Consumer protection continues to be a top priority for the European Commission across the EU’s Single Market. The European Commission has announced further reforms to consumer protection legislation for the 2024–2029 legislative cycle. As a result, some companies will need to strengthen their compliance with consumer protection requirements.
Since 2017, the EU’s Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation has provided a legislative framework for collaboration among designated CPC bodies, outlining their responsibilities in enforcing consumer protection laws. In some EU Member States, these authorities differ from the national competent authorities (NCAs) responsible for supervising financial services.
In this context, the European Commission is reassessing the CPC Regulation to strengthen the enforcement of consumer rights across the EU. This review follows a 2024 assessment report that identified key challenges, including difficulties in addressing digital market violations, resource disparities among Member States, and enforcement gaps concerning non-EU traders. The reform aims to modernize consumer protection policies, aligning them with the complexities of digitalization and globalization while promoting fair competition and legal certainty.
The 2024–2029 European Commission has prioritized revising the CPC Regulation, drawing on frameworks like the Digital Services Act to strengthen enforcement mechanisms. Proposed updates include empowering the Commission with greater enforcement authority, expediting urgent cases, and modernizing the framework to build consumer trust and foster fair competition in the digital era.
Romania has implemented and aligned both Directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices (UTP) and EU Directive 2020/1828 through Law No. 414/2023 on the conduct of representative actions for the protection of collective consumer interests, along with secondary legislation in this regard. In addition to the existing options for requesting corrective measures, EU consumer protection regulations empower national authorities to stop and prevent unfair commercial practices, such as false, inaccurate, or misleading advertisements.
In Romania, unfair trading practices (UTPs) are regulated by the consumer protection authority, based on Article 6 of Law No. 363/2007. This law focuses on combating unfair practices by traders in their dealings with consumers and aligns national regulations with European consumer protection legislation. This law outlines the factors to be considered when determining if a commercial practice is misleading. The key elements include the main characteristics of the product, such as its availability, benefits, risks, manufacturing details, composition, accessories, after-sales support, complaint handling, production or delivery methods and dates, delivery terms, suitability for intended use, quantity, specifications, geographical or commercial origin, results from product use, and outcomes of any tests or controls performed on the product. Additionally, it takes into account the price, how it is calculated, and whether there is a specific price advantage.
Romania’s consumer landscape still has significantly improved, particularly in combating unfair trading practices and enhancing enforcement mechanisms. By addressing these systemic issues, the country has a fairer, more transparent market environment that benefits both consumers and businesses, aligning with broader EU standards and expectations, although it has been noted the fact that in Romania, the institutional framework on the consumer protection is divided between more institutions, also because of the fact that the European legislation overlaps the Romanian legislation, with laws in Romania on the consumer practices that are dating since 1992.
Commonly identified unfair trading practices (UTPs) include: misleading marketing strategies (common practices include inflated "original" prices to exaggerate discounts, particularly in e-commerce), ambiguous and unbalanced contracts (service providers, especially in telecommunications and utilities, often impose unfair terms, such as unclear cancellation policies or punitive early termination fees), substandard Goods and safety issues (counterfeit and low-quality imports, particularly in electronics, cosmetics, and food, pose significant risks; non-compliance with EU labeling standards worsens the issue).
Despite Romania's alignment with EU consumer protection standards, enforcement mechanisms have proven insufficient in effectively addressing unfair trading practices (UTPs), because of the many authorities involved in the control. The National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC), responsible for enforcing consumer rights, faces significant challenges that hinder their effectiveness. Additionally, the ANPC's lack of independence and impartiality can affect its ability to act decisively against violators. Also the lack of control of the ANPC actions could affect the control effectiveness, often some actions, like closing of activities affecting local producers and creating a pressure on local companies.
To enhance consumer rights protection, and to implement a system that also encourages the companies to apply the consumer protection rules and addressing these systemic issues within Romania's consumer protection framework is crucial. Clarifying ANPC's assignments and means of control ensuring its independence, but together with a mechanism for controlling its activity and promoting uniform enforcement across all regions are essential steps toward a more effective and equitable consumer protection system.
FDI news
The FDI screening framework in Romania, as regulated by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 46/2022 (“GEO 46/2022”), has undergone a series of changes in the last year. Although not all controversial aspects of the normative act have been clarified, the legal framework continues to develop.
Law no. 231/2024 on the approval of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 108/2023 has brought a new set of changes to the FDI regime in Romania. The scope of GEO 46/2022 has been extended to cover EU investments and EU investors. Consequently, EU investments follow a similar notification regime as non-EU investments.
Furthermore, a hot topic in the past year has been the inclusion of the Romanian investors / investments in the notion of EU investors and investments. Therefore, a thorough analysis of the investment’s conditions should be conducted, even in the case of an apparently national investment or investor.
Recent developments by the Romanian Competition Council (RCC)
The RCC has launched several sectoral inquiries / studies on the audiovisual and real estate sectors in order to verify if any potential distortions of the market.
The RCC has opened investigations in the last year regarding undertakings operating in the following industries: IT&C sector, medical and pharmaceutical sectors, retail & wholesale industry, automotive repair sector, as well as the electricity meter reading services market. Many of the recent investigations were related to public tenders and associated risks.
FIC RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the experience and the FDI cases analyzed and approved in the last two years, we believe that certain clarifications should be made regarding the sensitive sectors mentioned by CSAT Decision no. 73/2012 that fall under the scrutiny of the FDI regime, which would thus provide investors with the predictability they need when planning investments.
Furthermore, with regard to the threshold over which an investment is subject to FDI approval, we recommend the clarification of the computation method regarding the value of the investments (e.g. what are the elements to be taken into account for the calculation, assessment of investment value in the case of multi-jurisdictional transactions, etc.).
Further clarifications and guidelines on the FDI screening regime can reduce bureaucratic blockages and thus, improve the efficiency of the screening process and promote the investment environment in Romania.
Recent developments concerning Unfair Competition
Romania has adopted in 2022 new competition legislation that introduces a new anti-competitive practice, namely the leveraging of the superior negotiating position. This practice is similar to the “abuse of economic dependence” which has also been regulated by other EU member states.
The Romanian Competition Council has recently opened investigations related to potential unfair competition practices (such as the leveraging the superior negotiating position, the disparagement of a competitor, exceeding payment deadlines, unilateral amendment of contract terms).
The Competition Council has launched an investigation in order to assess the existence of the potential competition infringement related to the exploitation and leveraging of a superior negotiation position. This marks the first ever investigation of the Competition Council into this new anti-competitive behavior and also shows the Competition Council’s intentions to verify and correct this type of competitive conducts.
In order to encourage fair competition, Romania could develop guidelines tailored for SMEs, in order to help them understand what constitutes fair competition, how they can protect themselves from larger competitors and how they can navigate antitrust issues. Since SMEs represent a large part of Romania’s economy, providing them with resources, clarity and guidance on the topic of fair competition practices, will aid their development and can also prevent larger players from harming SMEs.
Romania could look at the Italian model closely, in order to also regulate explicitly the abuse of economic dependence in the digital area. As per Italian law, key digital platforms are presumed de jure to be in a superior bargaining position.
Unfair competition issues can also be prevented and resolved by enhancing collaboration with the other EU member states in order to effectively approach and settle cross-border unfair competition practices.
Romania could facilitate and set up mechanisms meant to share information and best practices more easily with other EU member states and their competition authorities for the purpose of improving enforcement and regulatory approaches.
Romania has made great advances in fighting unfair competition. By implementing these or similar recommendations, Romania can further refine its regulatory framework regarding unfair competition, thus guaranteeing a fair market environment for businesses and also ensuring that powerful market players do not take advantage of small businesses.
Direct investments made by both non-EU and EU (including Romanian) investors, covering certain areas and exceeding EUR 2 million, are subject to mandatory screening and authorization from a national security perspective under the Romanian FDI regime. This has added yet another layer of complexity to transaction planning, which currently has to factor in notifications from multiple angles, such as FDI screening or investigations under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, on top of traditional ones (e.g., merger control).
The need to review potentially problematic transactions, especially against the backdrop of the current geopolitical context, is undisputed. However, both the examination framework and the authority’s practice should be carefully balanced, so as to ensure that Romania remains an investor-friendly country. An overall sense of unpredictability, generated by the broad scope of the national security review – coupled with the lack of official guidance – led to an influx of notifications and, inevitably, to delays, acting as an investment deterrent.
Clarifying the covered fields. Under the status quo, it is increasingly difficult to conclude with reasonable confidence that a transaction is outside scope based on the concerned area of activity. Absent further intervention on the authority’s side, investors simply lack the tools to make such determination without fearing the risk of non-compliance. FIC recommends that the broadly drafted areas (including e.g., security of the citizen and of collectivities, energy security – without additional specifications) are subject to official interpretation, otherwise virtually any transaction may end up under scrutiny.
Exempting / carving out a special regime for certain categories of investments. FIC recommends that specific transactions which, by their nature, are less likely to raise concerns (e.g., internal restructurings) either be excluded from review, or at the very least be dealt with under an accelerated procedure. This would contribute to the overall objective of streamlining the authority’s resources and operations (allowing it to focus on genuine national security concerns), while also unlocking unproblematic investment potential.
Providing a clear methodology in terms of value. While conventional cases may be easier to approach, investments often take the form of multi-jurisdictional deals (where e.g., no value is allocated specifically to the Romanian leg) or transactions involving consideration other than cash. Fleshing out adequate proxies for such scenarios would narrow down the pool of mandatory notifications to those cases which have a certain degree of relevance to Romania value-wise.