discuss Significant impact on online sales, by EU directive (2019/2161)

[twiki]

See this:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/factsheet_new_deal_consumer_benefits_2019.pdf

There is significant impact due to this directive, especially for those using own landers or Efty landers or such custo landers, but also to everyone else. For example:

- If you are selling to EU consumers at all, you need to display full seller details so the client can act under their rights; whether a business or other individual;

- Question is whether the 14-days mandatory returns accepted might be enforced on domainers (?! yeah, I know)

- If several product are listed, you need to display the formula on which your ranking is based, such as price;

etc etc.

I've just started with it and got some headache already....

Edit: Link to the full regulation in all languages: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/2161/oj

 

[capybara]

Landing pages with contact forms? No. And domains are not consumer goods and not a service (they are a service in case of registrars, but not domainers). Although that might affect Sedo and Dan, I don't know.

 

[twiki]

Landing pages with contact forms? No. And domains are not consumer goods and not a service (they are a service in case of registrars, but not domainers). Although that might affect Sedo and Dan, I don't know.

I wouldn't be that sure.

For marketplaces yes there is indeed significant impact. "Private seller" on a domain listing is about to become public very soon. (At least how I interpret it for now). This impacts us, domainers, more than the marketplace itself.

Anyway I've forwarded the stuff to our legal team and awaiting their response as to how much this impacts domain sales on own landers.

 

[twiki]

And domains are not consumer goods and not a service

This interpretation is definitely wrong.

It doesn't matter what they are - can even be some land on the moon. What matters is consumer rights, that's what the directive is about. Furthermore, the document doesn't even use the term "consumer goods" at all, doesn't care on what the product is, all that matters is that it is sold via online.

 

[Ntmt]

I believe it affects only marketplaces based in EU, like Sedo.

 

[capybara]

Furthermore, the document doesn't even use the term "consumer goods" at all

The document is about consumer rights and has that in the title. Nowhere in the world private sales have the same level of customer protection, it is always very limited and basically limited to fraud protection. I don't see how this suddenly should become an exception.

 

[twiki]

I believe it affects only marketplaces based in EU, like Sedo.

No it doesn't. This is a continuation of the GDPR law, sort of implementation directive of the principles in GDPR.

It affects anyone in the world selling to EU-based consumers, and even if those consumers have moved to a different country. As long as they retain their EU citizenship they are protected by this law. For example any US-based seller selling to EU citizens IS affected by the law and this directive.

 

[twiki]

The document is about consumer rights and has that in the title. Nowhere in the world private sales have the same level of customer protection, it is always very limited and basically limited to fraud protection. I don't see how this suddenly should become an exception.

It depends on interpretation. Are you a small business? (we are) - then yes, you are affected. Many domainers here are business sellers and/or carry this activity in business form which is what I also do.

Are you paying your taxes as a self-employed? Even though you're not a legal entity, this is a business context, so it's open to debate. On this I will await for further info from our legal team.

(Edit: under a strict interpretation, you ARE a business in such case even if not a LLC or whatever; this is carried from GDPR which I worked a lot with as I tackle GDPR things in our firm. Whenever the context is repeated sales (and not an "used item" sale such as selling your bike once) you are in a business context, and domain sales are very unlikely to be interpreted as something else than business sales, especially if you own many; in which case you ARE a business anyway regardless of whether you are incorporated or not, as the context is making a profit. Hope it makes more sense now.)

But everyone is, of course, about to have/use their own interpretation of the legislation on their own situation and have nothing against that. You might consider it doesn't affect you, if so, that's only you to decide. But others, it might definitely affect - depending on the case. My post here is just a warning and making other users here aware of this. But everyone is going to make their own choices.

 

[capybara]

It gets back to what I said in the first message, domain names are neither goods nor services. Obviously, there might be some lack of legal clarity on the subject, but that much is definite. I recommend you to read
Should Domain Names be Considered 'Contracts for Service' or 'Property Rights'? article. Note that "goods" or "services" itself are not in the question and not in the debate.

 

[twiki]

It gets back to what I said in the first message, domain names are neither goods nor services. Obviously, there might be some lack of legal clarity on the subject, but that much is definite. I recommend you to read
Should Domain Names be Considered 'Contracts for Service' or 'Property Rights'? article. Note that "goods" or "services" itself are not in the question and not in the debate.

"A number of courts have categorized domain names as contracts for service. This in itself is not incorrect," (from that article).

This is debatable, the question is how a local authority implementing the directive will view the thing.

One thing that I might be wrong about above, is that unlike GDPR that extends to US sellers, the directive might affect only EU-based sellers for now. I'm taking my time next to read the whole document carefully as there's a lot to dig in (I'm in EU).

 

[twiki]

It gets back to what I said in the first message, domain names are neither goods nor services. Obviously, there might be some lack of legal clarity on the subject, but that much is definite. I recommend you to read
Should Domain Names be Considered 'Contracts for Service' or 'Property Rights'? article. Note that "goods" or "services" itself are not in the question and not in the debate.

And if you read what I have linked, here's Article 3:

Article 3

Amendments to Directive 2005/29/EC
Directive 2005/29/EC is amended as follows:
(1)
in Article 2, the first paragraph is amended as follows:
(a)
point (c) is replaced by the following:
‘(c)

‘product’ means any good or service including immovable property, digital service and digital content, as well as rights and obligations;’;

As I expected.

 

[twiki]

" In accordance with Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (14), providers of online marketplaces should not be required to verify the legal status of third-party suppliers. Instead, providers of online marketplaces should require third-party suppliers on the online marketplace to indicate their status as traders or non-traders for the purposes of consumer protection law and to provide this information to the provider of online marketplace."

See the wording? They use the term trader vs. non-trader. Whether incorporated or not, it's irrelevant. Even the term marketplace is loose so it can apply to any site selling stuff from third party sellers.

 

[capybara]

"Rights and obligations" were there even before the amendment. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:149:0022:0039:en:PDF#page=5.

Yes, I see that it applies to traders on EU marketplaces.

especially for those using own landers or Efty landers or such custo landers, but also to everyone else

But it does not apply to this, especially especially. Marketplace is somewhere where the contract is being signed. An Efty or a custom contact form do not provide that, its merely a communication starter. Direct to Escrow.com landers case can be different though.

 

[twiki]

"Rights and obligations" were there even before the amendment. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:149:0022:0039:en:PDF#page=5.

Yes, I see that it applies to traders on EU marketplaces.


But it does not apply to this, especially especially. Marketplace is somewhere where the contract is being signed. An Efty or a custom contact form do not provide that, its merely a communication starter. Direct to Escrow.com landers case can be different though.

One thing we can agree on is that it's hard to interpret. This is why I've put our lawyers at work.

I use custom landers and need to know exactly what's what. Posting company details there is not a problem, but I wonder if this might spook out some buyers; I'm not sure what they think about an Eastern Europe company even though a solid 20-year established one. Consumers are wary of a lot of things and domain buying seems stressful enough as it is.

Edit: Aah, I see your angle. If you are a non-trader and use Efty then yes it doesn't apply, it's a facilitator as you say.

But you are positioning yourself as a non-trader. The question is whether you are indeed a non-trader or not.

I would not worry about this though if you're not EU based.

But if you are, see above. Self-employed means trader. Owning and selling several domains is trader, it's a business context even if non-incorporated.

 

[carob]

From now on consumers will be informed whether the person selling the goods or services online is a trader or another private individual, and warned that EU consumer protection rules do not apply when the supplier is not a trader. The online marketplace will also indicate whether the supplier or the marketplace itself is responsible e.g. for the delivery or for handling the returns under the right of withdrawal. Consumers will also know where to turn in case of problems.

That quote from part 1 of that document seems to say that marketplaces need to indicate the status of the seller, namely trader or private individual, as that determines what consumer rights apply to the sale. I can't find text there that says you have to publish personal information, just show seller's status.

 

[twiki]

That quote from part 1 of that document seems to say that marketplaces need to indicate the status of the seller, namely trader or private individual, as that determines what consumer rights apply to the sale. I can't find text there that says you have to publish personal information, just show seller's status.

That's a well known EU principle in all these regulations, laws and directives related to online; it's called the transparency principle. It's BTW mentioned in the fact sheet (see first link in this post). Seller details must be made public to the buyer and/or user even if they don't buy anything but they are a user of a free service (different situation though, just mentioning).

I will search for it and give you exact pointer in the law (there are numerous previous linked/superseeded starting with EC 13/93), for the moment I am caught by work but will look into it later today. (Frankly I didn't really need this these days.)