Letter from the table: What my records show about a payout hold

To the Platform Council

I support the draft Platform Fairness Standard. I do so because I have a record of what happened to my account, and because that record is more exact than my memory of the anxiety. The dates are in emails and account notices. The amounts are in my bookkeeping and bank statements. Together, they show why a person should receive a specific reason, a review by a person, and a time limit when money is held.

On 3 February 2026, I received an account notice saying that my account was under review. From that day, my listings were not available to customers. The notice did not identify a transaction, a particular item of information, or a rule that I could address. I could still enter the account, but I could not carry on ordinary activity there.

There were two payouts due in February: €2,460 on 6 February and €1,380 on 13 February. Neither arrived on its expected date. The total held was €3,840. I wrote to support on 4 February to ask what had caused the restriction and what documents were needed. On 11 February, I uploaded the identity and account documents requested through the platform’s process. I kept the upload confirmation.

After that, I contacted support again on 20 February and 27 February. I was told that the review was continuing, but I was not given a specific finding or a date by which it would be completed. I had no person’s name or direct contact, and no way to tell whether the documents had been considered. I did not know whether sending the same material again would help, or whether doing so might make the review take longer.

The restriction was lifted on 10 March. The held payouts were transferred on 11 March and appeared in my bank account on 13 March. My records therefore show 35 days from the restriction to restoration of account access, and 35 days from the first missed payout date to receipt of the money. The account returned; the period of uncertainty did not disappear with it.

For a small business, €3,840 is not an abstract balance. It was money already earned and expected on known dates. While it was unavailable, I had to decide which payments could wait and which could not. I moved money from a reserve I had kept for other business needs. That was possible this time, but it reduced the margin I rely on when something else goes wrong. The burden was not only the amount held. It was also that I could not plan around an end date.

I tried the routes available to me: I read the notice, supplied the documents requested, and used the platform’s support process. I also checked the EU rules that apply in the Netherlands. The Platform-to-Business Regulation requires a statement of reasons when a platform restricts or suspends a business user. Its separate 30-day notice provision concerns termination of the whole service, not a temporary account restriction. I understand that these rules do not themselves put a limit on every payout hold, and that my account history alone does not establish why the platform acted. But it does show the practical difference between receiving a general notice and receiving information that lets a business respond.

The draft would change the experience at several points. A written notice with a specific reason would tell me what issue I was expected to address. Review by a person would give me a way to ask whether the documents I supplied answered that issue, rather than simply repeating the submission. A time limit on a payout hold would make the process accountable to a date, even where the platform needed more time to investigate. If more time were genuinely required, the platform should explain that and say when the next decision would come. The same protections should apply in every country where the platform

operates; a small business should not have to guess whether basic process depends on its location.

I do not ask the Council to assume that every restriction is wrong, or that a platform should be unable to protect its service. I ask for a process that can distinguish a justified restriction from an unexplained one, and that allows the affected business to understand and answer the concern. My records do not prove what would have happened under the proposed standard. They do show what was missing in this case: a specific explanation, a meaningful human review, and a clear end point for the hold.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services