Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2020
This paper focuses on consumer-generated reviews (CGRs), which are an increasingly influential source of consumer information. In particular, the paper highlights specific problems associated with CGRs, which questions their role as a reliable information source. Flowing from this, the paper calls for closer regulatory scrutiny of review platforms, which play an important intermediary role in facilitating the provision of CGRs. To this end, the paper considers possible regulatory responses in the EU which may address some of the issues highlighted.
A version of this paper was first presented at the Society of Legal Scholars Conference (UClan, Preston, 2019). My sincere thanks to Professor Peter Cartwright and Professor Richard Hyde and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. All errors remain mine
1 Howells, G and Weatherill, S Consumer Protection Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2nd edn, 2005) p 32Google Scholar.
2 Budnitz, ME et al. ‘Deceptive claims for prepaid telephone cards and the need for regulation’ (2006) 19 Loyola Consumer Law Review 1Google Scholar at 4.
3 It is impossible to acquire complete information for products purchased on a ‘credence basis’ because it may be impossible to access their value even after use or because their value may only become apparent with the passing of time: Donnelly, M ‘The financial services ombudsman: asking the existential question’ (2012) 35 Dublin University Law Journal 229Google Scholar at 234.
4 Ramsay, I Consumer Law and Policy (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 3rd edn, 2012) p 41Google Scholar.
5 Howells, G ‘The potential and limits of consumer empowerment by information’ (2005) 32 Journal of Law & Society 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 355.
6 Latimer, P and Maume, P Promoting Information in the Marketplace for Financial Services (Switzerland: Springer, 2014) p 28Google Scholar.
7 Ben-Shahar, O and Schneider, C ‘The failure of mandated disclosure’ (2011) 159 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 647Google Scholar at 649.
8 Ibid, at 651.
9 I Ramsay ‘Rationales for intervention in the consumer marketplace’ (London: Office of Fair Trading 1984) cited in Ramsay, above n 4, p 47.
10 See for example Simon, HA ‘A behavioural model of rational choice’ (1955) 69(1) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tversky, A and Kahneman, D ‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’ (1979) 47(2) Econometrica 263Google Scholar; Sunstein, CR and Thaler, RH Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
11 Ben-Shahar, O and Schneider, CE More than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.
12 Ibid, p 185.
13 Ibid, pp 185, 190.
14 Moe, WW and Trusov, M ‘The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums’ (2011) 48(3) Journal of Marketing Research 444CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 This paper focuses on reviews directly generated from consumers. Reviews from third-party expert intermediaries are not within the scope of the discussion.
16 Dellarocas, C ‘The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms’ (2003) 49 Management Science 1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 1409.
17 Ibid.
18 J Schneider ‘10 tactics for launching a product using social media’ Harvard Business Review 16 April 2015 available at https://hbr.org/2015/04/10-tactics-for-launching-a-product-using-social-media.
19 Eg Trustpilot.
20 Moe and Trusov, above n 14, at 444.
21 Eslami, SP et al. ‘Which online reviews do consumers find most helpful? A multi-method investigation’ (2018) 118 Decision Support Systems 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 32.
22 Lackermair, G et al. ‘Importance of online product reviews from a consumer's perspective’ (2013) 1(1) Advances in Economics and Business 1Google Scholar at 1.
23 D Park and I Han ‘Integrating conflicting reviews: attributional hypotheses of consumer response to information uncertainty depending on prior brand attitude’ (2008) available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.3727&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
24 Ibid.
25 Gottschalk, SA and Mafael, A ‘Cutting through the online review jungle – investigating selective eWom processing’ (2017) 37 Journal of Interactive Marketing 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 91.
26 Moe and Trusov, above n 20, at 444.
28 Ibid.
29 Garrod, L et al. ‘Competition remedies in consumer markets’ (2009) 21 Loyola Consumer Law Review 439Google Scholar at 442.
30 Russell, JH ‘Misbehavioral law and economics’ (2018) 51 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 549Google Scholar at 557.
31 Friedman, DA ‘Do we need help using yelp: regulating advertising on mediated reputation systems’ (2017) 51 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 97Google Scholar at 126.
32 Colin, S ‘Innovation and the online consumer’ (2004) 26 Law & Policy 477Google Scholar at 479.
33 Amblee, N et al. ‘Do product reviews really reduce search costs?’ (2017) Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 27(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar available at www.researchgate.net/publication/317083455_Do_Product_Reviews_Really_Reduce_Search_Costs p 4.
34 Friedman, above n 31, at 130.
35 Chatterjee, S and Datta, P ‘Examining inefficiencies and consumer uncertainties in e-commerce’ (2008) 22 Communications of the Association for Information Systems 525CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 528.
36 Ibid, at 530.
37 Weathers, D et al. ‘Can online product reviews be more helpful? Examining characteristics of information content by product type’ (2015) 79 Decision Support Systems 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 12.
38 Friedman, above n 31, at 126.
39 Willemsen, LM et al. ‘Highly recommended! The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews’ (2011) 17(1) Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Weathers et al, above n 37, at 15.
41 Park and Han, above n 23.
42 Ben-Shahar, O and Chilton, A ‘Simplification of privacy disclosures: an experimental test’ (2016) 45(2) Journal of Legal Studies 541Google Scholar at 542–543.
43 Ben-Shahar and Schneider, above n 11, p 123.
44 Schneider, CE and Hall, MA ‘The patient life: can consumers direct health care’ (2009) 35 American Journal of Law & Medicine 7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 42.
45 Park and Han, above n 23, p 1.
46 Helveston, MN ‘Regulating digital markets’ (2016) 13 NYU Journal of Law & Business 33Google Scholar at 49.
47 Dellarocas, above n 16, at 1410.
48 Ibid, at 1408.
49 Taylor, RB ‘Consumer-driven changes to online form contracts’ (2011) 67 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 371Google Scholar at 378.
50 Becher, SI and Zarsky, TZ ‘E-contract doctrine 2.0: standard form contracting in the age of online user participation’ (2008) 14 Mich Telecomm. & Tech L Rev 303Google Scholar.
51 In 2011, a campaign led by a customer forced the Bank of America to redefine its debit card fee structure: se Business Insider at https://www.businessinsider.com/molly-katchpole-petition-leads-ordinary-mans-fight-against-bank-of-america-debit-fees-2011-10?r=US&IR=T.
52 Malbon, J ‘Taking fake online consumer reviews seriously’ (2013) 36 Journal of Consumer Policy 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 X Li and LM Hitt ‘Self-selection and information role of online product reviews’ (2007) p 5 available at https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Self-selection.pdf.
54 Ponte, LM ‘Mad men posing as ordinary consumers: the essential role of self-regulation and industry ethics on decreasing deceptive online consumer ratings and reviews’ (2013) 12 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 462Google Scholar at 481.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 They also raise wider competition concerns because they put honest competitors who do not adopt similar practices at a disadvantage: Procaccia, Y and Harel, A ‘On the optimal regulation of unread contracts’ (2012) 8(1) Review of Law & Economics 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 76.
60 Street, CNH and Kingstone, A ‘Aligning Spinoza with Descartes: an informed Cartesian account of the truth bias’ (2017) 108 British Journal of Psychology 453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 453.
61 Commonly described as an accreditation problem: Becher and Zarsky, above n 50, at 333.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid, at 334.
64 Cues could include statements like ‘I have used this product for five years’ which indicate experience and knowledge.
65 The aggrieved consumer may also sue for breach of contract or misrepresentation.
66 SI 2008/2177. Regulation 5 prohibits misleading actions, which could involve the use of false information which causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not otherwise have taken.
67 Neither can the aggrieved consumer sue under tort law (negligent misstatements), as that would require there to be a special relationship which exists between the parties that justifies the existence of a duty of care.
68 Regulation 2(1) defines a trader as ‘any person who in relation to a commercial practice is acting for purposes relating to his business, and anyone acting in the name of or on behalf of a trader’.
69 Askalidis, G et al. ‘Understanding and overcoming biases in online review systems’ (2017) 97 Decision Support Systems 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 25.
70 S Cicognani et al ‘Social influence bias in online ratings: a field experiment’ (2016) p 4 available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5a3/9b7d1fbfbdcd61dfc575fe71cc9fd2b54bf0.pdf.
71 Schlosser, A ‘Posting versus lurking: communicating in a multiple audience context’ (2005) 32(2) Journal of Consumer Research 260CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited in Moe and Trusov, above n 31, at 446.
72 Ibid.
73 Askalidis et al, above n 69, at 28.
74 Hu, N et al. ‘Overcoming the j-shaped distribution of product reviews’ (2009) 52(10) Communications of the ACM 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 145.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid, at 146.
77 Friedman, above n 31, at 111.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid, at 103.
84 Becher and Zarsky, above n 50, at 333–334.
85 Friedman, above n 31, at 101.
86 Moore v Angie's List, Civil Action No 15-1243. United States District Court (ED Pennsylvania, 7 August 2015) available at https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150810c79.
87 Ibid.
88 F Marotta-Wurgler ‘Does contract disclosure matter’ available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/69a2/81c493f273cb8a7e1b7f57ace5dcb01a8d15.pdf p 2.
89 Ibid.
90 Eg exclusion clauses. See the approach under the EU's Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC.
91 Marotta-Wurgler, above n 88, at ???.
92 Peppet, SR ‘Freedom of contract in an augmented reality: the case of consumer contracts’ (2012) 59 UCLA Law Review 676Google Scholar at 726.
93 Becher and Zarsky, above n 50, at 352–353.
94 Ibid, at 355.
95 Marotta-Wurgler, F ‘Even more than you wanted to know about the failures of disclosure’ (2015) 11 Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 71–72.
96 Van Loo, R ‘The rise of the digital regulator’ (2017) 66 Duke LJ 1267Google Scholar at 1289.
97 Marotta-Wurgler, above n 95, at 72.
98 Chari, NV ‘Disciplining standard form contract terms through online information flows: an empirical study’ (2010) 85 NYU Law Review 1618Google Scholar at 1645.
99 ‘Bias’ means the extent to which contract terms favour buyers or sellers: ibid, at 1621.
100 Chari, above n 98, at 1645.
101 Ibid, at 1618.
102 Becher and Zarsky, above n 50, at 315.
103 Ibid, at 318.
104 Ibid, at 315.
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid.
107 Peppet, above n 92, at 726.
108 Marotta-Wurgler, F and Taylor, R ‘Set in stone: change and innovation in consumer standard-form contracts’ (2013) 88 NYU Law Review 240Google Scholar at 247.
109 Becher and Zarsky, above n 50, at 359.
110 Ibid, at 309.
111 Ibid.
112 Ibid.
113 Nelson, P ‘Information and consumer behaviour’ (1970) 78(2) Journal of Political Economy 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Darby, MR and Karni, E ‘Free competition and optimal amount of fraud’ (1973) 16 Journal of Law and Economics 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
114 OECD Consumer Policy Toolkit (2010) p 34 available at https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264079663-en.
115 Ibid, p 35.
116 Tsao, W and Hsieh, M ‘eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter’ (2015) 15(4) Electronic Commerce Research 509CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 519.
117 Y Wan et al ‘A test of search-experience-credence framework through online review’ (2018) p 2 available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Makoto_Nakayama3/publication/328415093_Testing_SEC-framework_through_online_review_A_Test_of_Search-Experience-Credence_Framework_Through_Online_Review/links/5bcc92ae92851cae21b7b844/Testing-SEC-framework-through-online-review-A-Test-of-Search-Experience-Credence-Framework-Through-Online-Review.pdf.
118 Pan, L and Chiou, J ‘How much can you trust online information? cues for perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information’ (2011) 25 Journal of Interactive Marketing 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 69–70.
119 Akerlof, George identified this phenomenon (Market for lemons) in his article ‘The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism’ (1970) 84(3) QJE 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
120 Lewis, G ‘Asymmetric information, adverse selection and online disclosure: the case of eBay motors’ (2011) 101 American Economic Review 1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hong, H et al. ‘Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: a meta-analytic investigation’ (2017) 102 Decision Support Systems 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 4.
121 Senecal, S and Nantel, J ‘The influence of online product recommendations on consumer online choices’ (2004) 80 Journal of Retailing 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 160.
122 Jiménez, FR and Mendoza, NA ‘Too popular to ignore: the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products’ (2013) 27(3) Journal of Interactive Marketing 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 231.
123 Ibid.
124 Peppet, above n 92, at 714.
125 Sen, S and Lerman, D ‘Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web’ (2007) 21(4) Journal of Interactive Marketing 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
126 Li and Hitt above n 53, p 7.
127 Ibid; Wan, Y et al. ‘The impact of age and shopping experiences on the classification of search, experience, and credence goods in online shopping’ (2012) 10(1) Information Systems and e-Business Management 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 138.
128 Ibid.
129 Consumer preferences are also not consistent over time: Ramsay, above n 4, p 57.
130 Li and Hitt above n 53, p 8.
131 Ibid.
132 See discussions in section 2(a)(ii).
133 Hu et al, above n 74, at 145.
134 Li and Hitt above n 53, p 7.
135 Li and Hitt above n 53, p 7.
136 Ibid, p 8.
137 Tsao and Hsieh, above n 116, at 510.
138 Pan and Chiou, above n 118, at 70.
139 Wan et al, above n 117, p 3.
140 Ibid.
141 Ramsay, above n 9, p 47.
142 Jolls, C and Sunstein, CR ‘Debiasing through law’ (2006) 35 Journal of Legal Studies 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 203.
143 Schulz, KB ‘Information flooding’ (2015) 48 Indiana Law Review 755CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 759.
144 Jolls and Sunstein, above n 142, at 204.
145 See introduction.
146 Thomas, MJ et al. ‘Determinants of online review credibility and its impact on consumers’ purchase intention’ (2019) 20(1) Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 1Google Scholar at 3.
147 Gottschalk and Mafael, above n 25, at 89.
149 Jiménez and Mendoza, above n 122, at 234.
150 Schmitt-Beck, R ‘Bandwagon effect’ in Mazzoleni, G (ed) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication vol 1 (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1st edn, 2016) p 56Google Scholar.
151 Wu, T and Lin, CA ‘Predicting the effects of eWOM and online brand messaging: source trust, bandwagon effect and innovation adoption factors’ (2017) 34 Telematics and Informatics 470CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 473.
152 Ibid.
153 Ibid.
154 Jiménez and Mendoza, above n 122, at 233.
155 Chen, F ‘Herd behavior in purchasing books online’ (2008) 24(5) Computers in Human Behavior 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
156 Ibid, at 1984–1985.
157 Friedman, above n 31, at 595.
158 Yin, D et al. ‘When do consumers value positive vs negative reviews? an empirical investigation of confirmation bias in online word of mouth’ (2016) 27(1) Information Systems Research 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
159 Ibid, at 132.
160 Ibid, at 134.
161 OECD, above n 114, p 75; Sunstein and Thaler, above n 10, p 32.
162 Grubb, D ‘Overconfident consumers in the marketplace’ (2015) 29(4) Journal of Economic Perspectives 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 9.
163 Ramsay, above n 4, p 58.
164 Peppet, above n 92, at 739.
165 Ibid, at 739; Becher and Zarsky, above n 50, at 355.
166 Jolls and Sunstein, above n 142, at 204.
167 Hong, H et al. ‘Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: a meta-analytic investigation’ (2017) 102 Decision Support Systems 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 1.
168 Friedman, above n 31, at 128.
169 Jolls and Sunstein, above n 142, at 207.
170 Tversky, A and Kahneman, D ‘Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases’ (1974) 185 Science (New Series) 1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 1127.
171 Ibid, at 1127.
172 Friedman, DA ‘Debiasing advertising: balancing risk, hope and social welfare’ (2011) 19 Journal of Law and Policy 539Google Scholar at 590.
173 Friedman, above n 31, at 128.
174 Ibid, at 133.
175 Van Loo, above n 96, at 1276.
176 See Friedman, above n 31; Goldman, E ‘The regulation of reputational information’ in Szorka, B and Marcus, A (eds) The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet (Washington: TechFreedom, 2010) p 299Google Scholar.
177 Friedman, above n 31, at 135.
178 Ibid.
179 This covers private civil actions instituted by consumers, direct litigation between businesses, and class actions.
180 Friedman above n 31, at 147–161.
181 Competition & Markets Authority ‘Online Reviews and Endorsements: Report on CMA's Call for Information’ (June 2015) para 4.18 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/436238/Online_reviews_and_endorsements.pdf (last accessed 18 May 2020).
182 Yelp carried out sting operations to discourage businesses from soliciting fake reviews: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/technology/yelp-tries-to-halt-deceptive-reviews.html.
183 Talesh, S ‘How the “haves” come out ahead in the twenty-first century’ (2013) 62 DePaul Law Review 519Google Scholar; Galanter, M ‘Why the haves come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change’ (1974) 9 Law & Society Review 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leff, AA ‘Injury, ignorance and spite – the dynamics of coercive collection’ (1970) 80 Yale Law Journal 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
184 Fink, M ‘Digital co-regulation: designing a supranational legal framework for the platform economy’ (2018) 43(1) European Law Review 47Google Scholar at 56.
185 Ibid, at 57.
186 House of Lords, Select Committee on European Union Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market (HL Paper 129) p 93 available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/129/129.pdf.
187 Similar efforts were made earlier at national level: see the UK's CMA, above n 181: Danish Consumer Ombudsman ‘Guidelines on Publication of User Reviews’ (May 2015) available at www.consumerombudsman.dk/media/49717/guidelines.pdf.
188 See UCPD Guidance para 5.2.8 available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0163&from=EN.
189 Ibid.
190 Ibid.
191 Ibid.
192 Ibid.
193 Select Committee (HL), above n 186, p 70; Busch, C et al ‘The rise of the platform economy: a new challenge for EU consumer law’ (2016) 5 Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 3Google Scholar at 3.
194 Article 2(b).
195 Article 2(d).
196 Case C-59/12, BKK Mobil Oil v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs, 3 October 2013, para 35.
197 One can respond to this by arguing that consumers supply the information while platforms only provide a repository.
198 Written evidence from Citizens Advice (OPL0082) available at http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-internal-market-subcommittee/online-platforms-and-the-eu-digital-single-market/written/26136.html.
199 European Commission ‘Impact assessment: proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services’ para 5.4.3 available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=51797.
200 Communication from the Commission on online platforms and the digital single market COM (2016) 288 final available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288&from=EN.
201 Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (2003/C 321/01) para 18 available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32003Q1231(01)&from=EN.
202 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Simplification’ (2002/ C 48/28) available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52001AE1496&from=EN.
203 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on self-regulation and co-regulation in the Community legislative framework (2015/ C 291/05) available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014IE4850&from=EN.
204 Above n 199, para 5.4.3.
205 The European Committee for Standardisation ‘New approach and other directives’ available at https://www.cen.eu/work/supportlegislation/directives/pages/default.aspx.
206 Busch, C ‘Towards a “new approach” in European consumer law: standardisation and co-regulation in the digital single market’ (2016) Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 197Google Scholar at 198.
207 CEN, above n 205.
208 Busch, above n 206, at 197; C Busch ‘Crowdsourcing consumer confidence: how to regulate online rating and review systems in the collaborative economy’ (15 June 2016) p 14 available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2799489.
209 Busch, above n 208, p 8.
211 ISO 20488:2018 para 1.
212 Ibid.
213 See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288&from=EN para 4.10(e).
215 HoL Select Committee, above n 186, p 71.
216 Which include supportive and stand-alone operators, regardless of where they are established. As this proposal focuses on consumer protection, it seems inappropriate to apply thresholds exempting specific platforms from the duty.
217 Eg see France's Digital Republic Act (French Act No 2016-1321) and Law No 1321 (Loi pour une République numérique of October 7, 2016) which introduce regulations applying to online platforms; Germany's Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) 2017 which regulates online social media platforms.
218 Busch, above n 208, p 2.
219 For a discussion on the use of regulations in EU consumer law, see Twigg-Flesner, C ‘Good-bye harmonisation by directives, hello cross-border only regulation? – a way forward for EU consumer contract law’ (2011) 7(2) European Review of Contract Law 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
220 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150.
221 Along with guidelines to be issued by the European Commission, the Online Platform Regulation encourages industry participants to draw up codes of conduct which support compliance with the regulatory requirements: Art 17.
222 Para 4.1.
223 The work carried out by the French national organisation for standardisation: Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) influenced these standards. Other influential efforts include the Danish Guidelines, above n 187; the UK CMA's report, above n 181; tThe Draft Directive on Online intermediary Platforms developed by the Research Group on the law of digital services under the umbrella of the European Law Institute available at https://www.elsi.uni-osnabrueck.de/fileadmin/user_upload/English.pdf.
224 LWoods and W Perrin ‘Online harm reduction – a statutory duty of care and regulator’ (April 2019) p 28 available at https://d1ssu070pg2v9i.cloudfront.net/pex/carnegie_uk_trust/2019/04/08091652/Online-harm-reduction-a-statutory-duty-of-care-and-regulator.pdf.
225 Ibid, p 8.
226 Directive 2000/31/EC.
227 Art 13.
228 Art 14.
229 Art 12.
230 Art 14(1)(a) and (b). In other jurisdictions like the United States, online platforms also enjoy liability exemptions for third-party content: see 47 USC § 230 (2012).
231 Rozenfeldova, L and Sokol, P ‘Liability regime of online platforms new approaches and perspectives’ (2019) 3 EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges 866CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 870.
232 BGH, 19.03.2015, MMR 2015, 726 – Hotelbewertungsportal cited in Busch, above n 208, p 11.
233 Art 15.
