Konsultatsioon

The New Consumer Agenda: open public consultation Fields marked with * are mandatory. Introduction This public consultation covers four consumer policy initiatives that the European Commission intends to adopt in 2020 and 2021. These initiatives are: A Commission Communication on a new European Consumer Agenda, and three legislative proposals respectively on: empowering consumers in the green transition; a review of the Directive on consumer credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC); a review of the General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC). The consultation is organised in four sections corresponding each to the above initiatives. When providing your contribution, you are invited to fill in the first two parts: About you and A New Consumer Agenda. In addition, you may also opt to fill in one or more of the three specific sections on the legislative proposals, according to their relevance to your areas of interest. You can find additional information for some of the questions and answer options in the Footnotes, under B ackground Documents. For further clarification on the consultation, including links to details about each of the initiatives mentioned above and replies to frequently asked questions, please go to the FAQ page. The FAQ is only available in English and regularly updated. You can save your replies and get back to the questionnaire at a later stage. Please make sure to save a draft of the questionnaire regularly as you fill it in, and to submit the questionnaire before the end of the consultation period on 6 October 2020. About you * Language of my contribution Bulgarian Croatian Czech Danish 1  Dutch English Estonian Finnish French Gaelic German Greek Hungarian Italian Latvian Lithuanian Maltese Polish Portuguese Romanian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish * I am giving my contribution as Academic/research institution Business association Company/business organisation Consumer organisation EU citizen Environmental organisation Non-EU citizen Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Public authority Trade union Other * First name 2 * Surname * Email (this won't be published) * Scope International Local National Regional * Organisation name 255 character(s) maximum * Organisation size Micro (1 to 9 employees) Small (10 to 49 employees) Medium (50 to 249 employees) Large (250 or more) Transparency register number 255 character(s) maximum Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to influence EU decision- making. * Country of origin Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation. Afghanistan Djibouti Libya Saint Martin Åland Islands Dominica Liechtenstein Saint Pierre and Miquelon 3 Albania Dominican Lithuania Saint Vincent Republic and the Grenadines Algeria Ecuador Luxembourg Samoa American Egypt Macau San Marino Samoa Andorra El Salvador Madagascar São Tomé and Príncipe Angola Equatorial Malawi Saudi Arabia Guinea Anguilla Eritrea Malaysia Senegal Antarctica Estonia Maldives Serbia Antigua and Eswatini Mali Seychelles Barbuda Argentina Ethiopia Malta Sierra Leone Armenia Falkland Islands Marshall Singapore Islands Aruba Faroe Islands Martinique Sint Maarten Australia Fiji Mauritania Slovakia Austria Finland Mauritius Slovenia Azerbaijan France Mayotte Solomon Islands Bahamas French Guiana Mexico Somalia Bahrain French Micronesia South Africa Polynesia Bangladesh French Moldova South Georgia Southern and and the South Antarctic Lands Sandwich Islands Barbados Gabon Monaco South Korea Belarus Georgia Mongolia South Sudan Belgium Germany Montenegro Spain Belize Ghana Montserrat Sri Lanka Benin Gibraltar Morocco Sudan Bermuda Greece Mozambique Suriname 4 Bhutan Greenland Myanmar Svalbard and /Burma Jan Mayen Bolivia Grenada Namibia Sweden Bonaire Saint Guadeloupe Nauru Switzerland Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Guam Nepal Syria Herzegovina Botswana Guatemala Netherlands Taiwan Bouvet Island Guernsey New Caledonia Tajikistan Brazil Guinea New Zealand Tanzania British Indian Guinea-Bissau Nicaragua Thailand Ocean Territory British Virgin Guyana Niger The Gambia Islands Brunei Haiti Nigeria Timor-Leste Bulgaria Heard Island Niue Togo and McDonald Islands Burkina Faso Honduras Norfolk Island Tokelau Burundi Hong Kong Northern Tonga Mariana Islands Cambodia Hungary North Korea Trinidad and Tobago Cameroon Iceland North Tunisia Macedonia Canada India Norway Turkey Cape Verde Indonesia Oman Turkmenistan Cayman Islands Iran Pakistan Turks and Caicos Islands Central African Iraq Palau Tuvalu Republic Chad Ireland Palestine Uganda Chile Isle of Man Panama Ukraine 5  China Israel Papua New United Arab Guinea Emirates Christmas Italy Paraguay United Island Kingdom Clipperton Jamaica Peru United States Cocos (Keeling) Japan Philippines United States Islands Minor Outlying Islands Colombia Jersey Pitcairn Islands Uruguay Comoros Jordan Poland US Virgin Islands Congo Kazakhstan Portugal Uzbekistan Cook Islands Kenya Puerto Rico Vanuatu Costa Rica Kiribati Qatar Vatican City Côte d’Ivoire Kosovo Réunion Venezuela Croatia Kuwait Romania Vietnam Cuba Kyrgyzstan Russia Wallis and Futuna Curaçao Laos Rwanda Western Sahara Cyprus Latvia Saint Yemen Barthélemy Czechia Lebanon Saint Helena Zambia Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Democratic Lesotho Saint Kitts and Zimbabwe Republic of the Nevis Congo Denmark Liberia Saint Lucia * Publication privacy settings The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like your details to be made public or to remain anonymous. 6  Anonymous Only your type of respondent, country of origin and contribution will be published. All other personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number) will not be published. Public Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) will be published with your contribution. I agree with the personal data protection provisions I. A New Consumer Agenda The European Commission intends to propose by the end of 2020 a new European Consumer Agenda setting out the main consumer policy priorities in the EU for the years to come. This consultation covers both issues emerging in the short term from the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on key EU consumer protection areas and the medium-long term priorities that in the respondents’ views should characterise a future EU consumer policy strategy. The overall aim is to take stock of a number of trends affecting consumer markets and the related challenges. Incidents linked to the coronavirus have further highlighted some of these trends, for example the increasing use of online sales channels and the need to ensure safety for consumers in this context. The economic disruption associated with crisis is affecting households and businesses across the Member States. As measures are being put in place to address the economic and social consequences and relaunch the European economy, the need to provide an effective framework of consumer rights and ensure a level playing field among businesses remains highly relevant, in light of the recently adopted EU recovery plan. Issues emerging from the impact of Covid-19 * 1 Have you been confronted to any of the issues below? If so, what are in your views the key issues that EU and national consumer policies should be better prepared to respond to? Online frauds and scams: the COVID-19 crisis showed how rogue traders can take advantage of consumers’ fears and use digital means to advertise fake websites, sell products with false health claims, or use pressure selling to obtain excessive prices Breaches of product safety rules in online trading 7  Increased consumers’ financial vulnerability, e.g. need to compensate loss of income by new debt leading to over-indebtedness, inability to make scheduled payments related to rent or mortgages, consumer credit, loans from family or friends, or utility or telephone bills Lack of insufficient respect for civil liberties, privacy or EU data protection standards in Member States’ measures dealing with the pandemic I never encountered such issues Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum * 2 EU rules give passengers and travellers the right to reimbursement in money for cancelled package travel and transport services. Reimbursement of the full amount of the ticket or package travel price is due within 7 days (air or waterborne), 14 days (bus/coach; package travel) or 1 month (rail). This applies also in case of cancellation due to extraordinary circumstances. Do you think that in a situation where worldwide travel restrictions have caused almost a standstill of travel, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, specific rules should apply, such as longer reimbursement deadlines or reimbursement in the form of vouchers? No, there is no need for specific rules Yes, specific rules should apply for unprecedented situations such as worldwide travel restrictions Don’t know If yes, which rules should apply? Longer deadlines for reimbursement Transport service providers and package travel organisers should be able to issue travel vouchers instead of reimbursement in money Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 8 * 3 Currently, different deadlines apply for reimbursement for cancelled package travel and transport services. Moreover, insolvency protection exists for package travel, but not for individual transport services (e.g. a flight). Do you consider that the EU rules on passengers’ and travellers’ rights in the passenger rights Regulations and the Directive on package travel should be more aligned? Yes No, it is appropriate to have different rules depending on the mode of transport or type of travel Don’t know Please explain * 4 Consumer rights in cases when services (including accommodation services and sports and cultural events) are cancelled, in situations like the Covid-19 pandemic, are currently regulated at national level (with the exception of, for example, in the fields of passenger rights and package travel). Should the EU harmonise these consumer protection rules for cancellation of services? Yes, for all sectors in situations of ‘force majeure’ (like Covid-19) Yes, but only for specific business sectors in situations of ‘force majeure’ Yes, for all sectors for any kind of cancellation of consumer services Yes, but only for specific business sectors for any kind of cancellation of consumer services No, this should be left to the national level Don't know Please specify Medium-long term priorities for future EU consumer policy strategy * 5 The New Consumer Agenda aims to put forward a common vision of consumer policy priorities for the Union and the Member States. Which should in your view be the main priorities in the coming years? at most 3 choice(s) 9  Better supporting consumers to adapt to more sustainable and environmentally friendly consumption Better supporting consumers to benefit from the increasing digitalisation Protecting vulnerable consumers More effective enforcement of consumer rights Stronger, more rapid and affordable tools to ensure consumers obtain redress when needed Co-operation with non-EU countries Better alignment between EU consumer policy and Member States’ priorities Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum * 6 Do you have sufficient trustworthy information and/or supporting tools (such as web sites or mobile apps) to shop with confidence for products and services that are truly better for the environment? Yes, I can easily find such information and I often rely on it for green shopping No, it is difficult for me to find enough reliable information to chose green products/services When I shop, I do not specifically look at the environmental characteristics of the product Don't know * 7 In the digital environment traders can easily reach many consumers at once and with personalised offers. However, consumers are increasingly exposed to many challenges, such as unsafe products or unfair commercial practices online. How could one best ensure that consumers have the same protection online and offline? at most 3 choice(s) Clearer identification of sponsored content Information on how offers, prices and advertisements are personalised Improved information on consumer rights in European SMEs and industry Preventing the exploitation of consumer biases, especially with data-driven practices 10  Giving consumers the choice whether or not to receive personalised marketing and sales content Giving consumers better control over the use of their data for marketing and sales purposes Establishing clear and effective rules across the supply chain related to the safety of products sold online Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum * 8 Vulnerable consumers are particularly at risk to suffer from unfair practices. Which sources of vulnerability do you consider as particularly relevant? at most 3 choice(s) Low income or household purchasing power Age Place of living Social isolation Gender Personal health situation Poor IT literacy Poor financial literacy Limited Internet access Low education level Lack of practical knowledge or skills in understanding complex contract conditions and offers Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum * 9 If you are sufficiently aware of public enforcement procedures in your country /sector, which are, in your opinion, the main barriers to an effective enforcement of consumer rights (including product safety rules)? at most 3 choice(s) 11  Lack of high-tech tools to support investigation and enforcement Lack of sufficient financial and human resources for enforcement authorities Limited cooperation between competent authorities at national and EU level Limited cooperation between competent authorities in different sectors Limited cooperation between competent authorities and consumer organizations Lack of systematic screening of markets and consumers’ problems Lack of specific legal powers for competent authorities (in the case of product safety, lack of mystery shopping and power of blocking websites) Don't know Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum * 10 How can the Commission help consumer organisations and other stakeholders be better involved in policy-making and implementation at the EU level? at most 3 choice(s) Capacity-building through targeted training on specific functions (e.g. qualified entities for collective redress [1], bodies participating in external alerts in the framework of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation, etc.) Capacity-building through more EU funding in the form of action grants Capacity-building through better access to participatory e-tools (e.g. sharing information, good practices, etc.) Giving them more wide-spread and formal consultative role at the EU level Equip them with tools to engage more proactively with the other stakeholders Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum II. Empowering consumers in the green transition 12 As part of the new Circular Economy Action Plan the Commission intends to propose a revision of EU consumer law to ensure that consumers receive trustworthy and relevant information on products at the point of sale, including on their lifespan and on the availability of repair services, spare parts and repair manuals. It will also consider further strengthening consumer protection against greenwashing and premature obsolescence, setting minimum requirements for sustainability labels/logos and for information tools. Please note that relevant questions and topics may also be covered under other future public consultations such as, for instance, for the legislative proposal on substantiating green claims and Legislative proposal for a sustainable product policy initiative, similarly announced in the Circular Economy Action Plan. 1 Amidst an ever-growing interest in environmental performance and climate neutrality, studies show that consumers increasingly look for more sustainable consumption patterns and choices but face obstacles. Which of the obstacles in the list below would you consider as most relevant for enhanced consumer participation in the circular economy and towards more sustainable consumption behaviour? at most 3 choice(s) Difficulty to know how long products will function without repair Difficulty to know if products can be repaired easily by professional repair services Difficulty to know if products can be repaired easily by consumers themselves Difficulty to check if products are environmentally-friendly Difficulty to verify the reliability of environmental claims (including climate related) on products [2] Proliferation and/or lack of transparency/understanding/reliability of sustainability logos/labels on products and services Proliferation and/or lack of transparency/understanding/reliability of IT tools (e.g. consumer apps) that provide advice for a more sustainable consumer behaviour Lack of knowledge of how to adopt more sustainable consumption behaviour Lack of means to easily track consumer’s personal environmental footprint Unavailability of environmentally-friendly products General disinterest in adopting more sustainable consumption behaviour Perceived higher prices of environmentally-friendly products compared to less environmentally-friendly alternatives Perceived lower quality and performance of environmentally-friendly products compared to less environmentally-friendly alternatives 13  Other None of the above Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 2 Research shows that the price-quality ratio is the most important driver and simultaneously barrier for consumer engagement in the circular economy, followed by convenience. This also applies on purchasing durable consumer goods (such as household appliances, ICT, electronics and other items that have no expiration date). In your opinion, which of the following information could be most useful for consumers to choose sustainable products and to enhance consumers’ participation in the circular economy? at most 3 choice(s) Information on “guaranteed” products lifespan (should repairs be necessary, they would be at no cost to the consumer) Information on “expected” products lifespan without repair (should repairs be necessary after the legal guarantee period, they would be at consumer’s expense in this case) Information on products lifespan subject to possible minor reasonable repairs at consumer’s expense after the legal guarantee period Information about the reparability of the product (e.g. availability of repair services, spare parts, repair manuals, repair scoring…) Information on the (average) cost of repairs Information about software updates or upgradability of hardware and software of the product Information (e.g. a label / logo) vouching for the sustainability (i.e. environmental, social aspects included) of the product Recommendation about the sustainability (i.e. environmental, social aspects included) of the product by a trusted public or private source (e.g. a public authority, expert, celebrity, friend) Information on the product’s life-cycle environmental and climate footprint (including resource extraction, manufacturing, transport, use and end of life / recycling) [3] 14  Information on product’s environmental and climate footprint only during use Information on products social aspects of sustainability, such as respect of human rights and workers’ rights Other None of the above Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 3 Faster obsolescence of products is a growing concern for consumers and consumer protection authorities [4]. In 2016 the Commission issued guidance on so-called planned (intentional) obsolescence. However, other forms of obsolescence exist where the product loses the full functionality at an earlier than expected moment without there being any proof of intentional obsolescence [5]. If you (or your customers, if you are seller/producer) experienced an unexpected failure of products in the past 3 years, please indicate for which product category /categories this happened: at most 3 choice(s) Information and Communication technology products (e.g, mobile phone, computer and peripherals, gaming equipment) Software and programmes Other electronics (e.g.TV set, audio-visual equipment, digital camera) Large household appliances (e.g. dishwasher, fridge) Furniture Toys and non-electronic games Sports and entertainment equipment (e.g. bike) Clothing and footwear Small household appliances (e.g. kettle, toaster, microwave oven, hobby machinery) Mobility equipment (e.g. automotive products, bike, scooter) Other None – no such experience Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 15 4 While reparability is highly relevant to help European businesses and consumers to make the transition to a stronger and more Circular Economy, studies show that the high cost of repair and spare parts appears to be a barrier to higher repair rates across the EU. a) If you tried unsuccessfully to repair recently purchased products yourself, what were the reasons for the lack of success? at most 3 choice(s) The repair was too difficult for me No (user-friendly) repair manual available I did not know where or how to get spare parts The necessary spare parts were not available The price of spare parts was too high I did not have the possibility to open the product (e.g. it was glued, special tools are needed…) The software/firmware was no longer supported The failed component was impossible to repair due to its product design Other None - no such experience Please specify 150 character(s) maximum b) If you tried to have recently purchased products repaired by professional repair services, what were the reasons for the lack of success? It was too expensive/it was cheaper to replace it It was not easy to find out if and where it could be repaired The repair would have taken too long and I needed a replacement sooner The retailer proposed to replace it instead of repairing it The repair was not locally available Other None - no such experience Please specify 16  150 character(s) maximum 5 Many consumers want to be empowered with rights and access to reliable information to be able to play their role in the green transition to the full extent. Which measures in the list below would you consider as most effective to achieve this goal? at most 3 choice(s) Providing better consumer information on products’ durability (lifespan) Providing better consumer information on products’ reparability Providing better consumer information on software updates/upgrades Providing better consumer information on the life-cycle environmental and climate footprint of the product or service (including resource extraction, manufacturing, transport, use and end of life/ recycling) Information on product’s environmental and climate footprint only during use Providing better consumer information on how to operate under extreme climate conditions products destined to be exposed to the elements and used outside Providing better consumer information on social aspects of sustainability, such as respect of human rights and workers’ rights Providing a greater transparency and reliability for sustainability logos/labels (i.e. covering environmental and social aspects) Providing a greater transparency and reliability for IT tools (e.g. consumer apps) providing advice for a more sustainable consumer behaviour Providing a stronger protection against practices that cause products to fail earlier than can normally be expected (so called "early and planned obsolescence") Establish new consumer rights to repair products (including e.g. critical software updates) Providing a stronger protection against greenwashing (i.e. claims on environmental qualities of products or services that are exaggerated, too vague, false or impossible to prove) Raising awareness about the role of consumers on circular economy and green transition Strengthening the enforcement of EU consumer law in these matters Other 17  None of the above Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 6 Which of the following would be in your view most effective in improving the enforcement of EU consumer laws in the interest of enhanced participation of consumers in the green transition? at most 3 choice(s) Require national enforcement bodies to prioritise (e.g. by allocating more resources) enforcement of provisions that enhance the participation of consumers in the circular economy More EU-funded training of enforcement authorities and judges on these matters Detailed EU guidance for enforcement bodies against greenwashing and obsolescence practices and on enforcing consumer information rules Setting up at EU level an advisory system to ensure sustainability claims on products are based on reliable information Assisting national enforcement bodies in tracing the whole value chain to detect false or misleading claims through investments in new technologies (such as Artificial Intelligence systems) Introducing at EU level deterrent penalties for providing misleading information to consumers in these matters Create an effective tool through which consumers can report to authorities problems experienced – e.g. absence of environmental information, misleading information, etc. Strengthen cooperation between public authorities and businesses allowing for swift removal/correction of misleading claims/information and ensuring that consumers are informed and/or proposed adequate remedies Other None of the above Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 18 III. Consumer Credit Directive The Consumer Credit Directive (2008/48/EC) aims to foster the single market for consumer credit while ensuring high protection standards for consumers. It has succeeded to harmonise the information that consumers obtain before accepting a credit agreement between EUR 200 and EUR 75.000 and to give them a right to withdraw from such agreement within 14 days. The experience shows however that various credits fall outside the scope of the Directive, that the information requirements are not fully adapt to the ongoing digitisation of this market, and that rules on responsible lending have only been partially effective in practice. 1 Credits below EUR 200 and certain other credits (e.g. loans granted free of interest and with no other charges, some leasing agreements) are outside of the Directive’s scope at present [6]. Should the scope be extended to: Credits below EUR 200 Credits above EUR 75 000 for purposes other than the renovation of a residential immovable property Loans obtained by individuals from other individuals, through online platforms (peer-to-peer lending) All currently exempted credits [7] No scope extension needed Don't know Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 2 The Consumer Credit Directive obliges lenders to provide consumers with standard information at pre-contractual stage [8]. This should help the consumer understand the main features of a credit and make their decisions in full knowledge of the facts. How would you improve the information to consumers, particularly in the online environment, to ensure that they get the right information at the right time? a) In which format would it be most useful to obtain pre-contractual information? at most 2 choice(s) Provide information in a standardised format (“Standard European Consumer Credit Information”) Provide simplified information focusing only on key features of the offer 19  Present credit offers by way of a comparison table Information provided online should be adapted to the size of the screen b) At which moment of the transaction should pre-contractual information be provided? at most 2 choice(s) At least five days before contract signature At least one day before contract signature At least one hour before the contract signature Together with the other Terms and Conditions, right before signing the contract c) What key features do you consider should be prominently displayed to the consumer at the pre-contractual stage? 200 character(s) maximum 3 In order to enable consumers to understand and compare different offers, the Directive specifies information to be included in advertising which includes an interest rate, the total amount of credit, the annual percentage rate of charge [9] and other information relating to the credit. How should the provision of such information at the advertising stage be improved on different channels? Select most relevant choice(s) The amount of The information should The information should be information should be be given particular accompanied by warning messages reduced (e.g. focus on prominence (e.g. on the implications of the credit annual percentage rate engaging, salient and decision (e.g. “borrowing money also of charge) upfront display) costs money”) Print media Online Radio TV 4 The Directive aims at encouraging responsible lending practices [10], for instance by obliging providers to assess whether the consumer is likely to be able to repay 20 the credit (“creditworthiness assessment”) prior to concluding the credit agreement. This is key to avoid default and over-indebtedness. How could the present rules on responsible lending/borrowing be further improved? at most 3 choice(s) Introduce binding principles on responsible lending such as an obligation to take into account target consumers’ interests, objectives and characteristics when designing credit products Introduce measures to prevent excessive cost of credit through caps on interest rates Ban unsolicited credit offers Introduce further measures to protect consumers in case of unsolicited credit offers for instance by introducing a reminder of the existing right of withdrawal Prevent online credit purchasing without enough time for reflection (e.g. credit obtained “in one-click”) Harmonise the creditworthiness assessment process across Member States Prohibit the provision of credit in case of negative creditworthiness assessment Attach conditions to the provision of credit to consumers with negative creditworthiness assessment, e.g. obligation to provide debt advice or allow grace periods for late repayments Ban the mandatory purchase of additional products, such as payment protection insurance, as a precondition to a credit agreement conclusion (“tying”) Credit providers to promote financial education measures There is no need to introduce further measures Don't know Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 5 The Directive obliges lenders to assess the ability of consumers to repay their credit (creditworthiness assessment), where necessary on the basis of data from credit database. The rules on creditworthiness assessment and on access to credit databases giving information on consumers’ credit history vary across Member 21 States. Should the EU introduce common standards to guarantee a high and even level of consumer protection, as well as to help providers accessing new opportunities in other Member States and alleviating regulatory burden for them? at most 2 choice(s) Yes, EU law should provide for common standards on data/methodology for creditworthiness assessments Yes, EU law should provide for common standards on the categories of data collected by credit databases for creditworthiness assessment purposes and on their exchange across Member States No, rules at EU level should not be changed neither for creditworthiness assessment nor for credit databases Don't know Other Please specify which standards/methodology should be used 150 character(s) maximum Please specify which data should be used 150 character(s) maximum Please specify 150 character(s) maximum 6 What measures could be considered to safeguard the interests of both lenders and borrowers in situations of exceptional and systemic economic disruption, such as the one caused by the Covid-19 epidemic? at most 2 choice(s) Provide specific rules allowing Member States to enact payment moratoria measures while establishing a minimum level of consumer protection for those cases Adoption by Member States of measures encouraging creditors to exercise reasonable forbearance (e.g. temporarily postpone capital and/or interest payments of a loan) when a borrower is experiencing or is likely to experience financial difficulty 22  Use flexibility embedded in the prudential framework for banks to facilitate lending to support consumers and businesses in the crisis period Introduce new obligations for Member States to strengthen services to support (e.g. through debt advice) over-indebted consumers struggling to repay their debt in the crisis or at risk of poverty Introduce new obligations for creditors to provide education and awareness on debt management for consumers in financial difficulties No action at EU level is needed Other Please specify 150 character(s) maximum IV. General Product Safety Directive Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety (GPSD) addresses the safety of non-food consumer products for which there are no specific provisions with the same safety objective in other EU legislation (such as EU sector-specific product legislation [11], e.g. toys). The GPSD also sets up the EU Rapid Alert System for information exchange on dangerous non-food products among Member States. The GPSD provides for the safety of a variety of products, for example childcare products that are not toys (e.g. dummies, children high-chairs, pushchairs, baby changing units) and other products such as bicycles, personal training equipment, laser pointers, furniture, etc. 1 In your view, to what extent are current EU safety rules for non-food consumer products covered by the GPSD adequate to protect consumers? Fully adequate Could be improved in specific areas Not adequate at all Please explain 150 character(s) maximum Please explain 150 character(s) maximum 23 2 Are you aware of any problems related to the implementation of EU safety rules for consumer products covered by the GPSD? Rules are not adapted to online trade Rules are not adapted to new technology products (e.g. connected devices) Legal definitions (such as “product”, “safe product” or “placing on the market”) are not sufficiently clear or outdated The roles and obligations of different economic operators are not appropriately defined There are no specific requirements for product recalls Difficulties for consumers to report unsafe products Product safety rules are not appropriately enforced Other Please explain and substantiate your answers 500 character(s) maximum New technologies and product safety Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of things (IoT), and connected devices pose new challenges to product safety and its rules. 3 Do you think that the safety of products involving new technologies is adequately regulated? Yes No Don't know Please explain 500 character(s) maximum 4 When incorporated into a physical product, software can malfunction and cause a safety issue. When considering whether a product is safe, should the definition of a product in the GPSD specifically encompass also the software incorporated into it? Yes, but only when software is already installed into the product when sold Yes, also when software is downloaded into the device after it has been sold 24  No Other Please explain 150 character(s) maximum 5 How important do you think it is that products that could be modified via software updates/downloads or machine learning are required to remain safe throughout their lifetime? Very important Rather important Rather unimportant Not at all important Please explain 150 character(s) maximum 6 Products incorporating AI applications can evolve via machine learning and other techniques, even after they have been acquired by consumers, potentially posing safety risks. In your opinion, at which moment of the lifecycle of the product should manufacturers have safety obligations? Obligations only at the design stage Obligations at the design stage and also during the lifecycle of the product Other Please explain 150 character(s) maximum Safety of products sold online Ecommerce is an important channel available for consumers to buy products, which was further demonstrated by the COVID-19 outbreak. It is important that the products that reach consumers through online channels are safe. Moreover, new online business models and actors have become prevalent, and product safety rules for these economic operators can be unclear. 7 Have you experienced any product safety incident within the last 5 years? 25  Yes No If yes, how did you buy the product? From a physical shop Online from a seller based in the EU Online from a seller based outside the EU Online but I am not sure where the seller was based 8 Have you experienced any lack of information linked to safety when buying products online? Yes No If yes, what was this lack of information linked to? Not enough warnings or instructions concerning the product sold online No place to report a product safety incident on the website No information available to contact the producer of the product bought online to report a safety incident Other Please explain 150 character(s) maximum 9 Online marketplaces enable companies to sell to EU consumers but, according to EU rules, they do not have direct legal obligations for the safety of products hosted on their platform by sellers. Are you aware of any problems this regime would bring about? Yes No Please explain 500 character(s) maximum 26 10 What should be the role of online marketplaces as regards the safety of products offered on their website? Online marketplaces should remove dangerous products listed on their websites when notified to them Online marketplaces should inform consumers when a dangerous product has been removed from the marketplace Online marketplaces should prevent the appearance of dangerous products, including the reappearance of dangerous products' listings once they have been removed Online marketplaces should inform sellers of their obligation to comply with EU rules on products Online marketplaces should do a cursory check on all products offered on their website to identify products that likely do not comply with safety rules Other Please explain your answers 500 character(s) maximum The questions below imply a certain familiarity and practical experience with the market surveillance and enforcement of product safety rules Enforcement of safety rules Member States’ authorities are responsible for enforcing the law and to take actions ensuring the safety of products placed on the market. The GPSD contains rules under which such authorities operate. For harmonised products the rules on enforcement have recently been revised in a new market surveillance regulation [12]. 11 What are the main challenges for enforcement? at most 3 choice(s) Member States’ authorities do not have enough resources Member States’ authorities lack specific powers: they cannot impose efficient sanctions on economic operators Member States’ authorities cannot take effective actions online ( e.g. mystery shopping, restrict access to the webpage) Member States’ authorities assess product risks differently Not enough cooperation among market surveillance authorities in the EU 27  Enforcement actions against economic operators outside the EU are difficult Fragmentation of the market surveillance legislation between harmonised and non-harmonised products Dangerous products are difficult to trace Not enough control checks carried out, including by customs Other Please explain 150 character(s) maximum 12 Do you think that products covered by the GPSD should only be placed on the EU market if there is an economic operator established in the EU who is responsible for product safety purposes? Yes No If yes, what kind of responsibilities should they have? 150 character(s) maximum 13 Are you aware of any issue where additional competences of the European Commission for the enforcement of product safety rules could improve the safety of consumers? Yes No Please explain 150 character(s) maximum 14 Should the system of product traceability be reinforced in the GPSD so that products can be better traced if there is a safety issue? Yes No Please explain 28  150 character(s) maximum Coherence of the product safety regime Different rules and requirements apply to harmonised products (e.g. toys) and non-harmonised products (e. g. childcare products). 15 Do you experience problems with the divergence of rules between harmonised and non-harmonised products? Yes No Don't know Please explain how 150 character(s) maximum 16 Products which resemble foodstuff, while not being such, have a separate regime (Council Directive 87/357/EEC). This has given rise to different interpretations on whether such products are dangerous in itself or not. Should these products keep having a separated regime or be incorporated into the general product safety legal instrument? Yes, it should be incorporated No, it should remain separate Please explain why 150 character(s) maximum 29 30 Saatja: Jaana Tael <[email protected]> Saadetud: 10.08.2020 16:46 Adressaat: TTJA <[email protected]> Koopia: Birgit Valgus <[email protected]>; Ingrid Teinemaa <[email protected]> Teema: FW: Komisjoni avalik konsultatsioon Manused: new-consumer-agenda_28_07_2020_EN.pdf; Ministry position paper on New Consumer Agenda_07.08.docx Tere, Palun registreerida ja panna täitmiseks mulle ja Ingridile. Tervitades, Jaana From: Riina Piliste <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 4:18 PM To: Kristiina Koll <[email protected]>; Kaidi Urgas <[email protected]>; Paula Etti <[email protected]>; Thomas Auväärt <[email protected]>; Jaana Tael <[email protected]>; Ingrid Teinemaa <[email protected]>; Mari Puusaag-Tamm <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Taivo Linnamägi <[email protected]>; Indrek Laineveer <[email protected]>; Pille Ossul <[email protected]> Cc: Thea Palm <[email protected]>; Risto Jõgi <[email protected]>; Merike Ring <[email protected]>; Kati Kikas <[email protected]>; Evelin Kuuse <[email protected]> Subject: Komisjoni avalik konsultatsioon Tere! Komisjon on algatanud avaliku konsultatsiooni EL uue tarbijakaitse tegevuskava kohta, mille eesmärgiks on koguda sisendit Komisjoni 4 uue algatuse jaoks, mis väljenduvad küsimustiku neljas osas: I. uus Euroopa tarbijakaitse tegevuskava; II. tarbijate võimestamine üleminekul rohelisele majandusele; III. tarbijakrediidilepinguid käsitleva direktiivi (2008/48/EÜ) läbivaatamine; IV. üldise tooteohutuse direktiivi (2001/95/EÜ) läbivaatamine Konsultatsioonile vastamine on MKM ülesanne ja oleme koostanud Komisjonile saatmiseks esialgse positsioonipaberi, mille kohta ootaksime teie täiendusi, parandusi ja kommentaare puutumuses olevate teemade kohta 28.augustiks. Tagasiside võib saata e-posti aadressile [email protected] või [email protected]). Tervitades, Riina Piliste Toote ohutuse ja tarbijakaitse talituse nõunik 6256420 P osition paper of Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications of Estonia on EU’s New Consumer Agenda The European Commission has launched its consultation to gather views of the public , including public authorities, on four initiatives in the EU consumer policy that the Commissions plans to propose in 2020 and 2021. The consultation is organised in four sections, each corresponding to one initiative: 1) A New Consumer Agenda; 2) Empowering the consumer for the green transition; 3) Review of the Directive on credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC); 4) Review of the Directive on General Product Safety (2001/95/EC). Below you will find our views in regard respective initiatives. A New Consumer Agenda In relation to reimbursements in travel sector , w e are of an opinion that specific rules should apply to situation where worldwide travel restrictions have caused almost a standstill of travel, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic . Henceforth we are open to ideas put forward by Commission in this regard, such as longer reimbursement deadlines or reimbursement in the form of vouchers. Proposed ideas would in our assessment better protect consumer s as otherwise travel companies would go out of business and in the end consumer’s economic interests would suffer on that account. As to the deadlines for reimbursements in case of cancelled transport services , we consider that such deadlines should be aligned as much as possible between different transportation types ( e.g flight, train, bus) . We believe it to be in the interests of consumer to have as simple and uniform reimbursements systems as possible, as this would create the premise where consumers would be more confident in standing for their rights. Similarly it should be considered if those deadlines could be aligned with package travel as well , although we note that package travel with its multitude of services bundled together (transport, accommodation, rent, leisure etc) could very well justify the use of different deadlines. As regard to insolvency protection, we do not see the need to extend the system of package travel to transport services as we consider the risks of going insolvent in transport area much lower than that in travel sector . I n addition , transport service providers normally have their own assets which could cove r losses incurred by consumers. We are supportive of the idea to harmonize consumer protection rules for cancellation of services for all sectors in situation of “force majeure” (like C ovid -19). We believe it to be in the interests of consumer to have as simple and uniform systems as possible, as this would create the premise where consumers would be more confident in standing for their rights. EU consumer policy strategy priorities for medium-long term should be set on more effective enforcement of consumer rights by empowering them with stronger, quicker and affordable tools to ensure their rights are abided by. First and foremost, it is for the consumer to stand for its rights and if we are able to create as simple and understandable system as possible and we provide consumers with proper tools to foresee that those rights are uphold, then market surveillance would be much more effective. In addition , EU wide market surveillance tools could be created in order to enhance enforcement of consumer rights. For example, the Commission could create “web crawlers” to screen online market places operating at EU for infringements and ask sellers to rectify the situation. In addition, priorities should include seeking co-operation agreements with large online market places though which majority of products are sold to EU consumers similar to what has been done in “Product Safety Pledge” . We agree with the statement that transparency is key in safeguarding consumer rights in the digital environment , hence we are supportive of providing clearer identification of sponsored content and clearer information on how offers and prices are personalised. In regard personalised prices we consider it important to be transparent on not only about the use of such a technique but on how it is used ( i.e provide info about the main parameters used and how those affect the price) . We believe that children and elderly people are and continue to be the most vulnerable consumer group as often is the case where those are the groups where many vulnerability sources tend to stack up: social isolation, personal health situation, poor IT literacy, poor financial literacy, low education level, lack of practical knowledge or skills in understanding complex contract conditions and offers etc – these are all somewhat age related vulnerability sources. Empowering the consumer for the green transition In our opinion, t he most relevant obstacles for enhanced consumer participation in the circular economy and towards more sustainable consumption behaviour are trustworthiness of environmental claims, general disinterest in adopting more sustainable consumption behaviour and perceived higher prices of environmentally-friendly products compare to less environmentally-f r iendly alternatives. In order to elevate trustworthiness of environmental claims and in order to empower consumers to play a stronger role in the green transition we consider it necessary to have as simple and as uniform set of rules as possible for providing information about environmental claims. Therefore, t ransparency in relation to environmental claims, providing a stronger protection against greenwashing ( i.e claims on environmental qualities of products or services that are exaggerated, too vague, false or impossible to prove) and raisi ng consumers’ awareness about the ir role in circular economy and green transition are the prerequisites for consumers’ green transition. In order to enhance consumers’ participation in the circular economy and to choose sustainable products consumers should be provided with information about “expected” product lifespan, information about the reparability of the product and information ( e.g a label/logo) vouching for the sustainability of the product. Furthermore, enforcement action could be stepped up by providing more EU-funded training for enforcement authorit ies and judges on these matters, by providing detailed EU guidance for enforcement bodies against greenwashing and obsolescence practices and on enforcing consumer information rules and by setting up at EU level an advisory system to ensure sustainability claims on products are based on reliable information (similar to the system set up in food sector for nutritional claims) . Review of the Directive on credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC) D irectives scope should be extended to credits below EUR 200 , credits above EUR 75 000 for purposes other than the renovation of residential immovable property and loans obtained by individuals form other individuals, through online platforms (peer-to-peer lending). Obligation to provide consumers with standard information at pre-contractual stage is highly valuable as it allows consumers to compare different credit offers. Before signing a contract ample time should be left for consumers to get acquainted with pre-contractual information. We consider that at least one day before contract signature should suffice. Considerations should be given to reducing the amount of information to be given in the advertisement s hence we are not supportive of ideas that move to the opposite direction, such as the idea to set up an obligation to accompany advertisements with warning messages on the implications of the credit decision such as “borrowing money also costs money”. Here, obligations in regard pre-contractual information suffice. Upholding the requirements of the directives obligations vis-à-vis responsible lending practices are highly valuable from the perspective of safeguarding the economic interest of consumers. Therefore, we are supportive of the ideas to introduce binding principles on responsible lending such as an obligation to take into account target consumers’ interest, objectives and characteristics when designing credit products and harmonise the creditworthiness assessment process across Member States. Hence we agree that EU law should provide for common standards on data/methodology for creditworthiness assessments. Furthermore, in relation to online credit offers , we find that there should be measures put in place in order to prevent online credit purchasing without enough time for reflection ( e.g credit obtained “in one-click” ) and consumer should be given a warning message about the implications of the credit decision. Review of the Directive on General Product Safety (2001/95/EC) In general, we consider that current GPSD rules are adequate to protect consumers. Nevertheless, legal definitions (such as “product”, “safe product” or “placing on the market”) should be reviewed in order to make it clea r whether and to what extent they apply to new technology products ( e.g connected devices). For example, when considering whether a product is safe the definition of a product in the GPSD should encompass also the software incorporated into it as the latter can make a difference in terms of judging if a product has a safety issue or not. The same is true in cases when software is already installed into the product when sold and in cases where software is downloaded into the device after it has been sold. The same applies to cases where software is updated or changed (for example evolved via use of AI) after they are sold, i.e these products should remain safe throughout their lifetime. We agree with the statement that online marketplaces that enable companies to sell to EU consumer should have a legal obligation to remove dangerous products listed on their websites when notified to them. At the same time, we agree that online marketplaces should prevent reappearance of those dangerous products in their listings once they have been removed, but we do not believe that such an obligation should be written in law as it would be very difficult or in some cases even impossible to enforce. We do not support the idea to oblige online marketplaces to identify products within their systems that likely do not comply with safety rules as such an obligation should be on the seller . Similarly, online marketplaces should not be obliged to inform consumers when a dangerous product has been removed from the marketplace. However, considering that sellers must have in their possession the information about to whom products have been sold, it should be their responsibility in cooperation with the producer to inform those consumers who have bought the defective product. We do not support the idea to force 3 rd country businesses to set up responsible persons established in the EU in order to sell their products to EU market as such an obligation should be reserved for high risk product categories such as those listed in the new enforcement regulation no 1020/2019. In our opinion it would be disproportionate to set up such a requirement to all products entering EU market. As to enforcement rules applicable to market surveillance , we consider it necessary to align those rules between harmonised and non-harmonised products as in terms on market surveillance actions it should not make a difference to which category a dangerous product specifically falls. A dangerous product is a dangerous product and hence the enforcement actions taken or tools available for market surveillance authorities should be the same. As a final note, one of the EU priorities in the product safety area should be on the enhancement of cooperation between the EU market surveillance authorities and large (online) marketplaces through which majority of products are sold to EU consumers. Here, the European Commission led initiative “Product Safety Pledge” is highly appreciated and valuable and should be continued. However, the value of such an undertaking lies in the cooperation and hence we would not like to see developments moving towards writing the agreement into EU law. In addition, EU wide market surveillance tools should be created in order to enhance enforcement of product safety rules. For example, the Commission could create “web crawlers” to screen online sales for infringements, ask sellers to rectify the situation and in case further action is needed, inform relevant market surveillance authorities in respective Member States.