Ηλεκτρονικό Εμπόριο & Προστασία Καταναλωτή

E-Commerce & Consumer Protection: Legal Risks in Platform Models

Case Law on Unfair Commercial Practices, Misleading Ads, and Consumer Rights Enforcement

As e-commerce platforms continue to reshape the retail landscape, consumer protection law has become a focal point of legal risk and regulatory scrutiny. Whether hosting third-party sellers, providing comparison tools, or advertising offers via algorithmic targeting, platform operators must navigate a growing body of case law and enforcement actions related to unfair commercial practices, misleading advertising, and the enforcement of consumer rights.

In this article, we explore key legal issues arising under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), Consumer Rights Directive, and related national laws, highlighting recent European case law that outlines the limits of lawful conduct in platform business models.

Legal Framework Overview

Under EU law, e-commerce platforms are subject to:

Directive 2005/29/EC (UCPD) on unfair business-to-consumer practices,
Directive 2011/83/EU (Consumer Rights Directive) on information and withdrawal rights,
Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) concerning intermediary liability and transparency obligations,
Supplementary rules under national laws and the Omnibus Directive (2019/2161), which enhances enforcement mechanisms and penalties.

Platforms acting as traders in their own right—as well as those enabling third-party sellers—must comply with these frameworks to avoid civil liability, regulatory sanctions, and reputational harm.

1. Unfair Commercial Practices and Platform Design

A key area of legal risk relates to interface design choices that may manipulate consumer behavior—also known as “dark patterns.” Courts and regulators have begun treating such designs as unfair commercial practices, especially when they mislead or distort consumer decision-making.

Case Example: Germany – Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (2022)
The court ruled against a platform that defaulted consumers into purchasing a recurring subscription service without making the recurring nature of the charges clear. The ruling emphasized that default pre-selections και ambiguous opt-out buttons can constitute misleading omissions under the UCPD.

Takeaway:
Platforms must ensure that pricing, contract duration, subscription renewals, and payment terms are presented in clear, unambiguous, and non-coercive ways.

2. Misleading Advertising and Price Transparency

Price presentation is another frequent source of litigation. Platforms must clearly communicate the total price, including any taxes and mandatory charges, and avoid false urgency (e.g., “Only 1 left!” when it is not true).

Case Example: Spain – Supreme Court (2020)
The court sanctioned a travel booking platform for displaying “from” prices that did not include mandatory fees until the final booking stage. This was found to mislead consumers regarding the actual cost, violating both the UCPD and national transparency rules.

Takeaway:
All mandatory charges and conditions must be presented upfront and not hidden behind click-through steps. Time-limited offers or scarcity claims must be factually accurate και documented.

3. Consumer Rights and Withdrawal Periods

Under the Consumer Rights Directive, consumers have a 14-day right of withdrawal when buying goods or services online. Problems arise when platforms:

Fail to inform consumers about the right,
Obscure the process of returning goods or canceling contracts,
Blur the distinction between B2C και C2C transactions.

Case Example: France – Paris Commercial Court (2023)
A marketplace operator was held liable for not distinguishing clearly between professional and non-professional sellers, which misled consumers into thinking they were buying from businesses (and thus had withdrawal rights). The court ruled that the platform shared liability for failing to ensure compliance with consumer information rules.

Takeaway:
Platforms must explicitly disclose the legal status of third-party sellers and provide consumers with accurate rights information, particularly regarding returns, warranties, and dispute resolution.

4. Joint Liability for Third-Party Seller Misconduct

Recent case law suggests that platforms may be held jointly liable for violations committed by third-party sellers—especially if the platform exerts editorial, curatorial, or commercial control over the content or fulfillment of the transaction.

Case Example: Italy – Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) Investigation (2021)
The AGCM fined a major marketplace platform for failing to prevent misleading product listings, including counterfeit or misdescribed goods. The authority found that the platform had algorithms and vetting tools at its disposal and thus bore responsibility for systematic failures to moderate content.

Takeaway:
Platforms must adopt robust vetting, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to detect and address seller misconduct—and may be penalized for inaction or ineffective controls.

5. Omnibus Directive and Enhanced Penalties

Since 2022, the Omnibus Directive has increased the enforcement power of national consumer authorities, introducing:

Heavier fines (up to 4% of turnover),
Collective redress mechanisms,
New transparency rules for συστήματα κατάταξης, εξατομικευμένη τιμολόγηση, και κριτικές χρηστών.

Πρακτική Συμβουλή:
Οι πλατφόρμες ηλεκτρονικού εμπορίου πρέπει να αποκαλύπτουν:

Εάν οι κατατάξεις των προϊόντων είναι επί πληρωμή,
Εάν οι τιμές είναι δυναμικά εξατομικευμένες και
Πώς επαληθεύονται οι αξιολογήσεις.

Η μη συμμόρφωση όχι μόνο συνεπάγεται κινδύνους επιβολής προστίμων, αλλά μπορεί επίσης να οδηγήσει σε ρυθμιστικές δικαστικές εντολές και κατηγορία δικαστικών διαφορών στυλ-δράσης.

Λίστα ελέγχου συμμόρφωσης για φορείς εκμετάλλευσης πλατφόρμας

Αποκαλύψτε την Πλήρη Τιμολόγηση Νωρίς και Ξεκάθαρα
Επισήμανση Επαγγελματιών Πωλητών με Ακρίβεια
Πληροφορίες και Λειτουργικότητα Απόσυρσης Προσφοράς
Αποφύγετε τον χειριστικό σχεδιασμό (Σκοτεινά μοτίβα)
Παρακολουθήστε και ελέγξτε τακτικά το περιεχόμενο των πωλητών
Να είστε διαφανείς σχετικά με τις αξιολογήσεις, τις κριτικές και την εξατομίκευση

Συμπέρασμα

Οι νομικοί κίνδυνοι για τις πλατφόρμες ηλεκτρονικού εμπορίου υπερβαίνουν κατά πολύ την προστασία δεδομένων και την κυβερνοασφάλεια—πλέον περιλαμβάνουν συμμόρφωση με τη βασική νομοθεσία περί καταναλωτών, όπου η αποτυχία παροχής ακριβούς, διαφανούς και δίκαιης εμπορικής επικοινωνίας μπορεί να οδηγήσει και στα δύο εθνική επιβολή και ευθύνη σε επίπεδο ΕΕ.

Καθώς τα δικαστήρια και οι ρυθμιστικές αρχές συνεχίζουν να εξετάζουν τις πρακτικές των πλατφορμών, οι νομικές ομάδες πρέπει να διασφαλίζουν ότι τα επιχειρηματικά τους μοντέλα, οι στρατηγικές μάρκετινγκ και οι διεπαφές χρήστη ευθυγραμμίζονται με τις εξελισσόμενες απαιτήσεις της νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ για την προστασία των καταναλωτών.