Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Interpretation of Platform Operators and Business Users’ Contracts

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Quo vadis Commercial Contract?

Part of the book series: LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law ((LCFSCFL,volume 1))

  • 369 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter sheds lights on the commercial contracts of platform operators with their business users offering goods and services. It first analyzes the Platform Economy, the role of the platform operators and the contract-based private legal communities that they create and the type of contractual relationships they build. It then describes the trajectory of the way that the European Union (EU) confronted technological growth challenges from 1994 up to date with the P2B Regulation and regulatory proposals for digital single market and digital services. Then, the chapter focuses on certain judgments in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interpreted the contractual terms used by a platform, like Google AdWords, eBay, Uber and Airbnb in e-advertising, e-market places, in private transport of passengers and in short-term accommodation sharing in order to exercise, or not, the platform’s decisive influence on the underlying service provided. It analyzes the CJEU case law impact on similar national case law confronting diverse but similar business contracts by platforms as well as on EU current legislative proposals, e.g. on Digital Services or on platform work. The criteria established by the CJEU determine the interpretation of the contractual terms and the platforms’ liability. Consequently, the CJEU case law has a significant impact on platforms’ liberty to continue their business models in the European Union, or not, and forms the basis on which proposed EU legislation embarks, dealing with the platform economy in a comprehensive way.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “information society service” is defined by Directive 98/34/EC, article 1 para 2 as “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”.

  2. 2.

    Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations OJ L 204, 21.07.1998.

  3. 3.

    Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures OJ L 013, 19.01.2000.

  4. 4.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

  5. 5.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011.

  6. 6.

    Anagnostopoulou (2013a).

  7. 7.

    Anagnostopoulou (2013b).

  8. 8.

    European Commission (2010a).

  9. 9.

    European Commission (2010b).

  10. 10.

    European Commission (2020a) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (hereinafter Digital Services Act Proposal) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC, COM(2020) 825 final, 15.12.2020. The EU Digital Single Market (DSM) is the area “in which the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital is ensured and where the individuals and businesses can seamlessly access and engage in online activities under conditions of fair competition, and a high level of consumer and personal data protection, irrespective of their nationality or place of residence”. See Proposal on Digital Services Act, p. 3.

  11. 11.

    Digital Services Act Proposal, pp. 3 and 13.

  12. 12.

    European Commission (2015), pp. 3–4.

  13. 13.

    European Commission (2016).

  14. 14.

    European Commission (2017), p. 32.

  15. 15.

    Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services OJ L 241, 17.9.2015.

  16. 16.

    Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC OJ L 60I, 2.3.2018.

  17. 17.

    Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services PE/56/2019/REV/1 OJ L 186, 11.7.2019.

  18. 18.

    Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services PE/26/2019/REV/1 OJ L 136, 22.5.2019 and Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC, PE/27/2019/REV/1 OJ L 136, 22.5.2019. See also Anagnostopoulou (2018).

  19. 19.

    Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 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 PE/83/2019/REV/1 OJ L 328, 18.12.2019.

  20. 20.

    Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the 2030 Policy Programme “Path to the Digital Decade” COM(2021) 574 final.

  21. 21.

    Von der Leyen (2019), p. 13; Anagnostopoulou (2020), pp. 45–46.

  22. 22.

    European Commission (2020a) Proposal for Digital Services Act and European Commission (2020b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act) COM(2020)842 final, Brussels, 15.12.2020.

  23. 23.

    The Court has gradually formed a body of case law on platforms and e-commerce. As an example see Case C-108/09, Ker-Optika, Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, Google France and Google v. Vuitton, Case C-324/09, eBay, Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended, Case C-360/10, Netlog, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien, Case C-291/13, Papasavvas, Case C-484/14, Tobias McFadden v. Sony Music, Case C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi, Case C-390/18 Airbnb Ireland, Case C-18/18, Glawischnig.

  24. 24.

    Anagnostopoulou (2020), pp. 46–47.

  25. 25.

    OECD (2011), p. 11.

  26. 26.

    See as an example a sharing video platform, Stichting Brein (C-527/15, EU:C:2017:300 and C-610/15.

  27. 27.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a), pp. 146–147.

  28. 28.

    European Commission (2016) “… the term “collaborative economy” refers to business models where activities are facilitated by collaborative platforms that create an open marketplace for the temporary usage of goods or services often provided by private individuals. The collaborative economy involves three categories of actors: (i) service providers who share assets, resources, time and/or skills — these can be private individuals offering services on an occasional basis (‘peers’) or service providers acting in their professional capacity (“professional services providers”); (ii) users of these; and (iii) intermediaries that connect — via an online platform — providers with users and that facilitate transactions between them (‘collaborative platforms’). Collaborative economy transactions generally do not involve a change of ownership and can be carried out for profit or not-for-profit”. See also Idem, Fn7: “The term collaborative economy is often interchangeably used with the term ‘sharing economy’. Collaborative economy is a rapid evolving phenomenon and its definition may evolve accordingly”.

  29. 29.

    Navarro (2019), p. 34.

  30. 30.

    Busch et al. (2020), p. 61.

  31. 31.

    Erickson and Sørensen (2016), p. 2.

  32. 32.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a), p. 147.

  33. 33.

    OECD (2009), p. 215.

  34. 34.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 9–10 who points out at the positive and negative network effects of platforms.

  35. 35.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 9–10. In economic terms, the digital multi-sided platform which “has two or more groups of customers who need each other in some way but cannot capture the value of their mutual attraction on their own and rely on a digital ‘catalyst’ to facilitate value creating interactions between them”. See Strowel and Vergote (2016), p. 7, referring to Evans and Schmalensee (2013). Under multi-sidedness, platforms must choose a price structure and not only a price level for their service Rochet and Tirole (2003), p. 990. See also Anagnostopoulou (2020), p. 47.

  36. 36.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 13–14.

  37. 37.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a), p. 148.

  38. 38.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017b), p. 165.

  39. 39.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a) p. 149.

  40. 40.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017b), p. 162.

  41. 41.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a), pp. 148–149.

  42. 42.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a), pp. 149 and 151. Platform users may participate in the platform operator company as members, or shareholders or managers or partners. In such case, however, the issue of neutrality of the operator and its ability to perform its functions on an independent basis as a regulator or supervisor may be questioned with negative impact on its reputation.

  43. 43.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2020), p. 263.

  44. 44.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2021), p. 83.

  45. 45.

    Heidemann (2019), pp. 75 and 116.

  46. 46.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2020), p. 263.

  47. 47.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2021), p. 83.

  48. 48.

    Busch (2020), p. 134.

  49. 49.

    Busch (2020), p. 134.

  50. 50.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

  51. 51.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) OJ L 149, 11.6.2005.

  52. 52.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011.

  53. 53.

    Directive (EU) 2021/2261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 amending Directive 2009/65/EC as regards the use of key information documents by management companies of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) PE/72/2021/REV/1, OJ L 455, 20.12.2021.

  54. 54.

    Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services PE/56/2019/REV/1 OJ L 186, 11.7.2019.

  55. 55.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2021), pp. 82–83. Specific rules on terms and conditions, termination and suspension, or data access are set out in the Regulation P2B especially in Arts. 3, 4, 8 or 9.

  56. 56.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017b), p. 173.

  57. 57.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 26–27. See Case C-108/09, Ker-Optika bt vs. ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete (Ker Optika) (2 December 2010).

  58. 58.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2018), pp. 72–75.

  59. 59.

    See Table 1 in Hatzopoulos (2018), p. 55; European Commission (2016).

  60. 60.

    In case, T-612/17, Google and Alphabet v Commission (10 November 2021), known as Google Comparison Shopping case, the European Commission held that the offer of a product or service free of charge in platforms does not deprive its classification as economic activity. See also Directives 2019/770 and 2019/771. For further information, see Van Erp (2017).

  61. 61.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 22–23.

  62. 62.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), p. 23.

  63. 63.

    See regarding the possibility to qualify intermediaries as sellers, recital 23 of Directive 2019/771, which codifies the CJEU judgment on case C-149/15, Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL (9 November 2016). See also Michel and Van Gool (2021), p. 137, fn 26.

  64. 64.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), p. 23.

  65. 65.

    European Commission (2016).

  66. 66.

    Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market OJ L 376, 27.12.2006.

  67. 67.

    On the interpretation of Directive 2006/123 in the framework of the platform economy for repeated short-term letting of furnished accommodation, see CJEU, Joined Cases C-724/18 and C-727/18, Cali Apartments SCI and HX v Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Paris and Ville de Paris (22 September 2020).

  68. 68.

    Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (codified version) OJ L 376, 27.12.2006.

  69. 69.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2021), p. 83.

  70. 70.

    Article 14 para 2 of the Directive 2000/31/EC.

  71. 71.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2021), p. 83.

  72. 72.

    Directive 2019/771, preamble, recital 23, art. 2 para 3. Directive 2019/770, preamble, recital 18, and art. 2 para 3.

  73. 73.

    Carvalho (2019), p. 194.

  74. 74.

    Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ 2019 L 130, 17.5.2019. See CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe (20.07.2020) in Joined Cases C-682/18 Frank Peterson v Google LLC, YouTube LLC, YouTube Inc., Google Germany GmbH and C-683/18 Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG.

  75. 75.

    Loos and Luzak (2021), pp. 17–41.

  76. 76.

    The Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 20, 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (P2B Regulation) has entered into force on July 12, 2020.

  77. 77.

    Busch (2020), p. 133.

  78. 78.

    Strowel and Vergote (2016), pp. 10–12. They also explain that some member states had already adopted rules on platform economy.

  79. 79.

    Madiega (2019), p. 1.

  80. 80.

    Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (2017a), p. 146.

  81. 81.

    Wiewiórowska-Domagalska (2017), p. 4.

  82. 82.

    The services should be provided or offered to be provided to business users and corporate website users (1) having their place of establishment or residence in the EU, and (2) offering goods or services to consumers located in the EU (Regulation 2019/1150, art. 1 para 2).

  83. 83.

    Regulation 2019/1150, art. 1 para 1 and Recital 11 respectively.

  84. 84.

    Anagnostopoulou (2020). See European Law Institute (2020) Model Rules on Online Platforms, presenting various contractual obligations in a P2B contract in order to achieve a balanced approach and analyzing the platform’s liability in case of its predominant influence according to certain criteria in Article 20.

  85. 85.

    See CJEU Case C-59/190, Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG vs. Booking.com BV (24 November 2020).

  86. 86.

    CJEU Cases C-236/08, Google France SARL and Google Inc. vs. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, C-237/08, Google France SARL vs. Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL and C-238/08, Google France SARL vs. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others (the Google AdWords case) (23 March 2010) and C-324/09 L’Oréal SA and Others vs. eBay International AG and Others (the eBay case) (12 July 2011).

  87. 87.

    CJEU Case C-236-38/08, Google AdWords, para 5.

  88. 88.

    Maunsbach (2011), pp. 72–74.

  89. 89.

    CJEU Case C-236-38/08, Google AdWords case, paras 82–84.

  90. 90.

    Maunsbach (2011), pp. 76–77.

  91. 91.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, para 138 making reference to CJEU Google, paras 113–114.

  92. 92.

    Volkmann (2011), pp. 452–454.

  93. 93.

    CJEU C-324/09 L’Oréal SA and Others vs. eBay International AG and Others (the eBay case) (12 July 2011) or Case eBay.

  94. 94.

    First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

  95. 95.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights OJ L 157, 30.4.2004.

  96. 96.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, paras 26–27.

  97. 97.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, paras 31 and 44.

  98. 98.

    CJEU Case C-234/09, eBay, paras 29–31 and 46–47.

  99. 99.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, para 6.

  100. 100.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, para 27.

  101. 101.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, Operative part, para 6.

  102. 102.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, Operative part, para 5.

  103. 103.

    Riefa (2012), p. 106.

  104. 104.

    Riefa (2012), p. 111.

  105. 105.

    The requirements are: (a) The goods must bear a trade mark registered in a Member State or a Community trade mark and have not previously been put on the market in the European Economic Area or in the European Union; (b) The goods are sold without the consent of the trade mark proprietor to a consumer located in the territory covered by the trade mark or (c) The goods are offered for sale or advertised on such a marketplace targeted at consumers located in that territory; (d) The national courts should proceed to an individual assessment on a case-by-case basis. Case C-234/09, eBay, Operative part, para 1, Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC, or Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

  106. 106.

    CJEU Case C-234/09, eBay, Operative part, para 4, Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94.

  107. 107.

    Case C-234/09, eBay, Operative part, para 7. Article 11, third sentence, of Directive 2004/48/EC.

  108. 108.

    Riefa (2012), p. 106.

  109. 109.

    Riefa (2012), p. 111.

  110. 110.

    Idem.

  111. 111.

    Gommers and De Pauw (2020), pp. 315–316.

  112. 112.

    CJEU Case C-567/18, Coty Germany GmbH vs. Amazon Services Europe Sàrl and Others (Amazon) (2 April 2020), para 46. Gommers and Pauw (2020), pp. 315–316.

  113. 113.

    CJEU Case C-18/18, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek vs. Facebook Ireland Limited (3 October 2019).

  114. 114.

    According to Article 14 of Directive 2000/31, ‘Hosting’ takes place when an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service.

  115. 115.

    See CJEU Case C-18/18, Glawischnig-Piesczek, para 22.

  116. 116.

    Case C-18/18, Glawischnig-Piesczek, paras 23–26.

  117. 117.

    Article 15 para 1 of the Directive 20000/31/EC.

  118. 118.

    Case C-18/18, Glawischnig-Piesczek, para 34.

  119. 119.

    European Commission (2020a) Proposal for Digital Services Act COM(2020) 825 final.

  120. 120.

    Idem, para 38.

  121. 121.

    Madiega (2020), p. 13. Reference is made to cloud infrastructures, content distribution network, search engines, social networks and media-sharing platforms, online advertising services, digital services built on electronic contracts and distributed ledgers (such as blockchain), or collaborative economy platforms (such as Airbnb and Uber) and online marketplaces (used to provided legal but also illegal and counterfeit products).

  122. 122.

    Madiega (2020), p. 14. Additional reference is made to distribution and processing of third-party data, networking (i.e. connecting users), collaboration (i.e. allowing multiple users to access and edit stored data), matchmaking (i.e. linking supply and demand), indexation (i.e. searchable index) and ranking services (i.e. ranking mechanisms).

  123. 123.

    European Commission (2020a), hereinafter Digital Services Act Proposal, para 7.

  124. 124.

    Digital Services Act Proposal, para 50.

  125. 125.

    Digital Services Act Proposal, Articles 19–20 and Recital 49.

  126. 126.

    Digital Services Act Proposal, Articles 21–24.

  127. 127.

    Digital Services Act Proposal, paras 51–53.

  128. 128.

    Busch and Mak (2021), pp. 109 and 114.

  129. 129.

    Hatzopoulos (2018), pp. 14–15.

  130. 130.

    UBER was invented in Paris in 2008 by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp who after attending the LeWeb Technology Conference, waited endlessly for a taxi in the cold to get them to their apartment. In 2015, UBER had expanded to more than 300 cities all over the world and ranked 104 in the venture-backed start-ups list, where it was valued at $51 billion. Bales and Woo (2017), pp. 461–462.

  131. 131.

    CJEU Case C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi vs. Uber Systems Spain SL, Opinion of AG Szpunar (11 May 2017), para 12.

  132. 132.

    Case C-320/16, Criminal proceedings against Uber France, Opinion of AG Szpunar (4 July 2017).

  133. 133.

    Case C-434/15, para 13.

  134. 134.

    Case C-434/15, paras 14–16.

  135. 135.

    Case C-434/15, paras 33–35, interpreting Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34 and Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31.

  136. 136.

    Case C-434/15, paras 37–38.

  137. 137.

    Case C-434/15, para 38–39.

  138. 138.

    See below 7.1.2. and 7.1.3. criteria in the Airbnb case.

  139. 139.

    Case C-434/15, para 39 and Opinion, paras 13–15.

  140. 140.

    Case C-434/15, para 40.

  141. 141.

    Case C-434/15, para 41.

  142. 142.

    Case C-434/15, paras 42–44.

  143. 143.

    Case C-434/15, paras 45–47.

  144. 144.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, para 28.

  145. 145.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, paras 30 and 33.

  146. 146.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, paras 34 and 35.

  147. 147.

    Case C-434/15, para 36. Case C-108/09, Ker-Optika bt vs. ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete (Ker Optika) (2 December 2010), paras 29 and 30.

  148. 148.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, conclusion, no 1.

  149. 149.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, paras 59–61.

  150. 150.

    According to para 47 of the Case C-434/15, Opinion: “Although there are no rules on working time within the framework of the Uber platform, so that drivers may pursue that activity alongside others, it is apparent that most trips are carried out by drivers for whom Uber is their only or main professional activity. Drivers also receive a financial reward from Uber if they accumulate a large number of trips. In addition, Uber informs drivers of where and when they can rely on there being a high volume of trips and/or preferential fares. Thus, without exerting any formal constraints over drivers, Uber is able to tailor its supply to fluctuations in demand”.

  151. 151.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, paras 52, 54 and 56.

  152. 152.

    Case C-434/15, Opinion, footnotes 12 and 20. See the judgment of the London Employment Tribunal of 28 October 2016, Aslam, Farrar and Others v Uber (Case 2202551/2015); decision of the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid No 15/2017 of 23 January 2017 in an action between Uber and the Asociación Madrileña del Taxi; and order of the Tribunale Ordinario di Milano of 2 July 2015 (cases 35445/2015 and 36491/2015).

  153. 153.

    CJEU Case C-320/16, Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS (10 April 2018).

  154. 154.

    Case C-320/16, paras 10 and 17.

  155. 155.

    Case C-320/16, para 11.

  156. 156.

    Case C-320/16, paras 8–10 and 16. For natural persons a 2-year term imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros and for legal persons a number of sanctions, including the confiscation of property and a 5-year term imprisonment.

  157. 157.

    Case C-320/16, para 14.

  158. 158.

    Case C-320/16, paras 18–23 expressly referring to Asociacion Elite, paras 35–43. The Advocate General Szpunar did not alter his approach either in his Opinion delivered on 4 July 2017, Case C 320/16, Uber France SAS.

  159. 159.

    Case C-320/16, para 27.

  160. 160.

    Strowel and Vergote (2016).

  161. 161.

    Hacker (2018), p. 91 referring to the European Commission Communication on “a European agenda for the collaborative economy” COM(2016) 356 final (June 2016) and on “Online platforms and the digital single market COM(2016) 288/2 (May 2015).

  162. 162.

    Hacker (2018) p. 91.

  163. 163.

    Hacker (2018), p. 92.

  164. 164.

    Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main OLG, Case 6 U 73/15 (UberPop) (9 June 2016). See also Oberverwaltungsgericht Hamburg OVG, Case 3 Bs 175/14, Neue Verwaltungs-Zeitschrift (NVwZ) 2014, 1528 (UberPop) (24 September 2014) (In German).

  165. 165.

    CJEU, Directorate-General of the Library, Research and Documentation (2016) REFLETS, pp. 14–15.

  166. 166.

    Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court), Case I ZR 3/16 (UberBlack) (Order 125/2018 of 29 March 2018) (In German).

  167. 167.

    Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court), Case I ZR 3/16 (UberBlack) (Judgement 184/2018 of 13 December 2018) (In German).

  168. 168.

    United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC), Case UKSC 2019/0029 [2021] UKSC 5, Uber BV and others (Appellants) vs. Aslam and others (Respondents) (19 February 2021). Analysis of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and Working Time Regulations 1998 which include the right to receive paid annual leave in paras 34–35, 37, 72, 75, 79, 86, 122 and 132–138. According to section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 a worker is not only a person working under a contract of employment, but also a person working under any other contract, even in an implied way, undertaking to perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract who is not a client or customer of any profession (para 35).

  169. 169.

    Case UKSC 2019/0029 [2021] UKSC 5, para 125.

  170. 170.

    Case UKSC 2019/0029 [2021] UKSC 5.

  171. 171.

    Case UKSC 2019/0029 [2021] UKSC 5, para 43.

  172. 172.

    Case UKSC 2019/0029 [2021] UKSC 5, paras 87–88. The Court referred to CJEU Case C-610/18, AFMB e.a. Ltd vs. Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (16 July 2020), paras 60–61.

  173. 173.

    Idem, paras 103–104.

  174. 174.

    Idem, paras 126–129.

  175. 175.

    That was in practice difficult as Nordli Oppegaard (2021) observes.

  176. 176.

    Nordli Oppegaard (2021), pp. 123–124.

  177. 177.

    Nordli Oppegaard (2021), pp. 123–124.

  178. 178.

    US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 17-35640 9th Cir. 2018, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of Am. vs. City of Seattle (May 11, 2018).

  179. 179.

    Lane (2020), p. 11.

  180. 180.

    Harvard Law Review Law Students (2019), p. 2360.

  181. 181.

    Harvard Law Review Law Students (2019), p. 2360. The Supreme Court held in Case 317 U.S. 341, Parker vs. Brown (January 4 1943) that the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits “restraints of trade”, includes “no hint that it was intended to restrain state action or official action directed by a state.”

  182. 182.

    Harvard Law Review Law Students (2019), p. 2360.

  183. 183.

    Lane (2020), p. 11.

  184. 184.

    United States District Court for the District Of Columbia, Case Civil Action No. 15-762 (CKK) 170 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2016), Gebresalassie vs. Dist. of Columbia (March 18, 2016).

  185. 185.

    Lane (2020), p. 12.

  186. 186.

    European Commission (2021) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work, COM(2021) 762 final. Brussels, 9.12.2021.

  187. 187.

    Platform work Proposal, para 18.

  188. 188.

    Idem.

  189. 189.

    The employment status will be determined according to real facts assessment, even in unclear situations. The existence of an employment relationship is based on the primacy of facts on the actual performance of work, including its remuneration, and not by the parties’ description of the relationship or unilaterally imposed contract terms, in accordance with the 2006 Employment Relationship Recommendation (No 198) of the International Labour Organisation. See Platform work Proposal, paras 16 and 21.

  190. 190.

    Platform work Proposal, paras 16–17.

  191. 191.

    Platform work Proposal, para 16.

  192. 192.

    Platform work proposal, para 19.

  193. 193.

    Platform work proposal, paras 25–26.

  194. 194.

    Case C-66/85, Deborah Lawrie-Blum vs. Land Baden-Württemberg (3 July 1986); Case C-692/19, B vs. Yodel Delivery Network Ltd (22 April 2020).

  195. 195.

    Platform work proposal, paras 20–22.

  196. 196.

    Platform work proposal, para 24.

  197. 197.

    Idem.

  198. 198.

    Platform work proposal, paras 24–26.

  199. 199.

    Platform work proposal, para 25.

  200. 200.

    Idem.

  201. 201.

    Platform, work proposal, para 28.

  202. 202.

    Case C-390/18, Criminal proceedings against X (19 December 2019), paras 59–63. See also Van Acker (2020), p. 77.

  203. 203.

    Van Acker (2020), p. 77.

  204. 204.

    Under Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2015/1535, the concept of an ‘information society service’ covers “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”.

  205. 205.

    Case C-194/94, CIA Security International SA vs. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL (20 April 1996).

  206. 206.

    Case C-390/18, paras 59–63.

  207. 207.

    Case C-390/18, para 40.

  208. 208.

    Case C-390/18, paras 41–42. Article 3 para 1 of Directive 2006/123 and article 2 para a of Directive 2000/31.

  209. 209.

    Indeed, the service of connecting business users and prosumers, acting as hosts with guests is provided by means of an electronic platform at a distance, without the parties meeting in person during the contract conclusion. The service is provided for remuneration, which is collected by Airbnb Payments UK from the guest only. It is provided at the individual request of the recipients of the service, since it involves both the placing online of an advertisement by the host and an individual request from the guest who is interested in that advertisement (Case 390/18, paras 42–44, Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2015/1535 and Article 2 (a) of Directive 2000/31).

  210. 210.

    Case C-390/18. para 50 referring to Case C-434/15, para 40.

  211. 211.

    Case C-390/18, para 60.

  212. 212.

    Case C-390/18, para 52.

  213. 213.

    Case C-390/18, para 64.

  214. 214.

    Case C-390/18, para 67.

  215. 215.

    Case C-390/18, paras 53–56.

  216. 216.

    Case C-390/18, para 58.

  217. 217.

    Case C-390/18, para 66.

  218. 218.

    Case C-390/18, para 67, referring to C-434/15, para 39, and C-320/16, para 21.

  219. 219.

    Case C-390/18, paras 56, 82, 68.

  220. 220.

    Case C-390/18, para 69.

  221. 221.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  222. 222.

    Menegus (2019), pp. 607–608.

  223. 223.

    Menegus (2019), pp. 607–608 and 614.

  224. 224.

    Case 390/18, paras 89–100.

  225. 225.

    Van Cleynenbreugel (2020).

  226. 226.

    Jabłonowska (2019).

  227. 227.

    Menegus (2019), pp. 605–606.

  228. 228.

    Jabłonowska (2019).

  229. 229.

    Jabłonowska (2019).

  230. 230.

    Jabłonowska (2019).

  231. 231.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  232. 232.

    Menegus (2019), pp. 605–606.

  233. 233.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  234. 234.

    CJEU (2019), p. 2.

  235. 235.

    Case C-390/18, Opinion of AG Szpunar (30 April 2019).

  236. 236.

    Cases C-434/15 and C-320/16. See above 6.1.2.

  237. 237.

    Menegus (2019), p. 607.

  238. 238.

    Menegus (2019), p. 607.

  239. 239.

    Case C-390/18, Opinion of AG Szpunar, para 82.

  240. 240.

    Menegus (2019), p. 614.

  241. 241.

    Menegus (2019), p. 607.

  242. 242.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  243. 243.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  244. 244.

    Menegus (2019), p. 614.

  245. 245.

    Menegus (2019), pp. 607–608 and 614.

  246. 246.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  247. 247.

    Sousa Ferro (2019).

  248. 248.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80. See also the criteria on decisive influence included in para 25 of European Commission (2021), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work, COM(2021) 762 final.

  249. 249.

    Madiega (2019), p. 5.

  250. 250.

    Van Cleynenbreugel (2020), pp. 1227–1228.

  251. 251.

    Ledger (2020), pp. 123–124.

  252. 252.

    Ledger (2020), pp. 123–124.

  253. 253.

    Jabłonowska (2019).

  254. 254.

    Amsterdam Gemende, 2019, Press release ‘Cities alarmed about European protection of holiday rental’, https://www.amsterdam.nl/nieuwsarchief/persberichten/2019/persberichten-laurens-ivens/press-release-cities-alarmed-about/.

  255. 255.

    In the last few years, Airbnb has seen rapid growth. According to the complaint letter by the cities, Airbnb had over 18,000 listings in both Amsterdam and Barcelona, 60,000 in Paris, and 22,000 in Berlin. Over half of these were whole apartments or houses which were available for more than 3 months a year.

  256. 256.

    Sharing Cities Action (2018).

  257. 257.

    See for example on terms and conditions Lechardoy et al. (2021)

  258. 258.

    Van Acker (2020), pp. 79–80.

  259. 259.

    Ledger (2020), pp. 123–124.

  260. 260.

    Sousa Ferro (2019); Ledger (2020), pp. 123–124.

  261. 261.

    Busch and Mak (2021), pp. 110 and 115.

  262. 262.

    Sousa Ferro (2019).

References

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2013a) E-commerce in international and European Union law: the strategy of the European Union on the digital agenda and EU Strategy 2020. Hellenic Review of European Law International Edition, pp 109–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2013b) EU policies and common European sales law. Ιn: Bitzenis A, Vlachos V (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on international business, Thessaloniki, 16–18 May 2013. University of Macedonia Publications, Thessaloniki

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2018) The withdrawal of the common European sales law proposal and the European Commission proposal on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods. In: Heidemann M, Lee J (eds) The future of the commercial contract in scholarship and law reform. Springer, Cham, pp 127–163

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2020) The EU digital single market and the platform economy. In: Nikas C (ed) Economic growth in the European Union, analyzing SME and investment policies. Springer, Cham, pp 43–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bales RA, Woo C (2017) The Uber million dollar question: are uber drivers employees or independent contractors. Mercer Law Review 68(2):461–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch C (2020) How to make waffles: editorial. EuCML 4:133–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch C, Mak V (2021) Putting the Digital Services Act in context. EuCML 3:109–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch C, Dannemann G, Schulte-Nölke H, Wiewiórowska-Domagalska A, Zoll F (2020) An introduction to the ELI model rules on online platforms. EuCML 2:61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho JM (2019) Sale of goods and supply of digital content and digital services – overview of directives 2019/770 and 2019/771. EuCML 5:194–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union (2019) PRESS RELEASE No 51/19. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-04/cp190051en.pdf

  • Court of Justice of the European Union, Directorate-General of the Library, Research and Documentation (2016) REFLETS: legal developments of interest to the European Union no 2:14–15. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-09/reflets_2016_no_2_en.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Erickson K, Sørensen I (2016) Regulating the sharing economy. Internet Policy Rev 2:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010a) Communication EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020, Brussels, 03.03.2010

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010b) Communication ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’, COM(2010) 245 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015) Communication on A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015) 192 final. Brussels, 6.5.2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016) Communication on a European Agenda for the Collaborative Economy, COM(2016) 0356 final, Brussels, 02.06.2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017) Staff Working Document, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission on the Mid-Term Review on the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy “A Connected Digital Single Market for All” COM(2017) 228 final, Brussels, 10.05.2017

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2020a) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (hereinafter Digital Services Act Proposal) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC, COM(2020) 825 final. Brussels, 15.12.2020

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2020b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act Proposal) COM(2020) 842 final. Brussels, 15.12.2020

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2021) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work, COM(2021) 762 final. Brussels, 9.12.2021

    Google Scholar 

  • European Law Institute (2020) Model rules on online platforms. https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Model_Rules_on_Online_Platforms.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Evans DS, Schmalensee R (2013) The antitrust analysis of multi-sided platform businesses. Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper no 18783. https://www.nber.org/papers/w18783.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2022

  • Gommers C, De Pauw E (2020) Online marketplace operators saved from liability for trade mark infringement? J Intellect Prop Law Pract 5:315–316. https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/articleabstract/15/5/315/5837708?redirectedFrom=PDF & login=false#no-access-message. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Hacker P (2018) UberPop, UberBlack, and the regulation of digital platforms after the AsociaciónProfesional Elite Taxi Judgment of the CJEU. European Rev Contract Law 14:80–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Law Review Law Students (2019) Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle,Ninth Circuit Holds Collective Bargaining Ordinance Not Entitled to State Action Immunity. Recent Case: 890 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2018)JUN 1, 2019. Harv L Rev 132:2360–2367. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2360-2367_Online.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2018) The collaborative economy and EU law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann M (2019) Transnational commercial law. Macmillan International and Red Globe, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabłonowska A (2019) Unlike Uber, Airbnb provides information society services, AG says. http://recent-ecl.blogspot.com/2019/05/unlike-uber-airbnb-is-information.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Lane M (2020) Regulating platform work in the digital age, OECD Going Digital Toolkit Notes, No 1. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/181f8a7f-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lechardoy L, Sokolyanskaya Α, Lupiáñez-Villanuev F (2021) Study on “Support to the Observatory for the Online Platform Economy”: monitoring of the implementation of the platform to business regulation LC-01109125. https://platformobservatory.eu/app/uploads/2021/01/P2B-Regulation-monitoring-analysis-January-2021.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Ledger M (2020) CJEU ruling on legal qualification of Airbnb services. Revue Du Droit Des Technologies De L’Information 80:117–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Loos M, Luzak J (2021) Update the unfair contract terms directive for digital services PE 676.006 – February. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/676006/IPOL_STU(2021)676006_EN.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Madiega T (2019) Fairness and transparency for business users for online services PE625.134. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625134/EPRS_BRI(2018)625134_EN.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2021

  • Madiega T (2020) Reform of the EU liability regime for online intermediaries. Background on the forthcoming digital services act, European Parliamentary Research Service PE 649.404, May 2020. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/649404/EPRS_IDA(2020)649404_EN.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2021

  • Maunsbach U (2011) Reflections regarding place of damage in relation to keyword advertising. Masaryk Univ J Law Technol 1:71–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Menegus G (2019) “Uber test” revised? remarks on opinion of AG Szpunar in Case Airbnb Ireland. Eur Papers 2:603–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel A, Van Gool E (2021) The new consumer sales directive 2019/771 and sustainable consumption. EuCML 4:136–147. https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+European+Consumer+and+Market+Law/10.4/EuCML2021031. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro SN (2019) Discrimination and online platforms in the collaborative economy. EuCML 1:34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordli Oppegaard S (2021) Regulating flexibility: uber’s platform as a technological work arrangement. Nord J Work Life Stud 11(1):109–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD (2009) Two-sided markets. https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/44445730.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD (2011) The role of Internet Intermediaries in advancing public policy objectives – executive summary. http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/48775761.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Riefa C (2012) The end of Internet Service Providers liability as we know it – uncovering the consumer interest in CJEU Case C-324/09 (L’Oréal/eBay). EuCML 2:104–111 https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+European+Consumer+and+Market+Law/1.2/EuCML2012016. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Rochet JC, Tirole J (2003) Platform competition in two-sided markets. J European Econ Assoc 1:990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T (2017a) Rules for electronic platforms: the role of platforms and intermediaries in digital economy a case for harmonization. In: Modernizing international trade law to support innovation and sustainable development, Congress of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Vienna, 4–6 July 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T (2017b) The legal anatomy of electronic platforms: a prior study to assess the need of a law of platforms in the EU. Italian Law J 1:149–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T (2018) Rules for a platform economy: a case for harmonisation to counter “Platform Shopping” in the digital economy. In: Pretelli I (ed) Conflict of laws in the maze of digital platforms/Le droit international privé dans le labyrinthe des plateformes digitales. Publications de l’Institut Suisse de droit compare-Schulthess Éditions Romandes, Genève/Zurich, pp 55–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T (2020) The emergence of digital communities: generating trust, managing conflict, and regulating globallity … digitallity. In: Greenhouse CJ, Davis CL (eds) Landscapes of law: practicing Sovereignty in transnational terrain. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 250–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T (2021) The background of the Digital Services Act: looking towards a platform economy. ERA Forum 22:75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sousa Ferro M (2019) Uber Court: a look at recent sharing economy cases before the CJEU. UNIO - EU Law J 1:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strowel A, Vergote W (2016) Digital platforms: to regulate or not to regulate message to regulators: fix the economics first, then focus on the right regulation. https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-7/uclouvain_et_universit_saint_louis_14044.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2021

  • Van Acker L (2020) C-390/18 – the CJEU finally clears the Air(bnb) regarding information society services. EuCML 2:77–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Cleynenbreugel P (2020) Accommodating the freedom of online platforms to provide services through the incidental direct effect back door: Airbnb Ireland. Common Mark Law Rev 57:1201–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Erp S (2017) Ownership of data and the numerus clausus of legal objects. In: Modernizing international trade law to support innovation and sustainable development, Congress of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Vienna, 4–6 July 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann C (2011) Trademark use and liability of referencing service in keyword advertising – Google AdWords and Trademark Law. EJRR 3:450–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Von der Leyen U (2019) Political guidelines for the next European Commission (2019-2024) A Europe that strives for more, my agenda for Europe. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2022

  • Wiewiórowska-Domagalska A (2017) Online platforms: how to adapt regulatory framework to the digital age? PE 607.323. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/607323/IPOL_BRI(2017)607323_EN.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2021

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr Maren Heidemann for her support, and Mrs Dionysia Tsolaki, PhD candidate at the University of Macedonia, Greece, for language editing and referencing assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Despina Anagnostopoulou

Authors
  1. Despina Anagnostopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mads Andenas

  2. The London Centre for Commercial and Financial Law (LCF), London, UK

    Maren Heidemann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Anagnostopoulou, D. (2023). The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Interpretation of Platform Operators and Business Users’ Contracts. In: Andenas, M., Heidemann, M. (eds) Quo vadis Commercial Contract?. LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14105-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14105-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14104-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14105-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation