Europe's P2B Regulation: A Practical Postmortem Before the Repeal

The question of how to regulate platform power without killing innovation is exactly the kind of problem that requires policymakers, technologists, and founders in the same room. That conversation is happening at Human x AI Europe on May 19 in Vienna – worth attending for anyone building or governing in this space.

What the P2B Regulation Actually Required

Before diagnosing what went wrong, the requirements need to be clear. According to the European Commission's official documentation, the P2B Regulation – formally Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 – was "the first ever set of rules for creating a fair, transparent and predictable business environment for smaller businesses and traders on online platforms."

The regulation covered two categories: online intermediation services (marketplaces like Amazon, app stores like Google Play, booking platforms like Booking.com) and online search engines. As Arthur Cox's analysis explains, these services had to meet specific transparency and procedural requirements.

Here's what platforms were supposed to do:

Terms and conditions transparency: Make T&Cs clear, unambiguous, and easily available. Notify business users of changes with at least 15 days' notice before implementation.

Ranking transparency: Disclose the main parameters determining how goods and services are ranked, plus the reasons for the relative importance of those parameters.

Suspension and termination procedures: Provide specific reasons when suspending or terminating a business user's account, including reference to the applicable objective ground.

Data access disclosure: Describe what technical and contractual access business users have to personal or other data generated through platform use.

Dispute resolution: Establish internal complaint-handling systems and identify at least two mediators for out-of-court dispute settlement. (Small enterprises with fewer than 50 staff and under €10 million turnover were exempt from these obligations.)

The regulation applied from 12 July 2020. Platforms had time to prepare. The requirements weren't ambiguous.

What the Compliance Data Actually Shows

The Commission's preliminary assessment published in September 2023 revealed the gap between regulation and reality.

The headline number: 42.4% of online intermediation services achieved only low alignment with the P2B Regulation's contractual transparency requirements. That's not a rounding error. That's nearly half the regulated entities failing to meet basic obligations three years after the rules took effect.

On ranking transparency specifically, the Arthur Cox review of the Commission's report found that "only around a third of all intermediation services and online platforms listed information on their ranking parameters in the terms and conditions."

The data access requirements fared worse. The report noted that information provided was "often described in general terms," and that "the lack of actual access to data generated through business user activities on the major online platforms remains the major issue."

On differentiated treatment – whether platforms favor their own products over third-party sellers – "very few online intermediation services include any information."

The dispute resolution mechanisms? The report found their "effectiveness has been limited," pointing to "a lack of awareness of the contractual possibility of mediation."

Why Compliance Failed: An Implementation Analysis

Three structural problems explain the gap between the regulation's intent and its outcomes.

Problem 1: Enforcement without teeth. The P2B Regulation relied on Member States to designate enforcement bodies and enable representative organizations to bring court actions. In Ireland, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) was charged with enforcement. The CCPC "actively engaged with 24 online platforms" in 2022. But here's the telling detail: "there are currently no entries to the CCPC's register of unlawful acts" for P2B violations. Engagement without consequences isn't enforcement.

Problem 2: Awareness gaps on both sides. The Commission's own assessment acknowledged that "the full potential of the P2B Regulation's transparency provisions may crucially depend on business users having sufficient awareness of their rights, and on online intermediation services and online search engines having sufficient awareness of their obligations." Six years in, awareness remained insufficient. That's a design failure, not a communication failure.

Problem 3: Compliance theater versus actual compliance. Platforms could technically meet requirements by burying disclosures in lengthy terms and conditions that no business user would realistically parse. The regulation specified what information had to be disclosed but didn't adequately address whether that disclosure was meaningful or actionable.

The Transition to DSA and DMA

On 19 November 2025, the Commission proposed repealing the P2B Regulation as part of its simplification of the digital acquis. The rationale: "the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) have introduced more effective and far-reaching rules to ensure a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, as well as contestable and fair digital markets."

This isn't an admission of failure – it's a recognition that the regulatory architecture evolved. The DMA specifically targets "gatekeepers" with market power, creating obligations that go beyond transparency to actual behavioral requirements. The DSA extends transparency obligations to all users, not just business users.

Notably, the Commission's guidelines on ranking transparency are "proposed to remain in application irrespective of the proposed repeal of the P2B Regulation given their relevance for other legislations such as the Digital Markets Act."

Implementation Lessons for Policymakers and Technologists

The P2B experience offers a template for what not to do – and what to do differently.

Lesson 1: Enforcement architecture matters more than rule design. The P2B Regulation had reasonable requirements. It lacked enforcement mechanisms that created real consequences for non-compliance. The DMA addresses this with direct Commission enforcement and significant fines (up to 10% of global turnover).

Lesson 2: Awareness is an implementation requirement, not an afterthought. If regulated entities don't know their obligations and rights-holders don't know their rights, the regulation exists only on paper. Build awareness campaigns and accessible guidance into the implementation timeline.

Lesson 3: Measure compliance, not just adoption. The Commission published a Q&A document and guidelines. Platforms updated their terms and conditions. But actual compliance – meaningful transparency that business users could act on – wasn't systematically measured until years later.

Lesson 4: Transparency without access is insufficient. Telling business users that data exists isn't the same as giving them access to it. The next generation of platform regulation needs to address not just disclosure but actual capability transfer.

What Happens Next

The P2B Regulation isn't dead yet – the repeal is proposed, not enacted. But the direction is clear. Platform governance in Europe is consolidating around the DSA and DMA framework, with the P2B's useful elements (particularly ranking transparency guidelines) being absorbed into the larger structure.

For teams implementing AI systems that interact with platforms, or building platforms that will face regulatory scrutiny, the lesson is straightforward: don't wait for enforcement to take compliance seriously. The gap between the P2B's requirements and actual platform behavior created the political conditions for the more aggressive DMA. Platforms that treat compliance as a checkbox exercise are building the case for their own stricter regulation.