This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'sabelle Perignon, 27/05/2020, video conferencing, AmCham EU'.




Ref. Ares(2021)4441938 - 08/07/2021

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
that European consumers continue to enjoy the highest 
level of protection.  
x  For instance, the recent action of the Consumer 
Protection Cooperation Network against rogue traders
which resulted in the removal of millions of COVID-19 
related and potentially misleading offers from online 
platforms, revealed once more what an effective 
dialogue with businesses can achieve.  
x  The Commission is working with the Member States 
when it comes to the way to recovery.  
x  Consumers should contribute to a sustainable recovery, 
making full use of digital opportunities. But this has to 
happen in full respect of strong consumer rights that 
protect in particular the vulnerable ones. 
x  This is not only the right thing to do, but it is also in the 
economic interest of us all as the economic recovery 
will depend on the confidence of consumers and their 
private spending. 
x  At the same time, more than ever before, we should not 
impose an undue heavy burden on companies! 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
x  But, we have also to ensure in the longer term that our 
consumer policies reflect the profound changes that the 
corona crisis has on our economies and societies. 
x  The  New Consumer Agenda will address these 
challenges from a strategic perspective in all key EU 
consumer policy issues faced by the EU at present: 
consumer empowerment in both the green and the digital 
transitions; consumer vulnerabilities (including in 
financial services); enforcement of EU law; and 
international cooperation on consumer protection and 
rights.  
x  An  Open Public Consultation to gather the views on 
the Consumer Agenda from all stakeholders will be 
launched before the summer until September. 
x   Apart  from  this consultation, other stakeholder 
consultation actions are planned and will be launched as 
soon as the situation allows.  
x  Hopefully you will participate in this consultation and 
encourage your individual members to do likewise. 
x  The specific issues of Green Deal/sustainability will be 
one of the key aspects of the new Consumer Agenda: 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
the green transition is already happening today. 
Businesses want to sell “green” and consumers want to 
buy “green”. The green market has a huge potential but 
also comes with risks for businesses and consumers 
alike. 
x  It is not enough that goods are made sustainably, we 
need consumers to find them and choose them. 
Consumers need better information on which products 
are truly sustainable and better protection against 
misleading green claims. Businesses need legal certainty 
when they use green logos or schemes popping up in our 
markets. 
x  Besides legislative changes in consumer law to ensure 
better information for consumers, Green Consumption 
Pledges is an area with great potential: any policy 
action cannot rely only on legislation.    
x  Several brands are already trying to nudge people to 
adopt healthier and more sustainable lifestyles. In this 
same spirit, we are considering to work with the industry 
to launch a series of “Green Consumption Pledges”, as 
voluntary partnerships with business that are committed 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
to achieve a real long-term change in corporate practices 
to support more massively green consumption practices. 
x  Any such pledge would entail commitments by the 
affiliated companies, for example, to  improve the 
sustainability of their supply chains and select products that 
are more sustainable, durable and repairable  
x  The pledges may aim at helping consumers select more 
sustainable products from their catalogues and stores by 
making it easier for them to identify and purchase such 
products. 
x  Such a pledge should be based on solid governance and 
monitoring of the achievement of pledges. Trust is key! The 
Commission is available to engage in a discussion with 
companies on how we could work together to make this a 
reality for big brands companies   
  
REPRESENTATIVES ACTIONS DIRECTIVE 
x  Representative Actions Directive continues to be a top 
priority for the Commission.  
x  The COVID-19 crisis has caused delays and the 
cancellation of several trilogues. Nevertheless, the 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council 
have continued to work at technical level through written 
exchanges.  
x  This technical work is paving the way for the third 
trilogue in June.  
x  Thus, despite the delays, our objective remains to try to 
reach an agreement under the Croatian Presidency. We 
believe this is a shared objective with the Presidency and 
European Parliament. 
x  We get every day fresh evidence about the need for this 
instrument. For example, we know that, in the situation 
created by the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers are 
struggling. They are confronted to rogue traders 
resorting to unfair commercial practices that take 
advantage of widespread coronavirus fears. Also 
massive cancellations of flights and other travel 
arrangements without the rights of consumers to be 
reimbursed being honoured. And these are just a few 
examples. 
 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
x  The swift adoption of the Directive is therefore more 
relevant than ever. It would allow for the protection of 
the weaker members of our societies through collective 
redress in similar circumstances in the future.  
 
 
 
 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
BACKGROUND - REPRESENTATIVES ACTIONS DIRECTIVE 
The first trilogue took place on 14 January 2020 and concluded with commitments from both 
co-legislators and the Commission to reach a political agreement under the Croatian 
Presidency. Subsequently, 5 technical meetings took place in January and February, during 
which the majority of the provisions of the proposal were discussed. The second trilogue took 
place on 2 March 2020 and enabled both co-legislators to clarify their priorities in order to 
identify the scope for compromise on key diverging issues. The Parliament set out its key 
demands in order to accept the main demand of the Council, which is the “split” of criteria 
for designating qualified entities in domestic and cross-border actions. Following the second 
trilogue, one technical meeting took place on 5 March 2020. The Croatian Presidency 
proposed a partial compromise on some provisions (Coreper revised mandate from 
26 February 2020)  and continues to  work with the Member States in order to identify their 
scope for flexibility and their respective red lines.  
All subsequent meetings and trilogues were cancelled due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 
crisis. Work continues through written exchanges in April and May. The co-legislators have 
agreed that the next trilogue will take place in June 2020 - concrete date to be confirmed 
depending on room availability on the COVID-19 context. It may still be possible to reach a 
political agreement under the Croatian Presidency, provided that sufficient progress is made 
at technical level towards a compromise package. 
 
AmCham position on the Council General Approach of 28 November 2019
“The American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmCham EU) has been closely following 
the developments of the European Commission’s New Deal for Consumers package which 
includes the Proposal for a Directive on Representative Actions. We welcome and 
acknowledge efforts made by the Council of the European Union to facilitate access to justice 
and guarantee a high level of consumer protection. However, we are concerned that the 
adopted general approach will fail to meet the overall objective of protecting consumer rights 
and may in fact be detrimental to consumers and businesses while encouraging ‘forum 
shopping’. 
AmCham EU remains disappointed by the lack of safeguards applying to domestic actions as 
well as Third Party Litigation funding. Bearing in mind the above, we would like to put 
forward the following key priorities and concerns ahead of the trilogue discussions:   
 
1. 
Qualified entities for the purpose of cross-border representative actions 
As defined in the council text, ‘cross-border’ actions will be subject to the safeguards set out 
in the Directive, but actions defined as ‘domestic’ will not.  Such domestic actions will only 
be governed by national safeguards, should they already exist, while cross-border collective 
actions would be subject to harmonised EU safeguards.  
The definition of a ‘domestic’ case is one filed in the Member State in which a qualified 
entity (QE) is designated. This definition would allow for actions including QEs from a 
Member State suing a company from another Member State on behalf of consumers from 
various Member States to be defined as ‘domestic’. In practice these actions would not have 
the sufficient safeguards applied as in relation to ‘cross-border’ actions. This means that the 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
Directive will apply no consumer protection safeguards to certain cases involving consumers 
from multiple Member States. Thus, common minimum standards must be applied to both 
domestic and cross-border action to facilitate an effective collective redress system. 
2. 
Limitations on the provision of third-party litigation funding  
It is essential that funding agreements and criteria applicable to all cases be disclosed to all 
parties involved and to the Court, so that said agreements are appropriately managed and 
ensure that funders are paid only after consumers have received their redress. 
Moreover, there should be limitations applied to third-party litigation funding to protect 
consumers from having their prospective compensation from an EU collective redress system 
placed into the hands of lawyers and third-party litigation entities. Such limitations are an 
essential safeguard and should be applied to both domestic and cross-border actions as 
mentioned above.” 
 
Contact: 
 
  
  
 
 

 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
BACKGROUND – CONSUMER AGENDA 
The new Commission, the new legislature as well as a new multi-annual financial framework 
call for a new strategic outlook for the EU’s consumer policy.  It should reflect the new 
policy priorities and respond to the calls of the European Parliament, Member States and 
other stakeholders for a new comprehensive vision on the role of consumers given the top 
priorities of the Commission. Inevitably, the Commission’s position on the effect of the 
COV-19 epidemic and its aftermath’s impact on European citizens as consumers in EU’s 
internal market will also be of considerable influence. 
In accordance with the above, a Commission Communication on a new Consumer Agenda is 
proposed for adoption by the College in the fourth quarter of 2020. Being a strategic, non-
legislative document, the new Consumer Agenda will address several key priority areas:  
-  consumer empowerment in both the green and digital transitions;  
-  protecting vulnerable consumers;  
-  enforcement of consumers rights; and  
-  international cooperation.  
Emphasis will be put on providing better information to consumers and fighting misleading 
information, ensuring consumers’ safety and establishing clear responsibilities. The need for 
a new governance system with regard to consumer policy will also be addressed. 
International cooperation will be further enhanced to reflect the fact that consumer protection 
and product safety challenges have become more global. 
This strategic Commission Communication will also serve as the chapeau for several 
legislative proposals which will be made reference to in the Communication and adopted at 
the same time or at a later stage if deemed more appropriate: 
1.  Revision of Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety (GPSD) 
The aim of the revision is to ensure all non-food consumer products on the EU market are 
safe and to ensure a level-playing field for all businesses online and offline. This would allow  
to maintain the “safety net role” of the Directive. Among other aspects, it aims to address 
product safety issues linked to new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence and product 
safety challenges in online sales. The revision also aims at making product recalls more 
effective to keep unsafe products away from consumers and at enhancing market 
surveillance. 
2.  Revision of Directive 2008/48/EC on consumer credit (CCD) 
In 2019 an evaluation of this Directive showed that it does not fully ensure high standards of 
consumer protection across the EU. The objective to foster a well-functioning internal market 
has only been partially achieved. The revision will extend consumer protection to new (non-
bank) operators (e.g. peer-to-peer lending platforms) and new products (e.g. short-term high-
cost loans), which can lead to over-indebtedness. It will also update the information 
disclosure requirements to reflect the effects of digitalization and shift to online contracts. It 
10 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
will strengthen the effectiveness of creditworthiness assessment rules which currently do not 
work in the interest of the consumer (as required by the Court of Justice). These revisions 
should provide for a more effective prevention of misusing consumer vulnerabilities in the 
financial sector. 
3.  New legislative initiative to empower consumers in the green transition 
This initiative, announced in the Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan, aims to 
ensure that consumers are provided with more accurate, clearer and more reliable information 
in order to choose durable, repairable and sustainable products. In order for consumers to 
actively participate in the green transition, they need trustworthy information on the expected 
lifespan and reparability of products, on their sustainability and environmental impact 
The scope and content of this legislative proposal will build on synergies with various work-
streams that are under way in different Commission services (ENV, GROW, CNECT) in 
response to the Green Deal and the new Circular Economy Action Plan, notably on product 
standards on material efficiency (durability/reparability) and technical methodologies (e.g. 
Product/Organisational Environmental Footprint). 
Next steps 
The presentation of the new Consumer Agenda and of the above described accompanying 
legislative proposals will be aligned into one package whose timing will run parallel with the 
priorities of the Commission Work Programme. This will take due regard of the schedule of 
the Council Presidency and the European Parliament’s planning. 
Contact: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
BACKGROUND – EU-US AGREEMENT 
In the area of consumer law enforcement, the Commission has an ongoing good cooperation 
with our US counterpart, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  
The Commission is currently waiting for a clear sign from U.S. authorities that they are 
willing to resume the negotiations of the agreement on cooperation in the enforcement of 
consumer protection laws between the EU and the U.S. The Commission has a Council 
mandate to negotiate such an agreement since 2009 under the Consumer Protection 
Cooperation (CPC) legal framework. Last year, we had fruitful service-level exchanges on 
the potential reopening of the negotiations. No official statements have been made on the 
reopening so far and the service level exchanges remain confidential. The expected timeline 
has been disrupted in the current situation.  
Contact: 
 
 
PRODUCT SAFETY COOPERATION 
We have close and regular working relations with the US Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC). Despite having a negotiation mandate since 2009, we could not 
conclude a formal product safety information exchange agreement. This is because some 
impediments in the US legislation that would not allow reciprocity in sharing confidential 
information. In the absence of a legislative solution on the US side which is quite unlikely to 
happen any time soon), for the time being we focus on informal cooperation with the US and 
on trilateral cooperation that includes China. The next high-level trilateral EU-US-China 
Product Safety Summit is planned to take place in Brussels (if possible, otherwise it could be 
done remotely) in October this year. We also cooperate with the US CPSC in the framework 
of the OECD Working party on product safety and the UNCTAD Working group on product 
safety.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Contact: 
 
 
 
 
 
12 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
DEFENSIVES 
Does RAD provide for sufficient safeguards against abusive 
litigation?  

x  First of all, it must be stated that the Commission evaluations 
conducted before the adoption of the COM proposal (COM 
2017 Fitness Check of EU consumer law and the evaluation of 
the COM 2013 Recommendation on collective redress) have not 
identified abuses of the exiting national mechanisms of 
representative actions.  
x  Still, given fears expressed by the business sector, strong 
safeguards are present in the RAD proposal, such as the 
independence and transparency of qualified entities, the control 
of third party funding and strict scrutiny by the courts or 
administrative authorities of the collective settlements.  
x  The European Parliament and the Council aim at maintaining 
this appropriate balance between access to justice and sufficient 
safeguards against the development of a litigation business 
model.  
 
Would the “split” of the designation criteria introduced by the 
Council General Approach lead to a lack of safeguards in 
domestic cases?   
 

x  Within the model proposed by the Commission, it is imperative 
that the qualified entities meet certain reputability requirements 
in order to represent the best interests of consumers.  
x  All three institutions agree on the importance of these criteria. 
Both co-legislators have proposed to strengthen the criteria and 
add new criteria, which the Commission is ready to discuss.  
x  Importantly, the Council has made it clear that the split only 
concerns the designation criteria and that all other elements of 
the Directive would still apply to both domestic and cross-
13 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
border actions.  
x  Therefore, as a matter of principle, the “split” of the criteria 
does not fundamentally endangers or undermines the main 
objectives of the Commission’s proposal.  
x  The colegislators are willing to provide appropriate guarantees 
in the text in order to ensure an effective level of consumer 
protection and safeguards from abusive litigation in both 
domestic and cross-border
 representative actions. This 
concerns in particular rules on transparency and absence of 
conflict of interest in respect of third party funding. 
Would the definitions of ‘domestic’ and ‘cross-border’ actions in 
the Council General Approach lead to forum shopping? 

x  The Commission can support the definitions of ‘domestic’ and 
‘cross-border’ representative actions from the Council General 
Approach. In its proposal, the Commission did not propose such 
definitions. However, they are in line with spirit of the 
Commission’s original proposal (Article 16 is also based on the 
notion of cross-border actions for the purpose of mutual 
recognition of legal standing of designated qualified entities).  
x  The definitions do not affect the EU rules of private 
international law, which limit the grounds conferring 
competence to courts. These rules allow consumers from 
different Member States to bring an action or to join a collective 
redress action brought against a trader in the courts of the 
Member State of its domicile.   
x  This possibility exists today in those Member States that have 
mechanisms of collective redress, regardless of who brings the 
action. It can be any entity or person that complies with the 
applicable national rules. 
x  The definitions also do not undermine the level of consumer 
protection. To the contrary, modifying and restricting those 
14 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
definitions could deprive consumers from possibilities that they 
already have nowadays. 
x  There is no risk of forum shopping. Both the Parliament and 
the Council have introduced clear and strong safeguards 
regarding the way in which consumers can join a collective 
redress action brought in a Member States where they do not 
reside. Such consumers would always need to explicitly opt in 
to that action. This addresses the possible risk of parallel actions 
against the same trader.  
x  Therefore, the Commission does not consider it necessary to 
change the definitions of domestic/cross-border actions 
proposed in the Council General Approach. Moreover, any 
definition that would downgrade current redress possibilities for 
consumers is not acceptable.  
Do the rules on the competent jurisdictions protect against forum 
shopping and abusive litigation across the EU? 

x  RAD does not make any changes to the EU Private International 
Law regime. The existing rules are clear - there is no freedom to 
“forum shop” all the jurisdictions. Only specific courts will have 
jurisdiction. It would be, depending of the choice made by the 
claimant: (1) the courts of the trader’s domicile or (2) the courts 
where the harmful event or the harm occurred (generally the 
consumer’s Member State of residence). Both jurisdictions are 
favourable to the trader who knows their legal systems since he 
operates within those markets. 
Are there sufficient limitations regarding the funding / lawyers’ 
fees / loser pays principle? 

x  Funding is a key factor that will impact the effective functioning 
of the Directive. The Commission proposal’s Article 7 focused 
on ensuring full transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest 
in relation to the funding of representative actions.  
15 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
x  The control of third party funding is an important safeguard 
against abusive litigation and it should apply to both domestic 
and cross-border actions. 
x  The Commission shares the objective of the Parliament of 
ensuring that the Directive does not create a “litigation 
industry”. The objective is to protect the rights of consumers, 
not to promote new business models. 
x  However, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to 
regulate lawyers’ fees in a sectoral EU law instrument.  
x  The Commission also acknowledges that the ‘loser pays’ 
principle is an important safeguard against frivolous litigation 
that exists in all Member States, albeit with different modalities. 
The principle is fully in line with the Commission proposal. The 
concrete modalities should ensure the effectiveness of the 
procedure and respect the principle of procedural autonomy.   
Would a pan-European collective redress actions be possible 
under RAD?  

x  Representative actions where a qualified entity from one 
Member State could represent consumers from several or all EU 
Member States would be possible, if the trader’s infringement 
concerns consumers from those countries.  
x  But, such an action under the EU rules on competent jurisdiction 
and relevant CJEU case-law would be possible only in the 
Member State where the defendant trader has its domicile or 
from where the harmful event originated. Both jurisdictions are 
favourable to the trader in the sense that he knows their legal 
systems since he operates within these jurisdictions.   
x  In addition, according to the General Approach of the Council 
and the European Parliament amendments to RAD proposal, all 
consumers domiciled in another Member State than the one in 
which the action is brought would need to explicitly join the 
action (“opt in”). Accordingly, no qualified entity could 
16 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
represent consumers from other Member States without these 
consumers’ explicit consent, and one consumer could not be 
represented in more than one representative action.  
    
 
17 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
DEFENSIVES 
CPC Coordinated Action on Rogue Traders 
 
What have the Commission and national consumer protection 
authorities done so far to address COVID-19 consumer scams? 

x  On 12 March the Commission activated the network of 
consumer protection (CPC) authorities of the Member States to 
look into the emerging issue of COVID-19 related scams, which 
may breach the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. On 
20 March 2020, this network endorsed a CPC common position 
on the most reported scams and unfair practices in this context. 
x  On 23 March 2020, Commissioner Reynders  asked Allegro, 
Amazon, Alibaba/Aliexpress, CDiscount, Ebay, Facebook (i.e. 
Facebook, Facebook Marketplace and Instagram), 
Microsoft/Bing, Google (i.e. Google ads and YouTube), 
Rakuten, Wish and Verizon Media/Yahoo to cooperate closely 
with the CPC authorities to take strong measures to limit 
fraudulent practices taking place on their platforms. All of the 
platforms replied and the Commission published these replies on 
its website, and a summary of them, on 3rd April 2020 together 
with a press communication. 
On 22 April Commissioner Reynders wrote again to these 
platforms, asking them to remain on a high alert but also asked 
them to be vigilant on food and food supplements, fake 
medicines and fake or falsely accredited medical devices 
(chirurgical masks, Covid tests). He has also invited them to 
further refine their measures to fight predatory practices and 
follow market-trends and to continue the cooperation with 
relevant national authorities. 
x  The Commission welcomed the measures platforms already 
took but we will need to make sure that they continue their 
efforts regarding consumer protection and safety issues related 
to the COVID-19 outbreak. 
18 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
x  The Commission has also provided advice to consumers and 
traders to avoid misleading practices related to the COVID-19 
pandemic. These advices are translated into all EU languages. 
They are relayed by the ODR platform home page and by the 
national European Consumer Centres. 
 
Have the main internet platforms already removed 
products/offers/ads? 

x  Platforms  replied positively for Commissioner Reynders’s 
call for cooperation and reported that, as a result of their 
proactive actions, they have removed millions of COVID-19 
related potentially misleading offers from their online platforms. 
For example: 
o  Amazon removed millions of product offers for making 
potentially misleading COVID-19 claims. For the past five 
weeks, they have seen significant decreases, 
approximately 70%, in the weekly number of new product 
listings attempting to make COVID-related claims as a 
result of their proactive measures taken. 
o  eBay blocked or removed more than 15 million listings 
violating their COVID-19 policies. 
o  Cdiscount removed 1,104 million problematic offers. 
o  Alibaba/Aliexpress removed over 250,000 suspicious 
listings alone in March. 
o  Rakuten removed around 2870 product pages due to price 
gauging and misleading claims. 
o  Wish has reviewed more than 2.8 million listings featuring 
unsupported medical claims and, since the first letter (23 
March), more than 1.8 million COVID-19 related listings 
for potential price gouging, which resulted in the removal 
of a number of items, including face-masks, hand 
sanitizers and oxygen machines. 
19 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
x  The detailed replies of the platforms are published on the 
Commission’s website. Commissioner Reynders asked 
platforms to continue with implementing their measures and 
keep the Commission regularly informed about their latest 
statistics. 
 
What is the Commission planning to do next to address COVID-
19 consumer scams? 

x  We keep working together with the national consumer 
protection authorities to address consumer scams: 
o  Firstly, we need to continue our dialogue with platforms to 
make sure they fully enforce their new policies and offer more 
evidence that their measures are working to fight constantly 
evolving predatory practices.  
o  Secondly, we also monitor closely harmful practices taking 
place outside of marketplaces. The CPC network, with the 
coordination of the Commission recently carried out a sweep – a 
coordinated  consumer law compliance check targeting a broad 
number of e-shops, online platforms and other websites with 
prominence of advertisement.  
o  Preliminary assessment of sweep results confirms that the 
measures platform took have already delivered results. 
Nevertheless, there are still certain issues where platforms could 
improve further. Therefore, we are planning to provide a 
bilateral feedback to the main internet platforms. The replies 
also showed that rogue traders found new ways for their 
predatory practices
, which makes it more difficult to monitor 
them: for example they often use implicit claims by way of 
pictures or graphic illustrations implying that the product cures 
or prevents a COVID-19 infection, or they use intentional 
misspellings to avoid being filtered by automatic searches.  
o  The Commission services are also in contact with trade 
associations, representing platforms and advertisers, who are 
engaging with their members to better protect consumers from 
20 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
scams and unfair advertisement. In addition, the Commission 
seeks to facilitate a further enhanced cooperation between CPC 
authorities and domain registers. 
 
What will the Commission do if platforms no longer cooperate, or 
if online traders do not stop harmful practices?  

x  The European Commission has no direct enforcement power in 
consumer law (unlike in competition law). However, we do 
have a strong coordination role and we can alert national 
authorities and ask them to take action. If there is sufficient 
evidence to support a case, national authorities are obliged to 
react and coordinate their enforcement measures.  
x  In the COVID-19 context, millions of misleading business 
practices have been detected by platforms. In such a context, 
enforcement actions against individual traders at the EU level 
would make sense only in case of a massive infringement that 
would have been made by one clearly identified EU level trader 
(and this is currently not the case).  
x  In case of non-satisfactory compliance by platforms, national 
authorities may eventually have to adopt enforcement measures 
(e.g. impose fines).  
 
But what can be done to protect consumers against 
disproportionally high prices (e.g. up to 600%) for masks, 
sanitizers etc.? Businesses are free to set up prices! 

x  Traders are well aware of consumers’ fears linked to the current 
crisis and the shortage of personal protective equipment, such as 
masks or sanitizers.  
x  Where traders exploit this situation by misleading consumers 
that those products are difficult to find due to the increased 
demand in order to charge prices that are much higher than the 
average price, this can be considered as an unfair commercial 
21 
 

Conference call with AmCham EU connecting on Consumer policy  
Exchange with the Consumer Affairs committee 
27/05/2020 14:30-15:30 
 
practice that is prohibited under EU consumer law (the Unfair 
Commercial Practices Directive).  
x  Platforms have implemented some automatic checks to prevent 
price hikes, which seem out of the average according to the 
developments in the market. And certain practices have been 
sanctioned as unfair in certain Member States. 
x  Some Member States (e.g. France) have, as part of national 
emergency measures, opted for national regulation of prices for 
certain products in high demand. 
 
 
 
 
 
22