DCMS Online Harms White Paper - Which? response

Which? supports the White Paper proposal for a duty of care. Which? believes it is right that companies enabling the sharing of user-generated content or online interaction should take care of their users.
Which? believes the proposed scope of the duty of care is too narrow, not future-proofed and would be a missed opportunity to improve the confidence and safety of consumers online. We recommend that the proposed regulatory framework be broadened to include online consumer harms. The scope of harms covered by the regulations should be broad, since the regulator will have the ability to prioritise its activities as the digital marketplace evolves and new online harms emerge. This will future-proof the statutory duty of care.
Scams and fraud are significant and growing consumer harms that can result inconsiderable financial and emotional impact on victims. They are also illegal and many scams occur online on the platforms within the scope of the proposed regulator. We therefore are calling for scams to be included within the scope of the online harms regulatory framework proposed by the White Paper.
The online sale of unsafe products, which are unlawful because they fail to meet legal safety requirements, should also be within the scope of the proposed regulations. Where a product is sold through an online intermediary, the irresponsibility is currently limited. For this reason, we are calling for the online sale of unsafe products to be included as an online harm.
Fake reviews should be included in the proposed scope as they are an example of disinformation with intent to harm. A vast majority of consumers rely on online reviews to help make a purchase, but thousands of fake reviews on online platforms mean they are tricked into buying poor quality products and services that are unfit for purpose.
We would support transparency requirements so that consumers are more aware of the potential harms associated with using online services. Publication of the measures being taken against harmful content and to protect users would also allow organisations, like Which?, to highlight issues and inform consumers.
We consider it crucial that there is an effective redress system for internet users. We are also interested in the proposal to designate certain organisations with super-complaint powers, but we question how this is envisaged to work. It is not clear if it will be designed to act in a similar way to the existing super-complaint powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 or if it is intended to enable representative actions. If consumer harms are brought into scope, Which? would want to be designated with these powers.

Download our full response here

pdf (204 KB)

There is a file available for download. (pdf — 204 KB). This file is available for download at .