non-compliance  with  EU  consumer  law  and  rapid  proliferation  of 
infringements across market sectors ......................................................................................... 10 

Part II: Results of the evaluation regarding the application of the CPC Regulation .................... 12 

4.  Main objectives of the CPC Regulation ................................................................................ 12 

4.1.  Detection of infringements ............................................................................................. 12 

4.2.  More consistent enforcement of consumer law .............................................................. 13 

4.3.  Addressing the same malpractices spreading across the EU .......................................... 14 

5.  Effectiveness of the CPC Regulation in view of the recent evolution of consumer markets in 
the EU ........................................................................................................................................... 15 

6.  Shortcomings of the CPC cooperation framework under Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 ........ 15 

6.1.  Differing enforcement capacities at national level ......................................................... 15 

6.2.  Differences in the interpretation and application of the CPC Regulation ...................... 16 

6.3.  Uneven use of alerts ....................................................................................................... 16 

1 

 
 
 
6.4.  Difficulty to address infringements committed by traders established outside the Union

16 

6.5.  Lack of deterrence of the CPC framework in the absence of straightforward fines ...... 17 

6.6.  Lack of capacities at the national level to detect emerging infringements .................... 17 

6.7.  Lengthy CPC procedures ............................................................................................... 18 

7.  Effectiveness of the minimum powers of the competent authorities set out in Article 9 ...... 19 

8.  Compliance by traders in key consumer markets concerned by cross-border trade ............. 20 

Part III: Conclusions and the way forward ................................................................................... 24 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part I: The context 

1.  Introduction 

Regulation  (EU)  2017/23941  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the 
enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  (“CPC  Regulation”  or  “Regulation”)  lays  down  the 
conditions under which Member States’ competent authorities cooperate and coordinate actions 
with  each  other  and  with  the  Commission,  in  order  to  enforce  compliance  with  EU  consumer 
laws  to  ensure  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  in  order  to  enhance  the 
protection  of  consumers’  economic  interests.  The  CPC  Regulation  was  adopted  in  December 
2017 and became applicable on 17 January 2020. It repealed Regulation 2006/20042 and updated 
the  CPC  regime  by  clarifying  and  extending  its  scope  and  procedures  as  well  as  by  further 
harmonising CPC authorities’ minimum powers.  

Article  40  of  the  CPC  Regulation  provides  that  the  Commission  has  to  submit  a  report  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council on the application of the CPC Regulation. This report shall 
contain an evaluation of the  application of the CPC Regulation  and  assess  the effectiveness  of 
enforcement of EU’s consumer protection laws under the Regulation, in particular regarding the 
powers  of  the  competent  authorities.  It  should  also  examine  how  compliance  by  traders  has 
evolved in key consumer markets impacted by cross-border trade. If necessary, the report should 
be accompanied by a legislative proposal.   

In order to prepare the report, the Commission launched an external study3 (‘the study’) which 
included: a) desk research, b) interviews with national Single Liaison Offices (SLOs) and CPC 
authorities  from  30  EU/EEA  countries,  c)  online  surveys  replied  by  SLOs,  CPC  authorities, 
entities eligible to issue alerts and traders that have been subject to CPC coordinated actions and 
d) interviews with a wider range of stakeholders in the framework of case studies4. The findings 
of this report are based on data collected within the study.  

1  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2017  on  cooperation  between 
national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 
(OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1).  
2  Regulation  (EC)  No 2006/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27 October 2004  on  cooperation  between 
national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  (the  Regulation  on  consumer  protection 
cooperation) (OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1). 
3 “Information gathering for assisting the European Commission in complying with its obligations under Article 40 (“reporting”) 
-  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
of  Regulation 
/publication/f3eb3b4c-e819-11ee-9ea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
4https://commission.europa.eu/publications/information-gathering-assisting-european-commission-complying-its-
obligations-under-article-40_en 

(EU)  2017/2394  on  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation” 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  The CPC Regulation in short 

2.1. 

Scope and objectives  

The  CPC  Regulation  provides  (Articles  1  to  3)  a  framework  that  allows  national  consumer 
protection (CPC) authorities to cooperate and coordinate their work to enforce Union consumer 
law  in  a  strong  and  consistent  manner  in  the  Single  Market.    Article  2  explains  that  
the  Regulation  aims  to  tackle  practices  which  are  not  compliant  with  Union  legislation,  and 
which have a cross-border dimension. The Regulation provides different cooperation procedures 
for 
infringements,  widespread 
infringements and widespread infringements with a Union dimension.5 Union legislation that can 
be subject to such infringements is set out in the Annex to the CPC Regulation.  

the  following  categories  of 

infringements: 

intra-Union 

The  main  objectives  of  the  CPC  Regulation  are  to:  1)  facilitate  the  effective  and  efficient 
detection of cross-border infringements; 2) facilitate the effective and efficient actions by CPC 
authorities to address those infringements; 3) support consistency in the approach to address the 
same  practices  in  all  Member  States;  4)  provide  a  single  coordinated  process  to  address 
widespread infringements and widespread infringements with a Union dimension6 and contribute 
to a level-playing-field for all businesses operating in the Single Market.   

2.2.  Activities  

The CPC Regulation  provides several  mechanisms for CPC authorities and the Commission  to 
exchange  information  and  coordinate  their  investigative  and  enforcement  measures  within  the 
CPC  Network,  consisting  of  national  authorities  responsible  for  enforcing  EU  consumer 
protection laws.  

2.2.1.  Mutual assistance requests  

Mutual  assistance  requests  (Articles  11  to14  )  are:  i)  requests  for  information  from  the  CPC 
authorities of one Member State to those of another Member State in order to establish whether a 

5 Article 3(2): ‘Intra-Union infringement’ means any act or omission contrary to Union laws that protect consumers’ 
interests that has done, does or is likely to do harm to the collective interests of consumers residing in a Member 
State  other  than  the  Member  State  in  which:  (a)  the  act  or  omission  originated  or  took  place;  (b)  the  trader 
responsible  for  the  act  or  omission  is  established;  or  (c)  evidence  or  assets  of  the  trader  pertaining  to  the  act  or 
omission are to be found. 
Article  3(3):  ‘Widespread  infringement’  means:  (a)  any  act  or  omission  contrary  to  Union  laws  that  protect 
consumers’ interests that has done, does or is likely to do harm to the collective interests of consumers residing in at 
least two Member States other than the Member State in which: (i) the act or omission originated or took place; (ii) 
the trader responsible for the act or omission is established; or (iii) evidence or assets of the trader pertaining to the 
act or omission are to be found; or (b) any acts or omissions contrary to Union laws that protect consumers interests 
that have done, do or are likely to do harm to the collective interests of consumers and that have common features, 
including  the  same  unlawful  practice,  the  same  interest  being  infringed  and  that  are  occurring  concurrently, 
committed by the same trader, in at least three Member States. 
Article 3(4): ‘Widespread infringement with a Union dimension’ means a widespread infringement that has done, 
does  or  is  likely  to  do  harm  to  the  collective  interests  of  consumers  in  at  least  two-thirds  of  the  Member  States, 
accounting, together, for at least two-thirds of the population of the Union.   
6 Articles 15-25.  

4 

 
 
cross-border  infringement  is  occurring  or  has  occurred  in  its  territory  (“requests  for 
information”)  or  ii)  requests  to  the  CPC  authorities  of  the  Member  State  from  which  the 
infringement originated or where the trader is established or has assets to  take all the necessary 
and  proportionate  enforcement  measures  to  stop  the  infringement  (“requests  for  enforcement 
measures”). 

2.2.2.  Alerts and external alerts 

CPC  authorities,  the  Commission  and  authorised  entities,  such  as  European  Consumer  Centres 
(ECCs) or consumer and trader organisations that are outside of the CPC Network but that have 
been  empowered  for  this  purpose  by  the  Member  States  or  the  Commission,  can  exchange 
information  on  potential  infringements  by  using  alerts  (Articles  17,  26,  27  and  28).  There  are 
different types of alerts  depending on the need: alerts for information or alerts for action.7 The 
alerts  are  exchanged  via  the  CPC-IMI  system  (an  Internal  Market  Information  (IMI)  system 
managed  by  the  Commission  specifically  to  exchange  various  types  of  information  among 
national authorities).  

2.2.3.  Coordinated actions 

CPC  authorities  with  the  support  of  the  Commission  coordinate  their  investigation  and 
enforcement  actions  (Articles  15  to  25)  to  tackle  infringements  of  EU  consumer  laws  that 
concern  more  than  two  (i.e.,  “widespread  infringement”)  or  most  of  the  Member  States8  (i.e., 
“widespread  infringement  with  a  Union  dimension”).  In  the  case  of  reasonable  suspicion  of  a 
widespread infringement with a Union dimension, the Commission can alert the CPC Network. 
National  authorities  have  one  month  to  examine  available  evidence  and  to  decide  whether  to 
launch a coordinated action. Such actions are coordinated by the Commission.  

Following the launch of a coordinated action, the authorities concerned discuss and agree on an 
investigation plan, work together on a common position containing their legal assessment of the 
practices that they consider are infringing the relevant substantive laws listed in the Annex to the 
CPC Regulation. The common position is subsequently transmitted to the trader concerned with 
a request to address the issues by committing to change their practices in order to bring them into 
conformity with law. Depending on the case, a dialogue generally takes place between the trader 
and the CPC Network during which clarifications can be provided and commitments  discussed 
until CPC authorities are satisfied with the proposed commitments.  

Where  the  trader  responsible  for  the  infringement  does  not  commit  to  change  its  practices  or 
where  its  commitments  are  insufficient  or  where  it  subsequently  fails  to  respect  them,  CPC 

7  Different  types  of  alerts  are:  i)  alert  for  information  (Articles  26(1)  and  (2)  and  Article  28)  can  be  used  by  Member  States’ 
competent authorities if they suspect that an infringement in their territory may affect consumers in other Member States; ii) alert 
requiring  verification  (Article  26(4))  to    ask  competent  authorities  and  the  Commission  to  verify  whether  similar  suspected 
infringements are taking place in other Member States, and/or whether any enforcement measures have already been taken and 
iii) alert linked to potential coordinated actions (Article 17 and Article 26) by which Member States’ competent authorities notify 
the Commission and other competent authorities if they suspect that an infringement  with a potential Union dimension in their 
territory may affect consumers in other Member States. 
8 Likely to harm consumers residing in at least two thirds of Member States, representing at least two thirds of the EU population.  

5 

 
 
authorities can take formal enforcement measures, including penalties, at the respective national 
level in a coordinated manner.  

2.2.4.  Sweeps 

‘Sweeps’  (Article  29)  constitute  concerted  investigations  of  consumer  markets  through 
simultaneous  coordinated  control  actions  in  order  to  detect  possible  infringements.  Until  now, 
sweeps  have  taken  the  form  of  screening  of  websites  which  CPC  authorities  carry  out 
simultaneously to verify the websites’ compliance with consumer law or to detect infringements. 
Unless  agreed  otherwise  by  the  competent  authorities,  sweeps  are  coordinated  by  the 
Commission.  While  the  participation  in  a  sweep  is  not  mandatory,  almost  all  CPC  authorities 
usually  participates.  Following  the  screening,  CPC  authorities  take  appropriate  follow-up 
actions, where necessary in a coordinated manner, to obtain additional evidence and ask traders 
to correct the situation and ensure compliance. 

2.2.5.  Other activities 

Pursuant  to  Article  30  of  the  CPC  Regulation,  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  inform  one 
another and the Commission to coordinate and jointly organise other activities such as training of 
officials  involved  in  the  application  of  the  CPC  Regulation,  the  collection,  classification  and 
exchange  of  data  on  consumer  complaints,  the  development  of  sector-specific  networks  of 
officials and development of information and communication tools.  

3.  Key market developments since the adoption of the CPC Regulation 

Within  the  broader  world  level  trends  of  increased  globalisation,  digitalisation  and  the  green 
transition, EU consumer markets have considerably evolved, and the behaviour of consumers has 
changed significantly since the adoption of the CPC Regulation in 2017.  

These new trends have resulted in a greater likelihood of consumers to be exposed also to illegal 
practices and have thus increased the need for cooperation among CPC authorities. A major issue 
for  enforcers  is  the  increase  in  the  level  of  non-compliance  with  EU  consumer  law  and  in 
particular:  i)  a  higher  proportion  of  infringements  relating  to  purchases  made  online  
ii) a significant number of consumers being affected by illegal practices originating from traders 
who  target  the  EU  market  without  having  an  establishment  or  assets  in  the  Union   
iii)  various  issues  stemming  from  newly  emerging  online  business  models  that  are  becoming 
more and more complex, in particular by blending  various technologies such as the collection, 
processing and analysis of personal data, the use of AI, Internet-of-Things (IoT). 

6 

 
 
3.1.  Quick growth of e-commerce, online advertising and market concentration 

The  expansion  of  e-commerce  has  accelerated  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  Global  
e-commerce,  which  amounted  to  USD  4.25  trillion  in  2014,  is  expected  to  reach  USD  7.39 
trillion  in  20259  (i.e.,  more  than  the  values  of  the  combined  GDP  of  France  and  Germany), 
representing an increase of 74%. Over the same period, world retail trade is predicted to increase 
by  only  34%10,  as  a  result,  the  market  share  of  e-commerce  is  increasing  every  year  by  
1 percentage point on average.  

In  2021,  the  average  percentage  of  internet  users  in  the  EU  who  purchased  goods  or  services 
online at least once was 74%, up from 63% recorded in 2016. As illustrated by the below figure, 
over the period 2016-2021, national disparities in e-shopping have been levelled out, largely due 
to the rapid acceleration of e-commerce growth fuelled by the pandemic.  

The share of the enterprises' turnover from e-commerce in the EU rose from 16% in 2016 to 20% 
in  2021;  for  large  enterprises  alone,  it  grew  from  22%  in  2016  to  27%  in  2021.11  

9  eMarketer.  "Retail  e-commerce  sales  worldwide  from  2014  to  2026  (in  billion  U.S.  dollars)."  Chart.  July  29,  2022.  Statista. 
Accessed January 10, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-sales/. 
10 Estimate based on eMarketer. "Total retail sales worldwide from 2020 to f2025 (in trillion U.S. dollars)." Chart. February 3, 
2022. Statista. Accessed January 11, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/443522/global-retail-sales/. 
11Eurostat, 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tin00110/default/table?lang=en. Online data code: TIN00110.  

e-commerce 

enterprises' 

turnover 

Share 

%, 

on 

of 

- 

7 

 
 
 
The contribution of e-commerce sales to the EU’s GDP (i.e. e-GDP), rose from 2.5% in 2017 to 
4% in 2021.12   

E-commerce is further characterised by a growing concentration of online retail and marketplace 
business.  In  2021,  the  most  visited  online  trader  worldwide  –  Amazon  –  recorded  5.2  billion 
visits  (taking  into  account  all  regional  versions  of  the  website),  while  the  second  most  visited 
trader – eBay – had 1.7 billion visits. In comparison, the10th ranked trader, China’s Pinduoduo, 
had  only  242  million  visits  and  the  80th  ranked  trader,  Denmark’s  dba,  recorded  13.5  million 
visits.13  

Marketing  of  goods  and  services  sold  both  online  and  in  brick-and-mortar  shops  is  also 
increasingly  carried  out  via  digital  channels.  In  2021,  the  expenditure  in  digital  advertising 
worldwide accounted for 65% of the total advertising revenue, and estimates indicate a continued 
growth trend, reaching 70% by 2025. Like the trends of e-commerce, the advertisement market is 
also highly concentrated: in 2022, Google and Meta alone accounted for about 53% of the global 
spending  on  advertising,  an  increase  from  46%  recorded  in  2016.14  Amazon  and  TikTok  have 
also  seen  a  rapid  rise  in  their  global  advertising  share,  while  the  share  of  traditional  media 
advertising continues to experience a constant decline.15 

3.2. 

Increased cross-border shopping, including from non-EU traders 

In 2021, 18% of EU citizens engaged in transactions with traders based in another Member State, 
while this rate rose to 32% among regular e-commerce participants – i.e., those who purchased 
goods  or  services  online  in  the  preceding  three  months.  Corresponding  figures  for  2020  were 
16.5%  and  31%.  The  increased  rate  of  cross-border  shopping  also  encompasses  transactions 
between  consumers  residing in  the EU and traders established outside of the EU, with  12% of 
consumers  and  one  in  five  regular  e-shoppers  making  purchases  from  non-EU  traders  both  in 
2020 and 2021.16  

12 2021 European E-Commerce Report, 2021-European-E-commerce-Report-LIGHT-VERSION.pdf (ecommerce-europe.eu). 
13 WebRetailer, https://www.webretailer.com/b/online-marketplaces/. 
14 eMarketer, https://www.emarketer.com/content/duopoly-still-rules-global-digital-ad-market-alibaba-amazon-on-prowl.  
15 For further information see here: Google and Meta’s Advertising Dominance Fades as TikTok, Streamers Emerge - WSJ 
16 Eurostat, Internet purchases - origin of sellers (2020 onwards), 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ISOC_EC_IBOS__custom_3007818/default/table?lang=en.  Online  data  code: 
ISOC_EC_IBOS. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3. 

Emerging digital business models 

In the past decade, digital business models have undergone significant changes, primarily due to 
the  dominance  of  “free  of  monetary  payment”  online  services  that  monetize  personal  data.  
Most recently, also due to the rapid advancements in services powered by Artificial Intelligence. 
While these developments enable traders to offer unique shopping experiences with personalised 
offers, they may exploit consumers' limited digital literacy, leading to manipulation and misuse 
of  their  personal  data.  Especially  young  consumers,  given  the  significant  amount  of  time  they 
spend online and the vast amount of commercial content they encounter, are susceptible to fall 
victim to manipulative practices online, as entertainment and advertisements become completely 
intertwined in digital spaces. 

Furthermore, social media platforms are increasingly used to market goods and services notably 
via influencers.17   

Examples of marketing practices on social media platforms 

In  2021,  Shopify  and  TikTok  joined  forces  to  create  TikTok  Shopping,  a  ready-to-use  web  shop  for 
TikTok  content  providers  and  especially  influencers.  TikTok  users  can  buy  products  without  having  to 
leave the platform and are able to make quick purchases following recommendations made in video posts. 
This  business  model  is  called  ‘livestream  shopping’.18  Shortly  after,  Twitter  and  Meta  (Facebook  and 
Instagram)  followed  suit.  In  2022,  Twitter  launched  ‘Twitter  Shops’,  which  works  similarly  to  TikTok 
Shopping,19  while  Meta  allows  now  for  Facebook  and Instagram  user  accounts  to  be  linked to  Shopify 
accounts  and  act  as  shopping  channels.20  These  emerging  business  models  must  abide  by  applicable 
legislation,  such  as  among  others  on  consumer  protection.  However,  questions  arise  on  whether  public 
authorities are equipped and well-prepared to monitor such markets.  

3.4.  Misleading sustainability claims 

Consumers are nowadays increasingly interested in the impacts the goods and services they buy 
have  on  the  environment.  In  response  to  this  trend,  most  traders  seek  to  improve  the 
sustainability  of  their  products.  However,  this  trend  has  also  led  to  the  rapid  development  of 
various “greenwashing techniques”, which involve providing false or misleading information to 
make their products appear more environmentally friendly than they are.  

2021, 

Statista, 

Influencer  marketing  market 

17 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1092819/global-influencer-market-size/. 
18  Simpson  E.  (2021).  TikTok  jumps  on  online  shopping  bandwagon,  BBC,  available  at:  https://www.bbc.com/news/business-
59563238. 
19 Ibidem. 
20  Shopify.  Grow 
https://www.shopify.com/facebook-instagram. 

business  with  Facebook 

Instagram  — 

Available 

available 

place, 

2021. 

2016 

from 

from 

your 

size 

and 

one 

to 

at: 

at: 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Consequently,  consumers’  confidence  in  green  claims  is  eroding.  While  the  majority  of 
consumers feel confident with respect to claims made about the environmental credentials of the 
products they buy (56% of consumers agree/strongly agree that these claims are reliable), 39% of 
consumers,  according  to  the  2023  Consumer  scoreboard,  disagree/strongly  disagree  that 
environmental  claims  are  reliable.21  The  results  represent  a  weakening  in  confidence  levels 
compared  to  similar  data  collected  in  2020,  with  the  share  believing  in  the  reliability  of 
environmental claims dropping almost by five percentage points. 

3.5.  High rate of non-compliance with EU consumer law and rapid proliferation of 

infringements across market sectors 

In  2021,  37%  of  EU  e-shoppers  reported  experiencing  a  recent  problem  with  their  online 
shopping  other  than  late  delivery.22  At  least  two  out  of  three  consumers  encountered  unfair 
commercial  practices  such  as  hidden  advertisements  or  consumer  reviews  that  did  not  appear 
genuine, when searching for or buying products online.23  

21 https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en, page 18. 
22E-commerce 
commerce_statistics_for_individuals#Purchasing_online_and_problems_encountered.  
23  See  Consumer  Condition  Survey:  Consumers  at  home 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf  

individuals, 

statistics 

for 

in 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=E-

the  single  market  –  2021  edition,  available  here: 

10 

 
 
 
 
The  Commission’s  behavioural  study  on  dark  patterns24  revealed  that  97%  of  the  75  most 
popular  websites  and  apps  used  by  EU  consumers  employed  at  least  one  dark  pattern,  
i.e. a practice in digital interfaces that potentially deceives, manipulates or otherwise materially 
distorts or impairs the ability of recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions.25 
A sweep carried out in 2022 by the CPC Network, under the coordination of the Commission, on 
a broader sample (399 websites) found that 37% of those websites were using dark patterns.26 

Moreover,  as  shown  in  the  table  below,  a  large  proportion  of  web  shops  screened  by  CPC 
authorities in the context of recent sweeps show a high proliferation of non-compliant practices.  

Results of sweeps 

Online markets swept after the 
application of the CPC 
Regulation 2017/2394 (January 
2020) 

Sweeps  on  consumer 
to 
related 
pandemic 2020 

scams 
the  COVID-19 

misleading 

on 
Sweep 
sustainability claims (2020) 
Mini  sweep  on  consumer  credit 
(2021) 
Sweep  on  online 
reviews (2021) 

consumer 

Number of websites 
investigated 

Non-compliance rate 

High-level screenings  
73 
126 
In-depth sweep 
268 
344 

118 

223 

31.5% 
30.2% 

76.9% 
Nearly 50% 

36% 

55% 

24 Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environment: Dark patterns and manipulative personalization, 
European  Commission,  written  by  a  consortium  led  by  Open  Evidence  (2022),  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/606365bc-d58b-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-257599418.  
25  Among  the  most  prevalent  types  of  dark  patterns  found  in  the  research  were  (1)  hidden  information/false  hierarchy,  (2) 
preselection, (3) nagging (e.g. pop-ups to invite other people or to deposit more money into a website), (4) difficult cancellations, 
and (5) forced registration. 
26 Press corner available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_418.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part  II:  Results  of  the  evaluation  regarding  the  application  of  the  CPC 

Regulation 

The  following  sections  summarise  the  results  of  the  external  evaluation  requested  by  the 
Commission in 2022 and examine the points mentioned in Article 40(2) of the CPC Regulation.  
As  explained  in  section  1,  the  external  study27  (‘the  study’)  gathered  the  evidence  through:  a) 
desk  research,  b)  interviews  with  national  Single  Liaison  Offices  (SLOs)  and  CPC  authorities 
from 30 EU/EEA countries, c) online surveys replied by SLOs, CPC authorities, entities eligible 
to issue alerts and traders  that have been subject to CPC coordinated actions and d) interviews 
with a wider range of stakeholders in the framework of case studies28.  

4.  Main objectives of the CPC Regulation  

4.1.  Detection of infringements 

The  study  shows  that  the  CPC  Regulation  facilitates  the  detection  of  cross-border,  widespread 
and  EU-wide  infringements.  Single  Liaison  Offices  (SLOs)  and  CPC  authorities  recognise  in 
online surveys and interviews  that the network set  up by the Regulation is  more effective than 
bilateral cooperation agreements between individual Member States.  

Sweeps  are  considered  an  effective  tool  for  detecting  infringements,  as  they  provide  for  the 
possibility to  discover infringements that  CPC authorities would not  have  identified  otherwise. 
They require a relatively small amount of time from CPC authorities, are easily performed and 
bring  positive  results,  thus  resources  are  used  efficiently  in  the  framework  of  sweeps.  
The  benefits  of  coordination  and  exchange  of  experience  among  authorities  within  the  sweep 
process  was  also  highlighted  as  providing  the  authorities  with  better  understanding  of  the 
implementation  of  the  relevant  legislation  in  other  Member  States.  Some  authorities  however 
have suggested that the follow-up on sweeps should be carried out by the CPC network in a more 
systematic manner, including, where necessary, by launching coordinated enforcement actions.  

Alerts have increased the effectiveness of the detection of cross-border infringements. Most CPC 
authorities consider that alerts create awareness of cross-border issues and facilitate the launch of 
effective enforcement actions. Several CPC authorities also highlight the added value of alerts in 
identifying  trends  in  cross-border  infringements  which  help  them  to  anticipate  potential  future 
infringements. Furthermore, the CPC authorities find the information from alerts useful in setting 
their future priorities and strategies. The use of external alerts. i.e., alerts submitted to the CPC 

(EU)  2017/2394  on  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation” 

27 “Information gathering for assisting the European Commission in complying with its obligations under Article 40 (“reporting”) 
-  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
of  Regulation 
/publication/f3eb3b4c-e819-11ee-9ea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
28https://commission.europa.eu/publications/information-gathering-assisting-european-commission-complying-its-
obligations-under-article-40_en 

12 

 
 
 
network  by  entities  outside  of  the  CPC  network,  e.g.,  European  Consumer  Centres  (ECCs)  or 
consumer and trader organisations, that have been empowered for this purpose by Member States 
or the Commission, remained somewhat limited.29 Most organisations that have issued external 
alerts  and  CPC  authorities  that  have  received  external  alerts,  however,  consider  them  to  have 
improved the detection of and subsequent enforcement by the CPC network against cross-border 
infringements.  

4.2.  More consistent enforcement of consumer law 

The overwhelming majority of SLOs and CPC authorities indicated that the Regulation enhances 
and  increases  the  consistency  of  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  law  through  coordinated 
actions. This, in turn, contributes to a level-playing-field for traders and the smooth functioning 
of  the  EU’s  single  market.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  noted  that  not  all  SLOs  and  CPC 
authorities actively participate in coordinated actions, mainly because of limited resources or the 
lack of relevance of the case in the particular country.  

SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  recognise  the  positive  impact  of  coordinated  actions  especially  for 
tackling infringements involving multinational companies. The power of having CPC authorities 
from several countries working together translates into higher pressure on traders to change their 
practices compared to the pressure exerted by a single country’s consumer protection authority. 
Especially smaller countries consider this effect important. 

The evidence from the six case studies being an integral part of the external evaluation confirms 
the positive impact of coordinated actions on the cross-border enforcement of consumer law. For 
example,  in  the  coordinated  action  against  16  airlines30,  which  was  the  first  very  large, 
coordinated action, all but one trader committed to implement all the measures requested by the 
CPC  Network.  Stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  context  of  the  study31  consider  that  this  action 
resulted in a concrete and effective solution for the consumers concerned.  

29Only around half of the entities entitled to submit external alerts make use of the mechanism. The main reasons seem to be: i) 
some  organisations  prefer  to  alert  the  authorities  directly  rather  than  through  the  system  ii)  some  organisations  did  not  face 
relevant  infringements  to  report  iii)  lack  of  information  on  the  trader  to  be  able  to  issue  an  alert  or  the  perception  that  the 
procedure is complicated.  
30https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/air-travel_en  
31 Authorities, traders and consumer organisations.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Airlines’ cancellation practices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic  

The COVID-19 pandemic took a heavy toll on the air travel sector in the EU. As a result of the 
restrictions  on  international  travel  introduced  by  governments  worldwide,  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  European  airlines’  fleets  were  forcibly  grounded  almost  overnight.  In  April  2020, 
there  were  88%  fewer  flights  in  the  EU  than  the  equivalent  month  a  year  earlier.  Monthly 
passenger  numbers  in  the  Union  fell  from  70  million  in  January  and  February  2020  to  only  1 
million  in  April,  99%  fewer  than  in  April  2019.  Furthermore,  it  is  estimated  that  around  50 
million tickets were cancelled between March and May 2020.32 Given this exceptional situation 
many passengers found themselves ill-informed by airlines about their rights and many were not 
properly offered the choice to opt for a refund or re-booking in case of flight cancellations. As a 
result  of  the  CPC  coordinated  action,  16  major  airlines  operating  in  the  EU  offered 
reimbursement in cash of all unused vouchers that were imposed on consumers.  

The  CPC  coordinated  action  against  AliExpress,33  was  successful  and  the  company  made  EU-
wide  commitments  to  ensure  that  its  practices  and  practices  of  sellers  active  on  the  platform 
respect  EU  consumer  law.  Also,  in  the  coordinated  action  against  five  leading  European  car 
rental  companies34,  all  traders  implemented  the  measures  agreed  with  the  CPC  network.  In 
addition, this action increased compliance across the entire sector.  

4.3.  Addressing the same malpractices spreading across the EU 

The  CPC  Regulation  ensures  consistency  in  the  approach  to  address  the  same  widespread  and 
EU-wide infringements concerning different Member States. SLOs and CPC authorities reported 
that  the  Regulation,  notably  through  coordinated  actions,  helps  consolidating  diverging 
interpretations  of  the  legislation  in  different  Member  States.  The  application  of  the  CPC 
Regulation provides for higher chances of success and has a greater deterrent effect.  

Regarding  companies  active  in  the  same  economic  sector  and  engaging  in  the  same  or  similar 
illegal  conduct  across  the  Single  Market,  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  underlined  a  number  of 
challenges,  which  the  CPC  Regulation  can  assist  addressing  efficiently,  and  which  include  the 
multiplicity  of  actors  involved,  repeated  and  systematic  infringements,  inconsistency  of  the 
approaches  by  different  Member  States  in  imposing  penalties  etc.  Most  SLOs  and  CPC 
authorities  expressed  positive  views35  about  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  in  addressing 
such infringements. Some SLOs and CPC authorities even consider that coordinated actions are 

32ECA  Special  Report  15/2021,  page  13:  Special  Report  15/2021:  Air  passenger  rights  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic: (europa.eu). 
33https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/market-places-and-digital-services_en#aliexpress-and-wish  
34https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/other-travel-services_en  
35 See page 72-73 of the study.  

14 

 
 
 
 
the  only  solution  to  address  them.  Some  also  highlighted  that  the  results  of  CPC  cross-border 
investigations set a precedent for similar lower size cases that should be addressed at the national 
level.  

5.  Effectiveness of the  CPC Regulation  in view of  the recent  evolution 

of consumer markets in the EU 

As described in section 3, several consumer market trends have influenced and will continue to 
influence the landscape in which the CPC Regulation operates. The question which arises in this 
context is whether the CPC Regulation can effectively address the new challenges arising from 
these market changes. 

In this respect SLOs and CPC authorities consider that the Regulation is sufficiently flexible and 
has the potential to deal with emerging business models and marketing practices, including in the 
digital sphere.  SLOs  and CPC  authorities sharing this  view consider that the  minimum  powers  
(see  Article  9  of  the  CPC  Regulation)  make  it  possible  to  respond  to  emerging  needs  in  an 
effective  manner.  The  CPC  network  also  provides  a  platform  for  information  sharing  
allowing  spreading  of  awareness  about  new  market  developments  among  Member  States.  
However,  a  general  issue  of  concern  is  the  workload  and  time  necessary  to  follow  many 
coordinated  actions  in  parallel,  which  could  result  from  the  rapid  development  of  online 
activities by consumers.  

SLOs and CPC authorities are also generally positive about how the CPC Regulation dealt with 
issues linked to the Covid-19 crisis. Most of them consider that the CPC Regulation is a flexible 
tool that could be used effectively to deal with crisis situations, such as Covid-19 crisis.   

6.  Shortcomings  of  the  CPC  cooperation  framework  under  Regulation 

(EU) 2017/2394 

Notwithstanding  the  positive  contributions  of  the  CPC  Regulation  to  the  fulfilment  of  its 
objectives,  some  shortcomings  and  areas  for  improved  cooperation  have  been  identified  and 
transpired from the feedback collected from the authorities and various stakeholders.  

6.1.  Differing enforcement capacities at national level 

The way resources are invested in cross-border enforcement at national  level differs across  the 
Member States and this means that not all countries are able to apply the CPC Regulation to the 
same degree. It also appears that SLOs and CPC authorities consider differences in resources as 
one  of  the  main  impediments  to  more  effective  enforcement  cooperation.  Countries  where 
authorities  have  fewer  resources  process  cases  slower  making  the  information  provided  less 
relevant  and/or  delayed.  Some  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  indicated  that  the  lack  of  resources 
prevents them from actively participating in CPC coordinated actions or sweeps.  

15 

 
 
6.2.  Differences in the application of the CPC Regulation   

It  is  for  the  CPC  authorities  of  the  Member  States  to  enforce  the  laws  protecting  consumers 
stemming from EU Directives and Regulations. The differences in legal traditions of enforcing 
consumer law at the national level and different interpretations of certain provisions of the 2006 
CPC Regulation, led to the fragmentation of enforcement. That was one of the main reasons for 
the adoption of the 2017 CPC Regulation. However, it stems from the interviews with Member 
States’  authorities36  that  certain  inconsistencies  in  enforcement  across  Member  States  still 
persist.   

There are also many differences among Member States’ authorities in the level of the discretion 
they enjoy  in  the investigation of  complaints  and in  the  approach towards  traders suspected of 
infringement. Consumer organisations also pointed out37 to the differences in approaches among 
authorities  recognising  at  the  same  time  the  added  value  of  the  work  of  the  network  and  the 
Commission to keep a certain level of harmonisation in the approaches.   

6.3.  Uneven use of alerts 

While alerts among SLOs, CPC authorities, and the Commission are effective, there are certain 
areas for improvement. In some cases, SLOs and CPC authorities find the quality of information 
contained in alerts to be insufficient (e.g., missing crucial information, such as the name of the 
trader,  the  type  of  practice,  etc.).  Some  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  reported  that  they  are 
overloaded by a high volume of alerts. Lack of consistency and harmonisation in handling alerts 
was also reported as a weak point, i.e., some CPC authorities investigate a case before sending an 
alert, while others never send an alert despite the case possibly having a cross-border dimension.  

6.4.  Difficulty to address infringements committed by traders established  outside 

the Union  

Most  CPC  authorities  reported  that  they  face  challenges  in  resolving  infringement  cases  when 
the  trader  is  established  outside  the  Union  but  targets  consumers  in  the  Union.  Stakeholders 
consulted  within  a  case  study  on  e-commerce  pointed  out  that  some  CPC  authorities  seem 
reluctant to go after companies that have no establishment in the Union.  

The  application  of  the  CPC  Regulation  and  the  common  minimum  powers  to  traders  not 
established in the Union raises questions on how to reach these traders and how to ensure their 
compliance when they do not respond to requests by the CPC network. The general perception is 
that the Regulation needs to be strengthened regarding such traders.  

36 See page 70 of the study. 
37 Ibidem. 

16 

 
 
 
6.5. 

Lack  of  deterrence  of  the  CPC  framework  in  the  absence  of  straightforward 
fines 

The deterrent effect of the Regulation was reported by CPC authorities in the interviews38 to be 
reduced by the lack of stronger enforcement measures, as penalties have so far not been applied 
in CPC coordinated actions. Instead, CPC authorities gave preference to “negotiated outcomes” 
with traders accepting commitments to cease the infringement, even if this has often proven to be 
a rather lengthy process. 

Despite the rules on fines for certain cases that are subject to CPC coordinated actions introduced 
in the context of the Better Enforcement and Modernisation Directive (EU) 2019/2161,39 several 
SLOs  and  CPC  authorities40  suggested  that  further  strengthening  of  penalties  should  be 
considered to improve the deterrent effect of the CPC system.  Moreover, more communication 
around  CPC  coordinated  actions  could  also  increase  the  deterrent  effect  on  other  traders  that 
apply the same or similar illegal practices.  

6.6. 

Lack of capacities at the national level to detect emerging infringements  

SLOs and CPC authorities pointed out that the CPC network does not necessarily have the right 
level  of  capacities  and  skills  to  identify  and  detect  new  types  of  infringements  in  the  digital 
environment (e.g., IT and AI experts). Some SLOs and CPC authorities explicitly welcomed the 
EU e-Lab project41 and e-enforcement academy42 as steps into the right direction to improve the 
detection  and  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  in  the  digital  environment.  However,  there 
was  a  consensus  that  more  effort  is  required,  as  the  use  of  specialised  data  technologies  and 
analytic systems is becoming key for consumer enforcement. 

38 See page 81-82 of the study. 
39  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). 
40 Recommendations made during interviews with CPC authorities in five Member States.  
41 To support the authorities under the CPC Regulation, the Commission funded a project to set up an ‘EU e-Lab’ 
“as  a  platform  that  will  provide  a  common  toolbox  that  authorities  can  use  to  carry out online  investigations  and 
monitor  dangerous  products  sold  online”.  This  toolbox  would  include  the  deployment  of  “advanced  IT  solutions, 
using AI, data mining techniques and web crawlers”. See  Communication from The Commission  to the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  New  Consumer  Agenda  Strengthening  consumer  resilience  for  sustainable 
recovery Brussels, 13.11.2020 COM (2020) 696 final. It is financed by Digital Europe Programme - Performance - 
European Commission (europa.eu).  
42 The e-enforcement academy provides state of the art training on online investigations to support the work of the 
Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) and Consumer Product Safety (CSN) networks. It is financed by the Single 
Market Programme based on 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, good and feed, and the European statistics. 

17 

 
 
 
6.7. 

Lengthy CPC procedures  

For the effectiveness of enforcement, it is important that it is timely. Some CPC authorities and 
other stakeholders, in particular consumer organisations, criticised the procedures and processes 
around coordinated actions as being too lengthy.  Several months or years may elapse  from the 
moment an action is launched to the moment the CPC network verifies the implementation of the 
commitments  proposed  by  a  trader.  During  this  period  consumers  however  continue  to  suffer 
from the consequences of the infringement.  

The  following  chart  includes  an  example  of  the  timeline  of  an  action  (anonymised)  from  the 
beginning  of  the  dialogues  between  the  CPC  Network  and  the  trader  concerned  until  the 
identification of additional breaches in the context of monitoring the correct implementation of 
the commitments. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
CPC procedures were also criticised as not being flexible enough, in particular in cases when a 
fast reaction is necessary, i.e. for specific types of infringements which are widespread but short-
lived  as  often  is  the  case  in  digital  markets,  in  relation  to  advertising  campaigns  or  which  are 
related  to  a  crisis  (see  above  box  on  airlines  cancellation  practices  in  the  early  stages  of  the 
COVID  19  crisis).  In  this  respect,  feedback  from  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  and  consumer 
organisations suggests that the CPC framework could be improved to allow for tailor-made fast 
track responses in specific cases (e.g., procedures for clear cut cases, infringements in the digital 
sphere like establishment of fraudulent s-shops, etc.).  

7.  Effectiveness of the  minimum powers of the competent authorities 

set out in Article 9 

Effective  cross-border  cooperation  among  competent  authorities  requires  them  to  have  at  their 
disposal  common  set  of  minimum  powers  to  collect  the  relevant  information  and  to  take  the 
necessary enforcement  measures. The CPC Regulation  obliges  therefore  each Member State to 
ensure  that  their  competent  authorities  can  use  the  same  toolbox  of  investigation  and 
enforcement powers. It remains, however, a decision of each Member State to determine how the 
authorities can exercise their powers. The minimum powers are provided in Article 9 of the CPC 
Regulation and are divided into ‘investigation powers’ (Article 9(3)) and ‘enforcement powers’ 
(Article 9(4)).  

While  the  Member  States  have  ensured  that  the  competent  authorities  have  the  minimum 
investigative and enforcement powers provided for in the CPC Regulation, some Member States’ 
authorities have reported43 difficulties to apply them in practice or have reported to have never 
applied  some  powers.  There  is  limited  evidence  on  how  CPC  authorities  have  used  the 
enforcement and investigation powers in  practice. The feedback  received  from  SLOs  and  CPC 
authorities  suggests  that,  although  CPC  authorities  are  confident  with  exercising  the  powers, 
their  use  is  hampered,  in  practice,  by  limited  financial  and  human  resources.  SLOs  and  CPC 
authorities further  underlined that the implementation  of certain  powers, such as the powers to 
carry  out  on-site  inspections,    mystery  shopping,  test  purchases,  or  the  power  to  take  down 
websites are difficult to implement as they require extensive procedural steps, compliance with 
the  GDPR,  or  they  correspond  to  a  role  that  cannot  be  practically  fulfilled  by  consumer 
protection authorities on their own but would require the assistance of other authorities, e.g.,  the 
police for on-site inspections.  

Some  CPC  authorities  reported  having  issues  with  taking  down  websites  of  traders  infringing 
consumer law, especially where those traders are established in third countries.  

43 See page 115, 116, 123, 129 and 130 of the study.   

19 

 
 
 
 
A  more  general  point  to  consider  is  that  the  use  of  powers  by  the  CPC  authorities  is  also 
impacted  by  the  differences  in  the  legal  traditions  of  enforcing  consumer  protection  at  the 
national  level  and  the  interpretations  of  substantive  consumer  rules  or  of  the  CPC  Regulation 
itself (see section 6.2. above). To achieve a more consistent approach to the implementation of 
investigation  and  enforcement  powers  in  practice,  the  Commission  is  providing  continuous 
support and training, in particular via the e-enforcement academy and the e-Lab digital toolbox. 
SLOs and CPC authorities reported that they consider this support very useful. 

8.  Compliance by traders in key consumer markets concerned by cross-

border trade 

The objective of the CPC Regulation  is  to  enhance consumer protection by improving traders’ 
compliance with consumer laws and to ensure smooth functioning of the internal market.  

Overall,  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  agree  that  the  CPC  Regulation  facilitates  consistent 
enforcement of EU consumer law across the EU. Especially coordinated actions have proven to 
be  an  effective  tool  for  tackling  systematic  infringements  and  infringements  involving 
multinational  companies  –  working  together  as  a  network  of  several  authorities  from  different 
countries increases pressure on traders concerned, as compared to authorities from one country 
acting alone. 

SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  in  half  of  the  Member  States  interviewed  for  the  purpose  of  the 
study44 considered the CPC system to have a deterrent effect on traders. Other SLOs and CPC 
authorities were not sure about the deterrent effect or believed that it was limited.  

CPC  authorities,  who  agreed  that  the  CPC  Regulation  has  a  deterrent  effect,  consider  the 
increased cooperation and coordination by CPC authorities within the CPC network and with the 
Commission  to  make  traders  operating  in  several  Member  States  more  likely  to  abide  by  the 
rules due to the threat of being subject to a CPC action.  

Several  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities  however  doubted  that  the  CPC  is  well  known  to  traders.  
They were also not sure whether traders were sufficiently dissuaded as until now there has been 
no coordination with respect to the imposition of penalties and fines under the CPC Regulation45.  

The  case  studies  provided  additional  in-depth  data  on  the  question  of  traders’  compliance 
focusing  on  specific  consumer  markets:  air  travel,  vehicle  rental,  accommodation  booking 
platforms, e-commerce websites and in-app purchases. 

The CPC coordinated action against airlines resulted in fifteen of the sixteen traders agreeing to 
several commitments related to the way they deal with cancellations. The overall feedback from 
stakeholders  (CPC  authorities,  airlines,  consumer  organisations)  was  that  the  action  was 
effective.  Airlines  reported  that  they  had  changed  their  practices  since  the  early  stages  of  the 

44 CPC authorities interviewed in 11 Member States out of the 20 who provided an answer to the question. 
45 Page 82 and 115 of the study.  

20 

 
 
COVID19 pandemic but faced substantial reimbursement backlogs. The CPC action concerning 
many  major  airlines  was  an  incentive  to  address  these  backlogs  more  expeditiously.  
Some  airlines  even  went  beyond  their  commitments  and  further  improved  their  practices  in 
informing consumers about cancellations and how they deal with reimbursement requests, thus 
improving their resilience to crises. The CPC airlines action was also instrumental in starting the 
process  of  discussing  issues  related  to  booking  through  intermediaries  and  led  to  a  follow-up 
CPC action targeting major European airline intermediaries.46  

The CPC network has completed coordinated actions against three major online accommodation 
booking  platforms  and  obtained  commitments  among  others  on  the  improved  presentation  of 
offers, discounts and prices to consumers, differentiation between private and professional hosts 
(with  some  differences  of  commitments  depending  on  the  platform).47  All  stakeholders 
considered  this  as  a  collaborative  process  which  worked  generally  well.  Traders  consider  that 
having one contact point instead of having to deal with all the Member States concerned was of 
great value added. In their view, the commitments ensured an EU-level agreement on expected 
commercial  practices  that  online  booking  platforms  could  rely  on  and  that  could  even  be 
expanded  across  the  industry.  However,  they  consider  the  length  of  the  procedure  a  weaker 
point,  while,  at  the  same  time,  also  recognising  the  complexity  of  their  internal  processes,  
i.e., obtaining internal approval of commitments by various departments. The traders interviewed 
within Booking case study48 considered that the main challenge for the CPC network is the need 
to  find  a  common  denominator  in  the  commitments  that  was  acceptable  to  all  CPC  authorities 
concerned by the coordinated action. 

The CPC coordinated action in the car rental sector49 led to an increase of compliance by traders 
involved  in  the  action  as  well  as  other  traders  not  targeted  by  the  action  that  aligned  their 
practices with the outcome of the coordinated action. However, the CPC action did not seem to 
have had the same spill-over impact on smaller traders and intermediaries operating exclusively 
at  the  national  level.  It  therefore  appears  that  the  deterrent  effect  of  the  coordinated  action  is 
stronger vis-à-vis large well established international and national traders but has a more limited 
effect on smaller traders often operating in touristic areas.  

The  CPC  network  played  an  important  role  to  ensure  that  traders  developing  the  applications 
(‘app’)  comply  with  consumer  law.  The  2014  common  position  on  the  transparency  of  in-app 
purchases50 in online games was widely supported and resulted in important changes in the app 

46https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/air-travel_en#airline-intermediaries  
47https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/accommodation-booking_en  
48https://commission.europa.eu/publications/information-gathering-assisting-european-commission-complying-its-
obligations-under-article-40_en 
49https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/other-travel-services_en  
50https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/market-places-and-digital-services_en#in-app-purchases 

21 

 
 
 
business models. In essence, app developers and app-stores increased transparency with regards 
to the existence, conditions and value of items that can be purchased in-app after downloading an 
app  from  the  app-store.  Industry  representatives  welcomed  the  centralised  nature  of  the  CPC 
common  position  considering  that  this  approach  contributes  to  a  better  level-playing-field  for 
compliant  traders.  Since  the  app  business  has  a  cross-border  dimension,  fragmented  decisions 
and individual actions by single CPC authorities would not have been able to produce the same 
positive  effects.    Strong  cooperation  between  consumer  authorities  in  the  different  Member 
States helps to ensure that a consistent approach is taken across the EU and often makes it easier 
for companies to comply with consumer protection rules. 

Regarding the enforcement of consumer laws in the sector of e-commerce, almost all interviewed 
stakeholders  (industry,  NGOs,  SLOs  and  different  CPC  authorities)  consider  CPC  coordinated 
actions  and  sweeps  to  have  only  a  limited  positive  impact.  Most  SLOs  and  CPC  authorities 
observe  that  only  companies  that  have  directly  been  subject  of  CPC  coordinated  actions 
implemented  changes  to  their  practices,  despite  the  fact  that  the  commitments  were  publicly 
available  to  the  entire  sector.  One  of  the  main  reasons  for  this,  according  to  industry 
representatives,  is  the  lack  of  information  and  communication  about  CPC  activities,  
i.e., coordinated actions or sweeps. Most traders that have not been directly targeted by the CPC 
network, are most probably unaware of CPC actions or sweeps and how they could learn from 
them and improve their practices.  

In the CPC coordinated action against Google51, CPC authorities asked the company to address 
issues related to their practices infringing the Geo-blocking Regulation (GBR).52 The importance 
of enforcement of the GBR by the CPC Network was stressed by the European Parliament in its 
resolution53 calling on Member States to fully apply and enforce the Regulation, to act decisively 
against entities infringing it and, on the Commission, to strengthen its enforcement.  

But  even  the  compliance  of  companies  directly  concerned  by  a  CPC  coordinated  action  is  not 
always  satisfactory.  While  some  companies  offer  and  implement  commitments  to  cease  the 
infringement very fast, others employ various delaying tactics and/or address the concerns of the 
authorities only partially.  

Moreover, as also explained above in section 6.4, reaching companies without any establishment 
in  the  EU  is  often  difficult.  Nonetheless,  the  perspective  of  facing  numerous  national 
enforcement actions pushes traders to enter into a dialogue with the CPC network. At the same 
time,  some  industry  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  since  voluntary  participation  in  the  CPC 
dialogue  and  commitments  does  not  prevent  national  authorities  from  still  taking  enforcement 
actions within their jurisdiction,  this may have  a discouraging  effect  on traders and undermine 

51https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/social-media-and-search-engines_en#google 
52  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).  
53 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0473_EN.html  

22 

 
 
their  trust  in  the  CPC  system.  Consumer  protection  organisations  on  the  other  side  noted  that, 
while CPC coordinated actions address systemic issues, these actions are limited to only one or a 
few  selected  traders.  To  resolve  this  problem,  the  CPC  network  should  consider  taking,  a 
horizontal,  industry-wide  approach  that  could  cover  several  traders  engaging  in  the  same  or 
similar illegal practices at the same time. 

To conclude, the authorities considered the overall effect of the CPC Regulation as positive on 
traders’ compliance. However, they also regret that, so far, no penalties have been imposed in a 
coordinated  manner  under  Article  21(1)  of  the  CPC  Regulation.  This  clearly  limits  the  CPC 
network’s deterrence effect on traders. Furthermore, the deterrent effect tends to be stronger on 
large multinational traders, but less so on traders from third countries. CPC actions are often too 
slow  and  thus  not  effective  enough  to  rapidly  restore  fair  competition  among  all  the  traders 
selling in the EU. 

23 

 
 
 
Part III: Conclusions and the way forward 

Stakeholders consider the CPC Regulation to have generally fulfilled its objectives to effectively 
enforce compliance with the EU laws set out in the Annex to that Regulation and to ensure the 
smooth functioning of the single market, to improve the detection of consumer law infringements 
by traders, the consistency of the enforcement of Union consumer law and to permit to address 
the same infringements committed by businesses in several Member States.  

The  cooperation  under  the  Regulation  provided  added  value  to  national  consumer  authorities, 
which  acting  together  improved  their  efficiency  and  managed  to  deal  with  many  EU  level 
infringements  committed  by  large  businesses.  By  providing  a  set  of  harmonised  procedures  to 
address  infringements  affecting  several  or  most  Member  States,  the  CPC  Regulation  also 
significantly increases the efficiency of consumer law enforcement. Without the CPC system, the 
consumer  protection  authorities  of  each  Member  State  would  be  required  to  engage  in  parallel 
proceedings  against  the  same  trader  at  their  respective  national  level,  which  would  certainly 
result  in  higher  costs  and  most  likely,  due  to  different  national  enforcement  traditions  could 
potentially lead to diverging interpretations of the harmonised rules protecting consumers. 

Traders  that  were  targeted  by  a  CPC  action  appreciated  to  be  involved  in  a  common  and 
centralised dialogue rather than having to deal with potentially 27 different consumer authorities 
in the EU Member States.  

Consumer  representatives,  however,  consider  that  the  CPC  Regulation  is  insufficient  to 
significantly  decrease  the  harm  suffered  by  consumers  in  the  medium  term.  In  particular,  they 
consider that, since the  adoption of the CPC Regulation  (EU) 2017/2394, the fast  evolution  of 
consumer markets, together with the fast-progressing green- and digital transition, have led more 
and  more  consumers  being  exposed  to  new  threats,  both  online  and  in  relation  to  “green 
washing”. As a result of these recent market developments, a high level of prevalence of illegal 
practices  characterises  EU  consumer  markets  while  CPC  authorities  face  new  enforcement 
challenges that reduce their capacity to effectively coordinate their enforcement actions under the 
framework provided by the CPC Regulation (EU).  

These enforcement challenges include:  

•  The  procedures  governing  coordinated  enforcement  actions  are  long  and  cumbersome, 

thus not optimal for digitalised markets which evolve very fast. 

•  Digitalisation and evolving business models allow illegal practices to spread more easily 

and much faster across borders. 

•  Large, multinational  traders  have a strong impact  on the  overall  level  of  compliance  of 
entire economic sectors, such as online travel services, e-commerce or entertainment. 
•  New  business  models  are  fuelled  by  emerging  technologies,  such  as  virtual  worlds  and 
AI, and require enforcement authorities to develop specialised expertise at national level.  
•  The application of the CPC Regulation to traders  without establishment or assets in the 

EU/EEA who target consumers residing in the EU should be more straightforward.  

24 

 
•  The  effectiveness  of  the  CPC  Regulation  is  hampered  by  differences  in  the  capacity  of 
national  authorities  to  deal  with  CPC  cases,  due  to  limited  resources,  diverging 
interpretations of the rules of the Regulation and of EU consumer rules, and differences 
in the implementation of minimum investigation and enforcement powers. 

•  Due  to  difficulties  experienced  by  CPC  authorities  to  effectively  coordinate  the 
imposition of fines in the context of coordinated actions, the deterrent effect of the CPC 
Regulation remains limited. 

It is likely that these observed market trends will continue in the future posing similar challenges 
to enforcement authorities across the Union. It is therefore essential to start a reflection on how 
to strengthen further the CPC Regulation, in particular by considering the following questions: 

-  How the application of the Regulation to third-country traders targeting consumers from 

outside the EU could be clarified. 

-  Whether there is a need to adapt CPC procedures so that they function effectively also to 
investigate  and  address  infringements  that  have  particularly  high  impacts  on  the  EU’s 
Single Market or that affect entire business sectors. 

-  Whether any additional measures are required to ensure more consistent enforcement of 
consumer  law  and  more  effective  deterrence  of  the  CPC  Regulation,  including  an 
enhanced role for the Commission, thereby improving consumers’ collective interests in 
the Single Market.  

-  How to increase the availability of e-enforcement tools actionable at the EU level and at 

national levels by the Commission and CPC authorities. 

To  determine  the  best  possible  way  to  use  the  CPC  framework  for  the  benefit  of  a  smooth 
functioning  of  retail  markets  in  the  EU,  the  Commission  is  currently  carrying  out  impact 
assessment  studies.  These  examine  the  full  range  of  options  available  for  addressing  the 
enforcement  challenges  of  the  future  described  in  this  report  in  order  to  decide  whether  to 
maintain the current framework or to introduce new legislation. This should lay the ground for 
the Commission to decide on the most effective policy response. 

25