Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Platform Council
Summary record of the fourth session of the Platform Council
Meeting details
| Item | Record |
|---|---|
| Date | 12 May 2026 |
| Asia-Pacific sitting | 06:00 UTC |
| Europe/Africa/Americas sitting | 16:00 UTC |
| Chair | Nadia Cherif, Chair of the Platform Council |
| Attendance | The Council had 200 members from 44 countries as of this date. The session-specific attendance count was not recorded in the information available for publication. |
| Agenda | Review of evidence on account suspensions and funds held; application of the five-part pattern test to PL-001; consideration of a proposed platform fairness response; decisions and follow-up. |
Record of proceedings
The Platform Council held its fourth session on 12 May 2026 in two sittings, at 06:00 UTC for Asia-Pacific and at 16:00 UTC for Europe, Africa and the Americas. Nadia Cherif chaired both sittings. The two sittings formed one session and considered the same agenda. The Council’s membership stood at 200 members from 44 countries. A sitting-specific attendance count was not included in the record available for publication, and the membership total is not presented as a count of those present.
The Chair recalled that PL-001 arose from the Council’s call for evidence of 10 February 2026 and concerned account suspension, listing removal and funds held by digital platforms. The purpose of the session was to assess whether the reported problem showed a sufficiently consistent pattern to justify developing a common practice proposal. The session was not asked to determine the merits of any individual dispute, identify a company, or decide the outcome of any member’s case.
The Chair reviewed the Council’s established five-part pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. Members were reminded that a finding under the test described a recurring practice reported by members; it did not establish that every platform followed that practice or that every report had been independently adjudicated. The Council was to distinguish evidence of repeated conditions from conclusions about motive or legal responsibility.
The Secretariat’s figures as of 12 May were placed before the Council. The Platform Council had 200 members from 44 countries and had received 947 reports from 50 countries. The median amount at stake in the Platform Council reports was approximately US$4,118. The report categories recorded 419 situations involving funds held and 528 involving account suspension. These category counts were presented as recorded in the evidence file and were not used to infer that every case had identical facts or consequences.
The Council noted that 334 Platform Council reports had been filed in the preceding 30 days. Members considered that recent reporting alongside the cumulative total, rather than treating either measure in isolation. The geographic spread of reports included the United States, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, the United Kingdom, France, the Philippines and Italy among the leading countries by report count. The Council did not interpret the reporting totals as a measure of national prevalence, since the record did not establish a common reporting rate across countries.
In the Asia-Pacific sitting, Mei Lin Tan of Singapore, described the practical difficulty of receiving a notice that did not specify which listing or action had triggered a restriction. She emphasized that a business could not make a useful correction if the reason provided was too general to identify the issue. She considered a written, specific explanation important even where a platform needed to protect its systems from abuse.
In the same sitting, Arjun Rao of Bengaluru, India, discussed the effect of a payout hold on routine obligations. He distinguished the initial decision to pause a payment from the duration of the pause, noting that uncertainty about when funds might be released could complicate payroll and supplier planning. His contribution supported consideration of a time limit and a clear review route, rather than a rule that would prevent all temporary holds.
In the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, Camila Nogueira of São Paulo, Brazil, described the value of a review by a person when a restriction appeared to follow an automated process. She said that a correction mechanism needed to do more than accept a further submission: it should allow a reviewer to consider the member’s explanation and relevant records. She did not suggest that automation was itself evidence of an improper decision.
Lucía Herrera of Mexico City, Mexico, focused on consistency. She reported that members could encounter different explanations or response routes for similar restrictions, making it difficult to understand what evidence was required. She supported the Council’s examination of whether basic procedural protections should remain available in each country in which a platform operated, while recognizing that local law and the details of a case could differ.
Giulia Conti of Milan, Italy, addressed the information needed to challenge a decision. She considered that a notice should identify the measure taken, state a specific reason and explain how to seek review. She also cautioned that a written notice alone would not resolve the problem if no timely review followed. Her contribution was recorded as support for treating notice, human review and time limits as related safeguards rather than isolated requirements.
Samuel Okafor of Lagos, Nigeria, spoke to spread and corroboration. He noted that members in different markets described comparable uncertainty about restrictions and held funds, but that the Council should avoid treating a similar experience as proof that every platform used the same process. He supported retaining anonymized reports and comparing the details of the reported events when drafting any proposed standard.
The Council considered relevant existing legal approaches as context, not as a substitute for its evidence review. Members noted that article 4 of the European Union Platform-to-Business Regulation addresses statements of reasons when a provider restricts or suspends a business user, and provides for at least 30 days’ notice before termination of the whole service.1 They also noted that article 17 of the Digital Services Act provides for statements of reasons in specified moderation decisions, including information on whether automated means were used.2 The Council did not claim that those provisions applied to every report before it or that they established the proposed standard for all jurisdictions.
On Volume, the Council found that the accumulated 947 Platform Council reports constituted a substantial body of evidence for review. On Frequency, it considered the reported recurrence, including 334 reports filed in the previous 30 days, sufficient to show that the issue was not confined to a single event. These findings related to the reports received by Reseated and did not establish a global incidence rate.
On Consistency, members found recurring features across accounts: a restriction or payment hold, an explanation that members considered insufficiently specific, difficulty obtaining review, or uncertainty about when held funds would be released. The Council recognized that not every report contained each feature and that the sequence and circumstances differed. The test did not require identical experiences; it required sufficiently repeated characteristics to support examination of a common practice.
On Spread, the Council found that reports came from a wide range of countries, including 50 countries represented in the Platform Council report total. It treated that breadth as evidence that the issue was not limited to one market. Members reiterated that report totals by country could not, without comparable participation and reporting rates, be read as a ranking of the underlying incidence of platform restrictions.
On Corroboration, the Council considered the repeated reports, the information recorded in the evidence process, and the consistency of core features across member accounts. It concluded that the pattern had sufficient corroboration for drafting. The Council did not certify the truth of every individual account, make findings about named companies, or replace any platform’s or public authority’s review of a particular case.
Following consideration of all five parts, the Council determined that PL-001 passed the pattern test on 12 May 2026. The finding authorized the next stage of work: preparation of a draft proposal for member and public consultation. It did not adopt a fairness standard, prescribe a final text, or make a recommendation to any named chief executive at this stage.
The Council identified the central proposal for drafting as a set of procedural protections before account suspension, listing removal, payout hold or fee change: written notice; a specific reason; review by a person; and a time limit on payout holds. Members also supported examining how those protections could operate across the countries in which a platform operates. The Council left the precise scope, definitions, exceptions, implementation details and evidence-handling provisions open for drafting and subsequent consultation.
The Chair emphasized that the proposal should describe practices rather than accuse individual companies. Member accounts used general descriptions such as “a large marketplace” or “a payment provider”; the public record would not identify a member’s business. Any draft should distinguish the member-facing protection sought from questions about a particular platform’s internal systems or the legal rules applying in a particular country.
The Council agreed that its drafting work should take account of different types of platform activity and should not assume that account suspension, listing removal, payout hold and fee change were interchangeable actions. The proposed safeguards were to be examined in relation to each action, with attention to the notice needed, the information a person reviewing the decision would require, and a reasonable limit or status update for a payment hold. No numerical maximum for a hold was adopted at this session.
The Council further agreed that consultation materials should invite evidence on the practical operation of the proposed protections. Areas for consultation would include how a specific reason could be given without disclosing information that must reasonably remain confidential; what constitutes meaningful review by a person; how members should be informed about the review route; and how a time limit could account for a hold that requires further investigation. Those questions were recorded as matters for the draft and consultation, not as settled rules.
The Council noted the importance of preserving privacy in the preparation of evidence summaries. The Secretariat was to continue using aggregated figures and anonymized descriptions in public materials. No member was required to identify a business publicly, and no speaker was asked to provide identifying case details in the session record.
The Council recorded that the first public campaign, “Suspended Without Notice”, had reached 1,180 participants against a goal of 1,000, and that the “Payout Hold Clock” and “Co-sign PL-001” activities had also formed part of the evidence and engagement work. The Council treated campaign participation as a sign of engagement, not as a substitute for the five-part assessment or as proof of the facts in any individual report.
The following actions were agreed. The Secretariat, under the Chair’s coordination, would prepare the initial draft of PL-001, setting out the proposed protections and identifying unresolved questions for consultation. The Secretariat would maintain the anonymized and aggregated evidence record used to support the draft. Members wishing to provide additional evidence could do so through the established PL-001 evidence process. The Chair would bring the draft back to the Council before it was released for public consultation.
The Council agreed that no letter to a chief executive would be sent on the basis of this session alone. Such correspondence would follow the applicable Assembly process after the draft had been considered, consulted upon and put to the required decision. The session therefore made no claim about the position of any company or chief executive.
The Chair thanked the members who contributed in both sittings and confirmed that the Council would continue to record the basis for each stage of its work: reports, pattern test, draft, consultation, Assembly decision and any subsequent correspondence. The Council agreed that the reasons for a finding should remain understandable to members who had submitted evidence and to readers who had not participated in the proceedings.
The next session was scheduled for 2 June 2026, in the regular two-sitting format: Asia-Pacific at 06:00 UTC and Europe/Africa/Americas at 16:00 UTC. The session would coincide with the planned opening of public consultation on PL-001, subject to completion and circulation of the draft. The Council would review how members and other interested parties could submit comments and how those comments would be recorded and considered.
Decision
On 12 May 2026, the Platform Council determined that PL-001 passed the five-part pattern test—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—and directed preparation of a draft for consultation. No final standard was adopted.
Sources
Signed: Nadia Cherif
Chair, Platform Council
12 May 2026
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.