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!
2
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:
3
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
4
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
5
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.
6
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.
7
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
8
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:
9
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