United StatesUse Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Platform Council
A May letter to the members
Members,
May was the month our work moved from a pattern we could describe to a draft we can now put in front of people for criticism. That is progress, but it is not a finish line. The Platform Fairness Standard is still a draft. Our responsibility now is to make sure it is clear enough to use, strong enough to matter, and honest about what the evidence does and does not show.
What moved this month
On 5 May, the Assembly opened its pledge program for businesses willing to put fairer practices into operation. On 12 May, the Platform Council certified that PL-001 met all five parts of our pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread, and Corroboration. That certification is recorded in RC/PL/2026/N.2. On 19 May, the UK Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. And on 26 May, the Council released draft resolution RC/PL/2026/L.1, the Platform Fairness Standard.
The draft asks for four basic protections before an 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. It also asks that the same protections apply in every country where a platform operates. The point is not to prevent legitimate enforcement or necessary changes. It is to make consequential decisions understandable and reviewable, especially when a small business has little time or cash to absorb an unexplained interruption.
The draft is not the adopted standard. Consultation is scheduled to open on 2 June and run through 2 July. We need members to tell us where the language is vague, where it could create unintended consequences, and what a business would actually need in order to use these protections.
The numbers behind the work
As of today, Reseated has 759 members in 49 countries. Members have filed 1,980 reports from 50 countries. The difference matters: a report can come from a country where we do not yet have a seated member. Across councils, the reports are: Platform, 1,106; Cashflow, 533; Fair Play, 129; Red Tape, 79; Trade, 74; Team, 33; and Resilience, 26.
Within the Platform Council, 236 members come from 45 countries, while its 1,106 reports come from 50. The median amount at stake is approximately US$4,104. The reports include 480 situations involving funds held and 626 involving an account suspension. In the last 30 days alone, 307 Platform reports were filed. These are not just counts for a presentation. They tell us why a problem can be urgent even when the amount at stake would look small to a large institution: for a small firm, that amount may be the money needed to meet an immediate obligation.
Our “Suspended Without Notice” campaign has reached 1,180 participants against a goal of 1,000. The “Co-sign PL-001” campaign has gathered 3,120 co-signers. Those numbers show interest, but they do not substitute for a careful standard or the consultation now ahead.
The scale of small businesses is also worth keeping in view. The United Nations estimates that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises account for about 90% of businesses worldwide, 60–70% of employment, and roughly half of global GDP.1 The International Labour Organization estimates that MSMEs provide around 70% of employment and that about 80% operate in the informal economy.2 These are broad global estimates, not a description of every country or business. They are a reminder that the rules governing access to markets and money reach far beyond a narrow category of firms.
One member’s account
One anonymous member described finding out that a marketplace account had been suspended only after a routine login failed. The notice that followed did not identify which listing or activity had triggered the decision. The member submitted documents through the platform’s review process, but could not tell whether a person had
assessed them or when the payout connected to the account would be released. In the meantime, the member had bills due and no useful date to plan around.
I am not naming the member, the business, or the marketplace. The point is not to turn one account into a verdict on any company. It is to show the practical difference between “a decision was made” and “a person can understand the reason, ask for a review, and know when money will be available.” Our draft is aimed at that difference.
What we learned
First, a pattern does not become reliable just because many people have experienced something upsetting. We have to test whether reports are numerous, recurring, consistent in their features, spread across places, and corroborated. That discipline is what allowed the Council to certify PL-001 rather than move directly from concern to prescription.
Second, a rule that works in one country but disappears in another leaves businesses with uneven protection. The draft’s cross-country approach is deliberate. Existing rules already show that specific obligations can be set out. For instance, the EU Platform-to-Business Regulation provides for a statement of reasons when a business user’s service is restricted or suspended.3 Our task is to propose a clear operational standard that members can take to decision-makers, not to claim that one existing law applies everywhere.
Third, details matter. “Fair treatment” is too broad to help someone whose funds are held. A specific reason, a human review, and a time limit can be understood, tested, and improved. Consultation is where we find out whether the draft has made those ideas concrete enough.
What comes next
2 June: consultation on RC/PL/2026/L.1 opens.
2 June–2 July: members, businesses, partners, and other interested people can comment on the draft. Please bring cases, but protect private information and do not identify your own business unless you choose to do so.
After consultation: the Council will review the submissions, explain proposed changes, and prepare the text for an Assembly ballot. There is no adoption decision yet.
I want to thank Ana in São Paulo, Malik in Nairobi, Elena in Madrid, and Jo in Manila for being part of this month’s work and helping keep our attention on the people who have to live with these rules. I also thank every member who filed a report, checked a detail, or took time to challenge an assumption. Our process is stronger when it can withstand disagreement.
We launched this work to make small-business experience legible without making members expose themselves. This month, we made a draft. In June, we must test it in public and be prepared to change it. That is how a serious standard earns its way forward.
Robert NikicAdvisory Council Chair, Reseated CouncilsUnited States