umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

This article has FIVE stars! New Dutch consumer rules to curb fake reviews

This article has FIVE stars!

This article has FIVE stars! New Dutch consumer rules to curb fake reviews

05.11.2020 NL law

Consumers often rely on online reviews to decide what bike to buy, where to eat or what article to read. But what if those reviews are fake? New Dutch rules were announced on 23 October 2020 seeking to ensure a higher level of consumer protection online. These rules mean more obligations for online traders, and potentially high fines if they get it wrong. For example, traders should implement procedures to ensure that published reviews originate from consumers who have genuinely used the product.

EU Directive 2019/2161 seeks to modernise EU consumer rules with a view to the emergence of the digital economy (see our previous blog). The Dutch Ministry of Economic affairs has now published the draft rules to implement this directive in the Netherlands.

The new rules implement EU Directive 2019/2161 and will be enforced from 28 May 2022 onwards. Time for online traders to check whether their current sales practices are in line with the upcoming rules or need further tweaking.

The draft legislation imposes a number of obligations on online platforms and other online businesses to ensure the protection of consumers’ rights. In addition, businesses are affirmatively required to provide various disclosures and information to consumers. The new rules include:

  • an obligation to inform consumers about the most important parameters used to determine the ranking of products on a platform; 
  • an obligation to inform consumers whether a trader has paid an online platform to increase the trader’s ranking in search results;
  • a requirement to disclose to consumers (before conclusion of the contract) whether the offer is personalised based on an algorithm (such as offering a higher price if a consumer visits a website from an expensive smartphone);
  • a duty to show the lowest price over the preceding thirty days, if a product is discounted;
  • online marketplaces must provide information on whether the supplier is a trader or a private individual, with a warning that EU consumer rules may not apply where relevant;
  • several longstanding consumer rules – such as the right of withdrawal for distance contracts – will now also apply to ‘free’ online services which require the consumer to provide personal data to a trader (such some social media networks).

Businesses will now also be obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure that a consumer has actually bought or used a product before it posts a review. Failing to do so could be considered an unfair trading practice. Fighting fake reviews has been a focus point for the Dutch competition authority (ACM) in the past.

Although the new rules will not be enforced before May 2022, they fit within a clear trend to enhance consumer protection online and to step up overall enforcement of consumer rules. The new rules will be enforced by the ACM and the Dutch financial authority (AFM) with maximum fines ranging up to 10% of a company’s total turnover. All the more reason for online traders to carefully check whether their current sales practices are in line with the upcoming rules or need further tweaking.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of November 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more