“On a durable medium”: why the wording matters when you are arguing
Restaurant operators skip these three words and they are doing real work. Regulation 2019/1150 attaches them to every explanation a platform owes: a statement of reasons for a restriction or suspension must come “on a durable medium”, and so must the thirty days notice before termination. Notice of changes to terms carries the same requirement. The effect is that an explanation given verbally, or in a chat window that scrolls away, does not discharge the obligation, however helpful the person on the call was.
What does the phrase exclude in practice?
A phone call, a conversation with an account manager, and anything in a support interface you cannot retain.
That is not a technicality invented for arguments. It is the difference between a restaurant that can show, six months later, that three restrictions were applied for the same stated reason, and one that remembers three conversations.
The regulation is protecting the ability to accumulate evidence, not the moment of being told.
Why does accumulation matter so much?
Because a single incident is absorbed and a pattern is not.
Platforms treat one restriction as an operational event and apologise for it if it was wrong. Three restrictions with the same stated reason, in writing, over a quarter, are a different object entirely. They can be put in front of a commercial review, referred to in a complaint, or taken to mediation.
Verbal explanations cannot be accumulated. They decay into recollection within weeks and disappear when the account manager changes.
How do I make sure I get it in that form?
Ask for it in those words, and put the request in writing yourself.
“Please provide the statement of reasons on a durable medium” is a short sentence that names the obligation and the format together. It also signals that you know what the document says, which changes the reply you get.
If somebody explains a decision on a call, follow it with a written summary asking for confirmation. A confirmed written summary is a durable record even where the platform’s own process produced nothing.
What should the record contain to be useful later?
The decision, the date it took effect, the reason given, and who gave it.
Those four fields make an incident comparable to the next one. Without the date it took effect, you cannot line the platform’s account up against your own observation of when the listing actually changed, and that comparison is where most disputes are actually settled.
Your own half of it has to be built independently. A timestamp for the moment the listing stopped being orderable, captured by Kitchain (kitchain.co) as it happened, is the thing a statement of reasons then gets compared against.
Does this apply to changes in terms as well?
Yes, and the notice period is separate. Changes to terms and conditions must be notified on a durable medium, and the notice period “shall be at least 15 days from the date on which the provider of online intermediation services notifies the business users concerned about the proposed changes”.
Longer periods are required where the change forces you to make technical or commercial adaptations, which covers a good deal of what platforms actually change.
Is there an equivalent expectation outside the European Union?
None that we have been able to confirm in the Gulf markets we monitor, and we have not verified the position for the United Kingdom either way.
Which means a group operating across regions should not assume the same paper trail exists everywhere. Where the obligation does not apply, the same discipline is still worth keeping voluntarily, because the reason to keep records was never really the regulation.