E-commerce and geo-blocking: consumers still hampered by unjustified geographic blocks

Brussels – Unjustified geographic blocks, which restrict consumers’ freedom by restricting their online access to goods and services, remain a problem. A new report from the European Court of Auditors recognises this problem. It explains that the 2018 Geographic Blocks Regulation aimed to address discrimination based on nationality or place of residence, but its practical application continues to be difficult in member states. 

The ECA argues that provisions to enforce compliance should be made more stringent and uniform. Consumers should be better informed of the protection and support options available to them. The Court also recommends examining the possibility of extending rules against geographic blocking to areas such as audiovisual services, which are not yet covered.

A geographic block occurs, for example, when professionals operating in one EU member state block or restrict access to their online interfaces, such as websites and applications, to customers in other member states or when the conditions for obtaining goods and services vary depending on the customer’s location. The Regulation on Geographic Blocks adopted in 2018 recognises that such a practice may be justified in some cases, such as when member states have different legal requirements (such as different age limits for purchasing alcoholic beverages) or because a trader decides not to sell its products to customers in other member states. Without justification, EU rules prohibit traders who sell to EU residents from adopting the practice of geographic blocking.

“Geographic blocks limit consumers’ opportunities and choices, causing dissatisfaction among many consumers and erecting barriers to the free trade of goods and services in the EU’s digital single market,” said Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, the European Court of Auditors’ Member in charge of the audit. “There are EU rules aimed at preventing this phenomenon,” the accounting magistrate remarked, “but the Court has found shortcomings in their practical application.

For example, if the end users purchasing goods or services are businesses, it can be difficult to settle disputes because it is not clear who can provide assistance, especially when non-EU professionals operating in the EU are involved. In general, customers and professionals do not know enough about consumer protection options and may not be aware that there are bodies at the local and EU level that can come to their aid.

Moreover, enforcement measures against non-compliant traders differ significantly from one member state to another. The rules on jurisdiction are not sufficiently clear, and it is also difficult to determine which member state (whether that of the consumer or that of the professional) should impose sanctions for violations. In some EU countries, criminal liability may be invoked as a result of violations. With regard to penalties, the Court’s auditors found significant differences between member states (ranging from €26 to €5 million, in some cases depending on the trader’s turnover). In essence, the Court points out that member states adopting distinct approaches means there is a risk of an uneven playing field within the EU single market.

At the time of its adoption, the Geographic Blocks Regulation excluded some sectors identified as problematic, such as audiovisual services (film distribution services, streaming, on-demand platforms, radio/TV services, etc.). The European Commission has been in talks with the industry about wider access to audiovisual content but stressed the need to gather more information before considering any new measures. Given the impending revision of the Geographic Blocks Regulation, the Court’s auditors believe it would be useful to analyse the pros and cons of a potential extension of its scope to assess whether it would be more appropriate to do so or whether it would be better to amend other relevant sectoral regulations.

Special Report 03/2025, “Unjustified geo-blocking in e-commerce – The Regulation provides a balanced framework, but challenges remain in implementation”, is available on the Court’s website.