The proposal to regulate online marketplaces drew sharp criticism from the Russian Consumer Union. In a report by the publication known as News, the criticism was framed as a public debate featuring prominent figures who weighed in on the issue. The exchange highlighted a split in opinions about how these platforms should be treated under new rules intended to govern their operations and responsibilities.
Social activists have expressed doubts about assigning accountability for product quality to online platforms that do not manufacture the goods they list. Their stance centers on the idea that marketplaces are intermediaries and not owners of the items they host. They argue that placing full responsibility on platforms could complicate business models and alter the nature of how online commerce functions in Russia, potentially stifling innovation and limiting consumer choice.
In its formal letter, the Consumers Union maintained that marketplaces do not possess the products they sell and therefore lack a legal basis to preemptively verify every item. The argument rests on the understanding that inspections and quality assurances are typically the domain of manufacturers and retailers who control the production and sale of goods. This view emphasizes that shifting verification duties to aggregators would require heavy operational changes and could lead to unintended consequences in the marketplace ecosystem.
The union warned that if such a rule were introduced, the costs would likely be distributed through penalties and higher commissions charged to sellers. The result could be higher prices for consumers and less favorable conditions for smaller sellers who rely on platform commissions to access a broad customer base. This cascade effect would, in the union’s view, undermine price competitiveness and market accessibility for many participants in the digital trading environment.
State Duma deputy Dmitry Gusev has offered a different perspective, suggesting that aggregators should act as a kind of filter for products and that goods should ultimately be answerable to consumer standards. His position envisions a model where platforms play a more proactive role in quality signaling and consumer protection, while still preserving the marketplace structure as a facilitator rather than a direct guarantor of every item sold.
In contrast, the marketplace giant Ozon has asserted that placing a broad obligation on platforms to police the products of all sellers could undermine the very marketplace model. The company argues that such a shift would blur the lines between an aggregator and a retailer, potentially altering the fundamental business logic that allows multiple sellers to connect with buyers within a single platform. The implication is that overreach in responsibility could erode the economic benefits of the marketplace format.
There is a sense that the country has been aware of the limitations and possible misuses within its digital commerce space for some time. The discourse often returns to the question of how to balance consumer protection with the practical realities of platform-based shopping. Stakeholders note that a robust regulatory framework should address transparency, accountability, and fair competition without stifling the growth of online commerce or imposing undue burdens on sellers and platforms alike.
In the past, Russia has taken steps aimed at curbing excessive expansion of marketplaces. Observers point to a desire to prevent market fragmentation, ensure quality controls, and maintain price stability across digital platforms. This context underscores a broader conversation about what effective regulation should look like for a rapidly evolving sector that connects countless buyers with a diverse range of goods and sellers across the country.
The broader policy discussion continues to seek a balance that protects consumers while preserving the vitality of online marketplaces. Analysts and participants agree that any regulatory framework must be clear, enforceable, and proportionate to the risks involved. They also stress the importance of keeping channels open for small and mid-sized sellers to compete, innovate, and reach national audiences through digital channels. The central aim remains to foster trust in the online marketplace while preventing deceptive practices and ensuring that consumer rights are upheld across all platforms.