Interesting. I don't see why an online marketplace couldn't act as AR/RP if it wished to. So far as I can tell, no criteria, qualifications or standards have been laid down that have to be met before a company or individual can call themselves an AR/RP. No sanctions on non-compliant AR/RPs are mentioned in the Regulation, so far as I can tell. Given the EU's love of (over-)regulation, that's a glaring omission. Any of us, if we could prove we had an EU address, could set ourselves up with a nice little money-making scheme.
We have to wonder, then, how many of these self-defined AR/RPs are going to last the course and provide reliable services at reasonable cost and how many are fly-by-night scam-merchants set up simply to rip off gullible foreigners. There appears to be no mechanism for examining their credenntials or claiming against them if they fail to do due diligence and, as a result, land the trader in a heap of trouble. It really is a massive hole in the whole precarious regulatory edifice.
Having, for my sins, finally read almost every word of the text of the Reg at 3am last night I noted several random things:
>> Much of it is vague and clear definitions of many terms are lacking, offering limitless scope for market surveillance authorities (MSAs) and lawyers to bite chunks out of traders. The precise definitions of antiques, collectibles, items of historic interest etc are lacking, are an example. When does 'secondhand' become a 'collectible'? A Taylor Swift concert poster or a George V stamp? The Reg says:
Antiques, such as works of art or collectors’ items are specific categories of products which cannot be expected to meet the safety requirements laid down by this Regulation, and should therefore be excluded from its scope. However, in order to prevent other products from being mistakenly considered as belonging to those categories, it is necessary to take into account that works of art are products created solely for artistic purposes, that collectors’ items are of sufficient rarity and historical or scientific interest to justify their collection and preservation, and that antiques, if they are not already works of art or collectors’ items or both, are of an extraordinary age.
Is a Lalique ashtray to be excluded because, although it is a very desirable artistic work, it also, theoretically at least, was made for a practical purpose? And what is "an extraordinary age"? A 60-year-old newspaper in mint condition will be a fairly rare survivor, but a relatively common Roman coin might not be - which object's age is "extraordinary"? Old postcards are exactly the sorts of object that customs officers, sellers, regulators and lawyers could argue about interminably.
>> GPSR also applies to products offered to the market that are free of charge, eg a magazine that's FOC to members of an organisation - though an MSA might argue that it is any case charged for because it's included in the annual subscription. Ditto promotional giveaways.
>> The 2029 review of GPSR's operational success or otherwise is far too distant. If this goes as pear-shaped as many people fear, irreparable harm will have been done to ROW-EU trade long before then.
>> I've seen no ruling on whether the CONTENT, as opposed to the physical form, of a book or other printed matter has to be risk-assessed. A book might present no appreciable danger as an object yet contain text or advice that could cause great harm. So a regulator might argue that it should fall within scope of GPSR. But if interpretations of (innocently written) words have to be RA'd (beyond what's normally done as part of the editing process) then bookselling into the EU would become effectively impossible. Ditto music, film, art etc. It would act as a pernicious and far-reaching form of censorship. Although content is not mentioned and might therefore be deemed to be excluded, it also leaves open the possibility that certain MSAs, eg in illiberal member states (of which there is an increasing number), might decide this is a good back-door way of preventing certain views/attitudes penetrating their borders. GPSR offers no safeguards against this sort of (mis?)interpretation.
>> An almost impossible requirement is: "The safety of all products should be assessed taking into consideration the need for the product to be safe over its entire lifespan." Can anyone guarantee that the handle won't fall off a china mug after decades of use? What is the lifespan of a table - 5 years, 50 years, 500 years? I'm still using Christmas lights my parents bought in 1957, but I can hardly expect the manufacturer to be held to account if they go wrong in 2024!
>> More encouragingingly, the explanatory paragraphs contain several uses of the word proportionate. For example: Economic operators should have proportionate obligations concerning the safety of products, in relation to their respective roles in the supply chain. 'Proportionate' does NOT mean 'excessive'. Perhaps we, and our (still largely absent) advisers in government, industry associations, online marketplaces etc should give more weight to this word 'proportionate'.
![Screenshot_2024-12-04-21-40-24-771_com.google.android.apps.docs[1].jpg](https://community.ebay.co.uk/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/126320i281F236E9CD631A0/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999 "Screenshot_2024-12-04-21-40-24-771_com.google.android.apps.docs[1].jpg")
I have several repeat customers there who can now no longer order. 
