P2B Regulation – How to adapt Platform services and Search Engines

2 August 2020

  • Europa
  • Alternative Streitbeilegung
  • Vertrieb
  • e-Commerce

Summary: Since 12 July 2020, new rules apply for platform service providers and search engine operators – irrespective of whether they are established in the EU or not. The transition period has run out. This article provides checklists for platform service providers and search engine operators on how to adapt their services to the Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on the promotion of fairness and transparency for commercial users of online intermediation services – the P2B Regulation.

The P2B Regulation applies to platform service providers and search engine operators, wherever established, provided only two conditions are met:

(i) the commercial users (for online intermediation services) or the users with a company website (for online search engines) are established in the EU; and

(ii) the users offer their goods/services to consumers located in the EU for at least part of the transaction.

Accordingly, there is a need for adaption for:

  • Online intermediation services, e.g. online marketplaces, app stores, hotel and other travel booking portals, social media, and
  • Online search engines.

The P2B Regulation applies to platforms in the P2B2C business in the following constellation (i.e. pure B2B platforms are exempt):

Provider -> Business -> Consumer

The article follows up on the introduction to the P2B Regulation here and the detailed analysis of mediation as method of dispute resolution here.

 Checklist how to adapt the general terms and conditions of platform services

Online intermediation services must adapt their general terms and conditions – defined as (i) conditions / provisions that regulate the contractual relationship between the provider of online intermediation services and their business users and (ii) are unilaterally determined by the provider of online intermediation services.

The checklist shows the new main requirements to be observed in the general terms and conditions (“GTC”):

  1. Draft them in plain and intelligible language (Article 3.1 a)
  2. Make them easily available at any time (also before conclusion of contract) (Article 3.1 b)
  3. Inform on reasons for suspension / termination (Article 3.1 c)
  4. Inform on additional sales channels or partner programs (Article 3.1 d)
  5. Inform on the effects of the GTC on the IP rights of users (Article 3.1 e)
  6. Inform on (any!) changes to the GTC on a durable medium, user has the right of termination (Article 3.2)
  7. Inform on main parameters and relative importance in the ranking (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or business secrets (Article 5.1, 5.3, 5.5)
  8. Inform on the type of any ancillary goods/services offered and any entitlement/condition that users offer their own goods/services (Article 6)
  9. Inform on possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of the provider or individual users towards other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
  10. No retroactive changes to the GTC (Article 8a)
  11. Inform on conditions under which users can terminate contract (Article 8b)
  12. Inform on available or non-available technical and contractual access to information that the Service maintains after contract termination (Article 8c)
  13. Inform on technical and contractual access or lack thereof for users to any data made available or generated by them or by consumers during the use of services (Article 9)
  14. Inform on reasons for possible restrictions on users to offer their goods/services elsewhere under other conditions („best price clause“); reasons must also be made easily available to the public (Article 10)
  15. Inform on access to the internal complaint-handling system (Article 11.3)
  16. Indicate at least two mediators for any out-of-court settlement of disputes (Article 12)

These requirements – apart from the clear, understandable language of the GTC, their availability and the fundamental ineffectiveness of retroactive adjustments to the GTC – clearly go beyond what e.g. the already strict German law on general terms and conditions requires.

Checklist how to adapt the design of platform services and search engines

In addition, online intermediation services and online search engines must adapt their design and, among other things, introduce internal complaint-handling. The checklist shows the main design requirements for:

a) Online intermediation services

  1. Make identity of commercial user clearly visible (Article 3.5)
  2. State reasons for suspension / limitation / termination of services (Article 4.1, 4.2)
  3. Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3), see above
  4. Set an internal complaint handling system, with publicly available info, annual updates (Article 11, 4.3)

b) Online search engines

  1. Explain the ranking’s main parameters and their relative importance, public, easily available, always up to date (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or trade secrets (Article 5.2, 5.3, 5.5)
  2. If ranking changes or delistings occur due to notification by third parties: offer to inspect such notification (Article 5.4)
  3. Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)

The European Commission will provide guidelines regarding the ranking rules in Article 5, as announced in the P2B Regulation – see the overview here. At the same time, providers of online intermediation services and online search engines shall draw up codes of conduct together with their users.

Practical Tips

  • The Regulation significantly affects contractual freedom as it obliges platform services to adapt their general terms and conditions.
  • The Regulation is to be enforced by „representative organisations“ or associations and public bodies, with the EU Member States ensuring adequate and effective enforcement. The European Commission will monitor the impact of the Regulation in practice and evaluate it for the first time on 13.01.2022 (and every three years thereafter).
  • The P2B Regulation may affect distribution relationships, in particular platforms as distribution intermediaries. Under German distribution law, platforms and other Internet intermediation services acting as authorised distributors may be entitled to a goodwill indemnity at termination (details here) if they disclose their distribution channels on the basis of corresponding platform general terms and conditions, as the Regulation does not require, but at least allows to do (see also: Rohrßen, ZVertriebsR 2019, 341, 344–346). In addition, there are numerous overlaps with antitrust, competition and data protection law.

It is usually said that “conflict is not necessarily bad, abnormal, or dysfunctional; it is a fact of life[1]” I would perhaps add that quite often conflict is a suitable opportunity to evolve and to solve problems[2]. It is, in fact, a useful part of life[3] and particularly, should I add, of businesses. And conflicts not only arise at the end of the business relationship or to terminate it, but also during it and the parties remain willing to continue it.

The 2008 EU Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters states that «agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties.»

Can, therefore, mediation be used not only as an alternative to court or arbitration when terminating distribution agreements, but also to re-organize them or to change contract conditions? Would it be useful to solve these conflicts? What could be the advantages?

In distribution/agency/franchise agreements, particularly for those lasting several years, parties can have neglected their obligations (for instance minimum sales targets not attained).

Sometimes they could have tolerated the situation although they remain not very happy with the other party’s performance because they are still doing acceptable business.

It could also happen that one of the parties wishes to restructure the entire distribution network (Can we change the distribution structure to an agency one?), but does not want to face a complete termination because there are other benefits in the relationship.

There may be just some changes to be introduced, or changes in the legal structures (A mere reseller transformed in distributor?), legal frameworks, legal conditions (Which one is the applicable law?), limitation of the scope of contract, territory…

And now, we face the Covid-19 crisis where everything is still more uncertain.

In some cases, it could happen that there is no written contract and the parties wish to draft it; in other cases, agreements could have been defectively drafted with incomplete, contradictory or no regulation at all (Was it an exclusive agreement?).

The contracts  could be perfect for the situation imagined when signed several years ago but not anymore (What happen with online sales?) or  circumstances, markets, services, products have changed and need to be reconsidered (mergers, change of directors…).

Sometimes, even more powerful parties have not the elements to oblige the weaker party to respect new terms, or they simply prefer not to impose their conditions, but to build up a more collaborative relationship for the future.

In all these cases, negotiation is the usual strategy parties follow: each one is focused in obtaining its own benefits with a clear idea of, for instance, which clause(s) should be modified or drafted.

Nevertheless, mediation could add some neutrality, and some space to a more efficient, structured and useful approach to the modification of the commercial relationship, particularly in distribution agreements where the collaboration (in the past, but also in the future if the parties wish so) is of paramount importance.

In most of these situations, personal emotional aspects could also be involved and make more difficult a neutral negotiation: a distributor that has been seen by the manufacturer as not performing very well and feels hurt, an agent that could consider a retirement, parties from different cultures that need to understand different ways of performing, franchisees that have been treated differently in the network and feel discriminated, etc.

In these circumstances and in other similar ones, where all persons involved, assisted by their respective lawyers, wish to continue the relationship although maybe in a different way, a sort of facilitative mediation can be a great help.

These are, in my opinion, the main reasons:

  1. Mediation is a legal and organized procedure that could help the parties to increase their awareness of the necessity to redraft the agreement (or drafting for the first time if it was not already done).
  2. Parties can be heard more easily, negotiation is eased in the interest of both of them, encourages them to act more reasonably vis-à-vis the other side, restores relationship if necessary, deadlock can be easily broken and, if the circumstances advice so, parties can be engaged separately with the help of the mediator.
  3. Mediation can consider other elements different to the mere commercial or legal ones: emotions linked to performance, personal situations (retirement, succession, illness) or even differences in cultural approaches.
  4. It helps to find the real (possibly new or not shown) interests in the commercial relationship of the parties, focusing in developments, strategies, new proposals… The mere negotiation between the parties and they attorneys could not make appear these new interests and therefore be limited only to the discussion on the change of concrete obligations, clauses or situations. Mediation helps to go beyond.
  5. Mediation techniques can also help the parties to face their current situation, to take responsibility of their performance without focusing on blame or incompetence but on a constructive and future collaboration in new specific terms.[4]
  6. It can also avoid the increasing of the conflict into a more severe one (breaching) and in case mediation does not end with a new/redrafted agreement, the basis for a mediated termination can be established, if the parties wish so, instead of litigation.
  7. Mediation can conclude into a new agreement where the parties are more reassured, more comfortable with, and more willing to respect because they were involved in their construction with the assistance of their respective lawyers, and because all their interests (not only new drafted clauses) were considered.
  8. And, in any case, mediation does not affect the party’s collaborative position and does not reduce their possibility to use other alternatives, including litigation or arbitration to terminate the agreement or to oblige the other party to respect its legal obligations.

The use of mediation does not need the parties to have foreseen it in the agreement (although it could be easier if they did so) but they can use it freely at any time.

This said, a lawyer proposing mediation as a contractual clause or, in case it was not included in the agreement, as a procedure to face this sort of conflicts in distribution agreements, will be certainly seen by his/her client as problem-solving attorney looking for the client’s interests rather than a litigator pushing them to a more uncertain situation, with unknown costs and unforeseeable timeframe.

Parties in distribution agreements should have this possibility in mind and lawyers have the opportunity to actively participate in mediation from the first steps by recommending it in the initial agreement, during the process helping the clients to express their concerns and interests, and in the drafting of the final (new) agreement, representing the clients’ and as co-author of their success.

If you would like to hear more on the topic of mediation and distribution agreements you can check out the recording of our webinar on Mediation in International Conflicts

[1] Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass. Wiley, 2014.

[2] Mnookin, Robert H. Beyond Winning. Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes (p. 53). Harvard University Press, 2000.

[3] Fisher, R; Ury, W. Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. Random House.

[4] «Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might correct them going forward. Focusing instead on understanding the contribution system allows us to learn about the real causes of the problem, and to work on correcting them.» [Stone, Douglas. “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most”. Penguin Publishing Group]

In these times of insecurity about the future, we have nevertheless some certitudes. One of them, no doubt about it, is that “online intermediation services are key enablers of entrepreneurship and new business models”. EU Regulation 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services is dealing with it. This Regulation shall apply from 12 July 2020.

The purpose of this Regulation is laying down rules to ensure that business users of online intermediation services and corporate website users are granted appropriate transparency, fairness and effective redress possibilities (art. 1).  It applies to online intermediation services and online search engines provided to business users and corporate website users having their place of establishment UE and offering goods or services to consumers in the Union, irrespective of the place of establishment of the providers and the applicable law.

The rules shall apply, particularly, to online marketplaces, social media outlets, application distribution platforms, platforms for the collaborative economy and general search engines.

What I would like to underline in this post is that the Regulation foresees (art. 12) the use of mediation as a specific method of conflict resolution between online intermediation service providers and professional users. Mediation is promoted without prejudice to its voluntariness and the right to judicial claim.

In particular, the providers of the intermediation services shall identify in their general terms and conditions, two or more mediators with whom they are willing to engage to attempt to reach —in good faith— an agreement with business users on the settlement, out of court, of any disputes between the provider and the business user. Only service providers that are small companies would be exempted from assuming this obligation, without prejudice to being able to do so voluntarily.

The Regulation also contains the requirements these mediators must meet: some general ones (independence, with affordable services, act without delay, easily accessible) and others more specific or that will need special qualification (ability to mediate in the language of the general conditions and who have sufficient knowledge of intra-company trade relations).

It is also interesting to notice that the service providers shall bear a reasonable proportion of the total costs of mediation in each individual case, according to the indications of the mediator and to some criteria such as relative merits of the claims of the parties, their conduct, as well as the size and their financial strength.

The conclusion seems clear: Mediation, as an alternative to court or arbitral dispute resolution, is increasing its space in the EU regulations. It is always a voluntary way to solve conflicts, and it is worth considering its effectiveness in all business areas. This Regulation is expressly considering it.

Benedikt Rohrssen

Tätigkeitsgebiete

  • Agentur
  • Vertrieb
  • e-Commerce
  • Franchising
  • Investitionen
Kontakt Benedikt

Schreiben Sie an Benedikt





    Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    The importance of Mediation in Distribution Contracts

    14 Juli 2020

    • Spanien
    • Alternative Streitbeilegung
    • Vertrieb

    Summary: Since 12 July 2020, new rules apply for platform service providers and search engine operators – irrespective of whether they are established in the EU or not. The transition period has run out. This article provides checklists for platform service providers and search engine operators on how to adapt their services to the Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on the promotion of fairness and transparency for commercial users of online intermediation services – the P2B Regulation.

    The P2B Regulation applies to platform service providers and search engine operators, wherever established, provided only two conditions are met:

    (i) the commercial users (for online intermediation services) or the users with a company website (for online search engines) are established in the EU; and

    (ii) the users offer their goods/services to consumers located in the EU for at least part of the transaction.

    Accordingly, there is a need for adaption for:

    • Online intermediation services, e.g. online marketplaces, app stores, hotel and other travel booking portals, social media, and
    • Online search engines.

    The P2B Regulation applies to platforms in the P2B2C business in the following constellation (i.e. pure B2B platforms are exempt):

    Provider -> Business -> Consumer

    The article follows up on the introduction to the P2B Regulation here and the detailed analysis of mediation as method of dispute resolution here.

     Checklist how to adapt the general terms and conditions of platform services

    Online intermediation services must adapt their general terms and conditions – defined as (i) conditions / provisions that regulate the contractual relationship between the provider of online intermediation services and their business users and (ii) are unilaterally determined by the provider of online intermediation services.

    The checklist shows the new main requirements to be observed in the general terms and conditions (“GTC”):

    1. Draft them in plain and intelligible language (Article 3.1 a)
    2. Make them easily available at any time (also before conclusion of contract) (Article 3.1 b)
    3. Inform on reasons for suspension / termination (Article 3.1 c)
    4. Inform on additional sales channels or partner programs (Article 3.1 d)
    5. Inform on the effects of the GTC on the IP rights of users (Article 3.1 e)
    6. Inform on (any!) changes to the GTC on a durable medium, user has the right of termination (Article 3.2)
    7. Inform on main parameters and relative importance in the ranking (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or business secrets (Article 5.1, 5.3, 5.5)
    8. Inform on the type of any ancillary goods/services offered and any entitlement/condition that users offer their own goods/services (Article 6)
    9. Inform on possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of the provider or individual users towards other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
    10. No retroactive changes to the GTC (Article 8a)
    11. Inform on conditions under which users can terminate contract (Article 8b)
    12. Inform on available or non-available technical and contractual access to information that the Service maintains after contract termination (Article 8c)
    13. Inform on technical and contractual access or lack thereof for users to any data made available or generated by them or by consumers during the use of services (Article 9)
    14. Inform on reasons for possible restrictions on users to offer their goods/services elsewhere under other conditions („best price clause“); reasons must also be made easily available to the public (Article 10)
    15. Inform on access to the internal complaint-handling system (Article 11.3)
    16. Indicate at least two mediators for any out-of-court settlement of disputes (Article 12)

    These requirements – apart from the clear, understandable language of the GTC, their availability and the fundamental ineffectiveness of retroactive adjustments to the GTC – clearly go beyond what e.g. the already strict German law on general terms and conditions requires.

    Checklist how to adapt the design of platform services and search engines

    In addition, online intermediation services and online search engines must adapt their design and, among other things, introduce internal complaint-handling. The checklist shows the main design requirements for:

    a) Online intermediation services

    1. Make identity of commercial user clearly visible (Article 3.5)
    2. State reasons for suspension / limitation / termination of services (Article 4.1, 4.2)
    3. Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3), see above
    4. Set an internal complaint handling system, with publicly available info, annual updates (Article 11, 4.3)

    b) Online search engines

    1. Explain the ranking’s main parameters and their relative importance, public, easily available, always up to date (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or trade secrets (Article 5.2, 5.3, 5.5)
    2. If ranking changes or delistings occur due to notification by third parties: offer to inspect such notification (Article 5.4)
    3. Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)

    The European Commission will provide guidelines regarding the ranking rules in Article 5, as announced in the P2B Regulation – see the overview here. At the same time, providers of online intermediation services and online search engines shall draw up codes of conduct together with their users.

    Practical Tips

    • The Regulation significantly affects contractual freedom as it obliges platform services to adapt their general terms and conditions.
    • The Regulation is to be enforced by „representative organisations“ or associations and public bodies, with the EU Member States ensuring adequate and effective enforcement. The European Commission will monitor the impact of the Regulation in practice and evaluate it for the first time on 13.01.2022 (and every three years thereafter).
    • The P2B Regulation may affect distribution relationships, in particular platforms as distribution intermediaries. Under German distribution law, platforms and other Internet intermediation services acting as authorised distributors may be entitled to a goodwill indemnity at termination (details here) if they disclose their distribution channels on the basis of corresponding platform general terms and conditions, as the Regulation does not require, but at least allows to do (see also: Rohrßen, ZVertriebsR 2019, 341, 344–346). In addition, there are numerous overlaps with antitrust, competition and data protection law.

    It is usually said that “conflict is not necessarily bad, abnormal, or dysfunctional; it is a fact of life[1]” I would perhaps add that quite often conflict is a suitable opportunity to evolve and to solve problems[2]. It is, in fact, a useful part of life[3] and particularly, should I add, of businesses. And conflicts not only arise at the end of the business relationship or to terminate it, but also during it and the parties remain willing to continue it.

    The 2008 EU Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters states that «agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties.»

    Can, therefore, mediation be used not only as an alternative to court or arbitration when terminating distribution agreements, but also to re-organize them or to change contract conditions? Would it be useful to solve these conflicts? What could be the advantages?

    In distribution/agency/franchise agreements, particularly for those lasting several years, parties can have neglected their obligations (for instance minimum sales targets not attained).

    Sometimes they could have tolerated the situation although they remain not very happy with the other party’s performance because they are still doing acceptable business.

    It could also happen that one of the parties wishes to restructure the entire distribution network (Can we change the distribution structure to an agency one?), but does not want to face a complete termination because there are other benefits in the relationship.

    There may be just some changes to be introduced, or changes in the legal structures (A mere reseller transformed in distributor?), legal frameworks, legal conditions (Which one is the applicable law?), limitation of the scope of contract, territory…

    And now, we face the Covid-19 crisis where everything is still more uncertain.

    In some cases, it could happen that there is no written contract and the parties wish to draft it; in other cases, agreements could have been defectively drafted with incomplete, contradictory or no regulation at all (Was it an exclusive agreement?).

    The contracts  could be perfect for the situation imagined when signed several years ago but not anymore (What happen with online sales?) or  circumstances, markets, services, products have changed and need to be reconsidered (mergers, change of directors…).

    Sometimes, even more powerful parties have not the elements to oblige the weaker party to respect new terms, or they simply prefer not to impose their conditions, but to build up a more collaborative relationship for the future.

    In all these cases, negotiation is the usual strategy parties follow: each one is focused in obtaining its own benefits with a clear idea of, for instance, which clause(s) should be modified or drafted.

    Nevertheless, mediation could add some neutrality, and some space to a more efficient, structured and useful approach to the modification of the commercial relationship, particularly in distribution agreements where the collaboration (in the past, but also in the future if the parties wish so) is of paramount importance.

    In most of these situations, personal emotional aspects could also be involved and make more difficult a neutral negotiation: a distributor that has been seen by the manufacturer as not performing very well and feels hurt, an agent that could consider a retirement, parties from different cultures that need to understand different ways of performing, franchisees that have been treated differently in the network and feel discriminated, etc.

    In these circumstances and in other similar ones, where all persons involved, assisted by their respective lawyers, wish to continue the relationship although maybe in a different way, a sort of facilitative mediation can be a great help.

    These are, in my opinion, the main reasons:

    1. Mediation is a legal and organized procedure that could help the parties to increase their awareness of the necessity to redraft the agreement (or drafting for the first time if it was not already done).
    2. Parties can be heard more easily, negotiation is eased in the interest of both of them, encourages them to act more reasonably vis-à-vis the other side, restores relationship if necessary, deadlock can be easily broken and, if the circumstances advice so, parties can be engaged separately with the help of the mediator.
    3. Mediation can consider other elements different to the mere commercial or legal ones: emotions linked to performance, personal situations (retirement, succession, illness) or even differences in cultural approaches.
    4. It helps to find the real (possibly new or not shown) interests in the commercial relationship of the parties, focusing in developments, strategies, new proposals… The mere negotiation between the parties and they attorneys could not make appear these new interests and therefore be limited only to the discussion on the change of concrete obligations, clauses or situations. Mediation helps to go beyond.
    5. Mediation techniques can also help the parties to face their current situation, to take responsibility of their performance without focusing on blame or incompetence but on a constructive and future collaboration in new specific terms.[4]
    6. It can also avoid the increasing of the conflict into a more severe one (breaching) and in case mediation does not end with a new/redrafted agreement, the basis for a mediated termination can be established, if the parties wish so, instead of litigation.
    7. Mediation can conclude into a new agreement where the parties are more reassured, more comfortable with, and more willing to respect because they were involved in their construction with the assistance of their respective lawyers, and because all their interests (not only new drafted clauses) were considered.
    8. And, in any case, mediation does not affect the party’s collaborative position and does not reduce their possibility to use other alternatives, including litigation or arbitration to terminate the agreement or to oblige the other party to respect its legal obligations.

    The use of mediation does not need the parties to have foreseen it in the agreement (although it could be easier if they did so) but they can use it freely at any time.

    This said, a lawyer proposing mediation as a contractual clause or, in case it was not included in the agreement, as a procedure to face this sort of conflicts in distribution agreements, will be certainly seen by his/her client as problem-solving attorney looking for the client’s interests rather than a litigator pushing them to a more uncertain situation, with unknown costs and unforeseeable timeframe.

    Parties in distribution agreements should have this possibility in mind and lawyers have the opportunity to actively participate in mediation from the first steps by recommending it in the initial agreement, during the process helping the clients to express their concerns and interests, and in the drafting of the final (new) agreement, representing the clients’ and as co-author of their success.

    If you would like to hear more on the topic of mediation and distribution agreements you can check out the recording of our webinar on Mediation in International Conflicts

    [1] Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass. Wiley, 2014.

    [2] Mnookin, Robert H. Beyond Winning. Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes (p. 53). Harvard University Press, 2000.

    [3] Fisher, R; Ury, W. Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. Random House.

    [4] «Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might correct them going forward. Focusing instead on understanding the contribution system allows us to learn about the real causes of the problem, and to work on correcting them.» [Stone, Douglas. “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most”. Penguin Publishing Group]

    In these times of insecurity about the future, we have nevertheless some certitudes. One of them, no doubt about it, is that “online intermediation services are key enablers of entrepreneurship and new business models”. EU Regulation 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services is dealing with it. This Regulation shall apply from 12 July 2020.

    The purpose of this Regulation is laying down rules to ensure that business users of online intermediation services and corporate website users are granted appropriate transparency, fairness and effective redress possibilities (art. 1).  It applies to online intermediation services and online search engines provided to business users and corporate website users having their place of establishment UE and offering goods or services to consumers in the Union, irrespective of the place of establishment of the providers and the applicable law.

    The rules shall apply, particularly, to online marketplaces, social media outlets, application distribution platforms, platforms for the collaborative economy and general search engines.

    What I would like to underline in this post is that the Regulation foresees (art. 12) the use of mediation as a specific method of conflict resolution between online intermediation service providers and professional users. Mediation is promoted without prejudice to its voluntariness and the right to judicial claim.

    In particular, the providers of the intermediation services shall identify in their general terms and conditions, two or more mediators with whom they are willing to engage to attempt to reach —in good faith— an agreement with business users on the settlement, out of court, of any disputes between the provider and the business user. Only service providers that are small companies would be exempted from assuming this obligation, without prejudice to being able to do so voluntarily.

    The Regulation also contains the requirements these mediators must meet: some general ones (independence, with affordable services, act without delay, easily accessible) and others more specific or that will need special qualification (ability to mediate in the language of the general conditions and who have sufficient knowledge of intra-company trade relations).

    It is also interesting to notice that the service providers shall bear a reasonable proportion of the total costs of mediation in each individual case, according to the indications of the mediator and to some criteria such as relative merits of the claims of the parties, their conduct, as well as the size and their financial strength.

    The conclusion seems clear: Mediation, as an alternative to court or arbitral dispute resolution, is increasing its space in the EU regulations. It is always a voluntary way to solve conflicts, and it is worth considering its effectiveness in all business areas. This Regulation is expressly considering it.

    Ignacio Alonso

    Tätigkeitsgebiete

    • Agentur
    • Unternehmen
    • Vertrieb
    • Franchising
    Kontakt Ignacio