DIGITALEUROPE recommends policymakers to recalibrate the Omnibus proposal

2. Right of Withdrawal (Article2(7))

Although the Right of Withdrawal (RoW) has improved consumer trust in e-Commerce, the current legislation also facilitates consumers to withdraw from contracts even after the goods have been used more than what is allowed in an offline situation, i.e. being ‘overused’. This exposes online traders to great financial burdens and creates a high level of uncertainty for both traders and consumers. The online trader is also required to pay the shipping return costs while attempting to re-sell the item. According to a 2016 study conducted by Händlerbund1, this leads in many cases to abuse by consumers, diminishing the value of the goods in question and forcing traders to sell returned goods as second-hand items due to their ‘overuse’. If these fully functional returned goods cannot be sold nor donated at a reasonable cost by the trader they are often liquidated, thus leading to an unintentional negative environmental impact.

DIGITALEUROPE supports the positive changes brought about in the RoW. The European Commission acknowledges that more abuse takes place for online merchants than in physical stores where goods can be more easily inspected. Online merchants and manufacturers need to dedicate specific resources and/or teams to inspect returned goods before providing reimbursements to consumers, and this in itself entails a significant cost. At the very minimum, DIGITALEUROPE asks that consumers should be liable for the loss in value due to obvious ‘overuse’, including – but not limited to – dirt, marks, scratches or signs of manipulation.

3. Transparency requirements for online market places (Article2(4))

The 2017 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard highlights that “consumer trust in online shopping surges” but the obstacles that remain are more to do with territoriality of goods rather than issues of trust2. Consumers purchasing products or services online have more information available to them than in the off-line world and are able to easily switch to competing traders or to compare prices online. This flexibility has led to a surge in online purchases “in particular for cross-border purchases (…)”3 and increased consumer trust when purchasing cross-border goods and services. Differences between online and offline shopping are accentuated when requirements such as those in the proposal are introduced. While we recognise that differences exist between offline and online, some basic requirements such as providing parameters and explaining how goods are advertised and presented should remain the prerogative of the trader. The offline world is not mandated to provide such parameters, nor should traders operating online.

Online marketplaces rank offers based on a range of criteria including, but not limited to, i) price, ii) consumer reviews, iii) quality of service. It is imperative that these ranking algorithms are protected, even if the main parameters should be disclosed, as they represent a core part of the competitive advantage of each business.

DIGITALEUROPE cautions against algorithmic transparency insofar as it would endanger trade secrets and potentially infringe intellectual property. Disclosing every detailed parameter that makes up rankings may lead to seller competition abuse to achieve top rankings. In addition, algorithmic transparency would unjustly create a discrepancy between the online and offline worlds, where physical stores are not required to explain how products are presented to consumers while online ones have to.