Letter from the table: A reason, a clock, and a way back

To the Platform Council

I am writing in response to Marta’s letter from Porto. She describes the particular loneliness of waiting for an explanation from a system that has already stopped you from working. I recognised that loneliness. I agree with the direction of the draft Platform Fairness Standard, but I ask the Council to amend it before adoption. A standard must protect a member in an ordinary case and remain usable when a platform says there is an urgent risk.

On 3 February 2026, I found that access to my account had been restricted. I had not received a warning beforehand. The next day, a payout of €2,460 that I had expected was marked as held. I was not told which activity or transaction had caused the restriction. The first notice I could find referred generally to a verification review. It did not tell me what document was missing, what I should correct, or when the review would end.

I sent the documents requested in the account interface on 10 February. I also used the platform’s appeal form and kept copies of the submission confirmations. On 18 February, I submitted the same material again, because the first appeal had not produced a clear answer. I contacted the Médiateur des entreprises to ask whether mediation might help with the commercial dispute. That is a voluntary route; it could not itself give me immediate access to the money or restore the account while the platform’s review continued.

During this period, the difficulty was not simply that €2,460 was unavailable. I had to plan around rent, payroll and other obligations with no reliable date for the payout. I could not tell whether I was expected to wait, provide something more, or challenge a particular decision. By 2 March,

access had been restored and the held payout released. I was relieved, but I still did not have a specific explanation that would let me understand what had happened or avoid repeating it.

The draft is right to require written notice, a specific reason, review by a person and a time limit on payout holds. Those are not formalities. They determine whether a small business can respond to an actual concern, and whether it can plan its cash flow. The European Union’s Platform-to-Business Regulation already requires a statement of reasons in certain cases where a platform restricts or suspends a business user. The Standard can make a practical commitment clearer and consistent across the countries where a platform operates.¹

My amendment is about the order and detail of those protections. The draft should say that a notice identifies the action taken, the relevant account activity or transaction as far as reasonably possible, the rule or requirement at issue, what response or documents are needed, and how to request human review. A person reviewing the case should be able to consider the member’s explanation and should not merely repeat the initial automated result. The notice should also give a date by which the member will receive an update, even if the review is not yet complete.

I also ask the Council to distinguish a genuinely urgent temporary measure from an ordinary suspension. If a platform reasonably believes immediate action is needed to prevent fraud, a security threat, or legal harm, it may need to act before giving advance notice. The Standard should allow that narrow exception, but require prompt notice afterwards, an accessible way to provide information, and human review without avoidable delay. An exception must not become a general way to avoid explaining decisions.

For payout holds, “a time limit” should mean more than an initial estimate that can pass without consequence. I propose that the platform set a review deadline when it places a hold, notify the member before that deadline if it needs an extension, state the specific reason for the extension, and set a new date. The Council should also consider a maximum period for ordinary holds, with any longer hold requiring a stated

legal or exceptional basis. Where only part of a payout is in question, the undisputed part should not be held without a specific reason.

Finally, I support applying the same protections in every country where a platform operates. A member’s ability to understand a notice should not depend on being in a particular market or on already knowing how to navigate a complex appeal process. The Standard should require clear language and a route to submit relevant information in a form that a small business can realistically use.

Notes and sources

1. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, Article 4. ↩

Sources

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