Executive Summary

The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net), based on an extensive review of over 4,400 cases
and multiple consultations with European Consumer Centres, has identified key regulatory gaps in the current EU sea passenger rights framework. This policy paper highlights critical issues frequently encountered by consumers, particularly in the areas of:

• unclear regulatory definitions,
• inadequate assistance during disruptions
• challenges in re-routing
• compensation inconsistencies

ECC-Net urges the EU legislators to address these gaps to ensure fairer, more effective protection for sea passengers in all Member States.

Executive summary

The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net), based on an extensive review of more than 4,000
cases and several consultations with European Consumer Centres, has identified key regulatory gaps in the current EU bus passenger rights framework. This policy paper highlights critical issues frequently encountered by consumers, particularly in the areas of:

• baggage handling
• communication during the journey
• compensation policies

ECC-Net urges the EU legislators to address these gaps to ensure fairer and more
effective protection for bus passengers in all Member States.

What is dropshipping? 

Dropshipping is a retail fulfilment method in which the seller does not hold goods in stock, but instead transmits customer orders and shipping details to a third party, usually the manufacturer or a wholesaler, who then ships the goods directly to the customer. It’s also called «direct fulfilment», «drop shipment», «direct-tocustomer trading» or «direct dispatch». This business model has been around since the early days of e-commerce, but has gained significant prominence since the COVID pandemic, leading to a substantial increase in consumer complaints. This development has been driven by online coaches promoting this business model on social media, promising independence and fast money, especially to young entrepreneurs.

Challenges related to dropshipping 

Dropshipping allows sellers to operate without having to manage inventory, offering the potential for high profits (up to 50-100%) and the ease of setting up an online store using platforms and service providers such as Aliexpress, Amazon and Shopify. However, consumers are often unaware that they are purchasing from a dropshipping business, which can lead to a number of problems.

Observations by the ECC-Net 

Although dropshipping as a business model has existed since the beginning of e-commerce, the ECC-Net has observed a considerable increase in dropshipping-related complaints in the last years. In June 2024, there were 2432 registered complaints within the network. It is likely that the actual number is significantly higher due to variability in case categorisation. For example, cases involving dropshipping might be classified either as dropshipping or under the broader category of e-commerce issues. This variability can lead to inaccuracies in reported numbers. The majority of these complaints originate from French (46%), German (25%), and Swedish (10%) consumers. The primary issues concern household furniture (27%), garments for women (16%), products for pets (14%), and shoes (8%). Most traders seem to be based in Belgium (27%), the Netherlands (23%), and the United Kingdom (21%). 

Whereas important dropshippers are located outside the EU, for example in China, they are not yet significant in terms of numbers in the ECC-Net. This indicates that the issue needs to be addressed at a European level, despite the products often being manufactured in third countries. 

Dropshipping stores often engage in misleading practices, such as falsely claiming high product quality or European origin (by using a misleading domain or brand name), using dark patterns such as fake scarcity promotions (“only today”, “15 customers are looking at this article right now” or “10 customers have just bought this product”), countdown timers, and misleading free shipping offers. 

Sometimes, dropshipping e-commerce sites promote supposedly environmentally friendly products, claiming that direct distribution results in lower carbon emissions, or disguise the fact that the product is shipped from a third country by advertising it as a ‘local product’. In reality, the process of dropshipping involves the unchecked marketing of poor quality and even counterfeit products. If the product doesn’t match the consumer’s expectations because its poor quality, the consumer is discouraged from returning the product and instead asked to keep it, with price reductions being offered, supposedly for the sake of reducing emissions by avoiding returns. 

Some products sold by dropshipping stores can also cause serious health problems. The Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI) conducted a study in 2022, revealing that dropshipping stores had the highest non-compliance rates (72%) in product safety, followed by marketplaces (60%) and traditional online stores (39%).

Recurring complaints from consumers 

The problems mentioned above have been identified through the analysis of numerous complaints handled by the ECC-Net. Consumers have reported various issues with dropshipping companies to the ECC-Net, including the following specific examples: 

Information and contact issues 

• The imprint on websites of dropshipping merchants is incomplete or missing. 
• In some cases, there are discrepancies between the cancellation policy and the terms and conditions regarding the return policy. This causes confusion among consumers about which information is correct.
• Many traders don’t provide any customer service at all. 
• Traders are often registered in Europe, but the registered address is sometimes just a PO box. This complicates legal enforcement, as legal notices cannot be delivered to a PO box, so a judgment against these companies therefore can’t be executed. 
• Some websites use fake reviews and fake trustmarks or other labels. 
• The company is a fake shop (often websites go offline after the order is placed).

Delivery issues 

• It is common that orders have a very long delivery time (despite the information on the website), and in some cases, consumers are repeatedly told that the delivery has been postponed. 
• In some cases, although an order can still be placed, it is possible that the goods are already out of stock at the actual supplier and can’t be delivered. The purchase price is still charged immediately. 
• Some sellers don’t inform about additional costs for import VAT and customs fees. 
• Invoices sometimes don’t match the order that was delivered.

Issues with returns 

Sometimes a previously unknown company is named as the sender on the parcel. As a rule, these are pure logistics and shipping service providers who merely take over the delivery to the customer on behalf of the dropshipper. This misleads customers into believing that they can also use this address as a return address. However, the parcel is not accepted there or is not accepted as a proper return. 

• The delivered articles are of poor quality, don’t look like they were advertised online and often have defects. Consumers then often can’t make use of their legal guarantee, often confused by the traders with the right to withdrawal. 
• The cancellation policy often does not include information on where to return products in case of withdrawal by the consumer; sometimes the return address has to be requested from the store. 
• The right of withdrawal is not accepted by the shops or can’t be exercised (the trader only offers a discount or a new product, the trader doesn’t provide a return address or refuses the withdrawal altogether). 
• Return costs to third countries often exceed the value of the product itself. There may also be unexpected customs fees. 
• Returns often don’t arrive when they are sent to the specified return address in a third country (some merchants don’t collect them or discard them). 
• Problems with payment providers often arise in relation to dropshipping companies, because the online shops don’t inform the payment providers about returns from consumers. As a result, the consumers continue to receive payment reminders from these providers.

ECC-Net's recommendations 

There are currently no specific rules for drop shipping companies in most Member States or at European level. Therefore, the general rules for e-commerce apply. These should be supplemented by further rules specifically aimed at dropshipping companies in order to address the above-mentioned issues by filling the legal gaps that currently exist.

Parcel delivery issues encountered by ECC-Net

EU legislation has the clear goal to protect consumers purchasing at distance. Nevertheless, as already identified by (51) in Consumer Rights Directive, the delivery and return of items still bear a lot of risks and generate an important number of complaints, caused by traders, even the big and well referenced ones, not respecting current consumer legislation. With regard to penalties, failure by a professional to comply with their delivery obligations entitles the consumer to rescission of the contract or its performance, as well as payment of damages. The following document by ECC-Net outlines the primary areas of complaints related to the delivery process and the return of items. It serves as a reminder of the existing applicable laws that require robust enforcement and proposes minor legislative changes or interpretations that could significantly enhance consumer protection.

Delivery issues

According to recital (55) of the Consumer Rights Directive “Where the goods are dispatched by the trader to the consumer, disputes may arise, in the event of loss or damage, as to the moment at which the transfer –of risk takes place. Therefore this Directive should provide that the consumer be protected against any risk of loss of or damage to the goods occurring before he has acquired the physical possession of the goods. The consumer should be protected during a transport arranged or carried out by the trader, even where the consumer has chosen a particular delivery method from a range of options offered by the trader. However, that provision should not apply to contracts where it is up to the consumer to take delivery of the goods himself or to ask a carrier to take delivery. Regarding the moment of the transfer of the risk, a consumer should be considered to have acquired the physical possession of the goods when he has received them.” According to article 20 of the Consumer Rights Directive “In contracts where the trader dispatches the goods to the consumer, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods shall pass to the consumer when he or a third party indicated by the consumer and other than the carrier has acquired the physical possession of the goods. However, the risk shall pass to the consumer upon delivery to the carrier if the carrier was commissioned by the consumer to carry the goods and that choice was not offered by the trader, without prejudice to the rights of the consumer against the carrier.”

It should be reminded that the obligation to deliver is an obligation of result, it is up to the seller, the debtor of this obligation, to establish that he has performed it, or that the non-performance was due to force majeure or the buyer’s fault.

Also, the third party must be specifically designated, even though some enforcement authorities might see this differently: The German enforcement authority Bundesnetzagentur states in this regard: «Parcels must be delivered personally or handed to a substitute person in the same household or in the neighbourhood, unless otherwise instructed by the sender or recipient. Many postal companies deposit items that could not be delivered in branches or packing stations.»

1. Non-delivery of an order to the consumer’s address 
   In order for the risk of transport to pass on to the consumer, they need to take physical possession of the parcel. The fact that the consumer’s customer account or the tracking of the transport company indicates a parcel as being delivered, doesn’t prove anything. In case of a dispute, the seller will have to provide clear evidence, that the parcel has been entrusted to the consumer. It might be reminded that during the pandemic, deliveries needed to take place without physical contact between the delivery teams and the consumers. Many technical solutions have been fund back then to replace the written signature, that still can be used. Often delivery companies leave parcels in hallways, with doormen etc. For the risk to pass on to the consumer, this third party needs to be authorised by the consumer to receive the package. In case of a dispute, unless this authorisation can be shown, the risk did not transfer to the consumer.
2. Delivery without signature if this was foreseen in the contract 
   If the delivery options provided by the seller indicate delivery against a signature or a one time password and the parcel was just left in the letterbox, the seller did not fulfil their delivery obligations. The transmission of a code to a delivery person cannot be understood as the designation by the consumer of a third party who would take physical possession of the goods in his place. In this case, the seller remains liable for any loss or damage to the goods, since the carrier had been proposed by him.
3. Non-delivery or disappearance of an order from a letter box
   Often letter boxes are considered as being in the possession sphere of the consumer. Also General Terms and Conditions of several transport companies consider that delivering to letter boxes is enough. What happens if parcels are stolen from the boxes, for example via Postal Master keys as this has happened many times during the pandemic? Did consumers already get physical possession of the item? 
   
   In legal terms, possession involves more than just having something in one’s vicinity; it includes an element of control and intention. For possession to be recognized legally, the individual must have the ability to control the item and the intent to do so. The logical question here is whether the consumer has control over the package when is left at the doorstep. 
   
   If a package is placed in a consumer’s mailbox but is stolen before the consumer retrieves it, the consumer has not exercised control over the item, and therefore, has not taken possession of it. On the other hand, the seller’s obligation to deliver the item is considered fulfilled if they can prove that a third party, such as a thief, prevented the consumer from receiving it. 
   
   What does this mean for the consumer: The consumer will have to inform the seller of the incident and the seller will have to file a police report. The seller doesn’t have to deliver the item anymore to the consumer. The consumer, in turn, is not obliged to pay the purchase price or, if the purchase price has already been paid, is entitled to a refund. This has been confirmed buy ECCs France, Germany and Belgium for example.
4. Non-delivery or disappearance of an order at a pick-up station
   Usually pick-up stations are proposed by sellers, in form of a list the consumer can choose from. In the opinion of ECC-Net there are therefor considered as part of the delivery process and the risk transfers to the consumer only once he takes physical possession of the item at the pick-up point. If the item disappears before that, the seller should bear the risk. 
   
   The situation is different if usually the seller doesn’t provide for pick-up options and the consumer requests expressly for one. It could then be considered that the seller fulfils the obligation by delivering the parcel to a third party mandated by the consumer. If the parcel disappears, the consumer will have to take recourse against the pick-up station.
5. Wrong product delivered or damaged parcel content
   “Regular delivery of goods ordered via e-commerce, mail order etc. often takes place without immediate inspection by the consumer of the goods delivered. Under the Directive, the risk passes to the consumer on taking physical possession of the goods regardless of whether they have been inspected for defects. However, there is a requirement for fault-free delivery under the Sales of Goods Directive (EU) 2019/771. Article 11 of that directive sets out the rules on burden of proof with respect to any lack of conformity.” 
   
   This issue is prevalent in Latvia, where consumers often report that while the shipment package itself appears undamaged, the goods inside are damaged upon opening. When consumers contact the trader with a complaint, their claims for replacement or refund are frequently denied. Traders often argue that the consumer accepted the shipment from the courier without objections, implying acceptance of the goods’ condition. Consequently, if the consumer does not raise any immediate concerns upon delivery, traders are typically unwilling to resolve the dispute later. 
6. Request of the seller to file a police report
   The seller bears the risk of transport until due delivery. Therefore, any incident outside the sphere of possession of the consumer has to be assumed by the seller. The consumer’s duty is to inform the transport company/ seller about the incident, so the seller doesn’t lose his recourse against the transport company. 
   
   National laws provide different deadlines for this declaration. In France for example a consumer has 3 days according to the commercial code, but if the transport company cannot prove to have given the consumer adequate time during the delivery to effectively inspect the goods’ condition, the deadline is 10 days according to the consumer code. 
   
   However, regularly traders impose the burden of proof of the non or damaged delivery on the consumer by requesting copies of ID, declarations of non-receipt and even police reports. Traders are usually smart enough not to indicate these procedures in their terms and conditions. 
   
   The Annexe of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts however clearly states that terms which have the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract may be regarded as unfair.

Returning issues

In the event of withdrawal, unless the trader has offered to collect the goods himself, the consumer shall send back the goods or hand them over to the trader or to a person authorised by the trader to receive the goods. 

According to the guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2011/83/EU “Article 13(1) requires the trader to carry out the reimbursement without undue delay and by no later than 14 days from the day the consumer informs the trader of the decision to withdraw from the contract. 

For sales contracts, under Article 13(3), the trader can only withhold the reimbursement beyond this deadline until he has either received the goods or at least evidence has been supplied by the consumer that the goods have been sent back.” 

Nevertheless, in practice, traders very regularly condition the refund by having actually received the return and their warehouse having inspected the items.

1. Cooling off: the consumer never accepted the parcel
   In the guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2011/83/EU, is mentioned that it should not be possible to withdraw from the contract by simply returning the goods without any explicit statement to this effect. Refusing delivery or not picking the goods up at the post office would not as such count as valid expressions of withdrawal. 
   
   Nevertheless, the return parcel, if never accepted, will travel under the responsibility of the trader. 
   
   The same guidelines foresee “Where the consumer has never taken physical possession of the goods, e.g. by refusing to take delivery, either without any explicit statement or with a statement to the trader about withdrawal from the contract, the trader would continue bearing the risk of loss or damage since no transfer of risk to the consumer will have taken place according to Article 20.”
2. Cooling off: Return with a shipping label from the seller
   The Directive does not regulate who bears the risk for accidental damage or loss during the return of the goods when the consumer withdraws from the contract. Therefore, this matter is also subject to national laws. In several Member states, such as Austria and Finland, the goods travel at the risk of the seller. 
   
   The concept of ‘evidence of having sent back the goods’ is important for the application of Article 13(3). In principle, this ‘evidence’ should be understood as a written statement from an established transport or postal service provider specifying the sender and the recipient.” 
   
   If the consumer accepts the trader’s offer to collect the goods, or the trader has offered to collect them at his expense, the trader should not be able to invoke the right to withhold the refund under Article 13(3).”
3. Cooling off: Return with a delivery company mandated by the consumer
   As mentioned, the seller cannot delay the refund until they receive the return, only until the moment the consumer proves to have sent the parcel. 
   
   According to the guidance on the interpretation of Directive 2011/83/EU, « In principle, when returning the goods, the consumer should take reasonable care, for example, by choosing an established transport or postal service provider, to ensure that the goods reach the trader and are not damaged in transit.” 
   
   If the consumer takes in charge the return of the parcel, they become the contractual partner of the transporter. If the seller upon return realises a loss or damage, they will have to inform the consumer and the transport company, just like they request consumers to do so. If they don’t, they become liable for the consumer losing their claim against the transport company and cannot ask the consumer for a refund.
4. Cooling off: voluminous items
   In the case of off-premises contracts where the goods have been delivered to the consumer’s home at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the trader shall at his own expense collect the goods if, by their nature, those goods cannot normally be returned by post. 
   
   This exception should be extended to distance selling. ECCs receive many cases for example of mattress sales, where they cannot return those as they will need a logistics partner to do so but usually they do not accept single items from private consumers or only at horrendous prices.
5. Return of several items ordered separately in one parcel
   Some traders indicate to consumers that for sustainability reasons, they should/could return items delivered separately in one single parcel. However, statements of consumers show that in this case often only one item is refunded. This seems due to the fact that the consumer has to request every single item to be returned, usually a return reference is issued for every single one, but only one will be indicated on the return label. So, when the parcel arrives at the warehouse, only the one reference is scanned, and one return procedure finalised.
6. Legal guarantee
   Under Directive 1999/44/EC, in the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge. The terms « free of charge » in paragraphs 2 and 3 refer to the necessary costs incurred to bring the goods into conformity, particularly the cost of postage, labour, and materials.
   
   Under Directive 2019/771/EU, where the lack of conformity is to be remedied by repair or replacement of the goods, the consumer shall make the goods available to the seller. The seller shall take back the replaced goods at the seller’s expense. 
   
   Nevertheless, many sellers ask consumers to bear the costs of return, which they promise later to refund. This is explicitly permitted for example by the French law, if the return can intervene by post: “If the goods can be returned by post without causing the consumer any major inconvenience or incurring costs disproportionate to their value, the consumer shall send the goods to the seller by post. In this case, article L. 241-6 applies. In any event, the consumer may not be required to ensure or pay for the transport of the goods other than by post.” 
   
   “A trader who has charged the consumer the cost of shipping the goods in order to bring them into conformity must reimburse these costs within fourteen days of the day on which the consumer is informed that the goods have been taken over under the legal warranty. The amount due is automatically increased by 10% if reimbursement is made within fourteen days after this deadline, by 20% up to thirty days and by 50% thereafter.”
   
   If the consumer mandates a transport company, this has of course consequences on the risk of transport.
7. Return with a shipping label from the seller 
   The seller is liable for the transport and any damage or loss will have to be seen with the transport company. The consumer retains the right to the application of the legal guarantee. Some national legislations foresee deadlines for the seller to provide the remedy. Once the deadline expired, consumers may be entitled to a refund, in a specific timeframe. Sellers therefore cannot suspend the refund until the investigation with the transport company is over.
8. Return by mistake of a wrong item by the consumer
   It happens, that consumers pack a wrong item, for various reasons. While sellers often invoke a fraud of the consumer, some cases contain honest mistakes. Whatever the reason, the seller will receive in the warehouse the property of the consumer. 
   
   Usually, they inform the consumer that they will not return the item, which can be considered an unjustified enrichment. Other sellers systematically indicate they destroy the item received; this is a damage to property. In both cases, they are liable to the consumer.

ECC-Net offers its expertise on cross-border consumer topics 

29 centres across all EU Member States, Norway and Iceland, work closely together to resolve consumer disputes in an amicable manner. Each centre is co-funded by the European Union and national governments. By providing a full and centralised service, ECC-Net is committed to empowering consumers and enabling them to take full advantage of the Single Market. The primary role of ECC-Net is to enhance consumer confidence when engaging in cross-border transactions by providing free information and advice to the public on their rights as consumers, as well as assistance in the resolution of cross-border consumer disputes. 

ECC-Net also contributes to the cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (CPC-Network), as an external alert mechanism. In the following pages, ECC-Net will share its insight into the most pressing issues European consumers are facing today and provide evidence-based feedback to policy makers.

Legislative achievements 2019-2024 

ECC-Net appreciates the achievements in enhancing consumer protection between 2019 and 2024. European Union regulations and directives have introduced new rights to empower and protect consumers across various sectors. Rail passengers now have options for alternative travel and refunds in case of cancellations or missed connections. The Digital Services Act ensures better information and protection against illegal products on online marketplaces. The Digital Markets Act curtails the dominance of tech giants and enhances consumer control over preinstalled software and personal data. Consumers also have strengthened rights in areas such as sales of goods, representative actions, cross-border payments, digital content, and financial services contracts. These measures aim to promote transparency, fairness, and accessibility, contributing to a more consumer-friendly environment in the EU. 

The full list of the concluded legislation that promotes consumers rights can be found in the Annex. On the way for conclusion: 

• The recent legislative push for extended product lifespan, reparability and sustainable ecodesign aligns with ECC-Net’s priorities, which fully support products to be designed for longevity and ease to repair. ECC-Net’s support emphasises the need for ethical production practices, standardised and accessible repair information, and measures against planned obsolescence, making it a cornerstone of consumer protection and environmental stewardship. Here you can read in detail the position and recommendations of the Network in a comprehensive position paper https://www.eccnet.eu/publication/right-repair-european-union 
• The European Commission has recently proposed new measures to streamline alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the digital market. A key element of this proposal is the designation of European Consumer Centres (ECCs) as ADR contact points. More detailed info on our paper: https://www.eccnet.eu/publication/eccs-ideal-candidates-adr-contact-poi…;
• ECC-Net eagerly anticipates the comprehensive reform introduced by the legislation 2023/0156(COD), which aims to establish the Union Customs Code and the European Union Customs Authority. This significant overhaul is expected to streamline customs procedures, enhance efficiency, and bolster security within the EU’s trading ecosystem, benefiting both consumers and businesses. By modernising customs operations, ECC-Net views this development as a pivotal step toward facilitating smoother trade, ensuring product safety, and reinforcing the integrity of the Single Market, aligning with its mission to protect and empower consumers. 

Priorities for consumer protection 2024-2029 

As the digital landscape evolves and new consumer challenges emerge, it is imperative that the European Union adapts and responds with robust, forward-thinking legislation. The term 2019- 2024 saw significant advancements in consumer rights within the EU, setting a strong foundation for future action. However, the lives of European consumers become ever more complex, so do the challenges for an effective EU consumer policy. To ensure consumers remain in the spotlight and protected in an increasingly complex world, legislators must focus on several critical issues in the term leading up to 2029. These include advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), the regulation of digital payments, enhancements to passenger mobility and rights, and the protection against fraud and exploitation. 

We are convinced that a European Parliament that is strongly committed to addressing consumer issues has a strong hand of cards when it comes to responding to people’s expectations. ECC-Net campaign priorities: 

• AI and digital risks: Safeguarding Consumer Interests
• Secure Digital Wallets: Enhancing Digital Payment Safety 
• Scam-Proof Futures: Fortifying Against Fraud and Scams 
• Travel Empowered: Revolutionising Passenger Rights 
• A true Single Market: persisting issues

ECC-Net's recommendations 

ECC-Net, the European Consumer Centres Network, has put forward a series of crucial recommendations aimed at enhancing consumer protection across Europe. Drawing on extensive experience and data from its 29 centres, ECC-Net addresses pressing issues such as digital risks, secure payment systems, and effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Their recommendations are designed to strengthen consumer rights, improve transparency, and ensure that the evolving digital and economic landscape remains fair and accessible. By advocating for targeted legislative amendments and regulatory improvements, ECC-Net aims to empower consumers and bolster their confidence in cross-border transactions within the Single Market.