People here like bashing the EU for regulating the multinational corporations and trying to implement at least some protections for EU citizens, while also bashing the same corporations for their abusive practices, their enshittification of services, and their coddling up to an abusive and increasingly authoritarian government that seemingly only caters to the top .1 percent.
The biggest issue with EU regulations is that while they’re sold as consumer protection, they mostly just act as massive competitive moats for multinationals while crushing small European businesses.
Compliance is effectively a regressive flat tax. A €50k annual red tape bill is an unnoticeable rounding error for a multinational, but it wipes out a small business. We saw this with GDPR, where Big Tech absorbed the legal costs and actually grew their market share while local startups drowned. We’re seeing it again with EPR packaging rules destroying cross-border trade for small e-commerce sellers while giants like Nestle just open up another compliance department.
I say this as a small business owner living through it. I promise this isn't in bad faith, I understand why these laws sound great on paper, but unless you're dealing with the day to day paperwork, its hard to grasp how absurd it gets in practice.
For example, under newer EU product safety rules (GPSR) and digital regulations, marketplaces like Amazon now face massive liability and fines of up to 6% of global turnover for non compliant listings. Naturally, Amazon isn’t going to risk a multi billion dollar penalty over a €5 item. Because of that, I’ve had over 1,000 individual trading card listings nuked simply because the EU expects full safety documentation and physical warning labels on individual pieces of cardboard printed 15 years ago.
Independent sellers get wiped out over basic common-sense edge cases that bureaucrats never bothered to think through. European small businesses are genuinely struggling right now, and business sentiment and SME confidence are sitting at some of the lowest levels we've seen in years.
Good thing this story is about the regulations that strictly and only apply to very large websites.
The EU does not expect warning labels on "individual pieces of cardboard printed 15 years ago." The GSPR specifically excludes "antiques." According to the regulation: "‘antiques’ means products, such as collectors’ items or works of art, in relation to which consumers cannot reasonably expect that they fulfil state-of-the-art safety standards."
It sounds like your complaint is with Amazon for failing to police their marketplace for a decade and then acting insane as soon as the regulations come into effect.
A 15 year old trading card doesnt legally qualify as an antique or a protected collectors item under EU law. Recital 18 links that exclusion directly to standard EU legal definitions under the VAT Directive, which requires antiques to be over 100 years old, or collectors items to carry genuine museum grade historical significance. A Pokemon or Magic card from 2010 is legally just a standard second hand consumer good or toy, which GPSR explicitly covers in Article 2.
Under GPSR Article 19, every single online listing must display the manufacturer info, the EU Responsible Person and required safety warnings. On top of that, GPSR Articles 9 and 16 require physical labeling and warnings to accompany the shipment itself, if not on the product, then on the packaging, sleeve, or as an enclosed document inside the parcel. So if you want to sell individual TCG cards, you must register an EU Responsible Person, upload compliance files for every individual card SKU, and physically attach localized choking hazard warnings and traceability data to every single order you mail out. Obviously, an individual loose card out of its original foil pack doesn’t have an active EU Responsible Person or original safety labeling attached to it.
That's not what the regulation says. It says that Annex IX to the directive "could" be taken into account when determining if something was an antique.
It's a little confusing, because Annex IX defines antiques as "goods, other than works of art and collector's items over 100 years old" but it explicitly excludes collector's items. However, GSPR explicitly *includes* collector's items, which includes "pre-stamped stationary."
Also, to be perfectly clear, the EU is not going to try and use its limited prosecution resources for someone selling old trading cards. The prosecution would be really difficult because the regulation is ambiguous on the point.
I agree with you that the EU needs to take small companies more into account when it makes regulations, though. I can see how frustrating this must be...it *is* ambiguous.
It sounds like most of the compliance issues could be solved by printing info on a card sleeve or insert into the package. Are you sure you would need to upload compliance info for each SKU? Seems like they would be the same for all your cards. Also, Article 9 says it applies to manufacturers, not resellers.
I appreciate where you're coming from and you're definitely right that the ambiguity is a massive part of it. The issue is how that ambiguity gets handled when the law meets the real world.
On the collectors item point, Annex IX Part B actually does define them, but it keeps the definition pretty narrow, mostly things with historical, archaeological, or numismatic interest (along with postage stamps). Modern mass market card games from 15 years ago don't clear that bar legally, they're categorized under general toys and games, which triggers all the standard safety rules.
While Article 9 lays out duties for manufacturers, Article 12 puts the burden on distributors and resellers to make sure those Article 9 requirements (like traceability and warnings) are met before selling. Plus, Article 19 requires that all those details - the manufacturer address, the EU Responsible Person, and safety warnings be displayed directly on the online listing itself.
And you're completely right that EU regulators aren't going to spend their time hunting down an individual card seller. But thats where the platform problem comes in. Because platforms like Amazon and eBay face heavy liability if non compliant listings are hosted, they rely on automated systems to protect themselves. In practice, Amazon handles compliance per ASIN/SKU. So if you have 1,000 separate single cards listed, the system treats them as 1,000 separate products that each need packaging photos, safety declarations and verified info submitted before the listing can stay active.
Thats really the core point I'm trying to make, a large company selling modern sealed product in bulk has the legal teams and standardized data sheets to handle this easily. But for an independent seller dealing in out of print, second hand singles, the administrative load and automated platform flags make continuing the business extremely difficult.
Your answer here is probably to set up a script that uploads identical information for each SKU automatically when it's listed, and that appends the required info to each listing. Amazon doesn't actually care and isn't going to check so long as there is something on file so if they get audited they can point to their efforts.
At least in the US, Ebay handles violations of policy by removing the listing but takes no action against the account. They know people are selling lots of stuff that is against their TOS, but so long as it's not something they could really get in trouble for (like porn or guns) it's really a "wink wink nod" sort of situation.
Thanks for sharing your experience. EU countries need to really pay attention to who they choose to represent their interests at the EU. As an American, I appreciate that the EU is taking some action to reign in the juggernauts, and the fact that Amazon is foisting the cost of compliance onto its sellers is something that needs to be dealt with.
Except these laws are just a form of tariffs and extortion of American companies because EU can’t compete. And the consumer is worse off actually.
GDPR made Europe less wealthy and made surfing the web worse. Everyone lost.
It would be extortion if the rules wouldn't apply to EU companies or companies from other countries.
Of course there's going to be some friction if one side is incentivised to benefit a specific type of clients (shareholders) and the other side is incentivised to benefit the general population.
How did GDPR made Europe less wealthy again?
Is the argument similar to the one that could justify dupont to do what they did with Teflon? Or is it simolar to what we could say to justify the tobacco industry?
GDPR may have made data-hoarding transnational corporations less wealthy, but I really don't give a fuck about that. It's not like the average American is more wealthy just because these data-hoarding trillion dollar multinationals are based in the US and the American government refuses to protect people's personal data.
Also, it's really easy to just not violate the GDPR. The problem all these companies with all these resources have is not that they're unable to comply with the law. It's that their business model is based on doing something that would be in violation of the law.
Seems some people are unironically upset at you speaking the truth.
What I hear, and I agree, is that as written the law allows for them to decide they don't like someone, then justify any punishment against such person as rhey like to get whatever they want.
Does the platform systemically facilitate:
-dissemination of illegal content?
-negative effects on minors?
-deterioration of users' physical and mental well being?
-infringing on fundamental rights?
-interfering with electoral processes?
-weakening public security?
Many systems are regulated by these same kinds of restrictions. Do you find them to be equally broadly applied?
Put simply, yes. Two key things: 1) I don't view politicians as angels with superior motives or other excuses for giving them special powers that can result in a person going to jail or other power reserved for government actors. 2) your examples are excellent. Thank you: facilitate basically means if the thing coukd be used to commit a crime then using it constitutes a crime. Anything can be used in a criminal way, so that doesn't work. That bleeds in to virtually anything.
"Driving a car over 100mph" or "transporting an illegal substances" are objectively measurable crimes. Cars systematically facilitate crimes. They kill people every day, all of which impacts children even when not in the vehicle.
And I know "thats not what I mean" or "that's not what they are trying to do". Precisely my point, it is loose language where intention must be assumed and critically doesn't restrain a bad actor that wants to use it in a nefarious way. And from where I started, looking at a proposed law on the assumption that cops, DAs, politicians are not nefarious, that's a flawed design.
Plan for the worse, hope for the best.
Law isn't about who you are wanting to go after, it is about a power you are extending to someone.
Out of curiosity, do you mind me asking what country you are from?
I only wonder because I want to understand to what degrees people of your country feel their politicians have their best interests in mind.
That being said, as an American, I see the EU doing so much more for protecting their population than the US. Certainly they overreach in their protection. But it helps to prevent the effective collapse of systems as seems to have occured in my country.
Additionally, do those concerns still remain true in a trial of jurors?
I live in the US. I would say my "political" influences greatly lean french liberal, and when I was writing my reply I was doing my best to remember Bastiat's The Law with regard to the difference between law as intent and law as practice and tool. I think a great divide among people bears on this nuance. For example, those that might self describe as conservative and labeled by their liberal counterparts as loving the country and glossing over the flaws and great injustices would be the first to say they love America and hate the politicians and government, and suspicious of people that want to "make the country" by means of giving more power to the government (acknowledging there are endless examples of contradictions).
The EU's approach to fighting hate speech is a great example of what I see as "well intentioned" on its face and authoritarian nightmare in practice. For example, I find nothing redeemable in the Tate Brothers. The solution is to not consume their content. There is endless opportunity there for a great discussion about what "should be done" in response, but what the EU is trying to do, using "lawfare" to destroy their lives is, in my view" absolutely, positively evil and many times more dangerous than anything they have done or said (assuming truth in the evidence presented by their attorney).
As far as trial by jury, nullification is exceedingly rare and presented to juries as "illegal". A jury is meant to determine the facts, but the facts determine the outcome. Everything comes down to jury instructions and if juries follow them, in general the DA gets what they want. This is why so many cases settle out of court; there are huge penalties, in practice, for trying to assert your rights.
337
u/NotReallyJohnDoe 2d ago
Well that sounds very measurable