The Court of Appeal of the Higher Province of Upper Austria has ruled that Amazon's login button and algorithms are in breach of the DSA

The German regional court in Bamberg has ruled against Amazon, stating that its use of algorithmic recommendations and reporting mechanisms violates the Digital Services Act (DSA). The decision was made following a lawsuit brought by the Bavarian Consumer Centre, which argued that Amazon’s practices fail to meet key transparency and user rights requirements under EU law. The ruling focuses on several core aspects of how Amazon operates its platform. It addresses the transparency of recommendation algorithms used to sort search results, the accessibility of reporting tools for potentially unlawful content, and the ease with which users can opt out of personalized feed recommendations. According to the court's judgment, these areas fall short of the standards set by the DSA. Specifically, the court emphasized that while Amazon provides general information about factors influencing search rankings, such as customer actions or product data, it does so in a manner too vague to satisfy legal obligations. Under Article 27 of the DSA, platforms must ensure that users can understand how recommendation systems work. The court found that Amazon’s current approach fails to provide clear, detailed explanations of the criteria used to prioritize items in search results. Users should be able to determine which factors influence their recommendations and how they are weighted, particularly when dynamic adjustments are made. The court noted that terms such as “customer actions” remain ambiguous, leaving users uncertain whether this refers to personal browsing history, aggregated user behavior, or third-party sales figures. The court also rejected Amazon’s efforts to make de-personalization of feeds accessible. While the DSA requires large platforms to offer easy access to settings that disable tracking-based advertising and product suggestions, Amazon hides these options deep within account settings that require login via email and password. This, according to the court, contradicts the requirement for straightforward access without needing to log in. Furthermore, since non-registered users' browsing and search behaviors are still considered when displaying product highlights, the de-personalization option must be equally available to them. In another critical point, the court criticized Amazon’s method of allowing users to report suspicious or illegal products. The platform uses a link labeled “Report a problem with this product,” which the court deemed misleading. From a consumer perspective, this phrasing suggests that reports are limited to quality issues, delivery problems, or other non-criminal concerns, rather than enabling users to flag illegal or counterfeit goods. This misrepresentation undermines the intent of the DSA, which aims to empower consumers to identify and report harmful content. Additionally, the court ruled that requiring users to log into an account before submitting a report constitutes an unnecessary barrier. The DSA mandates that reporting mechanisms must be open to all individuals and entities, including anonymous users. Amazon’s argument that login requirements prevent spam and bot activity did not sway the court, which maintained that protecting businesses and systems from abuse should not restrict access to legally mandated reporting channels. The court also acknowledged the success of the Bavarian Consumer Centre’s case regarding the disclosure of information about algorithm design, moderation tools, and internal complaint procedures under Article 14 of the DSA. While platforms are not required to present all details in one place, the division of information must not compromise transparency. Offering basic explanations about content moderation within terms and conditions, along with procedural details related to complaints, meets the necessary standards.