The Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform of the European Union was officially discontinued in 2025, marking a significant change in how consumer e-commerce disputes are handled across Europe. After nearly a decade in operation, the platform's shutdown signals a strategic shift in EU consumer protection policy, with direct consequences for online retailers, marketplaces, and consumers.

This article explains what the ODR platform was, why it was closed, and what e-commerce businesses must do now to remain compliant.

What Was the EU ODR Platform?

The EU ODR platform was launched in 2016 under Regulation (EU) No 524/2013. Its purpose was to provide consumers and online traders with a centralized, digital mechanism to resolve disputes arising from online purchases without going to court.

The platform allowed consumers to submit complaints online in their own language and, where the trader agreed, forward the dispute to an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) body. In theory, it was designed to support cross-border ecommerce and strengthen consumer confidence in the EU Digital Single Market.

When and How the ODR Platform Was Shut Down

The closure of the ODR platform followed a clearly defined timeline.

End of New Complaints

In March 2025, the platform stopped accepting new consumer complaints. From that point onward, consumers could no longer initiate new dispute procedures through the system.

Transitional Period

For several months, previously submitted cases remained accessible. Users were able to follow ongoing procedures and export relevant data linked to existing complaints.

Permanent Shutdown

In July 2025, the platform was permanently taken offline, and all remaining data was scheduled for deletion. From that date, the EU ODR platform ceased to exist both legally and technically.

Why the EU Decided to End the ODR Platform

The decision to discontinue the ODR platform was driven by several structural issues.

Low Effectiveness and Limited Adoption

Despite high visibility and millions of visits over the years, only a very small percentage of submitted complaints resulted in an actual ADR procedure. Many disputes stalled because traders did not engage or declined to participate.

Disproportionate Operating Costs

Maintaining a multilingual, EU-wide digital platform required substantial administrative and technical resources. These costs were increasingly seen as unjustified given the platform’s limited practical impact.

Regulatory Reform

In 2024, the EU adopted new legislation repealing the legal basis for the ODR platform. This reform aimed to modernize consumer dispute resolution by shifting away from a single centralized portal toward more effective national and sector-specific solutions.

What Replaced the ODR Platform

The end of the ODR platform does not mean the end of out-of-court dispute resolution in the EU.

Instead of a single EU-wide system, the European Commission introduced a new approach based on:

Central Consumer Information

A new EU-managed website now provides consumers with clear information about their rights and explains how to access dispute resolution mechanisms in each member state.

National ADR Structures

Consumers are directed to recognized national ADR bodies that operate at country or sector level. These bodies remain regulated under EU consumer protection law and continue to offer mediation and arbitration services.

This decentralized model is intended to improve efficiency by relying on established local structures rather than a one-size-fits-all digital platform.

What E-commerce Businesses Must Do Now

The shutdown of the ODR platform creates immediate compliance obligations for online sellers.

Remove ODR References

Online retailers are no longer required to include references or links to the ODR platform in their legal texts. Any remaining mentions in terms and conditions, legal notices, or customer service pages should be removed.

Update Terms and Conditions

E-commerce businesses should review and update their terms and conditions to reflect the current dispute resolution framework, clearly explaining how consumers can raise complaints and which ADR options are available.

Review Cross-Border Compliance

For businesses selling across multiple EU countries, it is increasingly important to understand national ADR requirements and ensure consumer information is adapted accordingly.

What the ODR Platform Closure Means for Consumers

Consumers continue to enjoy strong protection when shopping online in the EU. Although the centralized platform is gone, alternative dispute resolution remains available through national bodies.

Consumers can still:

Access Out-of-Court Resolution

National ADR organizations remain responsible for handling disputes fairly, transparently, and independently.

Receive Guidance and Support

EU and national consumer centers continue to provide guidance on dispute-resolution options, particularly for cross-border e-commerce issues.

Strategic Implications for the EU E-Commerce Landscape

The closure of the ODR platform reflects a broader evolution in EU digital and consumer policy. Rather than relying on centralized digital tools with limited adoption, the EU is prioritizing more practical, locally embedded mechanisms.

For e-commerce businesses, this change reinforces the importance of clear customer communication, responsive complaint handling, and proactive legal compliance. For consumers, it signals a shift toward more targeted, potentially more effective dispute-resolution pathways.

In the long term, the success of this new approach will depend on how well national ADR systems are promoted, harmonized, and integrated into the everyday e-commerce experience across Europe.

The post The End of the EU Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Platform appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

In 2025, Italy is taking a more aggressive stance on VAT enforcement and tax compliance, targeting both domestic and cross-border e-commerce operators. With tax revenue losses mounting and pressure from EU digital market reforms, Italian authorities are increasing scrutiny, imposing new guarantees, and pursuing high-profile investigations—most notably against Amazon.

For online sellers and marketplaces, the message is clear: non-compliance with Italian tax law now carries operational and financial risk. Adapting to the country’s evolving VAT framework is essential for maintaining business continuity and market access.

Key Developments in Italy’s VAT Crackdown

€1.2 Billion VAT Investigation Into Amazon

In early 2025, Italy launched an investigation into Amazon for alleged €1.2 billion in unpaid VAT over multiple years. The total exposure—including penalties and interest—could exceed €3 billion. Authorities allege that the platform facilitated transactions without proper VAT collection or reporting mechanisms for thousands of third-party sellers, many of them foreign.

New Guarantee Rules for Non-EU Sellers

Italy now requires non-EU sellers to appoint a fiscal representative and provide a financial guarantee of €50,000 per registration to maintain inclusion in the VAT Information Exchange System (VIES). This new requirement applies to both B2C and B2B sellers operating through Italian or EU marketplaces.

VIES Deregistration for Non-Compliance

Suppose non-EU sellers fail to submit the required guarantee or designate a qualified fiscal agent. In that case, they face automatic deregistration from VIES—cutting them off from intra-EU tax documentation and compliance networks. This severely impacts fulfillment, customs clearance, and order processing within Italy and the broader EU.

Marketplace Responsibility for VAT Collection

Under Italy’s updated e-commerce tax model, marketplaces may be held liable for VAT collection on behalf of third-party sellers. Platforms must ensure proper invoicing, VAT registration checks, and periodic reporting to avoid secondary liability.

Impact on E-Commerce Operators

For Non-EU Sellers

• Operational Costs Rise: The €50,000 VAT guarantee adds a significant cost barrier, particularly for small and mid-sized exporters.
  
• Compliance Burden Increases: Sellers must work with certified fiscal representatives and meet strict documentation requirements.
  
• Risk of Market Exclusion: Non-compliance may result in blocked sales, customs holds, or deactivation on major platforms.
  

For Marketplaces

• Stronger Auditing Obligations: Platforms must validate seller credentials and ensure automated VAT collection tools are functioning across all seller accounts.
  
• Joint Liability Risks: Failure to enforce tax obligations may result in substantial fines or reputational damage.
  
• Need for Local Tax Expertise: Growing regulatory complexity requires investments in local legal, tax, and compliance teams.
  

Strategic Recommendations for Sellers and Platforms

• Appoint a Qualified Fiscal Representative: Ensure that your representative is recognized by Italian tax authorities and capable of managing ongoing obligations.
  
• Submit the VAT Guarantee Before Deadlines: Italian authorities are enforcing strict timelines in mid-2025. Missing them may jeopardize your entire EU operation.
  
• Implement Real-Time VAT Validation: Platforms should adopt automated systems to cross-check seller VAT numbers and verify invoice status in real-time.
  
• Stay Updated on EU-Wide VAT Trends: Italy's enforcement may preview broader action across other EU states. Align your compliance roadmap with long-term regional changes.
  

Italy’s intensified approach to VAT and tax compliance is redefining the rules for e-commerce across Europe’s third-largest market. From high-profile audits to stringent guarantee rules for non-EU sellers, the regulatory environment is shifting fast. For platforms and cross-border merchants alike, success now depends on proactive compliance, local representation, and deep awareness of fiscal obligations. Those who adapt early will retain access to a high-value, digitally engaged consumer base—those who don’t may find themselves locked out.

The post Intensifying VAT and Tax Compliance Reshapes E-Commerce in Italy appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The European Union (EU) introduced substantial changes to e-commerce legislation in 2024 to enhance transparency, fairness, and safety in its digital market. Today, we want to highlight the main changes during 2024 in e-commerce legislation inside the EU, focusing on the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR).

Digital Services Act (DSA)

The DSA, effective February 17, 2024, establishes a comprehensive framework for digital services, emphasizing user safety and platform accountability. Key updates include:

• Illegal Content Management: Platforms must prevent disseminating illicit goods, services, and content, providing mechanisms for users to report violations.
• Increased Transparency: Platforms must now disclose detailed information about content moderation policies, advertising strategies, and algorithmic operations.
• Protection for Minors: New regulations restrict the use of minors’ data for targeted ads and mandate safeguards against harmful content.
• Systemic Risk Mitigation: Huge online platforms (VLOPs) with over 45 million monthly users must assess and mitigate risks, such as the spread of disinformation and negative mental health impacts.

The DSA’s implementation marks a significant shift in e-commerce legislation inside the EU, ensuring platforms prioritize safety and transparency.

Digital Markets Act (DMA)

The DMA, fully enforceable by March 6, 2024, targets large online platforms (gatekeepers) to ensure fair competition in the digital marketplace. Key provisions include:

• Ban on Self-Preferencing: Gatekeepers cannot favor their own services over third-party offerings.
• Interoperability: Services must be interoperable with those of third-party providers, fostering competition.
• Data Rights for Businesses: Companies using gatekeeper platforms must have access to their data for improved service delivery.

Gatekeepers face fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for non-compliance, reinforcing the importance of adherence to e-commerce legislation inside the EU.

General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR)

The GPSR effective December 13, 2024, replaces the previous General Product Safety Directive and sets higher safety standards for online and offline products. Major changes include:

• Broadened Scope: Online marketplaces and fulfillment service providers are now directly responsible for product safety.
• Improved Market Oversight: Authorities have expanded powers to monitor compliance and remove unsafe products.
• Operator Obligations: Manufacturers, importers, and distributors must ensure compliance with safety standards and report issues via the Safety Business Gateway.
• Consumer Protections: Enhanced consumer rights include access to safety information and remedies for unsafe products.

The GPSR ensures that all products sold within the EU adhere to strict safety regulations, aligning with the evolving e-commerce legislation inside the EU.

Implications for E-Commerce Businesses

The main changes during 2024 in e-commerce legislation inside the EU have significant implications for businesses:

• Compliance Mandates: Businesses must adapt operations to comply with new safety and transparency requirements.
• Greater Accountability: Online platforms, including content moderation and product safety enforcement, face increased responsibilities.
• Opportunities for Smaller Businesses: By curbing gatekeeper dominance, the DMA creates a more level playing field for smaller companies.

The 2024 updates to e-commerce legislation inside the EU represent a transformative step toward a safer, more transparent, and competitive digital marketplace. Businesses must stay proactive in meeting these regulations to thrive in this dynamic environment. The EU ensures a fairer and more secure digital landscape for all stakeholders by prioritizing compliance and user safety.

The post Main Changes During 2024 in E-Commerce Legislation Inside the EU appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

As multiple media in the U. S. have reported, Federal regulators have determined that Amazon can be held responsible for defective goods sold by third-party merchants on its online marketplace, rejecting the company’s position that it’s merely an intermediary between consumers and sellers.

This is a historic decision confirmed this Tuesday by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission who said that the agency unanimously agreed Amazon “fits squarely” within the definition of a distributor of goods, “and therefore bears legal responsibility for their recall.”

As part of the agency’s decision, Amazon is required to develop a plan to notify purchasers and the public about the product hazards, as well as offer shoppers refunds or replacements for the affected products.

Amazon claims it will always guarantee returns

Amazonas currently hosts millions of third-party sellers, who account for approximately 60% of the company’s e-commerce sales. While this has allowed Amazon to bring in record revenue, it has also proven to host counterfeit, unsafe and even expired goods. The company has previously said it invests hundreds of millions of dollars per year to ensure products sold are safe and compliant.

The decision addresses a thorny issue that’s been debated for years. In numerous lawsuits, Amazon has maintained it just serves as the conduit between buyers and sellers on its marketplace and that it’s not involved in the sourcing or distribution of products sold by third-party sellers, removing it from liability.

That has been a successful defense for Amazon in the past, including in a 2018 case concerning the purchase of a faulty hoverboard that exploded and burned down an Amazon shopper’s house in Tennessee. In other cases, federal courts and legislators have said the e-commerce giant should be held liable.

This new piece of legislation could prove the final nail in the coffin for Amazon regarding their current policy on third party merchants, and force the global marketplace to drastically change the way it does businesses.

The post Amazon could be held responsible for defective goods sold by third-party merchants appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The European Commission recently announced that Shein, the ultra-fast fashion e-commerce giant, will be subject to additional regulations targeting huge online platforms (VLOPs) under the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA). Shein has announced that it has consistently surpassed 45 million monthly users in the region, meeting the European Union's threshold to designate huge online service providers (VLOPs) under the DSA.

Although fashion was Shein's initial product focus, the e-commerce giant has rapidly expanded its inventory into a broader market, encompassing a growing range of lifestyle categories and home goods (such as cosmetics, school supplies, and pet products).

Its tactic of offering a wide range of fashion-focused products, typically at bargain prices, makes the market especially popular with younger users. However, it is a dynamic that could increase regulatory risk for Shein, as the Commission has said its priorities in enforcing the DSA include focusing on risks related to the protection of minors and safety in the marketplace. Inexpensive products may also have lower safety standards.

This designation is an essential aspect to consider as it means that the Singapore-based marketplace will soon have to comply with the strictest level of regulations for online platforms, requiring it to take steps to identify and mitigate potential risks, such as those related to the sale of counterfeit or illegal products or other types of content that could cause harm to consumer welfare.

Shein is not the only one

In doing so, Shein joins two dozen other platforms already designated as VLOPs or VLOSE (huge online search engines) by the EU. Other VLOP marketplaces include AliExpress, which is already under investigation by the Commission for alleged DSA infringements; Amazon, which has challenged its designation (but remains subject to the rules in the meantime); Booking.com; and Zalando.

The DSA's general obligations already applied to Shein, one of the thousands of online services subject to the general rules. But being named VLOP increases the fast fashion giant's regulatory risk. The EU expects Shein's first risk assessment report to be submitted in four months.

Penalties for not complying with the DSA can reach up to 6% of global annual turnover. Although the maximum fine does not increase for VLOPs, with more obligations on them, the level of regulatory risk they are subject to certainly increases.

"The Commission services will carefully monitor the platform's implementation of the DSA rules and obligations, especially with regard to measures to ensure consumer protection and address the spread of illegal products," the EU wrote in a press release accompanying Shein's appointment. It added that it is 'ready to work closely with Shein to ensure that these issues are properly addressed.'

In response, Shein's global head of public affairs, Leonard Lin wrote: 'We share the Commission's ambition to ensure that consumers in the EU can shop online with peace of mind, and we are committed to doing our part. We also share a commitment to the principles of transparency and accountability that are at the core of the DSA, as reflected in our supply chain governance standards and our interactions with our users. We will continue to work constructively with the European Commission to ensure we provide a safe and compliant environment for our online community."

The post Shein faces more regulations inside the EU appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Spotify, Booking, Glovo, and fifteen other tech companies address a letter to European finance ministers expressing their dissatisfaction with the IDSD, stating that it is a "disproportionate impact" and that the system creates inequality of conditions.

According to estimates published in 2020 by the organization, the global tech tax would collect around $100 billion annually. The IDSD does not tax profits but rather gross revenues, applying it regardless of the company's profitability. The signed First Pillar aims to avoid double taxation, but the IDSD creates a multi-layered taxation system without compensation mechanisms with other taxes. Additionally, it is accounted for as a charge, affecting EBITDA operating income and the companies' accounting.

"These actions may include adverse and arbitrary taxes on the business volume or local operations of foreign companies in those countries, further impacting companies' ability to grow and compete on an equal footing," the companies add in their letter.

IDSD can 'create trade tensions and impact customers'

The companies argue that the IDSD can lead to trade tensions, retaliatory measures from other countries, and impact customers. 

Spotify, Booking, Glovo, Eat, AirHelp, Allegro, Catawiki, Criteo, Delivery Hero, Schibsted, Trustpilot, Vinted, Wolt, and Zalando have also warned that all these contingencies can result in price increases for consumers to absorb better and make the tax impact more profitable.

Furthermore, they add that these taxes "risk proliferating," leading to increased detrimental effects on businesses. This would gain more strength without a consensus on the 'First Pillar,' currently under negotiation at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for future global tax reform. Under this pillar, activities of companies in countries where they generate profit would be taxed, even if they do not have a fiscal presence.

The post Tech giants raise their voices against the IDSD tax or 'Google Tax’ appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a new lawsuit against Amazon. The FTC is once again pointing the finger at the company founded by Jeff Bezos and, on this occasion, has accused the company of "misleading" its users to get them to subscribe and renew "without their consent" the Amazon Prime service and then making it difficult to cancel the paid service.

The lawsuit against Amazon includes four civil counts against the company for "manipulative, coercive or deceptive user interface." It seeks a permanent injunction on that conduct, as well as monetary penalties. 

Specifically, the lawsuit claims Amazon used manipulative, coercive, or deceptive user interface designs known as "dark patterns" to trick consumers into signing up for Prime subscriptions that automatically renewed.

According to the lawsuit, Amazon knowingly increased the difficulty of the cancellation process for Prime subscribers seeking to end their membership. The primary purpose of its Prime cancellation process was not to allow subscribers to cancel but to stop them. 

Amazon's leadership slowed or rejected changes that would have made it easier for users to cancel Prime because those changes negatively affected Amazon's bottom line, the brief states. 

In addition, before April 2023, when the platform made changes, the purchase buttons did not indicate that, in some instances, one agreed to join a recurring subscription by completing the purchase. Once subscribed, they add, the cancellation process was challenging to find.

Amazon’s lawsuit claims Prime cancellation was a "labyrinthine" 

The document further notes that Amazon designed that unsubscribe flow to be "labyrinthine" and even referred to it internally as "Iliad," referring to Homer's Greek epic about the long and arduous Trojan War. 

Specifically, there were two possibilities for unsubscribing: by going through various pages on desktop and mobile browsers or by contacting customer service.

The lawsuit alleges that Amazon knew consumers were signing up without consent and the complex and confusing process for canceling Prime. It accuses company executives of failing to take any meaningful action to address the problems until they learn of the FTC's investigation. 

In brief, the FTC notes that Amazon attempted to delay and obstruct the Commission's investigation in multiple instances. Prime membership costs $14.99 per month or $139 per year in exchange for perks such as free shipping on merchandise and access to Amazon's online entertainment programs and movies.

The post The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a new lawsuit against Amazon appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

According to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) 1 in 3 Europeans are buying counterfeit products.

The rise of counterfeits comes as technology makes it easier to buy and sell products online. So counterfeit consumption remains a battleground in Europe. For one in three Europeans, it is acceptable to buy such products when the original price is high. 

However, this figure rises to half for young consumers aged between 15 and 24, according to a new study by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). 

This is one of the main conclusions of this research, carried out among 25,824 people over 15 years of age residing in the Member States of the European Union.

Bulgaria, Spain and Ireland are the top three of Europe’s counterfeit  

13% of Europeans surveyed say they have intentionally bought counterfeits in the last 12 months. This figure rises to 26% in the 15-24 age group, double the EU average. On the other hand, in the case of 55-64-year-olds, it falls to 6% and less than 5% among the over-65s.

In the case of Spain, the figure stands at 20%, above the European average. This means that Spain is the second country in the European Union where most counterfeits have been acquired intentionally, behind Bulgaria with 24%. It is followed by Ireland (19%), Luxembourg (19%), and Romania (18%). The lowest rate is in Finland (8%). 

Among the most mentioned reasons to stop buying counterfeits, the main one is that the original products have a lower price, with 43% of the opinions. 

Otherwise, they would not do it. The risk of negative experiences, such as poor quality goods for 27% of people, safety risks for 25%, and penalties for 21%, is also a key factor for consumers to stop buying counterfeits.

The post EUIPO: 1 in 3 Europeans are buying counterfeit products appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

By Laura de Blas Ballester - Nowadays is of vital importance to take into account the regulations applicable to our website and, therefore, the legal texts that must be implemented on-site.

When users browse your website, you must convey trust and transparency. In this way, we demonstrate, in addition to compliance with applicable regulations, respect for the rights of the users of our website.

Legal aspects to considered

Some of the fundamental legal reasons and aspects you need to consider while we deal with texts for your website are the following. 

• Legal compliance: Using legal texts, you comply with applicable laws and regulations, avoiding possible lawsuits or sanctions by the authorities or affected third parties.

• Protection of users' rights: You will comply with current data protection regulations, guaranteeing users' rights, transparency, and accessibility.

• Trust and credibility: Complying with legal rules and regulations on your website is a sign of seriousness and commitment to your users, which can improve confidence in your brand and increase the chances of conversion.

It is essential to comply with the regulations when creating a web page, as this ensures legality, security, and trust in the site, in addition to protecting users' rights.

Wich legal text should you include?

The core texts that any online business should include in their website, according to the current European legislation, should be the following - keep in mind these are the ones referenced by the Spanish legislation; if you live in any other country, you should search the corresponding equivalent - : 

• Legal Notice: It must be included based on Article 10 of Law 34/2002, of July 11, 2002, on information society services and electronic commerce (hereinafter, "LSSI"). This would include all the Entity's identification data. 

• Privacy Policy: It must be included based on the RGPD and the LOPDGDD, regulating the purposes of the processing of personal data of users of the Platform by the Entity. 

• Cookies Policy: In accordance with the LSSI, for the use of cookies, it will be mandatory to have a Notice (Banner) and a Cookies Policy to obtain the informed consent of the users of the website. 

• General terms and conditions of contracting: In the case of being able to purchase products or services through the website must be included all the information about the purchase process, payment methods, guarantees, and returns... among others.

All these documents should be available and easily accessible on your website for all visitors.  Please remember that the aforementioned texts should be written in the corresponding legal format by a lawyer or by any other professional with the certifications required to guarantee a proper legal redaction of such content. 

For these reasons, we strongly advise all business owners to search for professional legal counsel such as the one we provide for our clients in Spain. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about this text or any other legal-related issue. 

About the Author: Laura de Blas Ballester is a lawyer at Blas Legal, specializing in several areas, such as Intellectual Property, Personal Data Protection, Digital Law, and New Technologies.

The post Why Is it Important to Include Legal Texts and Disclaimers on Your Website? appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

According to the new Platform Tax Transparency Act - DAC7 - online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, and Vinted will now have to report sales made on their platforms by end users to the tax office. 

This is part of a new set of EU legislation to keep e-commerce fair and avoid possible abuse of privileged positions, monopolistic practices, or tax evasion. Private sellers will be reported when they make over 2,000 euros or have over 30 transactions per year.

🔥Do you want to know more about international commerce and e-commerce and get all the tips and news that might give your company an edge? Subscribe to Cross-Border Magazine and get your digital copy now for free!🔥

Technically, the DAC7 was supposed to force online marketplaces to report European users' sales starting this January 1st. Yet, for many European countries, the deadline has been pushed to the end of Q1.

What changes will the DAC7 bring?

DAC7 directive will mean that operators of digital platforms such as Amazon, Airbnb, or eBay are obliged to apply due diligence rules and comply with specific registration and information provision obligations. 

Thus:

- They will have to apply rules and procedures on sellers to obtain specific data to comply with the provision of information to the Tax Administration.

- The activities affected are the so-called "relevant activities", namely leasing and temporary assignment of real estate and means of transportation, personal services, and sale of goods.

- They will be obliged to register in the census.

- Likewise, they will have an obligation to provide information to the Tax Administration. Sellers that are public administrations and listed entities are excluded from this information.

- The information obtained will be exchanged with the seller's Member States of residence and, in the case of leasing or transfer of use of the real estate, with the Member State where the real estate is located.

- Due diligence procedures will be implemented to ensure the veracity of the above data, particularly those relating to the seller's residence.

- Joint inspections at the European level will be included, involving simultaneous controls and the mobility of tax officials between Member States.

- It is planned to include a penalty regime for these reporting obligations. 

Among other main points. 

Some marketplaces are excluded

Marketplaces that can prove that the information has been communicated by other operators - being them only a transition marketplace - or that are registered in non-European jurisdictions where international treaties or conventions apply (the information is sent to all Member States), are excluded from the DAC7.

Finally, the provisions relating to joint inspections will start to apply as of January 1, 2024.

The post DAC7 will force marketplaces in the EU to report sales appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.