Resolution adopted by the Founders Assembly: the Platform Fairness Standard

The Founders Assembly,

Recalling the Founders Charter and the Rules of Procedure of the Founders Assembly, including the Assembly’s responsibility to consider problems reported by members, test whether reported patterns are sufficiently established, consult on proposed fixes and decide recommendations by ballot,

Recognizing that small businesses may depend on digital platforms to reach customers, receive payments, list goods and services, and continue ordinary operations, while the platform may make decisions that materially affect access to those functions,

Recognizing that the consequences of an account suspension, listing removal, payout hold or fee change may extend beyond the immediate transaction and may affect a business’s ability to meet payroll, pay suppliers, fulfil orders and maintain customer relationships,

Noting that the European Union’s Platform-to-Business Regulation provides for a statement of reasons when a platform restricts or suspends a business user, and requires at least 30 days’ notice before terminating the whole service, subject to the Regulation’s provisions and exceptions,¹

Noting also that the Digital Services Act requires statements of reasons for specified content-moderation decisions and provides for transparency reporting, including a public database of statements of reasons,²

Further noting that Japan’s Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms requires designated platforms

to disclose specified matters, including conditions concerning the withholding of payments,³

Affirming that these legal frameworks differ in scope and application, and that the present Standard is a practical recommendation for consistent platform practice rather than a statement that any one legal rule applies in every country,

Considering the Platform Council’s evidence and the pattern-test certification recorded in RC/PL/2026/N.2, the draft and revised draft of the Platform Fairness Standard, and the public consultation conducted from 2 June to 2 July 2026, which received 487 comments,

Determining that the proposed protections address decisions with substantial potential consequences for business users, and that a clear notice, intelligible reasons, review by a person and a defined limit on payout holds are practical minimum safeguards,

Adopts the following resolution:

1. Adoption. The Founders Assembly adopts the Platform Fairness Standard set out in the annex to this resolution.

2. Core protections. The Standard calls on platforms, before imposing an account suspension, removing a listing, placing a hold on a payout or changing a fee applicable to a business user, to provide written notice, a specific reason, an opportunity for review by a person and, in the case of a payout hold, a time limit. The protections are to be available consistently in every country in which the platform operates.

3. Application. The Standard is directed to platform practices affecting business users. It describes recommended conduct and does not identify or make a finding against any individual company. It does not replace applicable law, determine whether a particular decision was lawful, or prevent a platform from taking urgent action where necessary to address a credible and immediate risk, provided that the safeguards in the annex are applied as soon as practicable.

4. Implementation letters. The Secretariat is requested to transmit the adopted Standard to the chief executives identified by the Assembly for the first implementation round, with a request that each platform consider adopting the Standard and identify a responsible point of contact. The letters are invitations to act; they do not represent acceptance, endorsement or a commitment by any recipient.

5. Tracking. The Secretariat shall record each implementation seat using the Assembly’s status categories: Proposed, Letter sent, Delivered, Replied, Signed and Empty chair. A status shall be recorded only when supported by a documented event. The absence of a reply shall not be represented as agreement or refusal.

6. Reporting. The Secretariat shall report to the Assembly on the transmission of the Standard and on documented responses or commitments. It shall distinguish adoption of the Standard by the Assembly from any subsequent decision by a platform to adopt or implement it.

7. Interpretation. The annex shall be read as a single practical standard. Where a platform’s existing process provides stronger protection to a business user, nothing in this resolution calls for that protection to be reduced. Where applicable law provides a different or additional requirement, the platform remains responsible for complying with that law.

8. Entry into effect. This resolution takes effect upon adoption by the Founders Assembly on 13 August 2026.

Note on the vote

The Assembly adopted this resolution by ballot on 13 August 2026. The result was 86.4 per cent voting yes, with turnout of 58 per cent. The result records the Assembly’s decision on the Standard; it does not establish that any platform has adopted it.

Annex

Platform Fairness Standard

Section 1. Purpose and guiding principles

1. This Standard sets out minimum procedural protections for business users when a platform takes, or proposes to take, one of the actions listed in Section 2. Its purpose is to make consequential decisions understandable, reviewable and subject to a defined process.

2. A business user should be able to identify what action is being taken, what conduct or circumstance led to it, what the user can do to seek review, and when the platform will next act. A notice that merely repeats a general policy, names a broad category of concern or directs the user to search a policy library does not, by itself, meet that purpose.

3. Platforms should apply the same protections to business users in every country in which they operate. The means of delivery may reflect local requirements and available communication channels, but the substance of the protections should not depend on the user’s country, language market or place of registration.

4. The Standard does not require a platform to disclose confidential information, personal information about another person, security-sensitive details or material whose disclosure is prohibited by law. Any limitation on disclosure should be no broader than necessary. The platform should still give the business user a sufficiently specific explanation to understand the basis of the action and to make a meaningful request for review.

5. The Standard is a recommended practice for platform decision-making. It does not displace applicable law, contractual rights or obligations, or a platform’s responsibility to address a genuine and immediate safety, security or legal risk. Where urgent action is necessary, the platform should provide the protections as soon as practicable after taking that action.

Section 2. Scope

1. This Standard applies to a platform’s dealings with a business user using the platform to offer, advertise, sell, distribute or receive payment for goods or services, or to access a material business function provided by the platform.

2. The covered actions are:

   1. the suspension or disabling of a business user’s account, whether in whole or in material part;

   2. the removal of a listing, offer or other business-facing content from the platform, or a restriction that makes it materially unavailable to users;

   3. a hold on, delay of, or restriction on a payout otherwise due to the business user; and

   4. a change to a fee charged to the business user, including a change in the amount, rate, basis or manner of calculation of that fee.

3. A change is material for the purposes of this Standard when it alters a business user’s ability to use a covered function, offer an item or service, receive funds, or understand the amount or basis of a fee. A platform should not avoid the Standard by describing a material restriction as a change to eligibility, visibility, access, account status or another label.

4. The Standard applies whether a decision is made by an automated system, a person or a combination of the two. The platform remains responsible for providing the notice, reasons and review process required here, including when an automated system identifies or initiates the action.

5. The Standard applies to decisions affecting an individual business user and to decisions affecting a defined group of business users. For a group-wide change, the platform may provide a common notice describing the change, but it should identify the particular application of that change to each affected user where individual circumstances are relevant.

Section 3. Written notice

1. Before taking a covered action, the platform should provide the business user with written notice. Notice may be delivered electronically through the account interface, by email or through another durable channel reasonably likely to reach the user. A notice should remain accessible to the user after delivery, unless retention is prohibited by law.

2. The notice should be delivered sufficiently in advance to allow the user to understand the proposed action and seek review before it takes effect. The length of notice should reflect the nature and urgency of the action, the user’s ability to respond, and the likely impact on the business. Where applicable law requires a particular notice period, the platform should meet that requirement.

3. The notice should state, in plain language:

   1. the action proposed or taken, the part of the account, listing, payout or fee affected, and when the action will begin or has begun;

   2. whether the action is temporary, continuing or final, and the conditions, if any, for its review, expiry or reversal;

   3. the specific reason for the action, as required by Section 4;

   4. how the business user may request review by a person, what information may be provided, and how to submit it;

   5. any applicable response deadline and the expected time for the platform to acknowledge and decide a review request; and

   6. where the action concerns a payout hold, the amount or transactions affected, the basis for the hold, and the applicable time limit or review point under Section 6.

4. A platform should not treat a notice as sufficient merely because a message was generated or made available in an interface. It should take reasonable steps to deliver the notice to the business user’s contact channel on file and should make the notice accessible in a form the user can reasonably retain or retrieve.

5. If the platform cannot provide advance notice because delay would create a credible and immediate risk of harm, fraud, security compromise or violation of law, it may take the necessary action without prior notice. It should document the reason for proceeding urgently and provide the written notice and specific reasons promptly after the action, together with a means of requesting human review.

Section 4. Specific reasons

1. The platform should explain the principal facts and rule or condition on which the action is based. The explanation should be specific enough for the business user to understand what conduct, transaction, listing, account activity or other circumstance is at issue and what response may be relevant.

2. Where the platform relies on a contractual term, policy or eligibility condition, it should identify the term or condition and explain how the platform considers it to apply. A link to the relevant text may supplement the explanation but should not replace it.

3. Where the action concerns particular content, a transaction or a payout, the platform should identify it with enough detail to permit the user to locate it. Where several items are affected for the same reason, the platform may group them if the notice makes the affected items reasonably identifiable.

4. If the decision was made or materially supported by automated means, the platform should say so and describe, in understandable terms, the role of those means in the decision. This does not require disclosure of protected technical details. It should not prevent the user from learning whether a person has considered the case.

5. Where a lawful or necessary limit prevents full disclosure, the platform should state that information has been withheld and give the most specific explanation it can provide without breaching that limit. A generic assertion that the platform cannot disclose details should not be used where a more meaningful explanation is possible.

6. Reasons should be accurate to the information available when the decision is made. If the platform later relies on a materially different reason, it should notify the business user of that reason and provide an opportunity to address it through the review process.

Section 5. Review by a person

1. The platform should provide a readily accessible way for the business user to request review of a covered action by a person. A review process that consists only of automated prompts, automated classification or an unmonitored form does not meet this requirement.

2. The reviewer should have access to the notice, the reasons given, the relevant information available to the platform and any material submitted by the business user. The reviewer should be able to reconsider the action and correct an error, including by restoring access, reinstating a listing, releasing a payout or correcting a fee where appropriate.

3. The business user should be able to provide relevant information and explain why the platform’s reasons are incomplete or incorrect. The process should permit a user to identify a concrete factual error, provide supporting material and ask for a proportionate outcome, without requiring the user to repeat information already held by the platform where that information is reasonably accessible to the reviewer.

4. The platform should acknowledge a review request and provide a decision within a stated and reasonable period. The period should reflect the urgency and consequences of the action. If the platform cannot decide within the stated period, it should tell the user why, provide an updated expected date and explain whether the action remains in force while review is pending.

5. The decision on review should be communicated in writing. It should state whether the original action is upheld, changed or reversed, give the principal reasons for that outcome, and explain any further review route available within the platform. A response that merely repeats the original notice without addressing the user’s material submissions is not a substantive review.

6. Where the platform confirms that the action was based on an error, it should take reasonable steps to correct the decision and its consequences promptly. Depending on the action, correction may include restoring account or listing access, releasing a payout, revising a fee or correcting the relevant account record.

1. The Founders Assembly adopts the Platform Fairness Standard annexed to the resolution. The Standard is intended as a practical baseline for fair treatment of business users and does not replace or reduce rights or obligations under applicable law.

2. The Assembly invites platforms serving business users to publish how they implement the Standard, identify a contact point for questions about implementation and review their procedures regularly with attention to the effects on small businesses.

3. The Assembly encourages business users, partners and other interested persons to submit evidence on implementation and its effects. Such evidence may inform later review of the Standard under the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.

Section 6. Payout holds

1. Where a platform places a hold on funds otherwise payable to a business user, it should provide written notice promptly. The notice should identify the amount affected, the date the hold begins, the specific reason, the steps the user can take to address the matter, the review route and the expected date of release or reassessment.

2. A payout hold should be limited to the amount reasonably connected to the stated concern. Where only part of a balance is reasonably in question, the platform should not hold the remainder without a separate, specific justification.

3. A hold should have a stated end date. As a general standard, the platform should release the funds within 30 calendar days. Where a documented legal obligation or a specific, substantiated risk makes release within that period inappropriate, the platform may extend the hold for a defined period. It should notify the business user before the current period expires, explain the reason for the extension to the extent permitted by law, state the new expected end date and provide a review route.

4. An extension should not be automatic or indefinite. The platform should reassess the basis for the hold at least every 30 calendar days and release funds promptly when the reason for withholding them no longer applies. If an applicable legal requirement prevents the platform from disclosing information or releasing funds, the platform should explain what it can, when it can, and should not suggest that the hold is based on a different reason.

5. Where the platform has not reached a decision by the stated end date, it should tell the business user what remains unresolved, what steps are being taken and when the next update will be provided. A continuing hold should be supported by a current reason, not merely by the fact that a previous hold was imposed.

6. A platform should provide a readily accessible route to challenge a hold, including its amount or duration, and should consider relevant information supplied by the business user. Review should be conducted by a person as set out in Section 5. The platform should communicate the outcome in writing and, where the hold is reduced or lifted, arrange release without undue delay.

7. Nothing in this section requires a platform to disclose information where disclosure is prohibited by law, to release funds where applicable law requires continued withholding, or to disregard a substantiated concern. Any exception should be no broader or longer than necessary, and the platform should provide the user with as much meaningful information as it can lawfully provide.

Section 7. Fee changes

1. Before changing a fee, commission, mandatory charge or other price term that applies to a business user, the platform should give written notice in advance. The notice should identify the affected fee, the current and proposed amount or method of calculation, the effective date, the business-user activity to which it applies and any action the user may take if it does not accept the change.

2. The notice should be provided at least 30 calendar days before the change takes effect. A platform should allow a longer period where the change is complex, requires a significant business decision or would reasonably require changes to the user’s prices, operations or customer commitments.

3. A fee change should not be applied retroactively to a completed transaction or to a period before the stated effective date. Where a fee is calculated by a formula, the platform should explain the components and provide a reasonably usable case of how the change affects a typical transaction or account, where such a case can be given without misleading the user.

4. If the platform considers that an urgent change is necessary to comply with law or to address a serious and immediate risk, it should explain the basis for the shorter notice period and provide as much advance notice as is reasonably possible. The exception should be limited to the part of the change that is necessary in the circumstances. A platform should not rely on an urgent-change provision merely to avoid ordinary advance notice.

5. Where a business user disputes whether a fee has been applied correctly, the platform should provide an accessible route to raise the issue and a written explanation of the result. The explanation should identify the relevant fee term and, where reasonably available, the transaction or calculation at issue. A fee dispute should not by itself be treated as grounds for a suspension or other adverse action.

6. Where the platform confirms an error in a fee or calculation, it should correct the charge and take reasonable steps to correct its consequences. This may include crediting or refunding an amount wrongly charged and correcting account records or statements.

Section 8. Consistent protection across countries

1. A platform should apply the protections in this Standard in every country where it provides the relevant service to business users. A user should not receive weaker notice, explanation, review or payout-hold protections solely because the user is based in a particular country or uses a country-specific version of the service.

2. Where applicable law requires a stronger protection, the platform should follow that stronger protection. The Standard is a common minimum for fair process; it is not a basis for reducing statutory or contractual rights. For instance, the EU Platform-to-Business Regulation provides for a statement of reasons in specified restriction or suspension circumstances and at least 30 days’ notice before termination of the whole service to a business user.¹

3. A platform may adapt the language, format or delivery method of a notice to local needs, provided the adaptation does not make the notice less clear or less usable. Where a platform has offered the business user a means of communication in a particular language, it should make reasonable efforts to provide significant notices and review outcomes in that language or explain how the user can obtain an understandable version.

4. A platform should make the same procedural protections available to small and large business users. The process may take account of the urgency, complexity and consequences of a case, but should not deny a small business a meaningful explanation or review because its account is low value or its user has limited capacity to navigate a complex process.

5. Where a platform operates through local entities, payment arrangements or country-specific terms, it should make clear which entity or service is responsible for receiving a notice, review request or complaint. Internal allocation of responsibility should not prevent the business user from reaching an accountable review process.

Section 9. Records and accountability

1. A platform should keep a record of each covered action sufficient to explain what occurred and to support review. Depending on the action, the record should include the notice, the stated reasons, the effective dates, the materials considered, the review request and outcome, and any correction made.

2. Records should be retained for a reasonable period having regard to the nature of the action, the likely time for a dispute to be raised and applicable legal requirements. They should be handled securely and used in accordance with applicable privacy and data-protection obligations.

3. A platform should periodically assess whether its covered actions and review processes are operating as intended. Where feasible and appropriate, it should examine aggregate information such as the number and type of covered actions, the proportion reviewed, the time taken to resolve reviews, the proportion changed or reversed and the time taken to release held funds.

4. Aggregate reporting should be designed to identify process problems without disclosing confidential business information or personal data. A platform should take reasonable steps to ensure that any published figures are explained, consistently defined and not presented in a way that could mislead users about the operation or outcome of the process.

5. When an assessment identifies recurring errors or avoidable delays, the platform should consider corrective measures, including changes to guidance, systems, staffing or review procedures. Where a platform identifies a material process change relevant to business users, it should communicate that change in an accessible manner.

Section 10. Accessibility and communication

1. Notices, explanations and review processes should be easy to find and use. A platform should avoid relying solely on a message placed in an account area that the affected user can no longer access. Where access has been restricted, the platform should provide another reasonable way to receive the notice and submit a review request.

2. Written reasons should use direct language and identify the conduct, transaction, listing, payment or fee at issue with enough detail for the business user to understand and respond. A generic policy reference, unexplained code or statement that the platform has made a decision is not, by itself, a specific reason.

3. Where automated means were used to make or materially inform a decision, the platform should say so and describe the role of those means in language the business user can understand. This Standard’s emphasis on explanation is consistent with the European Union Digital Services Act’s requirement for statements of reasons in specified moderation decisions, including an indication of whether automated means were used.²

4. A platform should make clear how a user can ask for a person to review a covered action. The user should not have to guess which form, category or support channel applies, and should not be required to submit repeated requests through unrelated channels to obtain a substantive response.

5. Where a user cannot reasonably use the standard channel because of disability, language, connectivity or loss of account access, the platform should provide an alternative reasonable route. The platform should not treat use of an alternative route as a reason to delay or refuse review.

Section 11. Limits and relationship to other processes

1. This Standard concerns fair process for covered platform actions. It does not require a platform to permit conduct that is unlawful, disregard a safety or security risk, disclose confidential information, or continue a service where the platform has a lawful basis to end it. It requires the platform, subject to applicable law, to explain its action, provide a usable route to review and limit any restriction or hold to what is justified.

2. The Standard does not determine whether an individual platform decision is correct, create a guarantee that a review will change the outcome, or replace a court, regulator, ombuds process or other dispute-resolution mechanism. A platform should not represent that its internal review is the business user’s only possible remedy where other rights or routes may be available.

3. Where another applicable process provides stronger or more specific protections, the platform should follow that process as well as this Standard to the extent they can operate together. The Japanese Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms, for instance, includes disclosure obligations concerning conditions for withholding payments for designated platforms.³

4. Nothing in the Standard prevents a platform from providing protections beyond its requirements, resolving a matter in the business user’s favour without a formal review, or adopting a shorter decision period or payout-hold period.

Section 12. Implementation and review

1. A platform adopting the Standard should identify the policies, procedures and user communications through which it will implement each section. It should assign responsibility for implementation and ensure that staff conducting reviews have the authority, information and training needed to assess the case rather than merely repeat the original decision.

2. Implementation should include a way for business users to identify a covered action, request review and receive a record of the outcome. A platform should make its relevant user-facing procedures available in a stable, accessible location and keep them current when the process changes.

3. Adoption of the Standard is voluntary as a statement of practice and does not by itself establish that a platform has met every requirement of applicable law. A platform should describe accurately which commitments it has adopted and should not claim full implementation where material parts are not in place.

4. The Founders Assembly may consider evidence about the clarity, accessibility and effects of the Standard through its established reporting, consultation and ballot processes. Any proposed revision should be based on evidence and put through the applicable Assembly procedure.

Sources

1. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, including Article 4. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1150/oj/eng

2. European Commission, Digital Services Act Transparency Database: Questions and Answers. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/dsa-transparency-database-questions-and-answers

3. Japan Law Translation, Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms. https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4533/en

Notes and sources

Sources

1. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, including Article 4
2. European Commission, Digital Services Act Transparency Database: Questions and Answers
3. Japan Law Translation, Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms
4. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, including Article 4
5. European Commission, Digital Services Act Transparency Database: Questions and Answers
6. Japan Law Translation, Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms