Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions: EU (Food) Law Is Not Fit for Purpose in the Platform Economy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
E-FOOD: Closing the Online Enforcement Gap in the EU Platform Economy

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 21))

  • 203 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter argues that the current regulatory policy governing the e-food market in the Platform Economy, including its public enforcement regime, is not fit for purpose because it fails to provide legal certainty to online suppliers and to protect consumer interests. It recommends the adoption of novel provisions of ‘E-Food Law,’ to clarify the scope of Food Law and the allocation of responsibilities when operating online. It also advocates for further research on the impact that technology-assisted investigation techniques and enforcement by platforms at the request of control authorities may have on longstanding administrative procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See EC Communication The single market in a changing world: A Unique asset in need of renewed political commitment COM 2018/772 final (2018).

  2. 2.

    EC Communication Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM 2016/288 final (2016), p. 5.

  3. 3.

    As analysed in Chap. 2, ‘safe harbour’ protections for information society service providers exclusively providing intermediation services shield these ‘intermediaries’ from the consequences of their users’ illegal activities and release them from enforcement obligations (they are only required to remove illegal content ‘expeditiously’ after a third-party notifies its existence). See Arts. 12–15 of Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, O.J. L 178 (2000), pp. 1–16 (hereinafter, ‘e-Commerce Directive’).

  4. 4.

    See, among other, Kenney and Zysman (2016) and Chap. 1.

  5. 5.

    Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, O.J. L 304/18 (2011), pp. 18–63 (hereinafter, ‘FIC’ or ‘Food Information Regulation’).

  6. 6.

    Art. 14(1)(a) of Regulation 1169/2011 ensures that compliance with food information rules only requires that consumers can access mandatory food information (free of charge and before placing their order) ‘through other appropriate means clearly identified by the food business operator’ such a link to another website.

  7. 7.

    As stated in Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1169/2011, one of the main goals of the Regulation is to make sure that consumers are enabled to make informed choices, not only in relation to food safety, but also explicitly in relation to health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations.

  8. 8.

    See Rolandi (2017) and Chap. 3.

  9. 9.

    It must be noted that Art. 13(2) of Regulation 1169/2011 requires mandatory information to be ‘printed on the package or on the label in such a way as to ensure clear legibility, in characters using a font size where the x-height, as defined in Annex IV, is equal to or greater than 1,2 mm.’

  10. 10.

    Recital 26 of Regulation 1169/2011.

  11. 11.

    See Stones (2016), Rücker (2018) and Höller (2019) and Chap. 1.

  12. 12.

    Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC, O.J. L 95/1 (2017).

  13. 13.

    See Art. 15 of Regulation 2017/625.

  14. 14.

    See Art. 35 of Regulation 2017/625.

  15. 15.

    See Art. 138(2)(i) of Regulation 2017/625.

  16. 16.

    See Art. 3(29) of Regulation 2017/625.

  17. 17.

    Online offers fall within the scope of that Member State’ control system as long as they are directed to consumers domiciled within their territory (the payment is completed, and the product is delivered to the consumer). [See Case-390/18, Airbnb Ireland, 2019 ECLI. 1112] Because online marketplaces normally allow for the same offer to be purchased and shipped to any Member State, those offers automatically fall within the scope of more than one (when not all) Member States. Because of this jurisdictional overlap, more than one authority may end up controlling the same offer. See Chap. 5.

  18. 18.

    Art. 9(4)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, O.J. L 345/1 (2017), pp. 1–26.

  19. 19.

    Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of Food Law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, O.J. L 31 (2002), pp. 1–24.

  20. 20.

    Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, O.J. 139/1 (2004), pp. 1–54 and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, O.J. L 139 (2004), pp. 55–205.

  21. 21.

    Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, O.J. L 186 /57 (2019), pp. 57–79 (hereinafter, ‘P2B Regulation’).

  22. 22.

    Directive (EU) 2019/2161 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules, O.J. L 328/7 (2019), pp. 7–28 (hereinafter, ‘Omnibus Directive’).

  23. 23.

    See Art. 5(3) of the P2B Regulation, which requires providers of online intermediation services to display, visible to all users of the platform, information about the ‘the identity of the business user providing the goods.’

  24. 24.

    See Art. 3(4) of the Omnibus Directive, which requires marketplace service providers to indicate whether the supplier is a professional retailer or a peer consumer (identified as ‘non-trader’ in the Directive’s recitals).

  25. 25.

    Using the words of Savin (2018).

  26. 26.

    See EC Communication A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, COM 2020/381 final (2020) (hereinafter, ‘The Farm to Fork Strategy’).

  27. 27.

    See Chap. 5.

  28. 28.

    See European Commission (2018).

  29. 29.

    INTERPOL & UNICRI (2019), p. 1.

  30. 30.

    See, among other many other, Reidenberg (2003), Miller (2016) and Koops (2013).

  31. 31.

    See Miller (2016).

  32. 32.

    See Koops (2013).

  33. 33.

    See Reidenberg (2003).

  34. 34.

    See Chap. 1.

  35. 35.

    Identified by the European Commission in 2018 as ‘any information which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State concerned.’ See EC Recommendation on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online, C 2018/1177 final (2018), p. 10.

  36. 36.

    For instance, most national legislation regulating the measures to be adopted in case of non-compliance allow control authorities to order the cessation of sales or the withdrawal of products from the market only when foods have been adulterated or may pose a risk to the consumer, as well as when counterfeit or fraud has been established.

  37. 37.

    See Lachenmeier et al. (2013).

References

  • European Commission (2018) Overview report official controls on internet sales of food in EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2772/57153

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Höller A (2019) An analysis of the European Legal Framework for e-commerce in relation to the information obligation applicable to pre-packed food: how consistent are German Webshops in their compliance with the mandatory food labelling rules applicable to pre-packed food?. Thesis, Wageningen University

    Google Scholar 

  • INTERPOL & UNICRI (2019) Artificial intelligence and robotics for enforcement. 2nd INTERPOL-UNICRI Global Meeting on Artificial Intelligence for Law Enforcement, Singapore, 2–4 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney M, Zysman J (2016) The rise of the platform economy. Issues Sci Technol 32(3):61–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops B (2013) Police investigations in internet open sources: procedural-law issues. Comput Law Secur Rev 29(6):654–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachenmeier DW, Löbell-Behrends S, Böse W et al (2013) Does European Union food policy privilege the internet market? Suggestions for a specialized regulatory framework. Food Control 30(2):705–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.07.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller K (2016) The application of administrative law principles to technology-assisted decision-making. AIAL Forum 86:20–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenberg JR (2003) States and internet enforcement. Univ Ottawa Law Technol J 213

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolandi S (2017) Food E-Commerce as a new tool for the growth of the economy. European Legal Framework for Information of Prepacked Food Sold Online. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64756-2_11

  • Rücker M (2018) Bringt’s das? Lebensmittel-Onlinehändler im Ver-gleich. Foodwatch e.V., Retrieved on May 7, 2019 from https://www.foodwatch.org/fileadmin/Themen/Lebensmittelkennzeichnung/Dokumente/2018-03_Lebensmittel-Onlinehaendler-im-Vergleich_foodwatch.pdf

  • Savin A (2018) EU regulatory models for platforms on the content and carrier layers: convergence and changing policy patterns. Nordic J Comm Law 1:7–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Stones C (2016) Online food nutrition labelling in the UK: how consistent are supermarkets in their presentation of nutrition labels online? Public Health Nutr 19(12):2175–2184

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Maria Jose Plana Casado

Authors
  1. Maria Jose Plana Casado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Plana Casado, M.J. (2021). Conclusions: EU (Food) Law Is Not Fit for Purpose in the Platform Economy. In: E-FOOD: Closing the Online Enforcement Gap in the EU Platform Economy. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79504-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79504-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79503-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79504-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation