Platforms can suspend an account, but they cannot disregard their legal obligations. And there is a European regulation that, when certain requirements are met, obliges them to reverse the decision.
An SME develops its business over several years through a digital platform: it invests in advertising, builds a community, accumulates positive reviews and depends on that account to attract customers. One day, it receives a notification: account suspended for breaching the terms of use. Sometimes the explanation is generic; at other times, the decision comes from an automated system and there is no way to contact a person who can review the suspension.
The problem then ceases to be technological and becomes legal. Can a platform unilaterally suspend a business account? Is it obliged to explain the reasons? Can reinstatement be demanded or compensation for the damage claimed?
It should be made clear from the outset that economic harm does not, in itself, make the suspension unlawful: platforms may establish terms of use and take action against breaches, fraud, illegal content or security risks. The question is whether the decision has a valid basis and whether it was adopted in compliance with the obligations applicable to the platform.
1. The first step is not to complain: it is to determine which law applies
Many mistakes in these cases arise from invoking the wrong regulation, because there are two different European legal regimes, with different scopes of application, which may nevertheless apply concurrently to the same suspension.
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act (DSA), regulates, among other matters, certain content moderation decisions: Articles 17 and 20 establish obligations where a restriction is based on information provided by the user being illegal or incompatible with the platform’s terms and conditions.
Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 (P2B) regulates the relationship between certain online intermediation services and business users who offer goods or services to consumers through them, with a view to facilitating the initiation of direct transactions.
Consequently, a suspension may give rise to different remedies depending on the service affected:
- A marketplace where the business sells, such as Amazon Seller Central: both regulations may apply, provided their respective requirements are met. This is one of the situations in which greater regulatory protection exists.
- A business profile on a search engine or social network, such as a Google business profile, Instagram or Facebook account: the DSA may apply and, in certain commercial intermediation services, the P2B Regulation may also apply. The latter cannot be excluded as a general rule, since its scope may include certain social networking services.
- An advertising account, such as Google Ads or Meta Ads: a suspension for purely contractual reasons, such as non-payment, is not automatically subject to the moderation mechanisms under Articles 17 and 20 of the DSA or to the P2B Regulation. The specific service, the reason for the suspension and the applicable legal framework must be examined.
- Suspension due to non-payment, account ownership issues or security concerns: this does not necessarily constitute a content moderation decision. If it is not based on the illegality of information provided by the user or its incompatibility with the terms and conditions within the meaning of the DSA, its specific statement-of-reasons and complaint-handling mechanisms may not apply.
Article 19 of the DSA must also be taken into account. It establishes certain exemptions for online platforms that qualify as microenterprises or small enterprises, subject to the conditions and exceptions laid down in the Regulation.
Paragraph 2 excludes platforms designated as very large online platforms under Article 33 from that exemption.
Therefore, before making a claim, it is necessary to identify the service, the reason for the suspension and the applicable legal framework. Knowing the name of the technology company is not enough.
2. The DSA: the platform must provide reasons
Article 17 requires hosting service providers to provide a clear and specific statement of reasons when they restrict content, services, accounts or monetisation opportunities because they consider that information provided by the user is illegal or incompatible with their terms and conditions.
That obligation also extends to business accounts where the requirements of the provision are met.
The statement of reasons must make it possible to understand the basis of the decision and the available means of redress and must identify, as appropriate, the measure adopted, the relevant facts, the legal or contractual grounds relied upon and whether automated means were used.
Therefore, a business affected by a suspension covered by Article 17 can demand considerably more than a notice stating that it has breached the community guidelines.
What it cannot do is automatically invoke this Article where the suspension does not constitute a decision falling within its scope, as may occur in a dispute concerning non-payment for an advertising service.
3. Internal complaints and the obligation to reverse the decision
This is one of the most useful provisions of the Regulation and one that deserves particular attention.
Article 20 requires online platforms falling within its scope to provide an internal complaint-handling system, available electronically and free of charge, accessible for at least six months from the date on which the decision was communicated.
Decisions covered by the provision concerning the removal or restriction of the visibility of information, the suspension or termination of the service — in whole or in part — the suspension or closure of an account and restrictions on monetisation may be challenged.
Complaints must be handled in a timely, non-discriminatory, diligent and non-arbitrary manner, in accordance with paragraph 4.
Furthermore, paragraph 6 requires decisions on complaints to be taken under the supervision of appropriately qualified staff and not solely by automated means.
This is particularly important where the business suspects that the suspension was produced by an automated detection system: it is not sufficient for the appeal to be decided exclusively by another automated procedure.
But paragraph 4 goes beyond establishing a procedure.
Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds to consider that the information is not illegal or incompatible with the terms and conditions, or that the complainant’s conduct does not justify the measure adopted, the platform must reverse its decision without undue delay.
We are therefore not dealing merely with an obligation to process the complaint. The Regulation also requires the reversal of the decision where the conditions established in Article 20(4) are met.
This does not mean that every disagreement with the platform automatically gives rise to a right to recover the account.
It means that a sufficiently substantiated complaint may legally oblige the platform to reverse the measure.
This is why the internal complaint should not be drafted as a simple expression of dissatisfaction, but as a submission identifying the specific factual error or incorrect application of the terms and conditions, supported by evidence showing that the decision lacks justification.
This is where the case may be won or lost.
4. The P2B Regulation: deadlines and statements of reasons for businesses selling through platforms
For businesses trading through online intermediation services falling within its scope, the P2B Regulation provides additional protections under Article 4.
If the platform restricts or suspends its services in relation to specific goods or services of a business user, it must provide a statement of reasons on a durable medium before or at the time the measure takes effect.
The timing requirement is important: the statement of reasons should not necessarily follow the suspension, but should precede or accompany it, subject to the exceptions provided by law.
Its absence, where it is legally required, may constitute a breach of the Regulation.
If the platform decides to terminate the entirety of the online intermediation services provided to that business user, it must communicate the reasons at least thirty days in advance, subject to exceptions including legal or regulatory obligations, imperative reasons under applicable law or repeated breaches of the terms and conditions that it can demonstrate.
The same Article recognises the business user’s opportunity to clarify the facts and circumstances through the internal complaint-handling procedure and, if the measure is revoked, to be reinstated without undue delay, including the restoration of access to the relevant data.
The distinction between suspension and termination is decisive, because the general thirty-day notice period does not apply to every temporary suspension.
Nor can it be assumed that the P2B Regulation applies to all business services provided by a major operator: it is necessary to verify whether the specific service meets the requirements for online intermediation services.
5. What to do in the first few hours
The initial response affects everything that follows, and the objective is twofold: to preserve evidence and avoid worsening the company’s legal position.
Preserve the suspension notice. The email, the communication within the platform, the date, the account identification details and the contractual terms relied upon.
Document the business activity. Invoices, advertising contracts, sales reports, statistics, order history and communications with customers. This evidence is useful both for requesting reinstatement and for proving the damage suffered.
Identify the actual reason for the suspension. An alleged intellectual property infringement is not the same as misleading advertising, a commercial breach, a security issue or non-payment. The applicable legal framework depends on this distinction.
Submit a properly substantiated internal complaint. Identify the factual error or incorrect application of the terms and conditions, provide supporting evidence and expressly request reversal under Article 20(4) of the DSA and, where applicable, Article 4 of the P2B Regulation.
Do not aggravate the dispute. Creating alternative accounts to circumvent a suspension may breach contractual terms, constitute an additional infringement and make a subsequent claim more difficult.
At the same time, urgent measures should be taken to protect data, fulfil outstanding orders and maintain business continuity.
6. Can reinstatement be demanded?
There is no general rule requiring every platform to reinstate any suspended account.
The prospects of success depend on whether the suspension is based on a valid contractual ground, whether the alleged facts are correct, whether the obligations concerning statements of reasons and review were complied with, whether the decision is compatible with contractual good faith and mandatory legal provisions, and whether third-party rights, legal obligations or security risks justify maintaining the restriction.
Where the suspension is contrary to the contract or applicable law, the business may seek contractual performance, reinstatement of the service and any appropriate judicial remedies.
In urgent situations, an application for interim measures under the Spanish Civil Procedure Act may be considered, provided its requirements are met.
In particular, it will be necessary to examine a prima facie case, the risk arising from procedural delay and the security required, in accordance with Articles 728 et seq. of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act.
The financial urgency may be relevant in demonstrating the risk arising from the duration of the proceedings, but it does not replace the legal basis of the claim.
7. Compensation: the damage must be proven
Neither the DSA nor the P2B Regulation establishes automatic compensation for every unlawful suspension.
Article 54 of the DSA recognises the right to seek compensation, in accordance with EU and national law, for damage or loss suffered as a result of a breach of the obligations imposed on providers by the Regulation.
In Spain, the general rules on contractual liability under Articles 1101 et seq. of the Civil Code may also apply where the breach is attributable to the platform.
It will be necessary to establish the infringement, the damage and the causal link, together with the other applicable requirements for liability.
The heads of loss to be examined include actual loss — expenses caused by the suspension — and loss of profit, referring to the profits that could reasonably have been earned.
And here is the warning that may prevent the greatest disappointment: lost turnover is not the same as lost profit.
Quantifying lost profits requires an examination of commercial margins, historical sales, seasonality and the other factors affecting the results. In many cases, an expert assessment will be necessary, rather than a simple arithmetic calculation.
A strong claim does not merely demonstrate that the account was wrongfully suspended: it demonstrates what specific loss that decision caused.
8. If the platform rejects the complaint
Article 21 of the DSA allows users to refer disputes concerning decisions falling within its scope to certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies.
Possible breaches of the Regulation may also be reported to the competent authorities, in accordance with the DSA rules governing complaints and the allocation of supervisory powers.
In Spain, the National Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC) was designated as Digital Services Coordinator in January 2024.
The different remedies should not be confused: a complaint to the supervisory authority is not equivalent to a judicial claim for reinstatement and does not, by itself, result in individual compensation.
Within the P2B framework, another avenue deserves attention.
Article 12 requires providers of online intermediation services, subject to the legally established exceptions, to identify in their terms and conditions two or more mediators with whom they are willing to engage in an attempt to reach an agreement.
The Regulation requires participation in mediation in good faith, but does not oblige the parties to reach an agreement.
Mediation does not necessarily have to be proposed from scratch: the mediators may already be identified in the platform’s terms and conditions.
Articles 11(5) and 12(7) provide exceptions for providers that qualify as small enterprises under the European definition. It is important to distinguish these providers from SMEs using the service, which are not excluded from protection merely because they are small.
Article 14 of the Regulation also provides for certain judicial actions by representative organisations and associations, subject to the legally established conditions.
This possibility may be relevant where practices affect multiple business users and the cost of individual litigation is high.
9. The limits of contractual clauses and where litigation takes place
Terms and conditions often grant platforms very broad powers to restrict content, suspend accounts or terminate the relationship.
Those clauses do not operate outside the legal system: their application must be examined under the relevant European legislation, the applicable contract law and, where appropriate, the rules governing standard contractual terms.
A broadly worded suspension power does not eliminate statutory obligations concerning statements of reasons, transparency and review.
Nor is every limitation of liability clause valid or enforceable in respect of every breach.
What cannot be done is simply to extend consumer protection rules to these relationships: the SME acts as a business user, and this has specific procedural consequences.
In business-to-business relationships, jurisdiction clauses may be valid and effective under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, provided the applicable requirements are met.
However, the mere appearance of such a clause in standard terms and conditions is not sufficient to conclude automatically that it determines jurisdiction.
Its incorporation and acceptance, formal requirements, substantive validity and scope must be examined.
Furthermore, the applicable regime may differ where courts of non-EU States are designated or where other international instruments come into play.
An SME does not, merely because it is a small business, benefit from the special protective jurisdiction rules that the Regulation reserves for consumers.
Before estimating the cost of litigation against a foreign platform, it is necessary to determine where proceedings may be brought and which law will apply.
10. Reducing dependence
Prevention is also a form of legal protection.
When a business concentrates its sales, advertising or customer communications on a single platform, any suspension becomes a major operational risk.
It is advisable to review the terms of use before making significant investments, periodically export and preserve commercial data that may lawfully be obtained, maintain independent channels of communication with customers and document the contractual relationship.
It is also important to distinguish which assets genuinely belong to the business and which depend on licences or functionalities provided by a third party: a community of followers, a history of reviews or a prominent position on a marketplace may have considerable economic value without there being an unlimited right to retain them outside the applicable conditions.
Dependence cannot always be avoided. Its consequences can, however, be reduced.
Conclusion
The suspension of a business account is not a private decision beyond legal scrutiny.
The DSA and the P2B Regulation have established obligations concerning statements of reasons, transparency and complaints, and Article 20(4) of the former even requires reversal of the measure where the legally established conditions are met.
However, their scopes of application are different, although they may overlap, and neither automatically guarantees the reinstatement of every account.
The first question is not how to complain, but which service has been suspended, for what reason and which law governs that relationship.
The answer determines whether there is a right to a specific statement of reasons, a review that is not exclusively automated and, where appropriate, reversal, or whether the matter must be addressed primarily under contract law.
On that basis, it is possible to assess the legality of the decision, demand its review, request reinstatement and, where there are sufficient grounds, claim compensation for proven damage.
For an SME, a digital account may represent an essential part of its business. Precisely for that reason, its suspension must be treated as a legal and business problem from the very first day, not merely as a technical support issue.
Note: this article is intended for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice regarding any particular suspension. The applicable law and available remedies depend on the type of platform, the contractual relationship, the reasons for the suspension and the circumstances of the case.
Sources:
- Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Digital Services Act, particularly Articles 17, 19, 20, 21, 33, 53 and 54.
- Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, particularly Articles 2, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 14.
- Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Article 25.
- Spanish Civil Code, Articles 1101 et seq.
- Spanish Law 7/1998 of 13 April, on General Contractual Conditions.
- Spanish Law 1/2000 of 7 January, on Civil Procedure, particularly Articles 721 et seq.
- Designation of the Spanish National Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC) as Digital Services Coordinator (January 2024).