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.

²⁷ See https://www.reviewtrackers.com/reports/online-reviews-survey/.

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.

⁵⁵ See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-brings-first-case-challenging-fake-paid-reviews-independent.

⁵⁶ See https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03992.html.

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.

¹⁴⁸ See https://www.amazon.co.uk/Headphones-TaoTronics-Travelling-Waterproof-Cancelling-Black/dp/B017I9CBPC/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1P657LMQZAG8Q&keywords=bluetooth+headphones&qid=1562862893&s=gateway&sprefix=bluet%2Caps%2C170&sr=8-3.

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, 1^st 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.

²¹⁰ See https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/80004556/.

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).

²¹⁴ See https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper.

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.