REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of 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
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer information, consumer law, door-to-door selling, electronic commerce, national implementing measure, penalty, prices policy, product quality, search engine, unfair terms of contract

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.9.2024  COM(2024) 258 final/2  CORRIGENDUM This document corrects document COM(2024)258 final of 18.6.2024. Concerns all languages versions. Replacing 'Austria' with 'Sweden' in section 5, paragraph 6. The text shall read as follows  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of 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    
 
 
1. Introduction 

Directive  (EU)  2019/2161  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  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 rules1 (the ʽModernisation Directiveʼ) was adopted on 27 November 2019. It 
amended four existing consumer law directives – the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC2 
(the  ʽUCTDʼ),  the  Price  Indication  Directive  98/6/EC3  (the  ‘PIDʼ),  the  Unfair  Commercial 
Practices Directive 2005/29/EC4 (the ‘UCPDʼ) and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU5 
(the ‘CRDʼ).  

The Modernisation Directive responded to the shortcomings identified in the 2017 Fitness Check 
and the parallel evaluation of the CRD6. It aimed at strengthening the enforcement of EU consumer 
protection rules and updating rules in line with the development of digitalisation. Alongside the 
proposal  for  the  Modernisation  Directive,  the  European  Commission  made  a  proposal  on 
representative actions for the protection of the collective interest of consumers. This became law 
in 20207.  

The Modernisation Directive had to be transposed into national law by 28 November 2021 and 
become applicable in Member States from 28 May 2022. It includes a review clause stipulating 
a report to the European Parliament and the Council on its application by May 2024. The review 
was to include an assessment of the provisions concerning events organised at places other than 
the trader’s business premises, and concerning goods marketed as identical but having significantly 
different composition or characteristics (‘dual quality’ marketing). 

This  report  covers  a  period  of  2  years  after  the  date  on  which  national  laws  transposing  the 
Modernisation  Directive  were  supposed  to  become  applicable  (28  May  2022).  In  practice,  for 
many Member States, the data available covers a shorter period, due to transposition delays. The 
Directive is therefore still in a relatively early stage of application, which has implications for how 
the data on implementation presented in this report should be interpreted. The number of formal 
enforcement  decisions  or  proceedings  related  to  the  Modernisation  Directive  is  limited.  So  far 

1 OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7. 
2 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29). 
3 Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in 
the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27). 
4 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-
to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 
97/7/EC,  98/27/EC  and  2002/65/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2006/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (‘Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive’)  (OJ  L  149, 
11.6.2005, p. 22). 
5  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 October  2011  on  consumer  rights, 
amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 
304, 22.11.2011, p. 64). 
6 For further information: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/items/59332.  
7 Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative 
actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC  (OJ L 409, 
4.12.2020, p. 1). 

1 

 
 
 
there has been no case law of the Court of Justice of the EU on its application, apart from one 
pending preliminary ruling case on the new provision of the PID concerning price reductions8. 

This report was prepared in parallel with the ongoing Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital 
fairness (the ‘Fitness Check’)9, launched in May 2022 to determine whether the key horizontal 
consumer law instruments remain adequate for ensuring a high level of consumer protection in the 
digital environment (digital fairness). The outcome of the Fitness Check will be presented in a 
separate report, to be published in the second half of 2024.  

2. Main elements of the Modernisation Directive 

The Modernisation Directive made targeted amendments to the UCPD, the UCTD, the CRD and 
the PID. The Directive introduced the following main amendments: 

• 
• 

• 

Strengthened rules on penalties for infringements of the four directives.  
New EU right to individual remedies for consumers who are harmed by unfair commercial 
practices prohibited by the UCPD.  
Prohibition of specific unfair online practices (additions to the UCPD Annex I (ʽblacklistʼ)) 
regarding: 

o  consumer reviews; 
o  advertising and paid placements in search results; 
o  resale of event tickets. 

• 

New transparency requirements (amendments to the UCPD and CRD): 

o  about the main parameters determining the ranking of online search results; 
o  about whether the contract is concluded with a trader or an individual on an online 

marketplace;  

o  about the measures taken to ensure that published consumer reviews originate from 

consumers who actually used or purchased the product. 

Extension of the application of the CRD to ‘free’ digital services for which consumers do 
not  pay  money  but  provide  personal  data,  such  as  cloud  storage,  social  media  and  email 
services.  
Transparency  of  personalised  pricing:  obligation  in  the  CRD  to  alert  consumers  when 
presenting them with a price personalised on the basis of automated processing. 
‘Dual quality’ marketing: amendment to the UCPD prohibiting misleading presentation of 
goods as being identical to goods marketed in other Member States when those goods have 
significant differences in their composition or characteristics.  
Transparency of price reductions: amendment to the PID requiring sellers announcing a 
price reduction to also indicate their lowest price in the past 30 days. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

8 Case C-330/23, Aldi Süd. 
9https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13413-Digital-fairness-fitness-check-on-
EU-consumer-law_en  

2 

 
 
 
 
Following  the  adoption  of  the  Modernisation  Directive,  in  December  2021  the  Commission 
published updated Guidance notices on the UCPD and the CRD that address the amendments made 
as well as a separate new Guidance notice on the new PID provision on price reductions10.  

3. Transposition and conformity assessment 

Article 7 of the Modernisation Directive required Member States to adopt and publish the measures 
necessary to comply with the Directive by 28 November 2021 and to apply the measures from 
28 May 2022. 

In the course of 2020, the Commission ran three transposition workshops to assist Member States 
to  adopt  the  necessary  legislation.  Five  Member  States  adopted  and  communicated  to  the 
Commission  complete  national  transposition  measures  before  the  transposition  deadline  of  28 
November 2021. In January 2022, the Commission opened formal infringement procedures against 
22 Member States  that had not  notified any transposition measures or  had notified only  partial 
transposition measures. A number of reasoned opinions followed in the course of 2022. More than 
half  of  the  Member  States  notified  complete  transposition  of  the  Directive  after  its  date  of 
application  in  May  2022.  In  the  first  half  of  2023,  all  Member  States  but  one  had  notified  the 
Commission  of  the  complete  transposition  of  the  Directive.  The  last  Member  State  notified 
complete transposition on 29 May 2024.  

The Commission has assessed the conformity of the transposition of the Modernisation Directive. 
Since the end of 2023, the Commission opened nine targeted dialogues11 with relevant national 
authorities to clarify the identified transposition issues and dialogues with other Member States 
will be opened soon. 

Among the issues identified, the most recurrent ones concern the transposition of the provisions 
on individual consumer redress in the UCPD and of the reinforced rules on penalties in UCTD, 
UCPD and CRD. Unlike most other provisions of the Modernisation Directive that are  usually 
transposed  verbatim  in  the  corresponding  national  rules,  the  transposition  of  the  provisions  on 
remedies and penalties in many cases involved changes to multiple national rules. Furthermore, 
the transposition check has shown some issues with the transposition of the new Article 6a of the 
PID on price reduction announcements. Some Member States appear to have extended the scope 
of their transposition provisions to cover not only goods but also services that are outside the scope 
of the new Article 6a and of the PID as such. These and other transposition issues are discussed in 
further detail in the following thematic sections.  

10  Commission  Notice  –  Guidance  on  the  interpretation  and application  of  Directive 2005/29/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal  market 
(OJ  C  526,  29.12.2021,  p.  1).  Commission  notice  –  Guidance  on  the  interpretation  and  application  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  consumer  rights  (OJ  C  525,  29.12.2021,  p.  1). 
Commission  Notice  –  Guidance  on  the  interpretation  and  application  of  Article  6a  of  Directive  98/6/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to 
consumers (OJ C 526, 29.12.2021, p. 130). 
11 EU Pilot cases. 

3 

 
 
 
4. Application and enforcement  

The fact-finding activities on the implementation of the Directive for the purposes of this report 
took place mostly in 2023, i.e. at a relative early stage of its application. Therefore, they do not 
provide a complete and definite picture. There is also limited experience of the enforcement of the 
Directive by the national authorities and courts.  

The implementation analysis is based on several information sources. As regards compliance by 
traders, the report refers to the relevant online ‘sweeps’ carried out by the national enforcement 
authorities and coordinated by the Commission within the framework of the Consumer Protection 
Cooperation (CPC) network established by  Regulation  (EU) 2017/239412 (the ʽCPC networkʼ). 
The report also uses the available public information about the relevant monitoring activities and 
formal enforcement actions by the national authorities and the reports and research provided by 
stakeholders.  
As part of an external supporting study13 (the ‘supporting study’) for the Fitness Check and this 
report, a consumer survey was carried out on a sample of 10 000 respondents covering 10 Member 
States  (Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Spain  and 
Sweden)14. In addition, a targeted survey15 was conducted gathering views of various stakeholders 
(businesses,  consumer  associations,  Ministries  and  enforcement  authorities,  etc.)  across  all 
Member  States  (the  ‘stakeholder  survey’)  on  specific  questions.  Additional  interviews  were 
conducted with selected consumer and trade associations, enforcement authorities and ministries. 
The  preparation  of  the  report  was  discussed  with  the  Member  States  in  the  meetings  of  the 
Commission’s Expert Group  on consumer law.  Specific topics of the Modernisation Directive, 

report: 

12 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. For more details on the CPC activities in 2020-2021, see the CPC 
biennial 
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-
04/swd_2022_108_f1_staff_working_paper_en_v3_p1_1903309.pdf. 
13 Study to support the Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairness and the report on the application of the 
Modernisation  Directive  (EU)  2019/2161.  The  study  was  carried  out  for  DG  JUST  under  Framework  Contract 
JUST/2020/PR/03/0001 by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES), supported by VVA (now: Ernst 
& Young) and Tetra Tech. In addition, further organisations supported the analysis in specialist areas (WIK and LE 
Europe). 
14 The results can be considered representative in terms of sample size, covering different EU regions and allowing, 
to the extent possible, extrapolation to the EU-27. For the consumer survey, a pre-established large-scale panel was 
chosen  to  ensure  that  a  high  survey  response  is  achieved  with  strong  representativeness  according  to  different 
parameters, such as age and gender. 
15  The  targeted  (stakeholder)  survey  was  conducted  using  an  online  survey  tool.  Of  the  total  164  respondents, 
business associations  (EU  level and national)  accounted for 40.2%, n=66;  consumer associations (EU level and 
national) – 17.7%, n=29; national ministries – 6.1%, n=10; national enforcement authorities – 12.2%, n=20; ECC-
Net, 6.1%, n = 10, individual traders – 10.4%, n=17. Academic researchers and others contributed the remaining 
13.4%  (n=22).  National  enforcement  authorities  and  national  ministries  (total  n=30)  represented  18  Member 
States:  3  from  Austria,  4  from  Slovenia;  2  from  each  of  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Netherlands,  Romania, 
Slovakia;  and  1  from  each  of  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Finland,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Spain  and 
Sweden; 1 represented ‘Other’ country. Among the consumer associations (n=19), 4 were EU-level associations and 
the national ones represented 8 Member States: 6 were from Austria, 3 from Germany and 1 from each of Croatia, 
France, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Among the 66 business associations, 32 were EU-level associations 
and the national ones represented 11 Member States: 12 from Germany, 6 from Belgium, 5 from Italy, 2 from France 
and  Sweden,  and  1  from  each  of  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Finland,  Netherlands,  Spain;  1  represented  ‘Other’ 
country. 

4 

 
 
 
especially the provisions on price reductions and dual quality, were discussed at several bilateral 
and multilateral meetings with stakeholders and national authorities.  
Finally, as part of the supporting study, compliance tests of selected online traders16 were carried 
out  on  topics  relevant  to  the  Directive,  including  transparency  of  online  marketplaces,  ranking 
transparency  of  search  results,  personalised  pricing,  online  consumer  reviews,  price  reduction 
announcements,  and  telephone  calls  at  basic  rate  in  passenger  transport  services.  These  tests 
covered a limited number of websites and therefore differ from the large-scale ‘sweeps’ conducted 
by national authorities in the CPC network.  

In  addition,  the  2021  and  2023  Consumer  Conditions  Scoreboards  (the  ʽ2021  CCSʼ  and  the 
ʽ2023 CCSʼ),  which  were  based  on,  respectively,  the  2020  and  2022  Consumer  Conditions 
Surveys17, give insights into consumer perceptions with regard to several topics relevant for this 
analysis, before the entry into application of the Modernisation Directive and shortly after its entry 
into application (although not in all Member States), for example,  into consumers’ experiences 
with the ranking of search results, consumer reviews and price reductions. 

The  following  thematic  sections  of  this  report  (sections  5  to  15)  provide  an  overview  of  the 
implementation of the main elements of the Modernisation Directive. It is to be noted that data 
gathering activities under the supporting study for this report took place before the rules of the 
Digital  Services  Act  (the  ‘DSA’)18  started  to  apply.  The  DSA  brought  about  important 
developments which are referred to in the relevant thematic sections. 

5. Penalties 

To strengthen the public enforcement of EU consumer law across the EU and its deterrent effect, 
the Modernisation Directive amended the existing rules on penalties in the PID, UCPD and CRD 
that  already  required  Member  States  to  provide  for  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 

16 These compliance tests were carried out on a sample of websites or applications in 10 Member States (the same as 
for consumer survey) to assess their performance on specific parameters and their compliance with the requirements 
of the Modernisation Directive. The selection of websites and apps depended primarily on the specifics of the relevant 
topic that was investigated and their relative importance (e.g., volume of traffic per month in each country covered), 
covering online marketplaces, e-commerce sites, travel and accommodation, price comparison sites, etc. In practice, 
researchers browsed websites or used applications, to perform normal tasks, such as looking for products to buy or 
attempting to subscribe to a service. They collected data on the information that was presented to them and its content 
and clarity. The compliance tests provided for a qualitative assessment of problems, including researchers’ opinions 
of the clarity of information, practical examples of problems identified, supported by screenshots. While covering a 
number of selected websites, each compliance test was different in scope, objective and nature. 
17  2020  Consumer  Conditions  Survey,  available  at  https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/70d38b3e-
58ee-4ed9-8017-77af2573bef4_en?filename=ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf;  2022  Consumer  Conditions  Survey, 
available 
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ce4eda77-83bb-436a-baee-
84e4b4c4f324_en?filename=ccs_2022_country_data.pdf. 
18 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market 
for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1). As of 
17 February 2024, the DSA rules apply to all platforms. Since the end of August 2023, these rules had already applied 
to designated platforms with more than 45 million users in the EU (10% of the EU’s population), the so-called Very 
large online platforms (VLOPs) or Very large online search engines (VLOSEs).  In particular, online marketplaces 
such as Amazon, Aliexpress, Apple AppStore, Google Play, Zalando and more recently Shein and Temu, have been 
designated as very large online platforms. 

at 

5 

 
 
 
 
penalties. Furthermore, it introduced a new requirement for Member States to provide for  such 
penalties in the UCTD where no such requirement existed before.  
The main new feature was the inclusion in the UCPD, CRD and UCTD19 of the requirement to 
provide for fines and the setting of their maximum amount for widespread infringements and 
for widespread infringements of a Union dimension when enforcement measures are taken in a 
coordinated manner under Article 21 of the CPC Regulation20. In these cases, Member States have 
to provide for – as a mandatory element of their rules on penalties – fines of at least up to 4% of 
the trader’s annual turnover or up to EUR 2 million for situations where the annual turnover 
cannot be established. These are minimum requirements and Member States retain the possibility 
to keep or introduce higher maximum fines. As for the application of penalties in general, Member 
States  retain  discretion  as  to  the  procedure  for  the  imposition  of  these  fines  which  can  be 
administrative or judicial.  

Furthermore, the Modernisation Directive incorporated into the UCPD, UCTD, CRD and PID non-
exhaustive and indicative criteria that are to be taken into account for the imposition of penalties, 
in both domestic and cross-border cases.  

The  conformity  assessment  of  the  notified  transposition  measures  regarding  these  provisions 
proved to be relatively complex. For example, several Member States had multiple pre-existing 
national rules on penalties depending on the infringed provision of the Directive in question. This 
meant that multiple transposition provisions were needed to amend them.  

With regard to the fines that can be imposed in cross-border cases in the coordinated actions under 
Article 21 of the CPC Regulation, almost all Member States have transposed the requirement to 
provide for a fine of at least up to 4% of trader’s annual turnover or, alternatively, EUR 2 million 
in respect of infringements subject to CPC coordinated actions. The situation of a few Member 
States that raised issues or uncertainty is being or will be analysed in the context of the targeted 
dialogues with Member States. 

Some  countries  also  apply  the  fine  of  up  to  4%  or  up  to  EUR  2  million  to  other  types  of 
infringements (domestic and cross-border): for example, for infringements of the CRD, Sweden 
applies  the  fine  of  up  to  4%  of  annual  turnover  to  all  infringements.  For  infringements  of  the 
UCPD, Poland applies the fine up to EUR 2 million to all infringements if turnover information is 
not available, and Latvia applies the fine of up to 4% of annual turnover to all infringements with 
a cap of maximum EUR 300 000. 

Some countries have stronger rules going beyond the EUR 2 million rule for infringements 
subject  to  the  CPC  coordinated  action.  Where  information  on  the  annual  turnover  is  not 
available,  maximum  fines  for  cross-border  UCPD  infringements  subject  to  such  coordinated 
actions can be up to EUR 5 million in Greece or up to EUR 4 million in Denmark. 

Furthermore,  some  other  countries  already  had  or  have  introduced  maximum  fines  for  all 
infringements that are higher than those required by the Modernisation Directive for cross-

19 Whereas in UCPD, CRD and PID, the amended articles on penalties built on the existing general requirement to 
provide for penalties, Article 8b on penalties is a new feature for the UCTD. 
20 The CPC Regulation focuses on cooperation between the national enforcement authorities in cases of widespread 
infringements harming consumers in several Member States and widespread infringements with a Union dimension. 
For  this  type  of  widespread  infringement,  national  authorities  may  need  to  impose  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive penalties in a coordinated manner. 

6 

 
 
 
border infringements subject to the CPC coordinated actions (4% / EUR 2 million).  For example, 
infringements of the UCPD are generally punishable by up to 10% of the trader’s annual turnover 
in the Netherlands and Poland, up to 6% in Belgium and up to 5% in Cyprus. For infringements 
of the UCTD, for example, Poland provides for a fine of up to 10% of the trader’s annual turnover; 
Cyprus provides for up to 5%.  

The  new  rules  on  maximum  fines  for  infringements  in  cross-border  cases  subject  to  CPC 
coordinated enforcement have not yet been applied in practice. Based on feedback received in the 
context of CPC coordinated actions, some authorities would find it challenging to apply these fines 
in  cases  where  companies  fail  to  propose  appropriate  commitments  to  address  the  alleged 
infringements. In particular, neither the CPC Regulation nor the penalty provisions in the directives 
concerned provide for clear procedures to coordinate the imposition of penalties and to avoid the 
risk of ne-bis-in idem situations where such measures are taken in parallel in different Member 
States. The Commission is considering reviewing the CPC Regulation,  inter alia to increase its 
deterrence effect 21. 

Member States have adopted different approaches to the transposition of the non-exhaustive and 
indicative criteria for the imposition of penalties that was added by the Modernisation Directive 
to all four amended directives. Some Member States transposed all the criteria on the list (almost) 
verbatim, while others, given the merely indicative nature of the list, transposed them only partially 
or  relied  on  the  already  existing  relevant  provisions  in  national  law,  which  often  require,  for 
example, considering ‘aggravating or mitigating factors’ when imposing penalties. 

The Modernisation Directive provides regulatory choices to the Member States for the application 
of the new rules on penalties in the UCPD and UCTD. Under the UCTD (Article 8b(2)), Member 
States have the choice to apply the rules on penalties (including the specific provision on fines for 
infringements subject to the CPC coordinated enforcement) only to one or both of the following 
situations: (a) where the trader uses contractual terms that are expressly defined as unfair in all 
circumstances in national law, or (b) where the trader continues to use contractual terms that have 
been found to be unfair in a final decision. In relation to the UCPD (Article 13(3)), Member States 
may, for national constitutional reasons, decide not to apply the rules on fines for infringements 
subject to the CPC coordinated enforcement where the trader has infringed solely Article 5 UCPD 
on professional diligence for the first time.  

The regulatory choice under the UCTD is used in many Member States. For example, Croatia, 
Finland,  France,  Germany  and  Portugal  apply  the  penalties  in  both  situations  provided  in  the 
UCTD.  Penalties  are  applied  only  in  cases  where  the  trader  uses  contractual  terms  that  are 
expressly defined as unfair in all circumstances in national law, for example in Austria, Czechia 
and Estonia. Finally, penalties only apply where the trader continues to use contractual terms that 
have been found to be unfair in a final decision, for example, in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg 
and Sweden.  

The regulatory  choice under  the UCPD  is  used  by  fewer Member States, for example  Austria, 
Croatia, Finland, France, Germany and Sweden.  

21 See ‘Final report: Information gathering for assisting the European Commission in complying with its obligations 
under  Article  40  (ʽreportingʼ)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  on  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation’,  available  at: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f3eb3b4c-e819-11ee-9ea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.   

7 

 
 
 
 
In conclusion, a number of Member States used regulatory options in relation to the new rules on 
penalties. With a few exceptions, the national laws have correctly transposed the new requirement 
regarding  fines  for  infringements  subject  to  the  CPC  coordinated  actions,  in  some  cases  going 
beyond  the  minimum  requirements,  e.g.  by  extending  their  application  to  all  infringements  – 
including  domestic  ones  –  of  the  directives  concerned.  The  rules  on  maximum  fines  for 
infringements in cross-border cases subject to CPC coordinated enforcement have not yet been 
applied in practice. 

6. Remedies for consumers under the UCPD 

The  Modernisation  Directive  incorporated  into  the  UCPD  the  right  of  consumers  to 
proportionate and effective individual remedies when they are harmed by unfair commercial 
practices.  Article  11a  now  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  both  contractual  and  non-
contractual remedies are available to consumers who have been victims of unfair practices, i.e. 
compensation for damage, price reduction and termination of the contract. Member States have 
the  discretion  to  determine  the  conditions  for  the  application  and  effects  of  the  remedies. 
Consumers can enforce these remedies via individual actions or by collective redress actions under 
the  new  Representative  Actions  Directive  (EU)  2020/1828,  which  provides  for  a  procedural 
mechanism for enforcing collective consumer rights. 

As in the case of the rules on penalties, the conformity check of the national provisions transposing 
Article 11a proved rather complex and gave rise to a number of questions that are being or will be 
addressed in the targeted dialogues with several Member States. This complexity is due to the fact 
that consumer remedies were implemented in many Member States partly by introducing new rules 
and partly by relying on pre-existing civil law remedies provisions. Moreover, the scope and range 
of the remedies available in several Member States was not clear. The UCPD has a broad scope 
applying to unfair commercial practices  occurring outside any contractual relationship between 
the trader and consumer and also following the conclusion of a contract and during its execution. 
Accordingly, the consumer remedies must also be available for infringements concerning all these 
stages and types of business-to-consumer relations. 

Member States adopted different approaches to transposing Article 11a UCPD. Some Member 
States, e.g. Slovenia, Romania and Latvia have introduced (or already had pre-existing) specific 
provisions in their legislation transposing the UCPD expressly providing for consumers’ right to 
remedies in case of breach of those provisions. Some Member States have specific provisions on 
remedies  in  their  laws  transposing  the  UCPD  which  also  expressly  refer  to  additional  rules  in 
general  civil  law,  such  as  civil  codes,  for  example  in  Austria,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Estonia  and 
Germany. Finally, some Member States have notified their general civil law or other provisions 
on  remedies  as  being  applicable  to  breaches  of  the  national  rules  transposing  the  UCPD,  for 
example, France. 

A few Member States notified provisions that, besides providing the substantive rights to remedies, 
also facilitate their implementation. For example, in Bulgaria, when consumers claim remedies 
under general law before a civil court, they do not need to prove that the practice is unfair when 
the  national  enforcement  authority  (Consumer  Protection  Commission)  has  already  found,  in  a 
final  order, that a particular practice is  unfair.  Spain  has  adopted provisions giving evidentiary 
value to a previous finding by the authority or a court of an infringement of the UCPD. 

8 

 
 
In conclusion, most Member States’ laws now include rules providing consumers with the right to 
compensation for damage, price reduction or termination of the contract when they are victims of 
unfair practices.  

7. Price reduction announcements  

The Modernisation Directive amended the PID by introducing a new Article 6a on price reductions 
aimed at  ensuring  that  consumers  are better informed and can better assess  the merits and real 
advantage  of  the  announced  reduction.  It  requires  the  sellers  of  goods  who  announce  a  price 
reduction to indicate the ‘prior price’, namely the lowest price applied by the same trader during 
a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction. As a 
more specific rule, the new Article 6a takes precedence over the general provisions of the UCPD 
as regards, in particular, the characteristics of the reference price in price reductions. However, the 
UCPD  with  its  case-by-case  approach  remains  applicable  for  assessing  other  aspects  of  price 
reductions  that  are  not  expressly  regulated  in  Article  6a  PID,  such  as  the  duration  of  the  price 
reduction. Moreover, the UCPD remains the applicable legal basis for assessing the various other 
types of price promotions that are outside the scope of Article 6a, such as price comparisons. 

Paragraphs  3  to  5  of  Article  6a  provide  for  regulatory  choices  allowing  Member  States  to 
derogate from the general rule in case of: (a) goods that are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly 
(‘perishable’ goods), (b) goods that have been on the market for less than 30 days (‘new arrivals’ 
goods);  and  (c)  goods  for  which  the  price  reduction  is  progressively  increased  (‘progressive 
discounts’).  

All Member States transposed the general rule on the ‘prior price’, maintaining 30 days as the 
reference  period  for  establishing  the  ‘prior  price’.  However,  although  the  PID  and  Article  6a 
applies only to sale of goods, some Member States extended the scope of the national provisions 
on price reductions to also  cover  services.  The extension  of  Article 6a to  services  has  raised 
concerns on the part of industry stakeholders (see below) and the Commission is addressing this 
through the targeted dialogues with Member States. 

The regulatory choices in Article 6a give Member States some flexibility in adapting the national 
rules to market conditions of specific categories of goods. Many but not all Member States have 
decided to apply them, which has resulted in some national differences.  

The  regulatory  choice  concerning  goods  which  are  liable  to  deteriorate  or  expire  rapidly 
(‘perishable goods’) in Article 6a(3) allows Member States to provide for different rules for such 
goods or to exempt them from the scope of Article 6a.  

All Member States made use of this regulatory option except Croatia, Ireland and Luxembourg. 
National provisions implementing Article 6a PID do not apply to ‘perishable’ goods in Austria, 
Belgium, Czechia, Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, Spain 
and  Sweden.  In  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Slovenia  sellers  have  to 
indicate, as reference price in price reductions, the price applied before the reduction. Finally, some 
Member  States  apply  Article  6a  to  perishable  goods  but  have  provided  for  reduced  reference 

9 

 
 
periods  for  setting  the  ‘prior’  price,  i.e.  in  Bulgaria  (7  days),  Romania  (10  days),  Denmark 
(14 days) and Portugal (15 days). 

Moreover, the national rules differ as regards the definition of goods considered as ‘liable to 
deteriorate or expire rapidly’. For example:  

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In Austria, the regulatory choice applies ‘where the price reduction is applied as a result 
of  expiry  of  the  date  of  minimum  durability  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(2)(r)  of 
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011’22.  
In Finland, it applies to ‘highly perishable foodstuffs’.  
In Germany, it applies to ‘perishable goods or goods with a short remaining shelf life if 
the price requested is reduced due to an impending risk of spoilage or an impending expiry 
of the shelf life and this is made known to the consumer in a suitable manner’.  
In  Italy,  it  applies  ‘to  the  perishable  agricultural  and  food  products’  as  defined  in  the 
specific national legislation.  
In  Lithuania,  it  applies  to  ‘perishable  products  or  items  which  quickly  lose  their 
commercial value’.  
In  Spain,  it  applies  to  ‘identical  products  approaching  their  expiry  date  or  best-before 
date’. 
In Bulgaria, it applies to ‘goods which are subject to rapid deterioration, or which have a 
short shelf life’.  
In Estonia, it applies to ‘goods that, owing to their nature or level of processing, age or 
deteriorate rapidly and are likely to become unfit for sale before 30 days have passed from 
the point at which they are offered for sale’.  
In the Netherlands, it applies to goods that ‘are rapidly spoiled or have a limited shelf life’ 
as designated by ministerial order.  
In Slovenia, it applies when the goods are just before their expiry date, and to perishable 
goods.  
In  Portugal,  ‘perishable  agricultural  and  food  products’  mean  ‘agricultural  and  food 
products that by their nature or at their stage of processing are liable to become unfit for 
sale within 30 days after harvest, production or processing’. 

The regulatory choice regarding the goods that have been on sale for less than 30 days (‘new 
arrivals’) in Article 6a(4) enables Member States to allow price reduction announcements also in 
respect of goods that the trader has been selling for less than 30 days before the announcement of 
the price reduction. In this respect, Member States may provide for a shorter period of time than 
30 days for establishing the ‘prior’ price. Many Member States have chosen to use this possibility 
except for Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden.  

22 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision 
of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing  Commission Directive  87/250/EEC,  Council  Directive  90/496/EEC, 
Commission  Directive  1999/10/EC,  Directive  2000/13/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council, 
Commission  Directives  2002/67/EC  and  2008/5/EC  and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  608/2004  (OJ  L  304, 
22.11.2011, p. 18). 

10 

 
 
 
Among the Member States using the regulatory choice, many define the ‘prior price’ as the lowest 
price applied by the trader since the goods have been on the market, without stipulating a minimum 
period,  i.e.  Austria,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Greece,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania  and  Slovenia.  Minimum  periods  are  stipulated  in  Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Estonia and Latvia (for all – 7 days) and Hungary (15 days). 

Finally,  under  the  regulatory  choice  for  cases  where  the  price  reduction  is  progressively 
increased (‘progressive discounts’) in Article 6a(5), Member States may provide that, when the 
price is gradually reduced without interruptions during the same sales campaign, the lowest price 
during the 30 days before the application of the first price reduction announcement remains the 
prior  price  for  all  subsequent  price  reduction  announcements  during  the  sales  campaign.  This 
option is used by almost all Member States, except Poland and Spain.  

The  implementation  of  Article  6a  PID  has  proven  to  be  the  most  discussed  aspect  of  the 
Modernisation Directive, receiving considerable attention from the Member States’ authorities 
and stakeholders. At the end of 2021, the Commission issued dedicated guidance on Article 6a. In 
addition,  several  Member  States  have  adopted  national  guidelines  or  Q&As,  e.g.  Belgium23, 
Denmark24, Estonia25, Finland26, France27, Ireland28, Italy29, Lithuania30, Poland31 and Sweden32.  

The Commission’s guidance clarified, in particular, the non-applicability of the new requirement 
to  the  continuous  benefits  provided  in  the  context  of  customer  loyalty  programmes  (while 
additional  ad  hoc  temporary  price  reductions  for  the  members  of  such  programmes  would  be 
subject to Article 6a), and to genuine personalised price reductions that by their nature are not 
‘announced’ to consumers at large.  

The  Commission  also  made  clear  its  position  that,  whereas  sellers  remain  free  (subject  to 
respecting the UCPD) to indicate additional reference prices (such as the regular selling price 
outside promotional periods) to strengthen the promotional message, they should refrain from 
using techniques that would obscure the prior price, thus preventing consumers from or making 
it more difficult for them to take due notice of the prior price. Thus, any percentage reductions 
(e.g. ʽ30% offʼ) or amount reductions (e.g. ʽ50 euro offʼ) that the seller may choose to indicate as 
the main element of the price reduction announcement should be based on the mandatory ‘prior’ 
price.  However,  this  interpretation  is  opposed  by  many  industry  stakeholders  and  is  currently 

23 https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/entreprises/guidance/pratiques-commerciales/annoncer-des-reductions-de  
24https://www.forbrugerombudsmanden.dk/longreads/forbrugerombudsmandens-retningslinjer-for-
prismarkedsfoering/;https://www.forbrugerombudsmanden.dk/media/u1bbaaye/forbrugerombudsmandens-
retningslinjer-for-prismarkedsfoering.pdf  
25https://www.ttja.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2022-05/2022.05.04%20-%20Juhend%20-
%20Hinna%20avaldamise%20juhend%20%281%29.pdf  
26 https://www.kkv.fi/en/consumer-affairs/marketing-sales-and-indicating-prices/discounts/  
https://www.kkv.fi/kuluttaja-asiat/tietoa-ja-ohjeita-yrityksille/kuluttaja-asiamiehen-linjaukset/alennus-ja-
edullisuusilmaisut-markkinoinnissa/  
27https://www.medef.com/uploads/media/node/0019/100/14563-faq-annoncesreductionprix-medef-
31052022.pdf?v=1708695236  
28 https://www.ccpc.ie/business/help-for-business/guidelines-for-business/price-reductions/  
29 https://www.mimit.gov.it/it/assistenza/domande-frequenti/annunci-di-riduzione-di-prezzo-domande-frequenti-faq  
30 https://www.vvtat.lt/d.u.k./598#c-6/t-218  
31 https://archiwum.uokik.gov.pl/aktualnosci.php?news_id=19551  
32 Ställningstagande angående information om prissänkningar (stpubshop.blob.core.windows.net) 

11 

 
 
 
subject to a reference for a preliminary ruling by a German court to the CJEU (Case C-330/23, 
Aldi Süd) 33.  

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Commission’s  guidance,  the  stakeholder  discussions  on  the 
implementation of Article 6a PID, in particular within the CPC framework, have addressed e.g. 
price promotions based on a minimum purchase amount. The Commission explained in the 
guidance document that Article 6a does not apply to combined or tied conditional offers, such as 
‘buy one, get two’ or ‘30% off when buying three’. Such conditional offers continue to be subject 
to the UCPD. In light of this, it appears justified to treat in a similar manner promotions based 
on  a  minimum  purchase  amount  provided  they  achieve  the  same  effect  as  volume-based 
promotions, i.e. they apply in practice to purchases of more than a single item offered by the shop. 
Just like the other alternative promotional techniques, the minimum amount promotion must not 
be used merely for the purpose of circumventing the application of Article 6a.  

Another relevant aspect is the non-applicability of Article 6a to individual items of goods that 
are about to expire and that therefore should be sold quickly in a situation where the good in 
question is not perishable by its nature (e.g. pasta, conserves or cosmetics that generally have long 
expiry  periods).  This  question  is  relevant  for  the  Member  State  using  the  regulatory  choice  to 
exempt  or  to  provide  for  different  rules  on  price  reductions  for  ‘goods  which  are  liable  to 
deteriorate or expire rapidly’. As Article 6a PID does not define this concept, it appears justified 
to  apply  such  an  exemption  also  to  individual  items  of  goods  that  objectively  must  be  sold 
quickly even if the good in question is not generally ‘perishable’ by nature. In practice this 
means that sellers should be able to discount specific items of, for example, cosmetics that are 
about to expire, without such reduction affecting future possible general price reductions on the 
goods concerned. 

Another important issue for Member States and stakeholders in the context of Article 6a concerns 
market  developments  regarding  other  forms  of  price  promotions,  in  particular  price 
comparisons. Price comparisons are outside the scope of the new Article 6a and remain subject 
to the general fairness requirements of the UCPD. According to several national authorities and 
consumer associations, the use of price comparisons by sellers, especially comparisons with the 
manufacturer’s recommended retail price, has increased after the implementation of the new rules 
for price reductions under the PID. 

In the CPC framework, as regards compliance with Article 6a, a sweep on price reductions 
took place in November 2022. During the sweep, 13 national authorities analysed 16 000 products 
from 176 websites, monitoring them over a one-month period to establish whether the indicated 
‘prior’ price complied with the new PID legal requirement. The sweep showed that more than half 
of  the  products  monitored  presented  a  price  reduction.  Out  of  this  number,  23%  of  price 
reduction announcements breached Article 6a of the PID. These breaches were found on at 
least 43% of the screened websites. It has to be noted that not all the Member States concerned 

33 CURIA - Case information (europa.eu) 

12 

 
 
 
had transposed and implemented the new Article 6a of the PID at  the time of the sweep, even 
though they were required to start applying it from 28 May 202234. 

To  help  national  authorities  in  their  investigations,  the  Commission  has  provided  them  with  a 
specific  AI-based  tool  in  the  context  of  the  EU  e-Lab  –  a  project  aimed  at  developing  and 
applying advanced digital technologies to online consumer investigations in support of the CPC 
network. The tool allows the authorities to monitor the price history of the selected products and 
to establish whether the prior price stated in the discount announcement is actually the lowest price 
applied to the product in the 30 days preceding the price reduction announcement. 

Several national enforcement authorities have launched formal enforcement actions in relation 
to  breaches  concerning  price  reductions.  For  example,  in  the  autumn  of  2023,  the  Swedish 
Consumer  Agency  (Konsumentverket)35  monitored  the  prices  of  more  than  1  700  products  in 
several  different  sectors.  The  review  concerned  approximately  100  companies,  of  which  the 
majority marketed products at reduced prices during the review period. It showed that 70% of the 
examined  companies  that  marketed  price  reductions  infringed  the  applicable  law.  Specifically, 
they: (1) did not indicate the lowest price in the last 30 days, (2) indicated an incorrect prior lowest 
price, and (3) used a different reference price than the prior lowest price to calculate the size of the 
price  reduction.  Other  examples  include  the  Polish  Office  of  Competition  and  Consumer 
Protection (UOKiK)36, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM)37 and the Estonian 
Consumer  Protection  and  Technical  Regulatory  Authority  (TTJA)38  which  have  reported  on 
significant infringements by traders and have announced formal investigations. As regards private 
enforcement, in May 2023 the French consumer association UFC Que Choisir published a report39 
on the price comparison practices of 8 major sellers on the French market and filed complaints 
about unfair commercial practices with the Procureur de la République de Paris.  

As  regards  consumer  perceptions  about  the  trustworthiness  of  price  reductions,  the  2020  and 
2022 Consumer  Conditions  Surveys  included  a  question  on  whether  the  consumers  had 
experienced price discounts that seemed too large to be genuine when searching or buying online. 
The  share  of  consumers  reporting  that  they  always,  most  of  the  time  or  at  least  sometimes 
encountered what seemed to them excessively large price discounts was similar in both surveys – 
60% in 2022 and 61% in 2020. 

Between  January  and  October  2023,  in  the  context  of  the  supporting  study,  a  limited  scale 
compliance test was carried out on 95 websites across 10 Member States, analysing how price 
reductions and other promotion techniques are presented to consumers40. This exercise focused on 

34 The results of the CPC sweep are available at: https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-
and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/sweeps_en.  
35 The review can be found here: Konsumentverkets granskning 7 a § prisinformationslagen.  
36 https://archiwum.uokik.gov.pl/aktualnosci.php?news_id=19718  
37 https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/acm-pakt-webwinkels-aan-die-nepkortingen-gebruiken 
38 https://ttja.ee/uudised/allahindluste-kuvamise-kontroll-e-poodides-pea-40-puhul-tuvastati-
rikkumisi?utm_campaign=newsletter-04.06.2024&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendsmaily 
39  https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-fausses-promotions-l-ufc-que-choisir-depose-plainte-contre-8-
sites-de-commerce-en-ligne-n108122/ 
40  The  websites  were  selected  based  on  their  popularity ranking  on  SimilarWeb  in  the  eCommerce  and  Shopping 
category. 

13 

 
 
 
the presentation of price advantages and did not involve tracking the reference price over the 30-
days period to establish the validity of the ‘prior’ price.  

Of  the  475  products  screened,  price  reductions  or  other  promotions  appeared  regarding 
360 products (on 75 out of 95 websites). The check also showed that combined offers were present 
on 27 websites for 88 products. Finally, general percentage reductions or percentage reductions 
linked to a minimum purchase amount were relatively common (49.5% of the screened websites).  

As regards the presentation of price reductions/promotions for specific products (251 products on 
42  websites),  in  around  90%  of  cases,  the  reference  price  was  crossed  out  to  emphasise  the 
discount. In 75.6% of cases, the price advantage was presented in percentage. Often, crossed-
out reference price and percentage or absolute value discount were used together to highlight the 
promotion.  

As regards the nature of the price advantage, in most cases (69.7%) the researchers did not notice 
any qualification or explanation of the provided (crossed-out) reference price. This suggests that 
the seller was offering a price reduction, which means that the reference price  provided had to 
comply with the requirements for the ‘prior price’ under Article 6a PID. The remaining promotions 
appeared to be price comparisons. Most of them used the recommended retail price as reference 
(25.8%) and the remaining referred to the notion of  ‘average price’  (3.1%) and prices on other 
websites (1.4%).  

These  results  suggest  that  the  price  reductions  were  the  prevalent  type  of  price  promotion; 
however, it has to be borne in mind that the specific qualification of the reference price may not 
have been readily visible and noticeable in all cases. For example, the above-mentioned report of 
the French consumer association UFC Que Choisir from May 2023, which analysed a sample of 
6 586 offers with crossed-out reference prices, concluded that only 3.4% of these offers were ‘price 
reductions’ in the meaning of Article 6a PID. More than 9 out of 10 of these offers were rather 
price comparisons, using many different ways of presenting the reference, like: ‘recommended 
retail price’, ‘original price’, ‘was price’, ‘average price on the marketplace’, ‘average price on 
competitor websites’, ‘price provided by third-party seller’, etc.  

The consumer survey in the context of the supporting study gathered consumer perceptions about 
types of price promotions and their prevalence. Between 52% and 66% of respondents indicated 
that  they  had  encountered  a  price  promotion  at  least  ‘sometimes’  in  the  past  12  months:  price 
reduction when buying more than one item (66%); reduction when buying for more than a certain 
amount  (60%);  price  reduction  (56%);  reduced  price  for  members  of  the  ‘loyalty  programme’ 
(53%); comparisons with the recommended price (52%).   

In  the  context  of  the  stakeholder  consultation,  EU  trade  associations  and  businesses,  while 
supporting the idea of better consumer information and transparency of price promotions, criticised 
the  divergent  implementation  of  the  new  rule  across  the  Member  States,  such  as  its  extension 
beyond the sale of goods in some Member States and the different application of the regulatory 
option  on  perishable  goods  which  is  also  causing  difficulties  for  cross-border  trade.  They  also 
request stronger enforcement of the rules for the sake of a level playing field, including as regards 

14 

 
 
non-EU  traders  targeting  the  EU  market.  In  this  respect,  the  industry  is  calling  for  strong 
cooperation among the consumer protection authorities across the EU within the CPC network41.  

For many business stakeholders it is important to maintain the current flexibility regarding price 
comparisons.  Price  comparisons  are  especially  important  for  franchise  networks  where  the 
franchisor announces price promotions based on its recommended selling price, and in the fashion 
ʽoutletʼ sector. Business stakeholders consider that the current case-by-case assessment approach 
to price comparisons under the UCPD should be maintained, including as regards the use of the 
recommended retail price as reference and of the marketing techniques of percentage reductions, 
absolute  value  reductions  and  crossed-out  reference  prices.  In  their  view,  traders  using  price 
comparisons  can  ensure  the  necessary  transparency  by  appropriately  informing  consumers; 
possible problems can be addressed by extending the UCPD guidance on price comparisons  to 
specify the criteria for fair comparisons (ensuring that the reference price is  real,  effective  and 
representative).  Many  business  stakeholders  would  oppose  any  further  formal  rules  on  price 
comparisons, at the same time calling for the avoidance of any different approaches by national 
authorities  in  different  Member  States  towards  price  comparisons  when  enforcing  the  general 
UCPD rules in individual cases under the case-by-case approach.  

In  conclusion,  the  implementation  of  the  new  PID  rule  has  given  rise  to  important  questions 
about  its  interpretation,  especially  given  the  vast  range  of  different  price  promotion 
techniques employed by sellers. Some of them have been clarified in this report (in addition to 
the  guidance  already  provided  in  the  2021  Commission  Notice),  while  the  important  issue 
concerning the interplay between  the regulated  ‘prior’ price and other reference prices  in  price 
reductions is the subject matter of a forthcoming CJEU ruling in Case C-330/23, Aldi Süd.  

The  implementation  of  Article  6a  PID  shows  certain  divergences  across  Member  States  as 
regards  its  scope  of  application  and  the  categories  of  goods  subject  to  regulatory  options.  In 
particular, the different implementation of the regulatory choice for ‘perishable goods’ gives rise 
to concerns around the possible lack of a level playing field and legal certainty for consumers and 
traders. Alternative regulatory solution should be explored for addressing these categories of goods 
in a more harmonised manner across the Member States.   

Several Member States have not only issued formal guidance to their traders, complementing the 
Commission’s  Notice,  but  also  carried  out  market  monitoring  and  embarked  on  formal 
enforcement, including by co-operating within the CPC framework and using the digital tools that 
it provides. Continued strong enforcement will continue to play an essential role in implementing 
Article  6a  PID.  Many  traders’  representatives  also  call  for  more  uniform  implementation  and 
stronger enforcement of the rules to guarantee a level playing field.  

Many  consumer  representatives  and  Member  States  highlight  the  need  to  address  the  risk  of 
consumer confusion between ‘regulated’ price reductions and other forms of price advantages 
that  are  only  subject  to  the  case-by-case  assessment  under  the  UCPD.  These  alternative  forms 

41  See  for  example,  Ecommerce  Europe,  EuroCommerce  and  Independent  Retail  Europe  ʽRecommendations  to 
improve the interpretation of and compliance with Article 6a of the 2019 Price Indication Directiveʼ, 29 February 
2024,  available  at:  https://www.eurocommerce.eu/2024/02/recommendations-to-improve-the-interpretation-of-and-
compliance-with-article-6a-of-the-2019-price-indication-directive/. 

15 

 
 
 
appear to be more widely used since the entry into application of the PID rules on price reductions, 
in  particular  price  comparisons  using  the  recommended  retail  price  as  reference.  By  contrast, 
traders’ representatives call for addressing price  comparisons with  additional guidance on their 
principles in the context of the UCPD. In their view, the flexible choice of the techniques for price 
comparisons should be retained with a case-by-case application of the UCPD. Further research is 
needed  to  assess  whether  the  current  business  practices  regarding  the  marketing  of  price 
comparisons cause confusion and mislead consumers as to the real nature of the price promotion 
and the advantage that it entails.   

8. ‘Dual quality’ marketing 

‘Dual quality’ is the commonly used term referring to traders’ practices of marketing goods in 
different Member States as identical, despite them having significantly different composition or 
characteristics. These differences are not related to the ‘quality’ of the goods as such but to the 
differences in the goods’ composition or characteristics. Therefore, although commonly used, the 
term ‘dual quality’ does not necessarily mean lower quality of goods. Recognising the importance 
of the ‘dual quality’ issue, raised in the European Council42, in the European Parliament43, and by 
certain  Member  States  and  stakeholders,  the  Commission  proposed  strengthening  consumer 
protection for these cases through a specific amendment of the UCPD.  

The  new  Article  6(2)(c)  UCPD  specifically  empowers  the  competent  authorities  to  stop  and 
prohibit ‘dual quality’ practices, subject to a case-by-case-assessment. Based on the Commission’s 
assessment of the transposition measures, Member States have on the whole implemented the ‘dual 
quality’  provision  correctly  in  their  national  law.  A  possible  transposition  problem  is  being 
discussed with only one Member State.   

Article 6 UCPD aims at ensuring transparency, so that consumers are not misled by products 
presented as being identical across the EU when they are not. It applies when such marketing 
practice could lead consumers to take transactional decisions they would not have taken if 
they had known about the difference in the good’s composition and characteristics. The EU 
consumer protection legislation does not deal with product composition and recipes. Therefore, 
this amendment to the UCPD does not specifically aim at or require the harmonisation of product 
recipes across the EU. 

The Commission has clarified the application of Article 6(2)(c) UCPD in a dedicated section of 
the UCPD Guidance at the end of 2021. The Guidance explains that, in line with the broad general 
scope of the UCPD, ‘marketing’ covers both the presentation of goods on their packaging, the 
related advertising and the selling of the goods to consumers. The provision applies to all traders 
involved with the supply of the goods to consumers, although the main target group is clearly 

42 See Conclusions by the President of the European Council in March 2017, available here: 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24113/09-conclusions-pec.pdf and, more recently, Conclusions of the April 
2024 European Council available here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/m5jlwe0p/euco-conclusions-
20240417-18-en.pdf. 
43  See  questions  by  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  addressed  to  the  Commission  available  at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html#sidesForm. 

16 

 
 
 
the  manufacturers  that  decide  on  the  composition,  the  design  and  presentation  of  the  goods 
marketed in different Member States.  

The  UCPD  Guidance  also  explains  important  concepts,  such  as  ‘being  identical’  and  the 
‘significance’ of the difference in composition or characteristics.  In particular, it explains that 
‘significance’ relates to the perception of an average consumer and is therefore part of the general 
case-by-case assessment of the impact of the marketing on the transactional decision of the average 
consumer to choose between goods. The Guidance also explains that the exception for differences 
justified by ‘legitimate and objective factors’ such as geographical or seasonal availability of 
raw materials or traders’ voluntary nutritional reformulation policies which cannot technically or 
economically be done simultaneously in all markets44 must be interpreted narrowly. Moreover, if 
traders maintain that the differences in goods marketed as being identical are justified by legitimate 
and objective factors, they should inform consumers of these by other means, for instance in related 
advertising, information at the retailer premises or through easily accessible online means. 

The Commission has been actively monitoring the issue of ‘dual quality’ across Member States 
and will continue to do so. It has also conducted several studies on the matter through its Joint 
Research Centre. 

In  July  2023,  the  Commission  published  the  results  of  a  second  study  on  the  EU-wide 
comparison of the characteristics and presentation of branded food products45. This  study 
covered 26 Member States46 (compared to 19 Member States covered by a first study published in 
201947). It concluded that 6% of the food products covered by the study had a different composition 
but an identical front-of-pack appearance, while 23% of the products differed in composition and 
indicated to a certain extent the differences by variations in the design on the front-of-pack48.  

Compared to the first 2019 study, this represented a 7-percentage point decrease49 of goods 
with  an  identical  or  similar  front-of-pack  appearance  but  different  composition  or 
characteristics. The result is encouraging, especially since the sample collection for the analysis 
took place before the entry into application of the new UCPD provision. As in the first 2019 study, 
in 2023 the Commission did not find evidence of any consistent geographical pattern in the goods’ 
composition and characteristics. Nevertheless, this latest study also showed that there are still cases 
of products with different composition which are marketed as being identical. The Commission 

44  In  this  respect,  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  recommends  reformulating  food  products  in  line  with  guidelines  for 
healthy, sustainable diets. Such voluntary strategies to reduce, for example, added sugars, saturated fats and salt, can 
include a gradual roll-out of recipe changes for organisational reasons and to ensure consumer acceptance. 
45 Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC131303.  
46 The data was collected in 2021 in all Member States except Malta where the sampling of the goods could not take 
place due to Covid-19 related travelling restrictions. 
47 Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC117088. 
48  A  significant  portion  of  the  products  that  were  included  in  the  2018/2019  testing  campaign  (and  also  in  the 
2021 testing campaign) were products for which national consumer protection authorities or consumer associations 
had received complaints  regarding differences between domestic versions and versions available in other Member 
States. For this reason, the share of ‘dual quality’ products is not representative; it could be an overestimation of the 
overall share of ‘dual quality’ food products in the EU single market. 
49 For the two categories combined (differences in composition of products with similar and the same presentation) in 
the same 19 Member States where the 2019 study was conducted (as opposed to the 26 Member States in 2023 study), 
there is a 7-percentage point decrease from 31% in 2019 study to 24% in 2023 study. 

17 

 
 
 
will continue monitoring the matter and the impact of the application of the new UCPD provision 
in the Member States.  

Also in 2023, the Commission published a number of other important analytical documents.  

First, the study on food products incorporated a survey of the manufacturers of the products in 
question50. A majority (60%) of the companies that were found to market ‘dual quality’ goods 
indicated having taken actions or to be planning to act, including by changing product presentation 
(i.e. front-of-pack appearance), harmonising recipes, implementing other measures (e.g. informing 
consumers) or combining these actions. EU consumer legislation was the reason most frequently 
mentioned by companies for acting (47% of respondents that provided an answer). Reasons such 
as change in business strategy (20%), intervention by national public authorities (7%) and negative 
publicity (7%) were also given as reasons for addressing the matter. The companies that did not 
plan to take any action (40% of respondents) reported that the lack of action was due to differences 
in  national  regulations  (80%).  Some  pointed  to  production-related  factors  (40%)  such  as  those 
linked to the availability of raw materials across the EU or due to the technical equipment used in 
factories. Consumer preferences, such as specific taste profiles (30%), or differences in voluntary 
standards  across  Member  States  (20%)  were  also  mentioned.  Finally,  ‘other  reasons’  included 
different  rounding  rules  for  indicating  the  percentage  of  ingredients  or  products  compared  not 
being from the same production period. 

Second, an empirical testing of consumers’ perceptions of differences in package and product 
versions of seemingly identical branded food products was completed51. The study found that the 
front-of-pack design elements have an impact on the perception of package and product differences 
and on consumer choices and that, given the complexity of the design elements, a case-by-case 
assessment of their actual impact on consumer’s perception and choices would be needed. 

Finally, the Commission also published a study on the personal and household care sector after 
adapting the existing methodology used previously for food products52. It found that 8% of the 
products differed in composition but without differentiating the appearance of the front-of-pack in 
at least one of the 20 surveyed Member States. 25% of the products differed in composition and 
indicated to a certain extent those differences by variations in the graphic design on the front-of-
pack. The brand owners submitted that the reasons for such differences were that product launches 
had come at different times in the reformulation cycles of products. Again, there was no indication 
of consistent differentiation of products related to certain geographical regions of the participating 
Member States. 

50 The food manufacturers include producers of a broad range of goods such as confectionery, cereals, soups, ready to 
eat savouries and snacks, meat, dairy products, fish, sugars, non-alcoholic beverages. See in particular, Annex 5 of the 
EU-wide comparison of the characteristics and presentation of branded food products (2021) Annex 5  – Company 
survey results available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC131303. 
51 Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130388. 
52  Available  at:  https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC134346.  The  study  was  conducted  in  15 
Member States that expressed interest in participating and in a further 5 Member States where the JRC itself collected 
the data. 

18 

 
 
 
The preliminary results of these different studies were presented during a stakeholders’ event in 
October  202253  and  the  final  results  before  the  European  Parliament’s  IMCO  Committee  in 
September 2023. 
An earlier Commission study in 202054 found that informing consumers about the differentiation 
of food products in various Member States by including a ‘made for’ claim had different impacts 
on  consumers’  purchase  decisions, i.e.  in  some  cases  it  led  to  the  ‘domestic’  versions  being 
chosen, while  in  others  the ‘foreign’ versions  were chosen. The consumer’s behaviour, when 
confronted with differentiation of goods, would also depend on the scale of the difference. 
The average consumers’ transactional decision was more likely to be affected if they knew that 
one or a number of key ingredient(s) or their content differed substantially55. In addition, larger 
compositional differences are more likely to lead to different sensory characteristics, making the 
difference more obvious.  

In April 2023, to support the national authorities in their activities regarding  ‘dual quality’, the 
Commission organised, together with the Romanian Consumer Protection Authority, a dedicated 
workshop in the framework of the CPC. The workshop provided for useful exchanges between 
the Member States representatives and industry. While the national authorities overall considered 
the  matter  as  important,  they  also  pointed  out  giving  it  different  levels  of  priority,  since  ‘dual 
quality’ marketing does not affect consumers in the same way in all Member States. A majority of 
Member  States  authorities  stressed  the  importance  of  case-by-case  assessment  and  pointed  out 
that, at the moment, the ‘dual quality’ problem is of lesser concern than before the adoption of the 
Modernisation Directive, also due to the constructive informal dialogues with the manufacturers 
in the context of the implementation of the new UCPD rule.  

This  report  has  been  informed  by  a  range  of  stakeholder  contacts  focused  on  ‘dual  quality’. 
Interviews  with  national  Ministries  focusing  on  the  application  of  the  Modernisation  Directive 
covered all Member States. In addition, through the wider interview programme for the  Fitness 
Check, feedback on ‘dual quality’ was gathered from stakeholders concerned including EU trader 
associations.  Some  national  ministries  reported  that  they  viewed  the  issue  of  ‘dual  quality’  as 
having  already  been  addressed  through  the  Modernisation  Directive.  Others  saw  it  as  having 
become  an  issue  of  comparatively  low  importance  compared  with  other  problematic  practices. 
However, there were also Member States that signalled continued concerns about ‘dual quality’. 

According to interview and written feedback received from national Ministries, only two Member 
States  have  conducted  formal  investigations  into  dual  quality  cases.  The  Czech  authorities 
have pursued a ‘dual quality’ case concerning the manufacturer of a food product that exhibited 

53 The participants included industry associations, food/drink companies, national consumer protection authorities and 
BEUC. 
54 JRC report ‘Economic analyses of differences in composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the 
Single  Market’  (2020),  available  at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/19769287-a153-11ea-
9d2d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-242563517.  The  report  analysed,  via 
lab  and  online 
experiments,  whether  informing  consumers  about  the  product  differences  (expressed  with  ‘made  for  country  X’ 
designation) affects their choice of a product version. There was no clear preference for ‘domestic’ or non-domestic 
versions in the online experiment, whereas there was more preference for domestic versions in the lab experiment. 
55 JRC report ‘Differences in composition of seemingly identical branded products: Impact on consumer purchase 
decisions  and  welfare’  (2020),  available  at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/98ecec80-a154-
11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

19 

 
 
 
differences in composition compared to equivalent products marketed in other Member States. The 
Romanian authorities investigated a case concerning a soft drinks company on the grounds that 
their  identically  branded  goods  had  different  composition  in  different  Member  States.  The 
conclusions of these investigations have not been publicly announced by the authorities concerned. 

In addition, Slovakia conducted market research in 2024 and found instances of goods presenting 
differences in  composition, especially in  the  case of  soft drinks, products of animal origin and 
seasonings. Slovakia presented these findings at the AGRIFISH Council on 27 May 2024 calling 
on the Commission to continue paying due attention to this problem and on all Member States to 
enforce the relevant EU legislation56. 

The stakeholder survey also included specific questions on the perceived consumer detriment 
due to  ‘dual  quality’ practices, the necessary actions to  address it and the types of potential 
legislative action. 

With  respect  to  consumer  detriment57,  26  respondents  considered  that  consumers  suffer 
detriment due to ‘dual quality’ practices  to a great or moderate extent. Among 26 respondents, 
9 Ministries  and  enforcement  authorities  from  6  Member  States,  and  7  consumer  associations 
(national associations from 6 Member States and one EU level association) responded that there 
was consumer detriment. No business association expressed such a view.   

With respect to the necessary measures to tackle ‘dual quality’ practices by traders58, among 
the  Member  States  authorities  (Ministries  and  enforcement  authorities),  representatives  of  3 
Member  States  replied  that  the  current  UCPD  rules,  based  on  a  case-by-case  assessment  and 
considering  the  impact  on  consumers  are  adequate  and  should  be  enforced  while  the 
representatives of the other 3 Member States responded that stronger rules are needed. Amongst 
consumer associations, one felt that the rules are adequate but should be better enforced whereas 
the  associations  representing  5  Member  States  felt  that  stronger  rules  were  needed.  The  single 
responding EU-level association did not provide a reply to this question.  

Finally,  the respondents  who indicated the need for  ‘stronger rules’ were  asked to  indicate  the 
options for strengthening the legal framework59. The respondents could indicate more than one 
of the pre-formulated options and propose their alternative ones.  

Among  the  four  respondents  representing  national  ministries  and  enforcement  authorities 
(representing in total three Member States), three (representing two Member States) were in favour 
of banning such marketing practices in all circumstances and in all the Member States affected, 
irrespective of their impact on individual consumers in individual countries.  All four respondents 
from the three Member States (also) supported the other two options: restricting/specifying the 
scope of ‘legitimate and objective’ factors that could justify such marketing practices, and adopting 

56 Recording available at: https://video.consilium.europa.eu/event/en/27486.  
57 Question 24 of the stakeholder survey: ʽDo you consider that consumers suffer detriment due to traders’ practices 
of marketing goods (through their branding and presentation) as being identical to those goods in other EU countries 
notwithstanding their differences in composition and characteristics (‘dual quality’)?ʼ.  
58 Question 26 of the stakeholder survey: ʽWhat is your opinion regarding measures to tackle ʽdual qualityʼ practices 
by traders?ʼ. 
59 Question 27 of the stakeholder survey: ‘In your opinion, which of the following rules would strengthen the legal 
framework on ‘dual quality’ practices?’.  

20 

 
 
 
additional rules about informing consumers when national product versions are differentiated due 
to ‘legitimate and objective’ factors.  

Out  of  the  five  consumer  associations  (representing  5  Member  States),  one  was  in  favour  of 
banning ‘dual quality’ marketing practices in all circumstances. Three favoured the other options 
–  restricting/specifying  the  scope  of  ‘legitimate  and  objective’  factors  and  the  introduction  of 
additional rules to inform consumers. Another one showed openness for all options. 

In conclusion, the enforcement experience and the surveys conducted for the purpose of this report 
show different perceptions of the importance of problems related to ‘dual quality’. For certain 
Member States, the matter remains of concern. With respect to the relevant amendment introduced 
by the Modernisation Directive, Member States seem broadly content with the possibilities now 
available under the UCPD to act on ‘dual quality’ marketing practices where warranted to 
protect  their  consumers,  i.e.  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  Several  national  authorities  appreciated 
their informal co-operation with the industry in solving the problems identified.  

The Commission’s latest EU-wide survey of food products demonstrates that the industry has been 
taking  measures  towards  either  changing  the  presentation  of  the  different  national  versions,  to 
avoid  misleading  consumers, or harmonising their recipes and composition  across the Member 
States.   

In the light of the above, and with the new legislation in force for only two years so far, it appears 
necessary to focus on the implementation and enforcement of the new rules.  

Taking into account the European Council conclusions of 17-18 April 2024, the Commission will 
continue to assist Member States’ efforts to address ‘dual quality’ cases of concern, supporting co-
operation through the CPC network, promoting effective implementation and enforcement of the 
new legislation, and continuing monitoring the situation in the markets.  

9. Unsolicited doorstep selling, commercial excursions and sales 

events 

The Modernisation Directive added to the UCPD (Article 3(5)) a regulatory choice allowing the 
Member  States  to  adopt  proportionate  and  non-discriminatory  rules  to  protect  the  legitimate 
interests of consumers with regard to aggressive or misleading marketing or selling practices in 
the  context  of  unsolicited  visits  to  a  consumer’s  home  (‘unsolicited  doorstep  selling’)60  or 
excursions  organised  by  a  trader  with  the  aim  or  effect  of  promoting  or  selling  products  to 
consumers  (‘commercial  excursions’),  where  such  rules  are  justified  on  grounds  of  consumer 
protection.  

Recital  55  of  the  Modernisation  Directive  explains  that  such  national  provisions  should  not 
prohibit those sales channels as such. It also gives examples of the possible national provisions, 
for example, prohibiting unsolicited visits if the consumer has visibly indicated that such visits are 
not acceptable or defining the time of day when such visits are not allowed. It is to be noted that 
these new regulatory choices do not affect Member States measures based on grounds other than 

60 In interviews conducted by the contractor during the supporting study with the direct selling associations at EU 
level,  SELDIA  and  Direct  Selling  Europe  (DSE)  noted  that  unsolicited  visits  represent  a  low  proportion  of  total 
doorstep selling activity, which is mainly driven by visits where people have agreed to be visited in advance. 

21 

 
 
 
consumer protection that fall outside the harmonised scope of the UCPD (for example, see Recital 
7 of the UCPD concerning measures based on taste and decency). 

In  addition,  the  CRD  was  amended  allowing  the  Member  States  to  adopt  national  provisions 
providing  for  more  favourable  rules  concerning  the  consumer’s  right  of  withdrawal.  Thus, 
Member States can extend the right of withdrawal in the case of unsolicited visits or commercial 
excursions from 14 days to 30 days (Article 9(1a) CRD), and they can derogate from four of the 
specific exceptions from the right of withdrawal (the first paragraph, points (a), (b), (c) and (e) of 
Article 16 CRD)61.   

These regulatory choices do not apply to another category of off-premises selling – sales events 
(product demonstrations) organised at places other than trader’s business premises, such as 
private homes, cafés or restaurants. These selling techniques remain subject to the general rules of 
the UCPD and the CRD. The review clause of the Modernisation Directive specifically requires 
the  Commission  to  assess  whether  the  current  rules  provide  an  adequate  level  of  consumer 
protection in the context of such selling events. 
Several  Member  States62  have  used  the  regulatory  options  to  regulate  specific  aspects  of 
unsolicited visits and/or commercial excursions under the UCPD (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, 
Czechia,  France,  Germany,  Slovakia  and  Spain).  For  example,  Croatian  law  provides  that 
unsolicited visits to the consumer’s home may take place on working days between 8.00 and 20.00. 
In Germany, when a contract is concluded in the context of an unsolicited visit to a consumer’s 
home, it is prohibited to require the consumer to pay for the good or service before the end of the 
day on which the contract was concluded (this does not apply if the payment is less than EUR 50). 
France  prohibits  unsolicited  visits  by  a  trader  to  a  consumer’s  home  for  the  purpose  of  selling 
goods or providing services where the consumer has clearly and unambiguously indicated that they 
do not wish to be the subject of such visits.  

Several Member States use the CRD regulatory choices regarding the right of withdrawal. For 
example, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia use both options, i.e. they 
extended right of withdrawal period to 30-days and waived the application of all or some of the 
exceptions from the right of withdrawal. In addition, Czechia, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain have 
only used the option to extend the right of withdrawal period to 30 days, while Austria, Croatia 
and Finland have waived the application of all or some of the four exceptions from the right of 
withdrawal. 

Stakeholders  representing  the  direct  selling  sector  (encompassing  doorstep  sales  and  sales  at 
events) have not communicated to the Commission specific concerns related to the use by Member 
States of these regulatory options. There are also no indications of appreciable impact on cross-

61 Namely, the exemption from the right of withdrawal for service contracts after the service has been fully performed 
(point (a)), the supply of goods or services for which the price is dependent on fluctuations in the financial market 
(point (b)), the supply of goods made to the  consumer’s  specifications or clearly personalised (point (c)), and the 
supply of sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and were unsealed 
after delivery (point (e)). 
62  Further  information  about  the  Member  States  using  the  regulatory  options  under  the  UCPD  and  CRD  and  the 
relevant national provisions is available in the notifications of the Member States published by the Commission at: 
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/consumer-contract-law/consumer-rights-
directive/regulatory-choices-under-article-29-crd_en  and  https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-
protection-law/unfair-commercial-practices-law/unfair-commercial-practices-directive/regulatory-choices-under-
unfair-commercial-practices-directive-200529ec_en. 

22 

 
 
 
border trade. According to the industry representatives, doorstep selling is not characterised by a 
strong  cross-border  dimension.  Furthermore,  many  direct  sellers  are  shifting  to  online  sales 
methods while keeping the feature of personal interaction with their customers. 
According to the 2023 Ipsos survey of direct sellers63, the most common methods for selling to 
existing customers are personal networks (54%), home parties/product demos (39%) and social 
media  (39%);  while  the  most  common  methods  for  selling  to  potential  new  customers  are 
referrals/word of mouth (64%), personal networks (51%) and home parties/ product demos (43%). 

Organised  sales events (i.e.  product demonstration at a private home, hotel  or restaurant 
involving sale of the product) are subject to the general provisions of the UCPD. Aggressive and 
misleading practices in the context of such sales events can be sanctioned by national authorities 
based on a case-by-case assessment under Articles 5 to 9 of the UCPD. In addition, Annex I to the 
UCPD prohibits practices where the trader creates the impression that the trader is not acting for 
purposes  relating  to  the  trader’s  profession,  and  practices  that  create  the  impression  that  the 
consumer cannot leave the premises until a contract is formed. Furthermore, the UCPD is without 
prejudice to authorisation regimes and national measures taken for purposes other than consumer 
protection (such as cultural reasons, decency, etc.) and which are therefore outside the scope of 
the UCPD. 

The  supporting  study  for  this  report  did  not  identify  any  national  case  or  enforcement  action 
specifically on sales events.  

In the consumer survey  in  the context of the  supporting study,  only  a minority of consumers 
reported having experienced, in the last 12 months, a product demonstration at a private home, 
hotel or restaurant involving sale of the product – 16 % (ranging from 28% in Romania to 11% in 
Portugal)64.  The  same  share  of  respondents  (16%)  reported  having  experienced  an  unsolicited 
doorstep  selling  visit  (ranging  from  23%  in  Sweden  and  France  to  6%  in  Hungary).  An  even 
smaller number had experienced commercial excursions: 11% (ranging from 14% in France to 
8% in Portugal and Hungary).  

However, amongst those who had experienced these selling techniques, the majority (67% in cases 
of doorstep selling and sales events and 70% in cases of commercial excursions) indicated that 
they  felt  pressured  to  purchase65.  The  highest  share  of  consumers  who  felt  pressured  during 
unsolicited visits was in Estonia (81%) and the lowest in France (50%). As regards commercial 
excursions, the highest share of consumers who felt pressured was in Poland (78%), and the lowest 
in Italy (63%). In the case of product demonstrations at a private home, hotel or restaurant, the 
highest share of consumers who felt pressured was in Portugal (79%) and the lowest in France 
(59%). 

63 Online survey conducted by Ipsos between 27 March and 21 April 2023 in 12 EU Member States (Czechia, Estonia, 
France,  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  Sweden),  available  at 
https://directsellingeurope.eu/sites/default/files/2023-07/Ipsos%20Survey%202023%20-%20Full%20Visual.pdf.  
64  Question 15  of  the  consumer  survey:  ʽIn  the  past  12  months,  have  you  experience  any  of  the  following  selling 
practices?ʼ.  
65 Question 15.1 of the consumer survey: ʽHave you felt pressured to buy the product or service in these situations due 
to those selling practices?ʼ. 

23 

 
 
 
The stakeholder survey included questions on  perceived consumer detriment due to potential 
unfair practices such as pressure selling, misleading information used in the context of these sales 
techniques and the necessary measures66.  

As regards doorstep selling, there were 128 individual responses of which 87 expressed an opinion 
while 41 replied ‘don’t know’. Among the total of 23 respondents from the national ministries 
and enforcement authorities (representing 17 Member States), 17 respondents (representing 12 
Member States) viewed doorstep selling as causing consumer detriment to a ‘great extent’ or to a 
‘moderate  extent’.  Among  the  total  of  13  respondents  from  consumer  associations  (national 
associations from 8 Member States and 2 EU level associations), 12 respondents considered that 
doorstep selling causes great or moderate levels of consumer detriment. Among the respondents 
from business associations (28), none considered that doorstep selling causes great or moderate 
levels of consumer detriment.   

As regards commercial excursions, 76 respondents expressed an opinion while 52 replied ‘don’t 
know’). Among the total 25 respondents from national ministries and enforcement authorities 
(representing  16  Member  States),  12  respondents  (representing  10  Member  States)  viewed 
commercial excursions as causing consumer detriment to a ‘great extent’ or to a ‘moderate extent’. 
Among  the  total  of  13  respondents  from  consumer  associations  (national  associations  from  8 
Member  States  and  2  EU  level  associations),  11  respondents  considered  that  doorstep  selling 
causes great or moderate levels of consumer detriment. Among the respondents from 27 business 
associations none considered that doorstep selling causes great or moderate levels of consumer 
detriment.   

Finally, as regards organised selling events, among the total of 127 respondents, 78 expressed an 
opinion  while  49  replied  ‘don’t  know’.  Among  the  total  19  respondents  from  the  national 
ministries  and  enforcement  authorities  (representing  13  Member  States),  14  respondents 
(representing 11 Member States) viewed sales events as causing consumer detriment to a ‘great 
extent’ or to a ‘moderate extent’. Among the total of 14 respondents from consumer associations 
(national associations from 8 Member States and 3 EU level associations), 11 considered that sales 
events cause detriment to a ‘great extent’ or to a ‘moderate extent’. Among the 27 respondents 
from business associations, none replied that these events cause great or moderate detriment.   

The respondents that considered that these selling techniques cause great or moderate detriment 
were asked for their views on which measures could be taken to better protect consumers67. 
There  were  40  such  responses  for  doorstep  selling,  31  for  commercial  excursions  and  34  for 
organised selling events. 

As  regards  doorstep  selling,  among  the  16  respondents  from  national  ministries  and 
enforcement authorities (representing 10 Member States), 8 respondents (representing 6 Member 
States) supported better enforcement of the existing rules, 2 respondents (representing one and 
the  same  Member  State)  supported  stronger  customised  national  rules  and  4  respondents 
(representing 3 Member States) supported stronger EU-wide rules.  

As  regards  commercial  excursions,  among  the  16  respondents  from  national  ministries  and 
enforcement authorities (representing 10 Member States), 7 respondents (representing 3 Member 

66  Question  22  of  the  stakeholder  survey: ʽDo  you  consider  that  consumers  suffer  detriment  due  to  the  unfair 
commercial practices (i.e., pressure selling, misleading information) in the context of the following selling techniques 
taking place outside the seller’s regular business premises?ʼ. 
67 Question 23 of the stakeholder survey: ʽWhat measures are needed to protect consumers better in such cases?ʼ. 

24 

 
 
 
States)  supported  better  enforcement  of  the  existing  rules,  1  respondent  supported  stronger 
customised national rules and 2 respondents (representing 2 Member States) supported stronger 
EU-wide rules.  

As  regards  organised  selling  events,  among  the  16  respondents  from  national  ministries  and 
enforcement authorities (representing 10 Member States), 4 respondents (representing 4 Member 
States) supported  better enforcement of existing  rules, 2 respondents  (representing  2 Member 
States) supported stronger customised national rules and 4 respondents (representing 4 Member 
States) supported stronger EU-wide rules.  
At the national level, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM)68 carried out 
a  consumer  study  in  2022.  It  concluded  that  primarily  energy  contracts  were  marketed  using 
doorstep selling, but also lottery tickets, telephone and broadband plans, and donations to charities. 
The study noted that many consumers experience pressure to conclude contracts in the doorstep 
selling context. 

In  conclusion,  based  on  the  data  collected  for  10  Member  States,  only  a  relative  minority  of 
consumers  are  exposed  to  the  three  selling  techniques  in  question.  However,  among  these 
consumers who have experienced them in practice, a large percentage report having experienced 
pressure selling that raises concerns regarding the fairness of commercial practices employed by 
the respective sellers. Several Member States have implemented the new regulatory options under 
the UCPD and CRD to impose specific additional rules and restrictions and/or to strengthen the 
consumer's right of withdrawal in doorstep selling and commercial excursions. It is too early to 
draw conclusions on the impact of these measures.  

As  regards  sales  events  (product  demonstrations),  the  research  for  this  report  did  not  reveal  a 
strong call by Member States or stakeholders for regulatory action. The situation of the sales events 
also did not appear as a major issue in the position papers received (either in the public69 or targeted 
consultations). The UCPD enables the Member States to curb the unfair practices in the context of 
sales events by applying the general provisions against misleading and aggressive practices as well 
as the specific relevant prohibitions in the blacklist. 

10. 

 Transparency in online searches  

The  Modernisation  Directive  added  to  the  UCPD  (Article  7(4a))  the  requirement  to  inform 
consumers about the main parameters determining the ranking of online search results in 
the B2C environment. This complemented the parallel obligation introduced by the Platform-to-
Business  Regulation70  in  the  B2B  environment.  Under  the  UCPD,  those  requirements  apply  to 
online marketplaces and comparison tools that allow consumers to search for products offered by 
third parties (i.e. by other traders, but also by consumers offering goods and services on platforms 
intermediating consumer-to-consumer (C2C) sales). A similar requirement is also included in the 

‘Digital 

fairness 

68 Available at: https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-study-reveals-doorstep-selling-major-nuisance-consumers.   
69  Public  consultation  on 
law’,  available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13413-Digital-fairness-fitness-check-on-
EU-consumer-law/public-consultation_en. 
70 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness 
and  transparency  for  business  users  of  online  intermediation  services  (OJ  L  186,  11.7.2019,  p.  57).  Among  other 
requirements, the Platform-to-Business Regulation sets out transparency requirements for online platforms and search 
engines regarding the ranking criteria in their relations with business users. 

fitness  check  on  EU  consumer 

- 

25 

 
 
 
CRD  (Article  6a)  that  applies  only  to  online marketplaces.  Moreover,  a  specific  prohibition  of 
undisclosed advertising and promotion of products in search results was added to Annex I of the 
UCPD (point 11a).  

Furthermore, in case of recommender systems, the DSA requires more transparency in the terms 
and  conditions  about  the  main  parameters  used,  as  well  as  information  and  functionalities 
regarding options for consumers to modify or influence those parameters. The DSA also introduces 
an  obligation  for  online  platforms  to  provide  a  clear  and  specific  statement  of  reasons  to  any 
affected  recipients  of  the  service  for  any  restrictions  of  the  visibility  of  specific  items  of 
information provided by the recipient of the service, including removal of content, disabling access 
to content, or demoting content. In the case of very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large 
online search engines (VLOSEs), the DSA requires the availability of at least one non-personalised 
recommender system option.  

As regards consumer perceptions about the transparency of online ranking, the percentage of 
consumers indicating that they could not understand the ranking method of search results at least 
‘sometimes’ was 52% in CCS 2023 (compared to 54% in CCS 2021). In the consumer survey for 
the supporting study, for 21% of the consumers when looking at search results (‘often’ or ‘most of 
the time’) it was not easy to find information about the parameters used for ranking those search 
results,  while  an  additional  27%  of  the  consumers  reported  that  they  ‘sometimes’  found  it 
challenging to access this information. As regards paid advertising or placement in search results, 
the 2023 CCS found that 75% of consumers perceived hidden ads placed in search results at least 
‘sometimes’ (compared to 78% in the 2021 CCS).   

A compliance test was performed in the context of the supporting study to assess the information 
to  consumers  about  ranking  parameters  for  search  results  and  the  transparency  of  paid 
advertisements/placements on 85 websites and apps in 10 Member States. 

The results show that it is only on 35% of websites (30 out of 85 websites) that consumers were 
informed  about  the  parameters  influencing  the  default  search  result  rankings.  When 
information  on  the  ranking  of  the  results  was  presented,  it  was  generally  clear  but  limited  to 
explanation  of  the  general  principles  (i.e.  that  ranking  is  based  on  product  searches,  product 
popularity  or  remuneration  received  from  partners).  These  results  are  broadly  in  line  with  the 
results  of  the  earlier  study  on  compliance  by  online  platforms  with  the  ranking  transparency 
requirements in their relations with business users which was prepared for the 2023 Report of the 
Commission on the Platform-to-Business Regulation. The study found that only a third of all the 
terms  and  conditions  of  the  online  platforms  under  review  contained  information  on  the  main 
ranking  parameters,  and  even  in  those  cases  the  descriptions  were  provided  in  rather  general 
terms71. 

The search results included top results indicated as paid placements (advertisements) in one fifth 
of cases (19.7% of the searches, on 15 out of 85 websites). In the majority of these results the paid 
advertisement  or  placement was  marked  with  the  label  ‘sponsored’ (37.7%) or  ‘advertisement’ 
(33.3%). Other methods of identification included an icon or a link to click, which either brings 
the user to a different page providing information, or text stating that the result was sponsored 
appearing when hovering the mouse on top of the icon (26.1% of cases). 

71 Report from the Commission on the first preliminary review on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, 
COM (2023) 525. 

26 

 
 
 
As concerns EU-level enforcement  on the labelling  of paid  advertisements, following  the CPC 
coordinated action in 2022, TikTok committed to identifying paid advertisements in videos with a 
new label to be tested for effectiveness72. 

In  conclusion,  the  data  gathered  through  the  consumer  survey  and  the  compliance  test  on  a 
selection of websites, as well as the Consumer Conditions Scoreboards, show that transparency 
about the search results ranking parameters requires improvement. Furthermore, the providers of 
online search functionalities that include advertisements or paid placements in search results have 
to  ensure  that  they  are  clearly  visible  for  consumers  and  easily  distinguishable  from  the  other 
results.  

11. 

 Consumer reviews  

The Modernisation Directive included a specific transparency requirement in the UCPD (Article 
7(6)) – traders that give access to reviews must inform consumers about whether and how they 
ensure  that  the  published  reviews  originate  from  consumers  who  have  actually  used  or 
purchased the product. Furthermore, it added specific prohibitions on misleading practices to 
Annex  I  (points  23b  and  23c).  In  these  provisions  ʽreviewsʼ  should  be  interpreted  broadly  as 
covering not only textual messages but also, for example, ‘star ratings’ and similar tools whereby 
consumers express their views on a product or a trader’s performance. 

A major challenge in the area of reviews concerns the measures that traders that give access to 
consumer reviews, in particular the online intermediaries (e.g. online marketplaces and dedicated 
review platforms), have to take to comply with the new point 23b of Annex I that prohibits stating 
that reviews of a product are submitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the 
product without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to check that they originate from such 
consumers. Under this provision, the traders that choose to present reviews that they make 
available as consumer reviews, must take measures which – without amounting to a general 
obligation to monitor or carry out fact-finding (see Article 8 of the DSA) – increase the likelihood 
for  such  reviews  to  reflect  real  users’  experiences.  On  the  one  hand,  this  requirement  entails 
minimum obligations that all traders giving access to consumer reviews must meet, for example 
only allowing reviews by users who have bought the product in question or requiring the user to 
provide proof that they have used the product in other cases where the trader giving access to the 
reviews does not control the underlying transactions. On the other hand, the ‘proportionate and 
reasonable’ element of this requirement implies the obligation for these traders to take additional 
measures  to prevent  and remove fake reviews  that are commensurate with  their business 
model  and  the  identified  risks  (for  example,  when  being  the  target  of  fake  review  ‘broker’ 
activity  –  see  below).  Such  measures  can  include,  for  example,  deploying  digital  and  artificial 
intelligence tools to analyse the reviews and stop the fake ones. 

As  far  as  online  intermediaries  are  concerned,  fake  reviews  constitute  illegal  content  and  are 
subject  to  the  requirements  of  the  DSA  regarding  the  removal  of  illegal  content.  Furthermore, 
online intermediaries are exempted from liability, under certain conditions, as regards the illegality 
or potential claims for damages regarding those reviews. 

72 For more information: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_3823. 

27 

 
 
 
Problems with the authenticity of consumer reviews were reported, for example in the sweep on 
consumer reviews73 that the CPC authorities carried out in 2021 (i.e. before the Modernisation 
Directive’s entry into application): almost two thirds of the online shops, marketplaces, booking 
websites,  search  engines  and  comparison  service  sites  analysed  triggered  doubts  about  the 
reliability of the reviews. 

According to the 2023 CCS, 69% of consumers had seen consumer reviews that did not seem 
genuine  at  least  ‘sometimes’  (compared  to  67%  in  2021  CCS).  As  regards  the  transparency 
obligation  for  traders  that  give  consumers  access  to  reviews,  in  the  consumer  survey  for  the 
supporting  study,  56%  of  consumers  reported  that  at  least  ‘sometimes’  they  could  not  find 
information on how reviews are collected and whether the company ensures that published reviews 
are from real customers.   

The  supporting  study  also  included  analysis  of  the  compliance  by  the  traders  with  the  new 
information  requirement  under  the  UCPD.  Out  of  85  e-commerce  and  travel  websites  in 
10 Member States screened, consumer reviews were present on 52 websites. Only half of those 
52 websites provided information on the use and processing of reviews. When made available, that 
information was presented in the terms and conditions of the website74.  

Several organisations have investigated consumer reviews at the national level. In 2023, the 
Swedish  Consumer  Agency  conducted  a  sweep75  regarding  consumer  reviews  in  the  field  of 
insurance, covering 20 companies that published consumer reviews. It concluded that almost all 
the companies included in the sweep did not indicate together with the reviews whether the reviews 
came from consumers that had actually used or bought the products. According to a study by the 
Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband – VzBv) in 
2023, the majority of the 30 providers analysed did not meet or met inadequately the information 
requirements for online reviews76. The latter study also pointed to concerns relating to practices of 
website  operators  that  incorporate  reviews  from  external  assessment  portals  on  their  pages 
sometimes  without  providing  information  to  consumers  regarding  verification  of  the  origin  of 
those external reviews. 

As regards enforcement, at EU level the national authorities finalised in 2023 a CPC coordinated 
action  concerning  several  Google  services  (Google  Store,  Google  Play  Store,  Google  ads  and 
search, Google flights and Google Hotels), which covered, among other issues, practices relating 
to consumer reviews on Google Hotels. Google agreed to make changes clarifying that they do not 
verify reviews on Google Hotels77.  

Several consumer enforcement authorities have acted on consumer reviews in recent years. For 
example, in 2022 the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) imposed a fine 

73https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/sweeps_en#ref-2021--sweep-on-online-consumer-reviews  
74 On the websites, the link to the terms and conditions could either be accessed via a link located close to the reviews 
or through the general ‘small print’ of the websites (i.e., by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking on the T&C 
section). 
75https://www.konsumentverket.se/contentassets/ce53a8b52bad4bf6b0e9138487ab4302/pm---granskning-av-
konsumentrecensioner-pa-forsakringsomradet.pdf  
76 https://www.vzbv.de/pressemitteilungen/online-bewertungen-null-sterne-beim-marktcheck  
77https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/social-media-and-search-engines_en#google  

28 

 
 
 
on an online store78 for misleading consumers in the sale of various consumer products. The online 
store  posted  fake  positive  reviews  and  hid  the  negative  reviews.  In  2021,  ACM  acted  against 
influencers using fake likes and fake followers79. The Polish Office of Competition and Consumer 
Protection  (UOKiK)  acted  in  2023  against  companies  engaging  in  the  sale  of  false  consumer 
reviews80. A German court ruled in a 2022 judgement that the total number of reviews included in 
an average score and the period of time in which the reviews were submitted constitute ‘material 
information’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) UCPD81. 

Many problems concerning review fraud originate from the actions of fake review ‘brokers’ – 
specialised  illicit  businesses  that  organise  (especially  on  social  networks)  the  posting  of  fake 
reviews by users (who can be actual users or buyers of the products in question) for the benefit of 
businesses  that  engage  these  brokers  to  promote  their  business  on  online  marketplaces  or 
specialised review tools. Moreover, there have been reports of review brokers offering businesses 
to organise the supply of fake positive reviews on review sites and then retaliating against those 
who refuse by organising the posting of fake negative reviews. Some of the businesses concerned 
in the EU report that they bring criminal complaints and take private enforcement actions against 
the fake review brokers. Another challenge in this area is AI-generated reviews which might be 
more difficult to detect.  

Next to enforcement activities, some Member States issued guidelines contributing to awareness- 
raising about the applicable rules in this area82.  

The Commission also promotes voluntary measures by market operators. In November 2023, 
11 online platforms operating in the EU (Allegro, AliExpress, Amazon, bol.com, CDiscount, eBay, 
eMAG,  Etsy,  Joom,  Rakuten  France  and  Wish)  signed  the  Consumer  Protection  Pledge.  The 
voluntary commitments apply from July 2024 and include measures to make consumer reviews 
more transparent and reliable, for instance clearly presenting for users incentivised reviews83. The 
signatories  will  report  every  6  months  on  the  application  of  the  commitments.  Specifically  for 
tourism accommodation, the Commission is also preparing a Code of Conduct for Online Ratings 
and Reviews.  It  is  expected to increase  consistency in  the provision  of quality  accommodation 
services and improve comparability and transparency for consumers across the EU84. 

78 https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-fines-online-store-trendx-having-misled-consumers  
79https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/influencers-stop-using-fake-likes-and-fake-followers-following-warning-
issued-acm  
80 https://archiwum.uokik.gov.pl/aktualnosci.php?news_id=20066    
81 The case concerned a defendant who operated the website offering the services of real estate agents. It advertised 
that its customers had, on average, rated its real estate agents  at 4.7 out of 5 possible stars without providing any 
further  information.  Available  at:  Hamburg  -  315  O  160/21  |  LG  Hamburg  15.  Zivilkammer  |  Urteil  | 
Wettbewerbsverstoß  im  Internet:  Irreführung  bei  Werbung  mit  Kundenbewertungen  in  einem  ...  (landesrecht-
hamburg.de). 
82 For example, Belgium (https://economie.fgov.be/sites/default/files/Files/Entreprises/guidelines-avis-en-ligne.pdf). 
83https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/consumers/consumer-protection-policy/consumer-
protection-
pledge_en?prefLang=bg#:~:text=The%20Consumer%20Protection%20Pledge%20sets,and%20Digital%20Consume
r%20Rights%20Commitments    
84 The Code of Code of Conduct for Online Ratings and Reviews for tourism accommodation is a recommendation in 
the ʽStudy on the feasibility of possible initiatives at EU level and establishment of a multistakeholder platform on 
quality of tourism accommodationʼ. Executive summary available at:  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/957eef55-24e8-11ed-8fa0-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

29 

 
 
 
In conclusion, the challenges with fake reviews, whether ʽpositiveʼ or ʽnegativeʼ, are on the 
rise.  Traders  giving  access  to  reviews  which  they  choose  to  present  as  consumer  reviews, 
especially those traders that are strongly exposed to the illicit activities of fake review brokers, 
must invest more in stopping fake reviews. Online platforms also need to abide by the rules under 
the  DSA  to  curb  illegal  content.  Traders  that  give  access  to  reviews  must  also  be  transparent 
towards consumers, so that consumers get a balanced and realistic understanding of the conditions 
in  which  reviews  are  collected  and  the  limitations  regarding  their  reliability.  The  national 
enforcement authorities should pay particular attention to this area and where appropriate use the 
CPC cooperation system, especially regarding the illicit activity of fake review brokers who are 
acting in clear breach of the UCPD. In this respect, co-operation with the industry is important. 

12. 

 Transparency of marketplaces about contractual parties 

The Modernisation Directive added to the UCPD (Article 7(4)(f)) and CRD (Article 6a(1)(b)) new 
provisions on transparency regarding contractual parties on online marketplaces. The providers of 
online marketplaces are required to provide consumers with information on the status of the third 
party offering the goods, services or digital content, on whether consumer protection legislation 
applies and which trader (third-party supplier or online marketplace) is responsible for ensuring 
consumer  rights  related  to  the  contract  (such  as  the  delivery  of  the  goods  or  the  right  of 
withdrawal). 

Furthermore, the DSA obliges online marketplaces to  gather information  on the identity of the 
trader, make the best efforts to assess whether the information is reliable and complete, display 
such information to consumers and, when requested, provide such information to authorities, as 
well  as  to  suspend  contractual  relationships  with  traders  providing  inaccurate  or  incomplete 
information (the so called ‘Know-Your-Business-Customer’ or ‘KYBC’ rules). 

The compliance test and the consumer survey in the context of the supporting study, as well as the 
2023  CCS  explored  traders’  compliance  with  this  transparency  requirement  and  consumers’ 
perceptions of transparency on the marketplaces.   

As regards consumer perceptions, in the CCS 2023, 7% of the consumers surveyed indicated that 
they had experienced problems after purchasing a product on an online marketplace and finding 
out  it  was  purchased  from  a  private  individual  rather  than  professional  seller.  In  the  consumer 
survey carried out for the supporting study, 47% of consumers at least sometimes found it unclear 
when  shopping  online  who  the  seller  was  and  who  would  be  responsible  for  delivering  their 
products, while 35 % indicated that they rarely or never encountered this ambiguity. 

The compliance test of 50 online marketplaces across 10 Member States in the supporting study 
also  looked  into  issues  of  transparency  for  consumers  about  contractual  parties  (total  of  212 
products assessed). In 65.6% of instances, information on whether the seller was the marketplace 
itself or another party was available on the search results page. On the products page, the share of 
products bearing an indication on who the trader was increased to 85% of products on 46 websites, 
indicating a reasonably high level of transparency. Furthermore, in these test cases, information 
on the seller’s status – professional or an individual – was clear and easy to discern for researchers 
in 65% of cases.  

In  conclusion, the  research  on online  marketplaces  shows that  they have  implemented the new 
information requirement regarding the status of the third-party suppliers to a considerable extent. 
The share of consumers who reported having experienced problems due to not realising the non-

30 

 
 
professional status of the seller is relatively small. At the same time, many online shoppers indicate 
having experienced uncertainty regarding the identity of the seller and the arrangements for their 
transaction. 

13. 

 Personalised pricing  

Traders can personalise the price of their offers for specific consumers or groups of consumers 
based on automated decision-making and profiling  of consumers. The  Modernisation Directive 
added to the CRD a new information requirement for traders to inform consumers buying online 
that the price was personalised on the basis of automated decision-making (Article 6(1)(ea)). This 
transparency  requirement  at  the  point  of  sale  complements  the  General  Data  Protection 
Regulation85 that sets out the rules for the underlying collection and processing of personal data.  

Evidence on the practice of personalised pricing is still emerging. The Commission’s 2018 and 
2022 studies86 did not find consistent and systematic evidence of personalised pricing or offers.  
The European Parliament’s 2022 Study on personalised pricing concluded that empirical evidence 
on the scale of personalised pricing is not conclusive87. Research by consumer organisations has 
found evidence of price personalisation in the online dating, accommodation and airline sectors88.  

The  recent  consumer  surveys  give  additional  information  on  consumer  perceptions  regarding 
personalised pricing.  In  the consumer survey  for the  supporting study,  respondents  were asked 
about  their  experiences  in  the  past  12  months  with  receiving  a  discount  or  a  price  that  was 
presented as ʽpersonalisedʼ for them, either through a website or via email. Around half (55%) of 
respondents felt that they experienced this type of personalisation at least ʽsometimesʼ. As part of 
the  2023  CCS,  consumers  were  asked  about  their  online  buying  experiences  over  the  past 
12 months, specifically in terms of how often they noticed different prices for goods or services 
compared to their peers. The results revealed that 39% of the consumers surveyed thought they 
had encountered such a situation at least ‘sometimes’ (compared to 38% in the 2021 CCS). 

As regards compliance by traders with the new information obligation under the CRD, the 
compliance test for the supporting study analysed a total of 207 products on 85 websites/apps. In 
no instance did the researchers see an express indication that the price was personalised on the 
basis  of  automated  processing.  Furthermore,  the  researchers  tried  to  identify  the  possible  price 
differences by accessing the site with their usual browser and a ʽcleanʼ browser with the trackers 
removed89. In this manner, they identified price differences on 10 out of 85 websites/apps, or for 

dark 

2022 

study, 

personalisation 

85 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of 
natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing 
Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 
862018 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/consumer-market-study-online-market-segmentation-through-
personalised-pricingoffers-european-union_en 
policy/policies/consumers/consumer-protection-policy/evidence-based-consumer-policy/behavioural-research_en. 
87See 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/734008/IPOL_STU(2022)734008_EN.pdf. 
88  ‘Each  Consumer  a  Separate  Market?  –  BEUC  position  paper  on  personalised  pricing’  (2023),  available  at: 
https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/each-consumer-separate-market-beuc-position-paper-personalised-pricing. 
89 The first search made by the researchers using their usual browser, while signed into the accounts and websites they 
use on a regular basis. For the second ʽcleanʼ search, the researchers used a VPN locating them in the same country, 
making sure they were logged out of all accounts, and performed the searches on a browser they never use and cleared 
of cookies before each search.  

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-

available 

available 

patterns 

study, 

study, 

and 

the 

at: 

at: 

12 

of 

p. 

31 

 
 
 
6% of a total of 207 products. Interestingly, in most cases where the price difference was identified 
by researchers, the search using  a browser incorporating personal information returned a lower 
price than the one made using a ‘clean’ browser with the trackers removed.  

As  regards  EU-level  enforcement,  the  national  authorities  within  the  CPC  network,  in  the 
2022 coordinated action led by the Dutch authority concerning the online marketplace Wish.com, 
found that it had not been clear whether and how the trader applied price personalisation. Wish 
decided to stop their personalised pricing techniques in the EU90. In 2024, following a dialogue 
with the Commission and national consumer authorities in the CPC network, Tinder committed to 
informing  consumers  that  discounts  they  propose  for  premium  services  are  personalised  by 
automated  means91.  Apart  from  these  coordinated  actions,  so  far,  Member  States  have  not 
indicated  further  enforcement  actions  regarding  the  CRD  information  requirements  on 
personalised pricing. 

In  conclusion,  sellers  in  the  EU  do  not  appear  to  identify  their  price  offers  as  being  based  on 
automated  processing  of  the  targeted  customer’s  profile.  This  obviously  does  not  exclude  the 
possibility  that  such  price  personalisation  is  taking  place;  also,  consumers  perceive  price 
differences that could be based on automated processing and hence be subject to the new CRD 
information  requirement.  The  small-scale  test  performed  for  this  report  suggests  that  price 
personalisation  could  be  happening  in  the  case  of  some  traders,  but  these  results  do  not  allow 
general conclusions to be drawn, including as to the practice’s advantage or disadvantage for the 
consumers concerned.  

14. 

 Reselling events tickets acquired by automated means 

Scalper  bots  can  be  used  to  automatically  purchase  products  in  high  demand  with  a  view  to 
reselling them at a higher price. The Modernisation Directive added to the UCPD a new point 23a 
of Annex I92 prohibiting traders from reselling to consumers tickets to cultural and sports events 
that they have acquired by using specialised software (‘bots’) to circumvent the technical limits 
imposed by the primary sellers of tickets. Other provisions of the Modernisation Directive are also 
relevant for secondary ticketing marketplaces, e.g. the new requirement (in the UCPD and CRD) 
for online marketplaces  to  inform  consumers whether the person selling  tickets  is  a trader or a 
consumer.  

Event  organisers  complain  about  the  practices  of  resellers  and  resale  platforms  that  inflate  the 
prices of tickets, whereas resale platforms are concerned about primary sellers expanding into the 
secondary resale market and impeding ticket resale via competing secondary platforms. The new 
prohibition of the UCPD applies when primary ticket sellers have implemented technical measures 
to limit the bulk acquisition of their tickets for the purposes of resale. It can only be enforced if 
such primary sellers detect and report the illicit acquisition of tickets. The supporting study did not 
identify  examples  of  case  law  and  enforcement  actions  taken  so  far  by  national  authorities  or 
private organisations against resellers of events tickets acquired using scalping bots.  

90https://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  
91 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1344  
92 This prohibition is without prejudice to any other national measures to protect the legitimate interests of consumers 
and the safeguarding of cultural policy and access to events, such as regulating the resale price of the tickets. Some 
Member States, e.g. Ireland, have enacted specific rules on the matter.  

32 

 
 
 
As  regards  ticket  resale  practices  more  generally,  in  a  CPC  coordinated  action,  following  a 
dialogue  with  the  Commission  and  national  consumer  authorities,  in  2024  Viagogo,  an  online 
secondary marketplace for tickets to live events, has committed to better inform consumers on the 
conditions under which tickets are resold93. There have been also some reports of national cases 
relating to (unfair) ticket reselling practices94. 

According  to  the  consumer  survey  carried  out  for  the  supporting  study,  33%  of  consumers 
indicated that at least ‘sometimes’ they experienced a situation where they wanted to purchase a 
ticket for an event, but only saw tickets from secondary sellers available at a higher price95. Half 
of  the  respondents  did  not  experience  or  could  not  recall  experiencing  such  a  situation.  In  the 
2023 CCS, when replying to a more general question relating to reselling practices not limited to 
event tickets, 21% of consumers reported that they bought, at least ‘sometimes’, a new product at 
a higher price from a reseller as it was sold out on the brand’s official website. 

In  the  targeted  consultation  in  the  context  of  the  supporting  study,  several  stakeholders 
highlighted problems in relation to ticket reselling in general and suggested additional regulatory 
measures, such as obliging ticket resellers to disclose additional information (e.g. the original face 
value of the ticket, any additional fees or charges, and the seat location), setting limits on resale 
prices (e.g. no more than the original seller’s price of the ticket or imposing a cap). 

In conclusion, the UCPD amendment made by the Modernisation Directive addresses one specific 
aspect  of  ticket  resale  that  has  not  yet  been  subject  to  concrete  enforcement.  Its  practical 
application  requires  close  co-operation  and  interest  of  the  primary  sellers  to  curb  the  bulk 
acquisition of tickets for the purpose of reselling them. The enforcement of the UCPD, and where 
relevant  also  the CRD, remain highly relevant  for the broader issues related to  ticket  reselling, 
such as tackling misleading information or omission of information about the nature of the resale 
offer.  

15. 

 Telephone calls at basic rate in passenger transport services 

Article 21 of the CRD protects consumers against additional charges if they need to call the trader 
about a concluded contract. Such calls must not require the consumer to pay more than the ʽbasic 
rateʼ96. The Modernisation Directive extended the scope of Article 21, which now also applies to 
passenger transport services. 

The  compliance  test  for  the  supporting  study  gives  some  insights  into  compliance  with  this 
requirement by screened traders. It looked at the types of telephone numbers used by the passenger 
transport companies (airlines, bus and railway companies, and ticket intermediaries, 50 websites 

93https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-
protection/coordinated-actions/market-places-and-digital-services_en#viagogo  
94  For  example,  enforcement  action  against  a 
https://www.prodiss.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/presse_release_prodiss_gsc_20220203.pdf.  
95 Question 5.1 of the consumer survey: ʽHave you experienced the following situations in the past 12 months when 
you  purchased  or  attempted 
including  digital 
content/services/subscriptions?ʼ. 
96 As clarified by the CJEU in Case C-568/15, Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main 
eV v comtech GmbH, the concept of ‘basic rate’ means that call charges relating to a contract concluded with a trader 
to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not exceed the cost of a call to a standard geographic landline or 
mobile telephone line.  

type  of  products  or  services  online, 

to  purchase  any 

resale  company 

reported  at: 

in  France, 

ticket 

33 

 
 
 
in total), i.e. whether these numbers are normal landline/mobile, premium or short/free numbers. 
Overall,  the  test  showed  that  the  majority  of  the  screened  websites’  hotlines  (69%)  applied  a 
normal domestic rate (i.e. normal fixed/mobile rate), a quarter offered a premium- rate telephone 
service (in most such instances, the cost was transparently communicated to the consumer) and 
around  6%  offered  a  toll-free  telephone  number.  Moreover,  in  these  test  cases,  the  premium 
numbers usually related to services other than post-contractual consumer services offered by the 
transport company (such as sales). 

In  conclusion,  the  available  evidence  so  far  suggests  that  passenger  transport  companies  have 
complied with the new requirement to a large extent. 

16. 

Conclusions 

This report reflects the results of the consultations and data-gathering on the transposition of the 
Modernisation Directive and experience with its application and enforcement in the relatively short 
period since its entry into application.  

As  regards  transposition,  the  results  are  quite  encouraging.  Most  of  the  provisions  have  been 
transposed into national laws in a relatively straight-forward way, in many cases verbatim. The 
problems  identified  mostly  concern  provisions  that  required  more  complex  integration  into  the 
national  legal  framework,  especially  the  rules  on  penalties  for  infringements  and  consumer 
remedies in cases of unfair commercial practices.  

This report focused on the main specific subject areas addressed by the Modernisation Directive, 
setting out the available evidence and drawing conclusions regarding those specific areas to the 
extent possible at this stage. The short reporting period does not allow definitive conclusions to be 
drawn as to the effectiveness of the changes introduced by the Modernisation Directive. However, 
there are positive signs that these changes, which reinforced the legal framework, are contributing 
to the strengthening of consumer protection. 

The enforcement experience, albeit currently limited, is developing at least in the most complex 
areas  with  a  strong  direct  practical  impact  on  consumers  and  traders,  e.g.  with  regard  to  price 
promotions and consumer reviews, including through coordinated actions in the CPC network. In 
contrast,  the  new  rules  on  fines  for  infringements  in  cross-border  cases  subject  to  the  CPC 
coordinated actions or the rules on remedies in the UCPD have not yet been applied in practice, 
according to the data available.  

The implementation of several rules of the Modernisation Directive requires further attention. As 
regards  price  promotions,  in  addition  to  the  transposition  issues  in  some  Member  States  and 
divergent implementation by Member States of the exception for perishable goods, the markets 
appear to have reacted to the new regulation by switching to price comparisons and thus creating 
new types of transparency problems. Problems with fake reviews are clearly on the rise. Traders 
giving access to reviews that they present as consumer reviews, especially those that are strongly 
exposed to the illicit activities of fake review brokers, must invest more in stopping fake reviews. 
Reviews should also become a stronger priority for the enforcement authorities, including under 
the DSA. 

34 

 
 
On ‘dual quality’ marketing, the adopted legislative solution based on case-by-case assessment 
allows tackling this problem taking into account the different situations of consumers and Member 
States. It appears necessary to focus on the implementation and enforcement of the new rules. The 
Commission will continue monitoring the situation and facilitate cross-border enforcement in the 
CPC network when problems of shared interest arise.  

With regard to sales events (product demonstrations), while consumer perceptions give reason for 
concern as to the fairness of commercial practices in the context of this relatively little-used selling 
technique, the consultations undertaken for this report showed no strong calls for EU legislative 
action. Rather, the existing UCPD rules that fully apply to sales events should be enforced.  

Overall, it is evident that the evolution of consumer online markets and new technologies poses 
challenges  and  requires  close  monitoring.  In  this  respect,  this  report  complements  the  ongoing 
Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairness, which assesses in a broader manner the 
fitness of existing consumer protection rules in the digital area. Moreover, effective enforcement 
is key to achieving the full potential of the changes made by the Modernisation Directive.   

35