View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
GfK Belgium PS May – 2016
Justice and Consumers
Mystery shopping survey on territorial restrictions and
geo-blocking in the European
Digital Single Market
Final Report
Territorial Restrictions and Geo-Blocking in the European Digital Single Market
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Directorate E – Consumers
Unit E1 – Consumer Markets
Contact: Konstantinos Zisis
E-mail: JUST-CONSULT-E1@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers EU Consumer Programme (2014-2020)
2016
Mystery shopping survey on territorial restrictions and
geo-blocking in the European Digital Single Market
Final Report
Territorial Restrictions and Geo-Blocking in the European Digital Single Market
“This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the
views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use
which may be made of the information contained therein.”
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
PDF ISBN 978-92-79-58002-4 doi:10.2838/11994 DS-01-16-405-EN-N
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
5
Abstract
The present study was conducted as part of a wider evidence gathering by the
Commission on geo-blocking as a barrier to online cross-border trade in the European
Digital Single Market. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the
prevalence and characteristics of geo-blocking practices across the EU28 using a broad-
based approach covering all forms of territorial restrictions that apply to cross-border
online commerce. It was not within the scope of the study to look into retailers’
motivations for engaging in geo-blocking, nor into whether these practices are justified in
accordance with existing EU legislation. An EU28-wide Mystery Shopping Survey was
conducted to examine the various types of geo-blocking practices consumers face at each
stage of the online shopping process and their prevalence by region, country, sector,
product, and type of retailer. The focus was on six tangible goods and two online services
sectors where cross-border e-commerce is most prevalent. Over 10,000 online retailers
were surveyed, using a sampling methodology based on the level of cross-border e-
commerce between 143 specific country pairs, making the results broadly representative
of the current e-commerce patterns across all Member States in the EU28. The study
finds that geo-blocking practices are widespread, and mostly apply in relation to delivery.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 8
1.1 Study objectives ............................................................................... 8
1.2 Research questions and sampling ....................................................... 9
1.3 Sectors covered .............................................................................. 10
1.4 Goods and services covered and website selection ............................... 11
1.5 Sample overview ............................................................................. 13
1.6 Measuring geo-blocking practices via the mystery shopping
questionnaire .................................................................................. 17
1.7 Definition of breakdowns .................................................................. 18
1.7.1 EU Regions.......................................................................... 18
1.7.2 Regional direction of trade .................................................... 19
1.7.3 Country pair distance ........................................................... 19
1.7.4 Retailer size ........................................................................ 20
1.8 Weighting ....................................................................................... 21
1.8.1 Weight based on the level of cross-border e-commerce ............ 22
1.8.2 Weight based on yearly cross-border website traffic ................. 22
2 GEO-BLOCKING PREVALENCE ACROSS THE EU28 ........................................ 24
2.1 Geo-blocking and the four stages of the shopping process .................... 24
2.2 Overview of geo-blocking prevalence during each stage of the shopping
process .......................................................................................... 25
2.3 Contribution of geo-blocking practices of each stage of the shopping
process (as a proportion of the overall process)................................... 27
2.4 Mystery shopping success rates (% of all shopping attempts) –
comparing the different weights used ................................................. 28
2.5 Prevalence by seller’s country of origin and EU region ......................... 30
2.6 Prevalence by shopper’s country of residence and EU region ................. 33
2.7 Prevalence by country pair ................................................................ 35
2.8 Prevalence by direction of trade – EU15 and EU13 ............................... 38
2.9 Prevalence by sector ........................................................................ 39
2.10 Prevalence by product category ......................................................... 40
2.11 Prevalence by country pair distance ................................................... 42
2.12 Prevalence by size of retailer ............................................................. 44
3 GEO-BLOCKING PRACTICES RELATED TO ACCESS ....................................... 47
3.1 Automatic re-routing or immediate blocking of access .......................... 47
3.2 Differences between domestic and cross border websites ..................... 58
3.2.1 Differences in website content ............................................... 58
3.2.2 Differences in product availability ........................................... 65
4 GEO-BLOCKING PRACTICES RELATED TO WEBSITE REGISTRATION ............... 77
4.1 Registration requirements ................................................................. 77
4.1.1 Registration requirements by seller origin ............................... 78
4.1.2 Registration requirements by sector ....................................... 83
4.1.3 Registration requirements by retailer size ............................... 85
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
7
4.2 Common issues with registration ....................................................... 85
4.2.1 Registration issues by seller and shopper origin ....................... 86
4.2.2 Registration issues by sector ................................................. 96
4.2.3 Registration issues by distance and retailer size ....................... 98
4.2.4 Price differences ................................................................ 100
5 GEO-BLOCKING PRACTICES RELATED TO DELIVERY RESTRICTIONS ............ 111
5.1 Overall delivery restrictions ............................................................ 111
5.2 Delivery restrictions by seller origin ................................................. 113
5.3 Delivery restrictions by sector ......................................................... 119
5.4 Delivery restrictions by product ....................................................... 120
5.5 Delivery restrictions by type and size of online retailer ....................... 123
5.6 Information availability on delivery restrictions .................................. 124
5.7 Delivery costs ............................................................................... 127
6 GEO-BLOCKING PRACTICES RELATED TO PAYMENT ................................... 137
6.1 Means of payment and entering payment details ............................... 137
6.2 Payment issues by region ............................................................... 138
6.3 Payment issues by country of the retailer ......................................... 141
6.4 Payment issues by sector ............................................................... 145
6.5 Payment issues by size of retailer, credit card type and distance ......... 146
6.6 Errors received after order confirmation ........................................... 148
7 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES .......................................................................... 150
7.1 Price differentiation by international online retailers: a case study ....... 150
7.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................... 150
7.1.2 Methodology ..................................................................... 151
7.1.3 Results and discussion ........................................................ 152
7.2 Predicting geo-blocking: a logistic regression analysis ........................ 155
7.2.1 Methodology ..................................................................... 155
7.2.2 Overall results ................................................................... 156
7.2.3 Geo-blocking, sectors and the direction of trade: in-depth
comparisons ...................................................................... 160
8 ANNEXES .............................................................................................. 162
8.1 Annex I – Mystery Shopping Survey Methodology .............................. 162
8.1.1 What is mystery shopping? ................................................. 162
8.1.2 Sampling methodology ....................................................... 164
8.1.3 Sampling overview ............................................................. 176
8.1.4 The use of Virtual Private Network (VPN) .............................. 177
8.2 Annex II – Mystery Shopping Survey: Final Questionnaire .................. 178
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
8
1 Introduction
1.1 Study objectives
As part of the Commission’s Digital Single Market (DSM) Strategy, legislative steps will
be taken in order to tackle unjustified geo-blocking practices as a barrier to cross-border
e-commerce. To achieve this goal, the Commission needs a comprehensive pool of
evidence on the features and patterns of geo-blocking gathered from multiple sources
and perspectives. The Commission has recently announced the results of the public
consultation on geo-blocking and other geographically based restrictions when shopping
and accessing information in the EU launched as part of the EU DSM Strategy and
concluded at the end of December 20151. A sector inquiry into e-commerce in all EU28
Member States was also launched, in order to better understand what drives companies
to impose geographical restrictions, their implications for cross-border online trade and
how to remove them in the future. Initial results were presented in mid-March 20162.
The objective of the present study is to investigate geo-blocking practices from a
consumer perspective, focusing on their prevalence and characteristics across the EU28
Member States. The study uses a broad-based approach to the concept of geo-blocking,
investigating all forms of territorial restrictions that apply to cross-border online
commerce. As such, it is outside of the scope of this study to investigate whether all
practices described fit under the umbrella term “geo-blocking” and whether these
practices are justified or not. To address this objective, a large scope Mystery Shopping
Survey (MSS) was conducted to investigate the many different forms online geo-blocking
can take, the extent to which it is being practiced by type of sector and product category
and its prevalence by country and type of retailer. The MSS aims to draw a concrete,
comprehensive picture of the way territorial restrictions are applied at different stages in
the process of making a cross-border online purchase. In addition, some of the
information the study will generate on the characteristics of geo-blocking practices might
also produce preliminary and partial insights into the reasons why online firms apply geo-
blocking, as well as the precise level of price differentiation faced by consumers in
different markets.
The specific objective of the Mystery Shopping Survey was to collect a set of data on the
nature and incidence of geo-blocking that is representative of the types of sectors,
1 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/full-report-results-public-consultation-geoblocking 2 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiries_e_commerce.html
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/full-report-results-public-consultation-geoblockinghttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiries_e_commerce.html
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
9
products and online retailers in the DSM across all Member States in the EU28. The
survey’s sampling methodology focused on achieving a sample of shopping attempts that
is representative of the current patterns of EU28 cross-border e-commerce. However, the
MSS does not address the question why firms/e-shops engage in geo-blocking and to
what extent these reasons may be justified in accordance with EU acquis, including
competition rules3, Art. 20 of the Services Directive
4 or any country specific legislation.
Since geo-blocking in digitally delivered media content can usually be justified by
copyright, the study focused only on tangible goods and online services to be used
offline. Other sectors that are illegal in certain Member States (such as online gambling)
were also excluded.
1.2 Research questions and sampling
The following five research questions were addressed by the present study. The sampling
approach taken and its specific steps can be found in Annex I.
1. How prevalent is the practice of geo-blocking in cross-border online
shopping?
2. In which stages of the shopping process does it occur and what form
does it take?
a) Is it a case of being redirected to another website at the beginning of the
purchase attempt, or does it take place at a later point in the shopping process?
b) Is it related to price, delivery, needing to register on the website, etc?
3. In what types of goods and services is it most prevalent?
a) Is it more prevalent in goods or services?
b) In what sectors is it most prevalent?
c) Within each sector, what types of products / services is it most prevalent (e.g.
high/low value goods, etc)?
4. In what type of web-shops is it more prevalent?
a) Is it more prevalent in large, medium or small web-shops?
b) Is it more prevalent in online-only shops or ‘bricks and clicks’ shops?
3 Block exemptions on vertical restraints 4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006L0123&from=EN
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006L0123&from=EN
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
10
5. Are there differences in the incidence of geo-blocking by country pairs
and direction of trade?
a) Does geographical distance have an impact (e.g. more geo-blocking for country
pairs that are far away from one another than for those that are close together)?
b) Does volume of trade have an impact (e.g. more geo-blocking for countries with a
low level of cross-border trade than countries with a high level of cross-border
trade)?
c) Can any insights be gained in terms of region or country grouping (e.g. more geo-
blocking in the EU13 or in Southern Europe)?
1.3 Sectors covered
A total of 8 sectors were assessed in order to provide sufficient breadth in terms of type
of sector whilst keeping a balance in delivering sufficient mystery shopping surveys per
sector to enable post-fieldwork analysis. The final 8 sectors consist of 6 tangible goods
and 2 services sectors. The two services sectors, in particular, were relatively challenging
in terms of being able to compare and sample similar services in multiple countries, but
their inclusion was key in order to ensure that the mystery shopping survey focuses on
services, as well as tangible products.
The sector selection was based on those goods and services sectors that are most
commonly purchased online in the EU according to the 2015 DSM Consumer Survey5.
The table below presents the final 8 sectors agreed upon. The only sector in the top 8
that was excluded was that for Non-electrical household products & interior design. This
sector was replaced by Computer games and software in order to investigate a more
diversified sample of markets. The table below presents an overview of the 8 sectors
surveyed.
5 GfK for the European Commission, Consumer survey identifying the main cross-border obstacles to the DSM
and where they matter most, 2015
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
11
Table 1: Sectors surveyed
Sectors % EU28 online respondents who
purchased this good / service online in
2014 (DSM consumer survey)
Clothing, shoes & accessories 76%
Travel services (e.g. hotels,
transport)
68%
Electronics & computer hardware 66%
Books 64%
Online reservations of offline leisure
(e.g. event tickets)
63%
Electrical household appliances 61%
Cosmetics & healthcare products 60%
Computer games and software 50%
1.4 Goods and services covered and website selection
Within each sector, the mystery shopping survey was carried out with 6 specific goods or
services categories (except for the market “Online reservations of offline leisure”, where
only 5 services were surveyed). In addition, alternative products (belonging to the same
market) were considered by mystery shoppers when the pre-defined goods or services
were not available from a specific retailer. The final list of products surveyed in each
market was agreed upon after several rounds of discussions. It is shown in the Table that
follows from where it can be seen that the original product categories (column 1) were
subsequently recoded to new categories (column 2) in order to take into account all of
the alternative products that mystery shoppers assessed. By doing so, it was possible to
increase the final sample available for product level analyses. The recoded product
categories included a range of 3-6 specific products assessed per sector. Train services
were initially considered to be added within the travel services sector. However, they
were eventually excluded because of the extremely limited amount of websites selling
train tickets online in each Member State.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
12
By ensuring a high quality, representative sample of online websites6, mystery shoppers
were instructed to assess two products on the same website. Additional (reserve list)
websites were provided to each mystery shopper, in case certain retailers’ websites were
no longer available or did not sell the specific products or any suitable alternatives in a
given sector. The selection of products assessed on the websites was agreed to be
representative of the online basket for the consumer, whilst also taking into account the
size and relative value of the product. Below is a list of the specific products surveyed
and the final product categories they were recoded to, along with suitable alternatives.
Fieldwork took place during December 2015.
6 Based on a comprehensive database of online retailers provided by SimilarWeb (see Annex I for more details).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
13
Table 2: Original products assessed and recoded product categories for the analysis
1.5 Sample overview
The following flow chart provides an overview of the sample of websites that the mystery
shopping survey aimed to achieve including the exact number of country pairs, sectors
and websites per good/service.
Number of product categories per
sector
Theatre/ballet/opera ticket
Coffee machine
Leather boots
Sports shoes
Winter jacket/coat
Cocktail dress/men’s suit
Pair of jeans
A leather belt
Fiction book
Textbook
Business & finance book
Children's book
Refrigerator
Live concert ticket
Shampoo
Microwave oven
Live sports event ticket
Iron
Special party/event/fashion show ticket
Mixer
Amusement/theme or adventure park ticket
Vacuum cleaner
Luxury car rental
Perfume
Economy class airplane ticket
Business class airplane ticket
4 star hotel reservation for 2 (1 night)
Make-up set
Electric toothbrush
Set of shaving blades
All-inclusive ski holiday for 2
6 C
om
pu
ter
gam
es a
nd
so
ftw
are
7 E
lectric
al
ho
useh
old
ap
pli
an
ces
8 O
nli
ne
reservatio
ns o
f
off
lin
e
Original product categories
3 T
ravel
servic
es
(h
otels
,
tran
sp
ort)
4 C
osm
etic
s
an
d
healt
hcare
pro
du
cts
5 B
oo
ks
Printer
Satellite navigation
2 E
lectro
nic
s &
co
mp
uter
hard
ware
Laptop (Acer)
Media Tablet (Samsung)
Smartphone (Nokia)
Desktop computer (HP)
Microsoft Office software
Antivirus software
Adobe Photoshop software
Fifa PS4 video game
Assassin's Creed PC video game
Halo Xbox video game
Dictionary
Travel guide
Facial cream
Economy car rental
Computers and tablets
Mobile phones
Computers and tablets
Office equipment and accessories
Satellite navigation
Additional category
1 C
loth
ing
,
sh
oes a
nd
accesso
rie
s
Additional category
Additional category
Proposed new categories after merging
Shoes
Shoes
Outerwear (jackets, coats)
Overalls (costumes, dresses)
Lower garments (pants, skirts)
Underwear and accessories
Upper garments (t-shirts, sweaters)
Computers and tablets
Flight bookings
Flight bookings
Accommodation bookings
All-inclusive holidays
Creams, soaps and lotions
Photo and video equiment
Audio equipment
Car rentals
Car rentals
Console video games
Business/finance software
Fiction books
Educational books
Business & finance books
Children's books
Educational books
Perfumes
Make-up
Electric products and accessories
Electric products and accessories
Hair products
5
5
5
3
Other tickets (e.g. special party, event, fashion show)
Amusement/theme or adventure park tickets
Cultural event tickets
6
6
4
5
Small household appliances
Medium household appliances
Medium household appliances
Music event tickets
Sports event tickets
Security software
Other software
Large household appliances
Medium household appliances
Small household appliances
Travel and hobby literature (including magazines)
Console video games
Computer video games
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
14
The country pairs (each representing the country of the seller and shopper) were also
selected based on the 2015 DSM consumer survey. The selection was based on the
reported prevalence of online shopping between specific country pairs7. Therefore, they
are broadly representative of the current state of play in cross-border e-commerce across
the EU. For example, consumers from all Member States appear to shop online from
either the UK and/or Germany, so country pairs involving either of these countries
represent 54 (i.e. 27 x 2) country pairs out of a total of 143 country pairs.
For every sector assessed (8 in total), 9 websites were visited by shoppers cross border
for each of the 143 country pairs identified. The total sample of websites surveyed, after
data cleaning, was 10537 (data will be reported at website level analysis throughout the
report unless explicitly specified otherwise). Each website was first assessed from a
domestic perspective where mystery shoppers looked for 2 specific products that were
available to purchase online domestically, via the use of suitable Virtual Private Network
technology8. In the second part of the survey the exact same website and the same two
products were assessed cross-border by shoppers setting their VPN location to their own
country (i.e. shoppers’ country to assess the websites from a cross-border perspective).
Nonetheless, the distribution of mystery shopping assessments per sector was somehow
unbalanced towards certain online sectors like clothing, shoes and accessories or
electronics & computer hardware and less so for sectors like online reservations of offline
leisure (see achieved MS assessments per website as opposed to the targeted ones in the
Table that follows). During the identification and selection of online retailers to be
included in the sample, it became clear that this unbalanced sample is likely to be
reflective of the actual distribution of online retailers across the 8 surveyed sectors. The
7 Those country pairs were covered where at least 4% of respondents from a given MS (country of the shopper) reported purchasing tangible goods and offline services online cross-border from another MS (country of the seller), with the exception of Bulgaria and Malta which were added to the sample, despite the highest percentages of respondents purchasing online from these countries cross-border being 3% for Bulgaria (from Greece) and 1% for Malta (from Finland) – see Annex 8.1.2.1 for more details.
8 Shoppers first set their VPN location to the country of the online retailer (i.e. domestic purchase). For more
information on how the Virtual Private Network technology works, please refer to Annex 8.1.4
143 country pairs
8 sectors 9 websites per sector
TOTAL: 10,296
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
15
following 3 tables present an overview of the distribution of website assessments9
achieved per country of retailer, country of shopper, and per sector.
Table 3: Sample by sector
Sector Mystery shopping attempts (per website)
Achieved Target
Clothing, shoes and
accessories 1734 1287
Electronics & computer
hardware 1667 1287
Travel services (e.g.
hotels, transport) 1172 1287
Cosmetics and healthcare
products 1572 1287
Books 1120 1287
Computer games and
software 1029 1287
Electrical household
appliances 1208 1287
Online reservations of
offline leisure 1035 1287
Total 10537 10296
Table 4: Sample by country of the retailer
Website origin Number of shopping attempts (per
website)
Achieved Target
Austria 761 648
Belgium 213 216
Bulgaria 89 72
Croatia 71 72
Czech Republic 139 144
Cyprus 72 72
Denmark 74 72
Estonia 140 144
Finland 71 72
France 1152 1152
Germany 1936 1944
Greece 143 144
Hungary 155 144
Latvia 71 72
Lithuania 72 72
9 Overall, on each website shoppers assessed two different goods or services, making the maximum number of
product assessments a total of 10 296 x 2 = 20 592.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
16
Luxembourg 72 72
Ireland 257 216
Italy 929 936
Malta 71 72
Netherlands 354 360
Poland 360 360
Portugal 156 144
Romania 97 72
Slovakia 159 144
Slovenia 81 72
Spain 643 648
Sweden 208 216
the UK 1991 1944
Total 10537 10296
Table 5: Sample by country of the shopper
Shopper origin Number of shopping attempts (per
website)
Achieved Target
Austria 378 360
Belgium 369 360
Bulgaria 490 432
Croatia 539 504
Czech Republic 459 432
Cyprus 210 216
Denmark 313 288
Estonia 509 504
Finland 427 432
France 372 360
Germany 389 360
Greece 534 504
Hungary 343 288
Latvia 376 360
Lithuania 233 216
Luxembourg 606 576
Ireland 349 360
Italy 463 432
Malta 408 432
Netherlands 206 216
Poland 210 216
Portugal 250 288
Romania 479 504
Slovakia 445 432
Slovenia 358 360
Spain 322 360
Sweden 219 216
the UK 281 288
Total 10537 10296
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
17
1.6 Measuring geo-blocking practices via the mystery shopping
questionnaire
Geo-blocking or territorial restriction practices are often based on some form of geo-
identification of the consumer using various means of data available online (e.g. IP
address, delivery address, phone number, credit card etc.). Geo-blocking practices during
cross-border online purchases can take one of four possible forms:
1) Denial of access to the website (i.e. blocking the consumer) by displaying an
error message
2) Automatic re-routing to a website in a different country (usually the country of
the consumer) without consumers’ consent or ability to stop the re-routing
3) A straightforward refusal to sell – at any stage during the ordering process
4) Changing the terms and conditions and/or prices based on the country where
the consumer resides
A comprehensive understanding of the range of geo-blocking practices requires an in-
depth exploration of these four practices, the different forms they may take and their
characteristics. The final questionnaire provided in Annex II addressed the first three
elements of geo-blocking, as defined above, by asking mystery shoppers questions
related to denial of access, automatic re-routing and refusal to sell. The fourth element,
‘changing the terms and conditions’, was covered only partially by the survey in terms of
differences in product availability and product price when attempting to purchase from
the same retailer domestically, compared to cross-border. However, the survey did not
require the mystery shopper to read the full terms and conditions of each website.
Moreover, the importance of the way delivery costs/restrictions are communicated on a
retailer’s website was investigated. Mystery shoppers were required to do a manual
search of the website, looking for information on both domestic and cross-border delivery
costs, as well as on delivery restrictions even prior to registering on the website. In
addition, the prominence with which delivery restrictions are communicated, during the
various steps of the shopping process, was captured10.
10 Article 8.3 of the 2011 Consumer Rights Directive dictates that online traders should indicate clearly and legibly at the latest at the beginning of the ordering process whether any delivery restrictions apply and
which means of payment are accepted.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
18
1.7 Definition of breakdowns
Throughout the report, the incidence of different types of geo-blocking practices is
discussed by comparing relevant groups based on:
1) region and country of the retailer;
2) region and country of the shopper;
3) direction of trade between EU15 and EU13 regions;
4) physical distance between a country pair (based on border or economic center
distance);
5) retailer size based on yearly website traffic;
1.7.1 EU Regions
The first breakdown highlights the degree to which geo-blocking takes place according to
EU regions, i.e. in the EU15 (i.e. those countries that joined the European Union prior to
the accession of the ten candidate countries on May 1, 2004) vs. the EU13 (i.e. those
Member States that joined the European Union on May 1, 2004 or after). Reporting also
takes place according to four distinct geographical regions within the EU: North, East,
South and West. The table below presents an overview of which Member States fall
within each geographical split. Where applicable, throughout the report, regional
differences are considered from two perspectives: the online retailer’s country of origin
and the shopper’s country of origin.
Table 6: Region splits by Member State
EU15 EU13 Region
North
Region
East
Region
South
Region
West
Austria Bulgaria Denmark Bulgaria Cyprus Austria
Belgium Croatia Finland Croatia Greece Belgium
Denmark Cyprus Sweden Czech
Republic Spain France
Finland Czech
Republic
Estonia Italy Germany
France Estonia
Hungary Malta Ireland
Germany Hungary
Latvia Portugal Luxembourg
Greece Latvia
Lithuania
Netherlands
Ireland Lithuania
Poland
UK
Italy Malta
Romania
Luxembourg Poland
Slovakia
Netherlands Romania
Slovenia
Portugal Slovakia
Spain Slovenia
Sweden
UK
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
19
1.7.2 Regional direction of trade
Direction of trade represents a breakdown between the EU region of the country of the
online trader and that of the country of the consumer. Since it would be very laborious to
assess differences based on each of the 143 specific country pairs, all existing pairs were
recoded into regional pairs based on the EU13/EU15 breakdown.
1) EU15 EU15 represents cross-border trade flowing from an EU15 to an EU15
Member State;
2) EU13 EU13 represents cross-border trade flowing from an EU13 to an EU13
Member State;
3) EU15 EU13 represents cross-border trade flowing from an EU15 to an EU13
Member State;
4) EU13 EU15 represents cross-border trade flowing from an EU13 to an EU15
Member State.
For example, for a mystery shopping assessment where the online retailer’s country is
Germany (EU15) and the shopper’s country is Poland (EU13), the direction of trade is
recoded as flowing from EU15 to EU13.
1.7.3 Country pair distance
Country pair distance is a breakdown based on the actual distance (in kilometres)
between the country where the online retailer is based and the country where the
shopper is based (e.g. a retailer based in Ireland and a shopper in the UK). In order to
examine differences in geo-blocking based on country pair distance, the distance
between each country pair in the sample was calculated using two different methods
where distance was defined differently.
The first method defined “distance” as the closest linear distance in kilometres between
the two borders of the country of the retailer and the country of the shopper. According
to this method, each country pair (mystery shopping assessment) was recoded to belong
to one of the three categories below:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
20
1) Neighbouring – i.e. the country where the retailer is based and the country of the
shopper share a common border11
;
2) Close – i.e. the distance between the country where the retailer is based and the
country of the shopper is less than the average distance between the remaining pairs
of retailers and shoppers;
3) Far – i.e. the distance between the country where the retailer is based and the
country of the shopper is more than the average distance between the remaining
pairs of retailers and shoppers.
The second method defined “distance” as the linear distance in kilometres between the
economic centres of the country of the shopper and the country of the retailer. For
example, for the UK and Austria, the distance between London and Vienna was used. In
line with this method, each country pair (mystery shopping assessment) was recoded
into one of the following three categories:
1) Small distance – i.e. the bottom 33rd percentile of country pairs based on the linear
distance between their two economic centres;
2) Medium distance – i.e the mid (33rd to 67th) percentile of country pairs based on the
linear distance between their two economic centres;
3) Large distance – i.e the top 33rd percentile of country pairs based on the linear
distance between their two economic centres.
Using two different approaches in defining distance between the seller and the shopper
allows for a more in-depth look at the role distance plays in geo-blocking, particularly as
it mostly relates to delivery restrictions.
1.7.4 Retailer size
This breakdown is based on data regarding total yearly website visits12
and the
distinction is between:
Marketplaces13
– retailers for which statistics on total yearly visits fall within +2
standard deviations above the mean yearly traffic. In addition to this rule, a manual
11 Malta and Cyprus do not have neighbouring countries given that they do not share a border. In this analysis, Ireland is treated as having a shared border with the UK given the shared border with Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, this does not take into account delivery restrictions that retailers based in the UK may have to delivering only to the UK mainland.
12 The total yearly traffic data was provided by Similarweb.com based on the final sample of websites assessed and covered approximately 99,3% of the total sample of websites. For more information on the methods
used by Similarweb.com on how to gather website traffic data see Annex 8.1.2.5
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
21
check was conducted to incorporate marketplaces that operate in smaller countries and
may not have exceptionally high traffic.
Small retailers – retailers belonging to the bottom 33rd percentile based on statistics in
relation to the total number of yearly visits they receive;
Medium retailers – retailers belonging to the mid 33rd to 67th percentile based on
statistics about the total number of yearly visits they receive;
Large retailers - retailers belonging to the top 33rd percentile based on statistics about
the total number of yearly visits they receive.
The split between small, medium and large retailers based on the percentiles reported
above was completed only after removing the marketplaces identified.
1.8 Weighting
The original sampling (unweighted data) reflected mostly consumers’ cross-border
shopping from larger EU15 Member States like Germany, the U.K, France, Italy etc. For
example, Germany has shoppers from the remaining 27 EU Member States shopping
online from Germany, whereas Hungary has shoppers from only 2 other Member States
(Romania and Slovakia) shopping online from Hungary. The weighting methodology
employed throughout the report varies depending on the type of breakdown used. For
example, marketplaces and large retailers account for a larger proportion of e-commerce
and, in turn, of cross-border e-commerce compared to small and medium-sized retailers.
There are different types of data that can be used to weight the gathered responses
towards either the size of cross-border e-commerce or the magnitude of the cross-border
websites themselves. In this study, we relied on two general data sources to compute the
weights used throughout the report: a) data on cross-border e-commerce and b) website
traffic data.
13 Marketplaces were defined as online shops that operate in at least three of the surveyed sectors, offering a significantly more varied choice of products (e.g. Amazon, Emag etc.) compared to specialized retailers. As can be expected, the number of marketplaces identified was relatively small (under 100), as a proportion of the total number of websites surveyed (+10 000). Therefore, the variance within the category “marketplaces” (much larger compared to all other retailers) and comparisons between marketplaces and
small, medium and large retailers should be treated with caution throughout the report.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
22
1.8.1 Weight based on the level of cross-border e-commerce
In the present report, in order to estimate the overall incidence of geo-blocking practices
and better reflect the actual volume of the cross-border e-commerce between each
country pair, the sample was weighted based on the estimated level of cross-border e-
commerce between each country pair. This weight was built with data from two different
sources:
The total level of cross-border trade of tangible goods and offline services per
country, based on the 2015 DSM Consumer Survey14
.
The proportion of cross-border purchasing that online consumers engage in
(based on self-reporting) per import/retailer country (re-totalled to 100%)15
.
Even though two weights were computed overall, this particular one is utilized the most
in the report since it led to more balanced results compared to the weight based on
website traffic data. This weight indeed gives more emphasis to the stronger e-commerce
country pairs (for example, Austrians buying online from Germany), capturing the reality
that most trade in terms of volumes takes place between large EU15 Member States.
1.8.2 Weight based on yearly cross-border website traffic
This weight was based on two sets of website traffic data:
Similarweb total yearly traffic data (covers 99.3% of the sample) for each website
assessed, from which the domestic traffic data was subtracted to arrive at an
estimate of the yearly cross-border traffic for each of the websites assessed.
Alexa aggregated cross-border traffic data per country pair, for online sectors
similar to the ones assessed in the report. This data was used as a population
estimate to introduce the country pair dimension to the individual websites’ cross-
border traffic, in order to make the weighting strategy more meaningful to our
exercise.
Since the sample includes only a handful of cross-border mystery shopping attempts per
website (even for very large websites like amazon.de), these cases receive an
exceptionally high weight according to this method. However, a few cases assessed
within our sample might not be representative of the overall incidence of geo-blocking
that occurs on marketplaces and large shopping websites. As such, the website traffic
weight might give somehow biased results and is used with caution throughout the
14http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/obstacles_dsm/docs/21.09_dsm_final_report.pdf, pg. 131 15 2015 DSM consumer survey, page 78
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
23
report, either for comparison purposes or to possibly shed light on findings that appear
counterintuitive. For some of the data in the study, where results are presented by
country of retailer/shopper or per EU region, any weighing of the data would have
skewed results even more towards the EU15, so in those cases the unweighted data was
presented instead.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
24
2 Geo-blocking prevalence across the EU28
2.1 Geo-blocking and the four stages of the shopping process
This section is focused on identifying the overall prevalence of geo-blocking practices in
cross-border online shopping. Geo-blocking practices can be divided into four main
categories: denial of access to a website, automatic re-routing, refusal to sell,
and changing the terms and conditions and/or prices. Each practice can take
different forms and can happen at different stages of the shopping process. In some
cases geo-blocking takes place immediately or automatically. Still, in the majority of
cases consumers spend significant time and effort on a website, attempting to make a
cross-border online purchase, before realising that the seller or service provider will not
sell to them or will only sell under different terms and conditions. In order to provide a
clear overview of geo-blocking practices, these are reported from the perspective of the
stage during the shopping process at which geo-blocking occurred. The online shopping
process can be broken down into four key stages during which different types of geo-
blocking practices can occur: access, registration, delivery and payment. A specific
proportion of cross-border shoppers are blocked at each of these stages of the shopping
process. Below is a summary of the types of geo-blocking practices that can occur in
each of the four shopping stages within the scope of the mystery shopping survey.
Access – website access is the first stage of the shopping process. It is defined as the
stage at which shoppers enter a website and can view product information (e.g. a
product page including specifications, pricing and delivery details). At this stage, three
key geo-blocking practices can potentially take place: denial of access, automatic re-
routing and changing the terms and conditions by altering product availability. The
present chapter looks at the access stage as a combination of these three types of geo-
blocking, while Chapter 3 explores these activities individually to provide more in-depth
insight into the prevalence of geo-blocking at the website access stage.
Registration – registration is defined as the stage at which, after finding a product they
wish to purchase, consumers need to provide specific personal information to the online
retailer in order to identify themselves and be able to complete the online purchase. The
requirements at this stage vary significantly per retailer and are explored more in-depth
in Chapter 4, which focuses on the registration stage. The present chapter presents the
prevalence of geo-blocking practices during the registration stage as the proportion of
mystery shopping assessments that were terminated prematurely due to an issue/s
related to unsuccessful registration. It is important to note that some of these issues
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
25
were closely linked to delivery, e.g. delivery address not being accepted. Nonetheless,
they are reported as part of the registration stage.
Delivery – delivery is defined as the stage at which consumers need to provide their
shipping information related to a specific purchase that they are attempting to complete.
This stage normally takes place after registering or providing the necessary personal
information on the website and after having chosen the product that they wish to
purchase online. Delivery is explored more in-depth in Chapter 5. The present chapter
looks at the incidence of geo-blocking during the delivery stage, as the proportion of
websites that refused to accept consumers’ shipping information because consumers’
delivery address is located in a country to which they do not ship.
Payment – payment is the last stage of the shopping process and is defined as the
stage at which consumers are required to select their preferred payment method and
enter their payment card details in order to complete a specific online purchase. This
stage normally takes place after successfully entering the shipping information. The
prevalence of geo-blocking during the payment stage is explored more explicitly in
Chapter 6. The present chapter considers geo-blocking during the payment stage, as a
combination of consumers’ preferred payment method not being accepted/offered and
errors occurring during entering their payment card details.
Overall – the overall incidence of geo-blocking is defined as the total proportion of
mystery shopping assessments (at website level) that were terminated prematurely at
any of the 4 shopping stages. More specifically, it is computed as the proportion of
assessments during which mystery shoppers did not reach the order confirmation stage
where they successfully entered their payment details.
2.2 Overview of geo-blocking prevalence during each stage of the
shopping process
The graph below represents a summary of the proportion of retailers who engage in geo-
blocking practices at each stage of the online shopping process16
. At the beginning of the
mystery shopping assessments, approximately 5% of online retailers engaged in
automatic re-routing, directly blocked mystery shoppers or changed their product
16 Data is weighed by the level of cross-border e-commerce
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
26
offerings based on a shopper’s country of residence or IP address17
. During website
registration, 27% of online retailers blocked cross-border mystery shoppers by
preventing them from successfully registering on their website in order to place an order.
These practices relate to any of five different pieces of personal information provided by
the shopper not being accepted by the website. The most common registration issue
reported by mystery shoppers was their foreign delivery address not being accepted by
the website. This suggests that outright refusal to sell in the form of delivery restrictions
is a common means of geo-blocking that online shoppers experience already during the
website registration stage. Even after allowing mystery shoppers to successfully register
on their website, 32% of online retailers assessed during the delivery stage refused to
deliver a product or provide an online service to shoppers if the delivery address they
entered was outside a predefined list of countries to which the seller or service provider
delivers. Considering only the mystery shoppers who reached the final stage of the online
shopping process, 26% of online retailers refused to sell to them because of payment-
related issues (either the payment method was not offered/accepted or errors occurred
whilst entering one’s payment card details). Overall, geo-blocking practices were
identified in approximately 63% of all assessed websites18
.
17 The 5% reported here includes websites which blocked or redirected shoppers and those where shoppers could not find the exact same product for at least one of the two products that they assessed per website. As such, 5% relates to the aforementioned issues experienced at the access shopping stage but, as seen in Figure 2 that follows, the proportion of websites which blocked or re-routed shoppers without allowing them to further continue their shopping procedure did not surpass 2%. It should be noted that in those cases where shoppers were re-routed, they were instructed to try and go back to the original website in order to try to find the 2 very same products that they had assessed as part of their domestic website visit.
18 The overall geo-blocking prevalence (i.e. 63% in our case) might be difficult to interpret from this graph since it is cannot be represented by the sum of the geo-blocking incidences at each stage of the shopping process due to differences in the base sizes used. A breakdown of how each stage of the shopping process contributes to the overall geo-blocking can be seen in Figure 2 (see the following section). The current graph presents geo-blocking at each separate stage of the shopping process by taking into account only those mystery shoppers who actually reached that particular stage (e.g. 32% of those shoppers who reached the delivery stage were geo-blocked). As such, the overall figure corresponds to all shoppers who did not reach
the order confirmation stage.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
27
Figure 1: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process
expressed as a proportion within each stage of the shopping process
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10382; Q20 – Delivery, N =
7628; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 5180; weighted data.
2.3 Contribution of geo-blocking practices of each stage of the shopping
process (as a proportion of the overall process)
The previous section reported on the proportion of online retailers who engaged in
certain forms of geo-blocking practices within each stage of the online shopping process
by looking at the incidence of geo-blocking based on mystery shoppers who reach a
specific stage. This section presents a graphic overview of the contribution of each stage
of the shopping process to the total geo-blocking, as a proportion of the overall process.
At the access stage, less than 2% of mystery shopping assessments were terminated due
to automatic re-routing or outright blocking of cross-border mystery shoppers (not taking
into account the differences observed with product availability). During the website
registration stage, approximately 26% of all mystery shopping assessments ended
because retailers did not accept one or more of the personal details that shoppers were
asked to provide during registration. After successful registration, another 23% of all
mystery shopping assessments were terminated due to delivery restrictions (when
shoppers had to enter a foreign delivery address to continue with the online process).
Immediately before confirming the cross-border order, approximately 12% of all
shopping assessments were recorded as unsuccessful due to issues related to the
payment method not being accepted or an error experienced with the payment details
provided. Looking at the overall level of geo-blocking at each stage of the shopping
5% 27% 32% 26%
Geoblocking - per shopping stage
Access Registration Delivery PaymentOverall 63%
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
28
process, only slightly over one third (37%)19
of the mystery shopping assessments
conducted reached the last shopping stage (order confirmation) during a realistic online
shopping scenario. These figures suggest that geo-blocking practices represent, to a
large extent, a reality which currently prevents shoppers from accessing goods and
services within the Digital Single Market.
Figure 2: Contribution of each stage of the online shopping process, expressed as a
proportion of all websites assessed
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 – Access; Q19 - Registration; Q20 – Delivery; Q24, Q25 – Payment; N = 10537, weighted data.
2.4 Mystery shopping success rates (% of all shopping attempts) –
comparing the different weights used
This section presents the incidence of geo-blocking by looking at the proportion of
mystery shopping assessments that were successful after each stage of the shopping
process was completed, as a proportion of all websites assessed. The breakdown also
serves as a comparison of the two weights used, as opposed to the raw data when no
weights were applied.
Using the e-commerce weight, 98% of all websites allowed mystery shoppers to go to
the exact website they aimed to visit, without being blocked or automatically redirected.
This number is very close to the unweighted data (98,1%), while using the website traffic
data, this proportion is significantly lower (91,6%). This difference can be attributed to
the fact that the website traffic weight assigns more importance to websites with high
cross-border traffic, which are also more likely to geo-block consumers at the access
19 37% is calculated as follows: 100% – (2%+26%+23%+12%)
2% 26% 23% 12% 37%
Geoblocking - overall
Access Registration Delivery Payment Successful shoppers
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
29
stage by blocking, redirecting them or changing their product offers when a consumer is
located abroad.
A smaller difference in the same line can be observed with websites where mystery
shoppers were able to find the same product cross-border: 94,2% based on the website
traffic weight vs. 97,2% and 97,1% based on the e-commerce weight and the
unweighted data, respectively. As will also be seen below, significant differences are
observed when comparing the analysis of website traffic weighted data to that of the e-
commerce weighted data or the unweighted data. This suggests that if marketplaces or
large websites are given a higher weight corresponding to the cross-border traffic they
generate, the proportion of consumers who faces issues during the access stage (based
on re-routing, blocking and product availability) would be significantly higher than when
the sample is only weighted by the level of cross-border e-commerce (or with no weights
applied). In reality, the prevalence of geo-blocking at the access stage would be more
substantial when looking at it from the perspective of the level of cross-border website
traffic.
While 68,3% of the unweighted mystery shopping assessments (websites) continued to
the delivery stage after shoppers successfully registered on the website, this number was
75,4% when the website traffic weight is applied and 72,4% with the e-commerce based
weight.
Here, it is particularly important to notice the large drop of the success rates between the
registration and delivery stages when using the website traffic weight (from 75% to as
low as 32%)20. This sudden decrease during the delivery stage is likely to be due to the
difference in geo-blocking practices between large and small online retailers. Small and
medium retailers are much less likely to geo-block at this stage compared to large
retailers and marketplaces (see Section 2.12); the latter are given a much bigger weight
when the data are weighted by website traffic. As such, the drop between registration
and delivery is much more acute than observed with the e-commerce weighted data,
where the weights are based on the level of cross-border e-commerce between country
pairs (49,2% success rate with the latter vs. only 32% with the former).
Looking at the success rates at all stages, the e-commerce weight provides the most
conservative interpretation of the obtained results, with 36,6% of the shopping attempts
reaching the last stage of the process, where payment card details are entered
successfully. Using the website traffic weight, this proportion drops to 30,1% and it is
20 75% corresponds to 7902 websites which allowed shoppers to successfully register, as opposed to only 3771
websites where no delivery restrictions were imposed (32%).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
30
equal to 31% with the unweighted data. Since both types of weights are not standard
and do not use reliable population statistics (they were prepared accordingly for this
mystery shopping exercise), we have opted to use the more conservative weight
throughout the report, in order to avoid overestimating the incidence of geo-blocking due
to inherent issues with the validity of the weighting data.
Figure 3: Success rates in terms of not encountering various forms of geo-blocking, as a
proportion of all websites assessed -comparison of weighted and unweighted data
Source: Q11, Sent to same website; Q13, Q15 find same product; Q19 – Can register successfully; Q20 – Delivery is possible; Q24 – Payment is possible; Q25 – Can enter payment details; N = 10537
2.5 Prevalence by seller’s country of origin and EU region 21
Comparing the overall prevalence of geo-blocking practices by region (unweighted data),
retailers based in the EU13 (84%) are more likely to block online shoppers based on their
geographic location compared to retailers based in the EU15 (66%). This difference
21 Our sampling was based on the size and direction of cross-border e-commerce (most of the trade originates from the larger EU 15 Member States like Germany, UK etc.). As such, the sample is unbalanced when it comes to country of retailer and region comparisons. Applying a weighting strategy would lead to an even higher imbalance because it would give more weight to the bigger country retailers. Hence, taking this into account, in order for region and country comparisons to be meaningful their analysis is based on unweighted
results.
91,6%
94,2%
75,4%
32%
31,3%
30,1%
98%
97,2%
72,4%
49,2%
41,9%
36,6%
98,1%
97,1%
68,3%
42,5%
36,4%
31%
Sent to samewebsite
Find same product
Can registersuccessfully
Can have productdelivered
Possible to pay
Can enter paymentdetails successfully
Success rates per weight
Weight 1
Weight 2
Unweighted
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
31
appears to stem primarily from delivery restrictions (52% in the EU13 vs 35% in the
EU15) and issues linked to payment (52% in the EU13 vs 24% in the EU15) which are
both more common with EU13-based online retailers. Overall, geo-blocking is most
common when shopping from online retailers in Eastern Europe (84%) and least common
with Western European online retailers (65%). Geo-blocking practices at the access
shopping stage22 are slightly more common for South-Europe based retailers (6%) and
least common by Northern European ones (3%), whereas retailers from the South are
the most likely to geo-block shoppers during website registration (38%). Online retailers
operating in the Eastern and Northern parts of Europe are the most likely to geo-block
shoppers by means of applying delivery restrictions (52% for both), whereas Eastern
European online retailers stand out as by far the most likely to geo-block consumers due
to payment-related issues (53% vs only 19% by Northern ones).
Figure 4: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process by
retailers’ region (expressed as a proportion within each stage of the process)
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10366; Q20 – Delivery, N = 7198; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 4485; unweighted data.
Comparisons based between specific Member States in which online retailers are based
are consistent with the observations made above by region but reveal more subtle
country-specific differences. Hungary, Cyprus, Lithuania and Bulgaria were the Member
States most likely to geo-block online shoppers with at least 90% of all mystery shopping
22 Blocking access, website re-routing or not offering the same product
5%
4%
3%
4%
6%
5%
31%
28%
34%
29%
38%
29%
35%
52%
52%
52%
31%
36%
24%
52%
19%
53%
29%
23%
EU15
EU13
North
East
South
West
Region of the retailer
Access
Registration
Delivery
Payment
66%
Overall
84%
75%
84%
70%
65%
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
32
assessments not reaching the final order confirmation stage. In contrast, the UK,
Luxembourg, Spain, Ireland and France were the least likely to geo-block shoppers who
shop online from other countries with the overall geo-blocking reaching a maximum of
64%. Geo-blocking related to access was most prevalent with Luxembourgish, Czech,
Estonian and Portuguese online retailers and was not observed at all for online shops
based in Slovakia, Slovenia and Denmark. Half of the Italian, Dutch and Hungarian
websites surveyed blocked mystery shoppers during the registration phase, with
Portuguese online retailers in the lead (52%). Retailers based in Hungary (79%),
Romania (72%) and Finland (65%) were the most likely to impose delivery restrictions
after mystery shoppers completed the registration stage. Payment-related issues were
most common on websites based in Hungary (88%), Cyprus (79%) and Lithuania (77%).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
33
Figure 5: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process by
country of retailer (expressed as a proportion within each stage of the process)
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10366; Q20 – Delivery, N = 7198; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 4485; unweighted data.
2.6 Prevalence by shopper’s country of residence and EU region
Looking at the unweighted results based on shoppers’ origin, online retailers were more
likely to geo-block shoppers from the EU13 (74%) compared to EU15 (64%). Mystery
shoppers residing in the Eastern part of Europe were the least likely to reach the order
confirmation stage (26%) while those residing in the Western or Northern parts were the
most likely (36% and 35% respectively). The largest differences between these regions
were based on geo-blocking stemming from delivery restrictions (43% in the East vs.
5%
6%
8%
7%
2%
2%
1%
11%
10%
12%
11%
2%
2%
10%
3%
6%
3%
1%
4%
6%
9%
4%
5%
5%
18%
6%
31%
51%
40%
24%
39%
23%
40%
25%
7%
6%
30%
31%
52%
33%
35%
51%
42%
6%
50%
7%
21%
29%
3%
35%
21%
29%
27%
19%
21%
38%
79%
33%
53%
56%
72%
46%
53%
61%
44%
65%
44%
16%
48%
39%
17%
51%
49%
23%
52%
36%
35%
50%
34%
46%
39%
32%
29%
35%
27%
88%
79%
77%
63%
29%
48%
50%
52%
66%
18%
45%
38%
24%
32%
32%
5%
43%
25%
35%
40%
31%
27%
18%
15%
14%
24%
31%
18%
EU28
Hungary
Cyprus
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Romania
Poland
Estonia
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Czech Republic
Portugal
Sweden
Austria
Netherlands
Denmark
Greece
Italy
Croatia
Latvia
Germany
Malta
Belgium
Ireland
France
Spain
Luxembourg
the UK
Country of the retailer
Access
Registration
Delivery
Payment
99%
92%
92%
90%
85%
83%
83%
83%
82%
80%
79%
75%
75%
73%
73%
73%
73%
72%
72%
70%
69%
69%
66%
64%
64%
63%
63%
58%
Overall
69%
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
34
28% in the West) and payment issues (32% in the East vs. 24% in the West and 21% in
the North of Europe).
Figure 6: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process by
shoppers’ EU region (expressed as a proportion within each stage of the process)
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10366; Q20 – Delivery, N = 7198; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 4485; unweighted data.
UK-based online shoppers were the least likely to experience geo-blocking during the
mystery shopping assessments (57%), followed by Belgium (57%) and Portugal (60%)
based ones. Shoppers from Latvia (78%), Slovakia (77%) and Malta (77%) were the
most likely. This is quite interesting a result for Malta since this is the country where
cross-border e-commerce is the second highest according to ESTAT (after Luxembourg)
and the highest according to the 2015 DSM Consumer Survey. Overall, the country
differences in geo-blocking prevalence at the different stages of the shopping process are
less pronounced when exploring them from the perspective of shoppers’ country of
residence. While this initial observation needs to be explored further, it is an indication
that the primary motivations behind geo-blocking practices may stem from retailers’
rather than shoppers’ origin.
5%
5%
3%
5%
4%
6%
29%
32%
24%
32%
29%
32%
32%
44%
41%
43%
37%
28%
24%
32%
21%
32%
27%
24%
EU15
EU13
North
East
South
West
Region of the shopper
Access
Registration
Delivery
Payment
74%
64%
64%
68%
74%
65%
Overall
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
35
Figure 7: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process by
country of shopper (expressed as a proportion within each stage of the process)23
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10366; Q20 – Delivery, N = 7198; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 4485; unweighted data.
2.7 Prevalence by country pair
The table below presents an overview of the incidence of geo-blocking per country pair
surveyed, with country of the seller presented in columns and country of the shopper
presented in rows. The level of geo-blocking is indicated in percentages as well as in a
23 For easier comparison between countries, note that the EU28 overall geo-blocking also corresponds to the
unweighted data, hence is different to the 37% (weighted data).
5%
7%
5%
5%
5%
7%
6%
4%
5%
9%
4%
4%
8%
5%
3%
5%
8%
7%
4%
8%
3%
5%
5%
4%
1%
6%
2%
6%
4%
31%
22%
44%
35%
33%
41%
36%
34%
27%
25%
32%
27%
25%
31%
17%
30%
31%
34%
23%
32%
25%
25%
35%
30%
26%
36%
23%
27%
28%
38%
50%
40%
47%
51%
43%
30%
43%
47%
38%
42%
42%
37%
34%
46%
41%
32%
35%
40%
25%
42%
38%
28%
30%
41%
23%
33%
20%
32%
27%
41%
32%
33%
27%
24%
43%
33%
28%
39%
24%
30%
36%
33%
30%
23%
29%
24%
28%
29%
16%
21%
21%
24%
13%
21%
22%
26%
11%
EU28
Latvia
Slovakia
Malta
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Romania
Estonia
Poland
Lithuania
Slovenia
Netherlands
Greece
Hungary
Cyprus
Ireland
Germany
Finland
France
Denmark
Italy
Luxembourg
Spain
Sweden
Austria
Portugal
Belgium
the UK
Country of the shopper
Access
Registration
Delivery
Payment
Overall
69%
57%
57%
60%
61%
62%
63%
63%
63%
65%
65%
67%
68%
68%
69%
69%
70%
70%
71%
71%
72%
73%
75%
75%
75%
76%
77%
77%
78%
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
36
colour gradient ranging from green (lowest value) to red (highest value) with a yellow
mid-point (50th percentile). This breakdown allows for a more detailed interpretation of
the varying prevalence of geo-blocking not only by country of the retailer and country of
the shopper but also by specific country pair. For example, Austrian shoppers are more
likely to be geo-blocked by Italian (76%) and Dutch (71%) retailers compared to German
(49%) and UK (46%) retailers. Surprisingly, Belgian-based mystery shoppers were most
likely to experience geo-blocking when shopping at online retailers based in the
Netherlands (72%), a neighbouring country which also shares a common language with
Belgium, compared to online retailers in the UK (44%) and France (51%). UK-based
retailers were most likely to block shoppers from Malta (86%), Germany (79%) and the
Netherlands (78%).
Looking closer at the table, some key differences in the variability of geo-blocking for
specific countries (from a shopper’s perspective) could be observed. More specifically,
shoppers from Malta were consistently geo-blocked above average by all retailer
countries surveyed, a range between 71% (from France) to 86% (from the UK). In
contrast, this range was a lot larger for shoppers from Ireland, who were geo-blocked in
50% of their shopping assessments by UK-based retailers and in as many as 94% by
Italian-based online retailers. Retailers based in France were least likely to geo-block
shoppers from the UK (46%), Luxembourg (49%), and Belgium (51%), while German-
based retailers were most willing to sell cross-border to shoppers from Austria (49%
overall geo-blocking) and Sweden (51%). In addition, Spanish online retailers were
overall less likely to geo-block consumers compared to Italian retailers, with the
exception of shoppers residing in Greece, 55% of whom were blocked by Italian online
retailers compared to 72% by Spanish ones. Online retailers based in the UK were most
likely to sell goods cross-border to shoppers residing in Eastern and Central Europe,
compared to other retailers from other major markets such as Germany and France. For
example, Hungarian shoppers were geo-blocked by 93% of French and 83% of German
online retailers but by only 51% of UK retailers. A similar trend can be observed for
shoppers residing in Bulgaria, who were geo-blocked by 76% of German compared to
64% of UK-based retailers.
Territorial Restrictions and Geo-Blocking in the European Digital Single Market
Table 7: Overall geo-blocking prevalence by country pair surveyed
Country of the seller
Co
un
try o
f th
e s
ho
pp
er
C AT BE BG HR CZ CY DK EE FI FR DE EL HU LV LT LU IE IT MT NL PL PT RO SK SL ES SE UK
AT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 65,1% 48,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 76,3% 0,0% 70,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 45,7%
BE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 50,6% 62,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 62,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 71,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 43,8%
BG 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 71,8% 75,9% 81,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 79,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 84,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 64,1%
HR 79,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 62,1% 78,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 79,2% 0,0% 80,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 82,7% 0,0% 0,0% 62,7%
CZ 82,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 68,7% 72,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 90,7% 0,0% 0,0% 90,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 43,1%
CY 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 84,1% 64,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 56,7%
DK 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 60,5% 74,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 78,2% 47,6%
EE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 80,3% 0,0% 71,8% 0,0% 0,0% 70,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 63,0% 0,0% 0,0% 87,7% 90,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 77,4% 60,8%
FI 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 78,9% 0,0% 72,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 66,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 52,0% 68,8% 56,2%
FR 0,0% 63,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 74,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 73,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 63,5% 0,0% 50,0%
DE 65,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 56,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 68,8% 0,0% 72,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 79,3%
EL 0,0% 0,0% 89,9% 0,0% 0,0% 91,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 61,3% 70,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 54,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 72,2% 0,0% 48,7%
HU 65,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 93,3% 82,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 74,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 51,1%
LV 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 87,0% 0,0% 64,3% 72,1% 0,0% 0,0% 91,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 76,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 65,4%
LT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 75,0% 72,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 77,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 63,8%
LU 64,7% 72,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 49,4% 65,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 69,4% 0,0% 70,4% 0,0% 68,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 47,4%
IE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 68,5% 63,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 93,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 66,7% 0,0% 50,0%
IT 68,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 67,6% 63,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 65,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 59,2% 0,0% 54,9%
MT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 71,0% 78,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 72,6% 83,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 74,7% 0,0% 86,4%
NL 0,0% 60,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 71,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 77,8%
PL 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 82,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 70,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 62,3%
PT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 69,7% 60,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 55,1% 0,0% 60,8%
RO 79,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 80,0% 64,7% 0,0% 98,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 81,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 60,5% 0,0% 63,3%
SK 75,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 75,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 59,5% 0,0% 98,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 83,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 68,9%
SL 78,5% 0,0% 0,0% 71,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 70,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 67,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 66,7%
ES 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 77,4% 61,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 57,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 81,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 50,7%
SE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 73,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 50,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 62,2%
UK 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 46,2% 62,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 52,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 61,4% 0,0%
Source: Q25 – Can enter payment details; N=10537
Territorial Restrictions and Geo-Blocking in the European Digital Single Market
2.8 Prevalence by direction of trade – EU15 and EU13
In addition to comparing the incidence of geo-blocking by EU region, the availability of
data on the origin of both the retailer and the shopper allows for a comparison of geo-
blocking practices based on the direction of the flow of cross-border e-commerce. The
figure below presents a breakdown of the incidence of geo-blocking at each stage of the
shopping process by the direction of trade between EU15 and EU13, as well as within the
regions themselves.
Overall, geo-blocking is least prevalent when online shopping takes place within the EU15
(63%). Interestingly, geo-blocking is most prevalent when trade occurs from an EU13 to
another EU13 country (84%). Retailers based in the EU15 are less likely to geo-block
shoppers residing in the EU13 (71%) compared to trade flowing in the opposite direction,
from EU13 to EU15 (82%). Differences in geo-blocking based on the direction of trade
are small at the access stage (4% for EU13 to EU13 vs. 7% for EU13 to EU15). Geo-
blocking at the registration stage is most likely to take place when trade flows from EU15
to EU13 (33%). The biggest differences can be observed when considering the delivery
and payment stages. Overall retailers based in the EU15 are less likely to impose delivery
restrictions to cross-border shoppers residing within the EU15 (32%) compared to
shoppers residing in the EU13 (40%). Online retailers based in the EU13 are, overall,
more likely to impose delivery restrictions and, interestingly, this happens more often
when shoppers reside within the EU13 (53%) compared to outside this region (47%).
This could be due to EU13 online retailers addressing more consumers from larger, more
affluent cross-border markets within the EU15.
When it comes to geo-blocking during the payment stage, the overall trend remains that
EU15-based retailers are less likely to geo-block based on payment restrictions, with
payment issues being less likely when trade flows towards the EU15 (23%), compared to
the EU13 (26%). Regardless of whether they reside in the EU15 or the EU13, shoppers
attempting to make a cross-border online purchase are more than twice as likely to be
blocked by EU13 retailers (53% for EU13 shoppers and 52% for EU15 shoppers).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
39
Figure 8: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process by
direction of trade (EU15 and EU13 regions)
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10366; Q20 – Delivery, N = 7198; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 4485; unweighted data.
2.9 Prevalence by sector
The breakdown of geo-blocking practices per sector shows that the overall prevalence of
geo-blocking varies substantially depending on the individual sector and even more so
when comparing tangible goods with online services. In the Electrical household
appliances sector 86% of the mystery shopping assessments ended prematurely because
of geo-blocking practices compared to only 60% of the assessments within the Books
sector. Looking at online services to be used offline, geo-blocking practices were not as
common, resulting in incomplete purchases in only 33% and 40% of the websites
assessed for Travel services and Online reservations of offline leisure, respectively. The
overall prevalence of geo-blocking is at least double for most tangible goods sectors
compared to the Travel services sector.
The breakdown per shopping stage reveals an even wider variability based on the type of
geo-blocking practices observed at each stage. Most notably, service providers were
more likely to geo-block mystery shoppers at the access stage of the shopping process
(9% for Travel services and 7% for Online reservations of offline leisure) compared to
most of the tangible goods markets where the range was between 3-6% amongst online
sellers. It appears that the following 3 stages contribute to the difference in the overall
geo-blocking prevalence between services and tangible goods sectors. The most
5%
4%
6%
7%
29%
28%
33%
29%
32%
53%
40%
47%
23%
53%
26%
52%
EU15 to EU15
EU13 to EU13
EU15 to EU13
EU13 to EU15
Direction of trade
Access
Registration
Delivery
Payment
63%
84%
71%
82%
Overall
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
40
pronounced difference was the prevalence of geo-blocking during registration (40% for
Electrical household appliances vs. only 10% for Travel services) and right after
registration (58% for Electrical household appliances vs. only 7% for Travel services),
when entering one’s delivery address in order to proceed with the specific online
purchase. When it comes to payment-related issues, the Books sector scored particularly
high, with 39% of online retailers blocking shoppers due to their payment method not
being accepted or for other payment-related errors (after the electrical household
appliances sector where the proportion was as high as 44%).
Figure 9: Geo-blocking prevalence at different stages of the online shopping process by
sector
Source: Q11, Q13, Q15 - Access, N = 10537; Q19 - Registration, N = 10382; Q20 – Delivery, N = 7628; Q24, Q25 – Payment, N = 5180; weighted data.
2.10 Prevalence by product category
The breakdown presented in the previous section already revealed some significant
variability per sector in retailers
Recommended