The international fightback against dangerous products sold online
Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy
| Which?
After years of campaigning, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, Rocio Concha, explains why now is a crucial turning point for the regulation of online marketplaces.
What is the difference between shopping at high street stores or online marketplaces like Amazon Marketplace and eBay? For many shoppers it’s simply a matter of convenience and often price - online marketplaces have made an extraordinary range of products accessible to us in just a few clicks. There is, however, a serious downside to shopping in these marketplaces, as e-commerce giants from Amazon Marketplace to AliExpress have consistently failed to prevent the sale of unsafe products on their sites.
Which? has a long history of campaigning to hold online marketplaces to account. We have sounded the alarm for years alongside fire brigade bosses, electrical safety campaigners and the children’s toy industry. We have tested and reported on everything from ineffective smoke detectors to dangerous electric heaters. In spite of our ongoing efforts, online marketplaces are still resisting change and dangerous products continue to slip through the net. Now, after years of campaigning, we have reached a critical moment as Parliament considers new legislation, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, to update product safety laws in the UK. Which? is pleased with the progress of this Bill, but important decisions still need to be made by the government on the precise obligations online marketplaces will face.
Which? has come together with our sister organisations in the US and Europe to highlight why tighter regulation that places greater responsibility on these marketplaces is so urgently needed. This week sees the launch of a Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) report, which sets out a catalogue of product failings where unsafe products have been offered to UK, EU and US consumers on these marketplaces. It outlines how regulation in all of these jurisdictions needs strengthening with effective enforcement that holds online marketplaces to the same product safety requirements as any other retailer.
This directly impacts human safety, as seen from our investigations into exploding USB chargers, fire-risk heaters and choking hazards found in children’s toys. In April this year, we tested energy saving plugs from AliExpress, Amazon, eBay, Shein, Temu and TikTok Shop. Each one that we tested failed to meet basic electrical safety requirements, which meant they were illegal to sell in the UK.
Our investigations demonstrate, in our view, the unwillingness of some online marketplaces to make meaningful changes until their hand is forced by law. For instance, in 2021 Which? purchased 28 toys from AliExpress, Amazon, eBay and Wish - more than 40 per cent of these failed our safety tests. Fast forward to 2024, and Which?’s follow up test found serious safety issues in toys from many of the same marketplaces; these included choking hazards, detachable magnets and strangulation risks.
Our sister organisations reported many similar instances of dangerous products. For example, the French consumer group, UFC-Que Choisir, tested more than 20 USB smartphone chargers from online markets and found that only four of them were compliant with regulations on labelling and electrical safety. The TACD report outlines many such stories of non-compliant electrical goods reported by consumer bodies throughout the UK, Europe and the United States - highlighting the global scale of this issue and the need for international collaboration to fix this.
This new report shows that this is a global issue that affects consumers across multiple markets, often unaware of the limited protections in place when they shop online. Shoppers around the globe are exposed to harm by unsafe products sold on these marketplaces, hence the need for a united international call for effective regulation.
Some online marketplaces have got away with resisting change for too long, and there is simply no justification for consumers to continue to be exposed to such risks.
