Category: Economy

  • MIL-OSI: First Bank Announces Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HAMILTON, N.J., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Bank (Nasdaq Global Market: FRBA) invites participation in a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial and operating performance during its second quarter ending on June 30, 2025.

    Event:       Earnings Conference Call – Second Quarter 2025
             
    When:   Wednesday, July 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time
             
    Access:   Conference Call Dial-In:       (800) 715-9871 (toll free)
             
        Conference Call Access Code:   3909613
             

    Patrick L. Ryan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew L. Hibshman, Chief Financial Officer, Peter J. Cahill, Chief Lending Officer, and Darleen Gillespie, Chief Retail Banking Officer will provide an overview of second quarter 2025 results. The management presentation typically lasts approximately fifteen to thirty minutes, followed by investor questions and discussion. The Company’s second quarter results will be released after the market closes on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 and will also be available in the “Investor Relations” section of the Company’s website. Conference replay information is also available on the Company’s website, www.firstbanknj.com.

    About First Bank
    First Bank is a New Jersey state-chartered bank with 27 full-service branches in Cinnaminson, Delanco, Denville, Ewing, Fairfield, Flemington, Hamilton, Lawrence, Monroe, Pennington, Randolph, Somerset, Trenton, Williamstown, Morristown and Summit, New Jersey, Doylestown, Trevose, Warminster, West Chester, Paoli, Malvern, Coventry, Devon, Lionville, Media, Pennsylvania, and Palm Beach, Florida. With $3.88 billion in assets as of March 31, 2025. First Bank offers a traditional range of deposit and loan products to individuals and businesses mainly throughout the New York City to Philadelphia corridor. First Bank’s common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market exchange under the symbol “FRBA”.

    Contact
    Andrew L. Hibshman, Executive Vice President and CFO
    (609) 643-0058, andrew.hibshman@firstbanknj.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: First Bank Announces Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HAMILTON, N.J., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Bank (Nasdaq Global Market: FRBA) invites participation in a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial and operating performance during its second quarter ending on June 30, 2025.

    Event:       Earnings Conference Call – Second Quarter 2025
             
    When:   Wednesday, July 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time
             
    Access:   Conference Call Dial-In:       (800) 715-9871 (toll free)
             
        Conference Call Access Code:   3909613
             

    Patrick L. Ryan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew L. Hibshman, Chief Financial Officer, Peter J. Cahill, Chief Lending Officer, and Darleen Gillespie, Chief Retail Banking Officer will provide an overview of second quarter 2025 results. The management presentation typically lasts approximately fifteen to thirty minutes, followed by investor questions and discussion. The Company’s second quarter results will be released after the market closes on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 and will also be available in the “Investor Relations” section of the Company’s website. Conference replay information is also available on the Company’s website, www.firstbanknj.com.

    About First Bank
    First Bank is a New Jersey state-chartered bank with 27 full-service branches in Cinnaminson, Delanco, Denville, Ewing, Fairfield, Flemington, Hamilton, Lawrence, Monroe, Pennington, Randolph, Somerset, Trenton, Williamstown, Morristown and Summit, New Jersey, Doylestown, Trevose, Warminster, West Chester, Paoli, Malvern, Coventry, Devon, Lionville, Media, Pennsylvania, and Palm Beach, Florida. With $3.88 billion in assets as of March 31, 2025. First Bank offers a traditional range of deposit and loan products to individuals and businesses mainly throughout the New York City to Philadelphia corridor. First Bank’s common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market exchange under the symbol “FRBA”.

    Contact
    Andrew L. Hibshman, Executive Vice President and CFO
    (609) 643-0058, andrew.hibshman@firstbanknj.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: First Bank Announces Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HAMILTON, N.J., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Bank (Nasdaq Global Market: FRBA) invites participation in a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial and operating performance during its second quarter ending on June 30, 2025.

    Event:       Earnings Conference Call – Second Quarter 2025
             
    When:   Wednesday, July 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time
             
    Access:   Conference Call Dial-In:       (800) 715-9871 (toll free)
             
        Conference Call Access Code:   3909613
             

    Patrick L. Ryan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew L. Hibshman, Chief Financial Officer, Peter J. Cahill, Chief Lending Officer, and Darleen Gillespie, Chief Retail Banking Officer will provide an overview of second quarter 2025 results. The management presentation typically lasts approximately fifteen to thirty minutes, followed by investor questions and discussion. The Company’s second quarter results will be released after the market closes on Tuesday, July 22, 2025 and will also be available in the “Investor Relations” section of the Company’s website. Conference replay information is also available on the Company’s website, www.firstbanknj.com.

    About First Bank
    First Bank is a New Jersey state-chartered bank with 27 full-service branches in Cinnaminson, Delanco, Denville, Ewing, Fairfield, Flemington, Hamilton, Lawrence, Monroe, Pennington, Randolph, Somerset, Trenton, Williamstown, Morristown and Summit, New Jersey, Doylestown, Trevose, Warminster, West Chester, Paoli, Malvern, Coventry, Devon, Lionville, Media, Pennsylvania, and Palm Beach, Florida. With $3.88 billion in assets as of March 31, 2025. First Bank offers a traditional range of deposit and loan products to individuals and businesses mainly throughout the New York City to Philadelphia corridor. First Bank’s common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market exchange under the symbol “FRBA”.

    Contact
    Andrew L. Hibshman, Executive Vice President and CFO
    (609) 643-0058, andrew.hibshman@firstbanknj.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation Schedules Third Fiscal Quarter Earnings Conference Call for August 5, 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOS ANGELES, CA, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (NASDAQ:OCSL) (“Oaktree Specialty Lending” or the “Company”) today announced that it will report its financial results for the third fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2025 before the opening of the Nasdaq Global Select Market on Tuesday, August 5, 2025. Management will host a conference call to discuss the results on the same day at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time / 8:00 a.m. Pacific Time. The conference call may be accessed by dialing (877) 507-3275 (U.S. callers) or +1 (412) 317-5238 (non-U.S. callers). All callers will need to reference “Oaktree Specialty Lending” once connected with the operator. Alternatively, a live webcast of the conference call can be accessed through the Investors section of Oaktree Specialty Lending’s website, www.oaktreespecialtylending.com.

    For those individuals unable to listen to the live broadcast of the conference call, a replay will be available on Oaktree Specialty Lending’s website, or by dialing (877) 344-7529 (U.S. callers) or +1 (412) 317-0088 (non-U.S. callers), access code 5201181, beginning approximately one hour after the broadcast.

    About Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation

    Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (NASDAQ:OCSL) is a specialty finance company dedicated to providing customized one-stop credit solutions to companies with limited access to public or syndicated capital markets. The Company’s investment objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation by providing companies with flexible and innovative financing solutions including first and second lien loans, unsecured and mezzanine loans, and preferred equity. The Company is regulated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and is managed by Oaktree Fund Advisors, LLC, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. For additional information, please visit Oaktree Specialty Lending’s website at www.oaktreespecialtylending.com.

    Contact

    Investor Relations:
    Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation
    Clark Koury
    (213) 830-6222
    ocsl-ir@oaktreecapital.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: PrairieSky Royalty Announces Conference Call for Q2 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CALGARY, Alberta, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PrairieSky will release its Q2 2025 results on Monday, July 14, 2025 after markets close. The news release detailing PrairieSky’s Q2 2025 results will provide operating and financial information. Financial statements along with management’s discussion and analysis will be available on PrairieSky’s website at www.prairiesky.com and on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com.

    A conference call to discuss the results will be held for the investment community on Tuesday, July 15, 2025 beginning at 6:30 am MT (8:30 am ET). To participate in the conference call, you are asked to register at the link provided below. Details regarding the call will be provided to you upon registration.

    About PrairieSky Royalty Ltd.

    PrairieSky is a royalty-focused company, generating royalty revenues as petroleum and natural gas are produced from its properties. PrairieSky has a diverse portfolio of properties that have a long history of generating free cash flow and that represent the largest and most concentrated independently-owned fee simple mineral title position in Canada. PrairieSky common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol PSK.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

    PrairieSky Royalty Ltd.
    Investor Relations
    (587) 293-4000

    www.prairiesky.com

    PDF available: http://ml.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/be0c67a5-d94d-4c62-b812-830eeb9df617

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Old National Bancorp Announces Schedule for Second-Quarter 2025 Earnings Release and Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    EVANSVILLE, Ind., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Old National Bancorp (“Old National”), the holding company of Old National Bank, today announced the following schedule for its second-quarter 2025 earnings release and conference call:

    Earnings Release: Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at approximately 7:00 A.M. ET
       
    Conference Call: Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at 10:00 A.M. ET
       
    Dial-in Numbers U.S. (800) 715-9871; International: (646) 307-1963; Access code 9394540
       
    Webcast:  Via Old National’s Investor Relations website at oldnational.com
       
    Webcast Replay:  Available approximately one hour after completion of the call, until midnight ET on July 22, 2026, via Old National’s Investor Relations website at oldnational.com
       
    Telephone Replay: U.S. (800) 770-2030; International: (647) 362-9199; Access code 9394540. The replay will be available approximately one hour after completion of the call until midnight ET on August 5, 2025
       

    ABOUT OLD NATIONAL
    Old National Bancorp (NASDAQ: ONB) is the holding company of Old National Bank. As the fifth largest commercial bank headquartered in the Midwest, Old National proudly serves clients primarily in the Midwest and Southeast. With approximately $70 billion of assets and $37 billion of assets under management (including Bremer Financial Corporation on a pro forma basis as of March 31, 2025), Old National ranks among the top 25 banking companies headquartered in the United States. Tracing our roots to 1834, Old National focuses on building long-term, highly valued partnerships with clients while also strengthening and supporting the communities we serve. In addition to providing extensive services in consumer and commercial banking, Old National offers comprehensive wealth management and capital markets services. For more information and financial data, please visit Investor Relations at oldnational.com. In 2025, Points of Light named Old National one of “The Civic 50” — an honor reserved for the 50 most community-minded companies in the United States.

    Investor Relations:
    Lynell Durchholz
    (812) 464-1366
    lynell.durchholz@oldnational.com

    Media Relations:
    Rick Vach
    (904) 535-9489
    rick.vach@oldnational.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Capital Southwest Receives Affirmed Investment Grade Rating from Fitch Ratings

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    DALLAS, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Capital Southwest Corporation (“Capital Southwest,” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: CSWC), an internally managed business development company focused on providing flexible financing solutions to support the acquisition and growth of middle market businesses, today announced that Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”) has affirmed Capital Southwest’s investment grade long-term issuer rating of BBB- with a stable outlook. Additionally, Fitch affirmed CSWC’s senior secured debt rating of BBB with a stable outlook. Factors cited by Fitch in support of its ratings include Capital Southwest’s senior secured portfolio focus, diverse funding profile, robust asset coverage cushion and consistent operating performance.

    About Capital Southwest

    Capital Southwest Corporation (Nasdaq: CSWC) is a Dallas, Texas-based, internally managed business development company with approximately $1.8 billion in investments at fair value as of March 31, 2025. Capital Southwest is a middle market lending firm focused on supporting the acquisition and growth of middle market businesses with $5 million to $50 million investments across the capital structure, including first lien, second lien and non-control equity co-investments. As a public company with a permanent capital base, Capital Southwest has the flexibility to be creative in its financing solutions and to invest to support the growth of its portfolio companies over long periods of time.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains historical information and forward-looking statements with respect to the business and investments of Capital Southwest, including, but not limited to, the statements about Capital Southwest’s future performance and financial performance and financial condition. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical statements and can often be identified by words such as “will,” “believe,” “expect” and similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These statements are based on management’s current expectations, assumptions and beliefs. They are not guarantees of future results and are subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement. These risks include risks related to: changes in the markets in which Capital Southwest invests; changes in the financial, capital, and lending markets; changes in the interest rate environment and its impact on our business and our portfolio companies; regulatory changes; tax treatment; our ability to operate Capital Southwest SBIC I, LP and Capital Southwest SBIC II, LP as small business investment companies; the uncertainty associated with the imposition of tariffs and trade barriers and changes in trade policy and its impact on our portfolio companies and our financial condition; an economic downturn and its impact on the ability of our portfolio companies to operate and the investment opportunities available to us; the impact of supply chain constraints on our portfolio companies; and the elevated levels of inflation and its impact on our portfolio companies and the industries in which we invests.

    Readers should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements and are encouraged to review Capital Southwest’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2025 and any subsequent filings with the SEC, including the “Risk Factors” sections therein, for a more complete discussion of the risks and other factors that could affect any forward-looking statements. Except as required by the federal securities laws, Capital Southwest does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, changing circumstances or any other reason after the date of this press release.

    Investor Relations Contact:

    Michael S. Sarner, President and Chief Executive Officer
    214-884-3829

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Capital Southwest Receives Affirmed Investment Grade Rating from Fitch Ratings

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    DALLAS, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Capital Southwest Corporation (“Capital Southwest,” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: CSWC), an internally managed business development company focused on providing flexible financing solutions to support the acquisition and growth of middle market businesses, today announced that Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”) has affirmed Capital Southwest’s investment grade long-term issuer rating of BBB- with a stable outlook. Additionally, Fitch affirmed CSWC’s senior secured debt rating of BBB with a stable outlook. Factors cited by Fitch in support of its ratings include Capital Southwest’s senior secured portfolio focus, diverse funding profile, robust asset coverage cushion and consistent operating performance.

    About Capital Southwest

    Capital Southwest Corporation (Nasdaq: CSWC) is a Dallas, Texas-based, internally managed business development company with approximately $1.8 billion in investments at fair value as of March 31, 2025. Capital Southwest is a middle market lending firm focused on supporting the acquisition and growth of middle market businesses with $5 million to $50 million investments across the capital structure, including first lien, second lien and non-control equity co-investments. As a public company with a permanent capital base, Capital Southwest has the flexibility to be creative in its financing solutions and to invest to support the growth of its portfolio companies over long periods of time.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains historical information and forward-looking statements with respect to the business and investments of Capital Southwest, including, but not limited to, the statements about Capital Southwest’s future performance and financial performance and financial condition. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical statements and can often be identified by words such as “will,” “believe,” “expect” and similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These statements are based on management’s current expectations, assumptions and beliefs. They are not guarantees of future results and are subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement. These risks include risks related to: changes in the markets in which Capital Southwest invests; changes in the financial, capital, and lending markets; changes in the interest rate environment and its impact on our business and our portfolio companies; regulatory changes; tax treatment; our ability to operate Capital Southwest SBIC I, LP and Capital Southwest SBIC II, LP as small business investment companies; the uncertainty associated with the imposition of tariffs and trade barriers and changes in trade policy and its impact on our portfolio companies and our financial condition; an economic downturn and its impact on the ability of our portfolio companies to operate and the investment opportunities available to us; the impact of supply chain constraints on our portfolio companies; and the elevated levels of inflation and its impact on our portfolio companies and the industries in which we invests.

    Readers should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements and are encouraged to review Capital Southwest’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2025 and any subsequent filings with the SEC, including the “Risk Factors” sections therein, for a more complete discussion of the risks and other factors that could affect any forward-looking statements. Except as required by the federal securities laws, Capital Southwest does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, changing circumstances or any other reason after the date of this press release.

    Investor Relations Contact:

    Michael S. Sarner, President and Chief Executive Officer
    214-884-3829

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: QCR Holdings, Inc. to Report Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MOLINE, Ill., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — QCR Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCRH) (“QCRH” or the “Company”) announced today that its second quarter ended June 30, 2025, financial results will be released after the market closes on Wednesday, July 23, 2025. The Company will host a conference call and webcast the next day, Thursday, July 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time to discuss the results. Shareholders, analysts, and other interested parties are invited to join.

    Teleconference: 

    Dial-in information for the call is 888-346-9286 (international 412-317-5253). Participants should request to join the QCR Holdings, Inc. call. The event will be archived and available for replay through July 31, 2025. The replay access information is 877-344-7529 (international 412-317-0088); access code 8414968.

    Webcast: 

    A webcast of the teleconference can be accessed at the Company’s News and Events page at www.qcrh.com. An archived version of the webcast will be available at the same location shortly after the live event has ended.

    About QCR Holdings, Inc.

    QCR Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Moline, Illinois, is a relationship-driven, multi-bank holding company serving the Quad Cities, Cedar Rapids, Cedar Valley, Des Moines/Ankeny and Springfield communities through its wholly owned subsidiary banks. The banks provide full-service commercial and consumer banking and trust and wealth management services. Quad City Bank & Trust Company, based in Bettendorf, Iowa, commenced operations in 1994, Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Company, based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, commenced operations in 2001, Community State Bank, based in Ankeny, Iowa, was acquired by the Company in 2016, and Guaranty Bank, based in Springfield, Missouri, was acquired by the Company in 2018. Additionally, the Company serves the Waterloo/Cedar Falls, Iowa community through Community Bank & Trust, a division of Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Company. The Company has 36 locations in Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois. As of March 31, 2025, the Company had $9.2 billion in assets, $6.8 billion in loans and $7.3 billion in deposits. For additional information, please visit the Company’s website at www.qcrh.com.

    Contacts:

    Nick W. Anderson
    Chief Financial Officer
    (309) 743-7707
    nanderson@qcrh.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Arbor Realty SR, Inc. Prices Offering of $500 Million of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2030

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    UNIONDALE, N.Y., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (“Arbor”) (NYSE: ABR) today announced that its subsidiary, Arbor Realty SR, Inc. (the “Issuer”), has priced an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2030 (the “Notes”) in a private offering to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and outside the United States to non-United States persons in compliance with Regulation S under the Securities Act. The Notes will be the senior, unsecured obligations of the Issuer and will be fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior, unsecured basis by Arbor. The offering is expected to close on July 9, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

    The Issuer intends to use a portion of the net proceeds of the offering to refinance, redeem or otherwise repay Arbor’s remaining outstanding 7.50% Convertible Notes due 2025 and use any remaining proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes.

    J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are acting as joint book-running managers for the offering.

    The offer and sale of the Notes and the related guarantee have not been and will not be registered under the Securities Act or any state securities laws, and, unless so registered, the Notes and the related guarantee may not be offered or sold in the United States or to U.S. persons except pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws.

    This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall it constitute an offer, or the solicitation of any sale, of any securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale is unlawful.

    About Arbor Realty Trust, Inc.

    Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: ABR) is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct lender, providing loan origination and servicing for multifamily, single-family rental (SFR) portfolios, and other diverse commercial real estate assets. Headquartered in New York, Arbor manages a multibillion-dollar servicing portfolio, specializing in government-sponsored enterprise products. Arbor is a leading Fannie Mae DUS® lender and Freddie Mac Optigo® Seller/Servicer, and an approved FHA Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) lender. Arbor’s product platform also includes bridge, CMBS, mezzanine and preferred equity loans. Rated by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, Arbor is committed to building on its reputation for service, quality and customized solutions with an unparalleled dedication to providing our clients excellence over the entire life of a loan.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    Certain items in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs and are subject to a number of trends and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. Arbor and the Issuer can give no assurance that their expectations will be attained. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Arbor’s and the Issuer’s expectations include, but are not limited to, changes in economic conditions generally, and the real estate markets specifically, continued ability to source new investments, changes in interest rates and/or credit spreads, and other risks detailed in Arbor’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and its other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release. Arbor and the Issuer expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in Arbor’s or the Issuer’s expectations with regard thereto or change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

    Contact:
    Arbor Realty Trust, Inc.
    Investor Relations
    516-506-4200
    InvestorRelations@arbor.com 

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Arbor Realty SR, Inc. Prices Offering of $500 Million of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2030

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    UNIONDALE, N.Y., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (“Arbor”) (NYSE: ABR) today announced that its subsidiary, Arbor Realty SR, Inc. (the “Issuer”), has priced an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2030 (the “Notes”) in a private offering to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and outside the United States to non-United States persons in compliance with Regulation S under the Securities Act. The Notes will be the senior, unsecured obligations of the Issuer and will be fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior, unsecured basis by Arbor. The offering is expected to close on July 9, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

    The Issuer intends to use a portion of the net proceeds of the offering to refinance, redeem or otherwise repay Arbor’s remaining outstanding 7.50% Convertible Notes due 2025 and use any remaining proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes.

    J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are acting as joint book-running managers for the offering.

    The offer and sale of the Notes and the related guarantee have not been and will not be registered under the Securities Act or any state securities laws, and, unless so registered, the Notes and the related guarantee may not be offered or sold in the United States or to U.S. persons except pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws.

    This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall it constitute an offer, or the solicitation of any sale, of any securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale is unlawful.

    About Arbor Realty Trust, Inc.

    Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: ABR) is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct lender, providing loan origination and servicing for multifamily, single-family rental (SFR) portfolios, and other diverse commercial real estate assets. Headquartered in New York, Arbor manages a multibillion-dollar servicing portfolio, specializing in government-sponsored enterprise products. Arbor is a leading Fannie Mae DUS® lender and Freddie Mac Optigo® Seller/Servicer, and an approved FHA Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) lender. Arbor’s product platform also includes bridge, CMBS, mezzanine and preferred equity loans. Rated by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, Arbor is committed to building on its reputation for service, quality and customized solutions with an unparalleled dedication to providing our clients excellence over the entire life of a loan.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    Certain items in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs and are subject to a number of trends and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. Arbor and the Issuer can give no assurance that their expectations will be attained. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Arbor’s and the Issuer’s expectations include, but are not limited to, changes in economic conditions generally, and the real estate markets specifically, continued ability to source new investments, changes in interest rates and/or credit spreads, and other risks detailed in Arbor’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and its other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release. Arbor and the Issuer expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in Arbor’s or the Issuer’s expectations with regard thereto or change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

    Contact:
    Arbor Realty Trust, Inc.
    Investor Relations
    516-506-4200
    InvestorRelations@arbor.com 

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Arbor Realty SR, Inc. Prices Offering of $500 Million of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2030

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    UNIONDALE, N.Y., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (“Arbor”) (NYSE: ABR) today announced that its subsidiary, Arbor Realty SR, Inc. (the “Issuer”), has priced an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2030 (the “Notes”) in a private offering to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and outside the United States to non-United States persons in compliance with Regulation S under the Securities Act. The Notes will be the senior, unsecured obligations of the Issuer and will be fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior, unsecured basis by Arbor. The offering is expected to close on July 9, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

    The Issuer intends to use a portion of the net proceeds of the offering to refinance, redeem or otherwise repay Arbor’s remaining outstanding 7.50% Convertible Notes due 2025 and use any remaining proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes.

    J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are acting as joint book-running managers for the offering.

    The offer and sale of the Notes and the related guarantee have not been and will not be registered under the Securities Act or any state securities laws, and, unless so registered, the Notes and the related guarantee may not be offered or sold in the United States or to U.S. persons except pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws.

    This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall it constitute an offer, or the solicitation of any sale, of any securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale is unlawful.

    About Arbor Realty Trust, Inc.

    Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: ABR) is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct lender, providing loan origination and servicing for multifamily, single-family rental (SFR) portfolios, and other diverse commercial real estate assets. Headquartered in New York, Arbor manages a multibillion-dollar servicing portfolio, specializing in government-sponsored enterprise products. Arbor is a leading Fannie Mae DUS® lender and Freddie Mac Optigo® Seller/Servicer, and an approved FHA Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) lender. Arbor’s product platform also includes bridge, CMBS, mezzanine and preferred equity loans. Rated by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, Arbor is committed to building on its reputation for service, quality and customized solutions with an unparalleled dedication to providing our clients excellence over the entire life of a loan.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    Certain items in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs and are subject to a number of trends and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. Arbor and the Issuer can give no assurance that their expectations will be attained. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Arbor’s and the Issuer’s expectations include, but are not limited to, changes in economic conditions generally, and the real estate markets specifically, continued ability to source new investments, changes in interest rates and/or credit spreads, and other risks detailed in Arbor’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and its other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release. Arbor and the Issuer expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in Arbor’s or the Issuer’s expectations with regard thereto or change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

    Contact:
    Arbor Realty Trust, Inc.
    Investor Relations
    516-506-4200
    InvestorRelations@arbor.com 

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: PBK Miner Launches Revolutionary One-Click Mining: Cloud-Based AI Mining for Everyone – Starting at Only $10

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Carshalton, UK, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PBK Miner, the global leader in AI-driven cloud-based cryptocurrency mining, has launched its groundbreaking “One-Click Mining” feature. For just $10, anyone can start earning daily passive income through cryptocurrency – no technical skills or equipment required.

    As the cryptocurrency market rebounds and major currencies such as XRP, Bitcoin, and Ethereum gain momentum, PBK Miner’s new solution is designed for beginners, side income seekers, and passive investors who want to profit from cryptocurrencies without having to deal with mining equipment, electricity costs, or market trading risks.

    What is “One-Click Mining”?

    As the name suggests, users only need to sign up, choose a mining plan, and start mining. Everything else is handled by PBK Miner’s system.

    The platform is powered by PBK Miner’s proprietary AI engine AURA, which automatically transfers your mining power to top cryptocurrencies such as XRP, BTC, ETH, and DOGE to ensure the highest daily returns.

    “We built this app for those who want to make money with crypto but are not crypto experts. Whether you’re starting with $10 or $10,000, now anyone can mine like a pro — with just one click,” said PBK Miner CEO.

    The challenges of traditional mining:

    • High hardware costs – mining equipment and GPUs can cost thousands of dollars, making them prohibitive for most newcomers.
    • Noise, heat, and space – the equipment is noisy, generates a lot of heat, and takes up living or office space.
    • High electricity costs – 24/7 operation leads to high electricity costs, which eats into profits.
    • Technical barriers – setup involves wallets, software, and mining pools. One mistake and mining is wasted.

    PBKMiner One-Click Cloud Mining Advantages:

    • No equipment required – Just log in with your phone or computer. No need to buy or install anything.
    • Zero maintenance, zero electricity costs – All mining is run in PBK Miner’s secure enterprise-level cloud infrastructure.
    • Daily stable income – The system automatically mines the most profitable currencies for you in real time.
    • Instant withdrawal – Profits can be withdrawn daily. No lock-in period. No waiting.
    • Starting from only $10 – Great for beginners. Low entry threshold and high convenience.

    Get started in three easy steps:

    1. Sign upSign up at pbkminer.com and get your free $10 welcome bonus
    2. Choose a plan– Plans start at just $10, with short-term and long-term options available
    3. Start mining– Sit back and let PBK Miner’s AI engine mine the most profitable coins for you

    Mining plan examples:

    $100 plan – 2-day term – earn $3.5 per day

    $1,000 plan – 10-day term – earn $13.50 per day

    $5,000 plan – 30-day term – earn $77.50 per day

    $10,000 plan – 45-day term – earn $165 per day

    All plans guarantee full return of principal at maturity. Earnings can be withdrawn at any time during the contract period.

    PBK Miner is trusted by more than 8 million users in 183 countries.

    Since 2019, PBK Miner has helped millions of users, from everyday investors to crypto professionals, generate passive income through smart mining strategies. The secure cloud-based platform supports mining of XRP, BTC, ETH, DOGE, LTC, and SOL.

    This year alone, PBK Miner has seen a surge of over 378% in mining contract purchases, solidifying its position as the platform for earning crypto without technical or trading barriers.

    “Whether you’re 18 or 80, as long as you have $10, you can start mining right away. It really is that simple,” added the PBK Miner CEO.

    Ready to get started?

    PBK Miner is offering a limited-time bonus for new users. Sign up now to get $10 in free crypto and start earning daily income with XRP and other popular cryptocurrencies.

    About PBK Miner

    Founded in 2019, PBK Miner is a global leader in cloud-based cryptocurrency mining and AI-driven DeFi solutions. The platform supports XRP, BTC, ETH, DOGE, LTC, and SOL mining, providing low-risk, high-return cryptocurrency income opportunities to more than 8 million users worldwide. Join PBK Miner and create the future of decentralized finance.

    For more information, please visit: https://pbkminer.com

    PBK Miner

    info@pbkminer.com

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release does not constitute an investment solicitation, nor does it constitute investment advice, financial advice, or trading recommendations. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risks and the possibility of losing funds. It is strongly recommended that you perform due diligence before investing or trading in cryptocurrencies and securities, including consulting a professional financial advisor.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Compass Diversified Declares Second Quarter 2025 Distributions on Series A, B and C Preferred Shares

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    WESTPORT, Conn., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Compass Diversified (NYSE: CODI) (“CODI” or the “Company”), an owner of leading middle market businesses, announced today that its Board of Directors (the “Board”) has declared a quarterly cash distribution for each of its three preferred share series. This announcement underscores that in the wake of its ongoing investigation of Lugano, the Company’s diversified business model supports its continued ability to generate strong cash flow.

    The Board declared a quarterly cash distribution of $0.453125 per share on the Company’s 7.250% Series A Preferred Shares (the “Series A Preferred Shares”). The distribution on the Series A Preferred Shares covers the period from, and including, April 30, 2025, up to, but excluding, July 30, 2025. The distribution for such period is payable on July 30, 2025, to all holders of record of Series A Preferred Shares as of July 15, 2025.

    The Board also declared a quarterly cash distribution of $0.4921875 per share on the Company’s 7.875% Series B Preferred Shares (the “Series B Preferred Shares”). The distribution on the Series B Preferred Shares covers the period from, and including, April 30, 2025, up to, but excluding, July 30, 2025. The distribution for such period is payable on July 30, 2025, to all holders of record of Series A Preferred Shares as of July 15, 2025.

    The Board also declared a quarterly cash distribution of $0.4921875 per share on the Company’s 7.875% Series C Preferred Shares (the “Series C Preferred Shares”). The distribution on the Series C Preferred Shares covers the period from, and including, April 30, 2025, up to, but excluding, July 30, 2025. The distribution for such period is payable on July 30, 2025, to all holders of record of Series A Preferred Shares as of July 15, 2025.

    CODI’s preferred cash distributions should generally constitute “qualified dividends” for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent they are paid from “earnings and profits” (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles), provided that the requisite holding period is met. To the extent that the amount of cash distributions exceeds earnings and profits, such distribution will first be treated as a non-taxable return of capital to the extent of the holder’s adjusted tax basis in the shares and thereafter be treated as a capital gain from the sale or exchange of such shares.

    About Compass Diversified

    Since its IPO in 2006, CODI has consistently executed its strategy of owning and managing a diverse set of highly defensible, middle-market businesses across the branded consumer, industrial, healthcare, and critical outsourced services sectors. The Company leverages its permanent capital base, long-term disciplined approach, and actionable expertise to maintain controlling ownership interests in each of its subsidiaries, maximizing its ability to impact long-term cash flow generation and value creation. The Company provides both debt and equity capital for its subsidiaries, contributing to their financial and operating flexibility. CODI utilizes the cash flows generated by its subsidiaries to invest in the long-term growth of the Company and has consistently generated strong returns through its culture of transparency, alignment and accountability. For more information, please visit compassdiversified.com.

    Forward Looking Statements
    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including without limitation, CODI’s expectations as to the timing and outcome of the Lugano investigation, CODI’s credit availability and future liquidity, actions taken in response to the outcome of the investigation, the future performance of Lugano and CODI’s other subsidiaries, the filing or delay of CODI’s periodic reports, and the amount of any potential misstatements associated with Lugano and the impact any such misstatements may have on CODI’s previously issued financial statements or results of operations. Such forward looking statements may be identified by, among other things, the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believe,” “expect,” “may,” “could,” “would,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “should” or “anticipate” or the negative thereof or other variations thereon or comparable terminology, or by discussions of strategy that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements are based on beliefs and assumptions by the Board of Directors and management, and on information currently available to CODI’s Board of Directors and management. These statements involve risk and uncertainties that could cause CODI’s actual results and outcomes to differ, perhaps materially, including but not limited to: the discovery of additional information relevant to the investigation; the conclusions (and timing of those conclusions) concerning matters relating to the investigation; the timing of the review by, and the conclusions of, Grant Thornton regarding the investigation and CODI’s financial statements; a further material delay in CODI’s financial reporting or ability to hold an annual meeting of stockholders; the impacts of restatement reviews; the likelihood that the control deficiencies identified or that may be identified in the future will result in material weaknesses in CODI’s internal control over financial reporting; and commercial litigation relating to the investigation, including CODI’s representations regarding its financial statements, and the possibility of future litigation or investigation relating to CODI’s internal controls, restatement reviews, the investigation, or related matters. Please see CODI’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 for other risk factors that you should consider in connection with such forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date such statements have been made. Except as required by law CODI does not undertake any public obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events, circumstances, or new information after the date of this press release, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

    Investor Relations
    Compass Diversified
    irinquiry@compassdiversified.com

    Source: Compass Diversified Holdings

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Relief Still Available to New York Small Businesses and Private Nonprofits Affected by Severe Storms and Flooding

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    ATLANTA – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding small businesses and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in New York of the Aug. 1 deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses due to severe storms and flooding occurring on Aug. 8-10, 2024.

    The disaster declaration covers the counties of Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Hamilton, St. Lawrence and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York.

    Under this declaration SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries and PNPs with financial losses directly related to the disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for small aquaculture enterprises.

    EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the small business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.

    “SBA loans help eligible small businesses and private nonprofits cover operating expenses after a disaster, which is crucial for their recovery,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “These loans not only help business owners get back on their feet but also play a key role in sustaining local economies in the aftermath of a disaster.”

    The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for small businesses and 3.25% for PNPs, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

    To apply online visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

    The deadline to return economic injury applications is Aug. 1, 2025.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow or expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Relief Still Available to New York Small Businesses and Private Nonprofits Affected by Severe Storms and Flooding

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    ATLANTA – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding small businesses and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in New York of the Aug. 1 deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses due to severe storms and flooding occurring on Aug. 8-10, 2024.

    The disaster declaration covers the counties of Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Hamilton, St. Lawrence and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York.

    Under this declaration SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries and PNPs with financial losses directly related to the disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for small aquaculture enterprises.

    EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the small business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.

    “SBA loans help eligible small businesses and private nonprofits cover operating expenses after a disaster, which is crucial for their recovery,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “These loans not only help business owners get back on their feet but also play a key role in sustaining local economies in the aftermath of a disaster.”

    The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for small businesses and 3.25% for PNPs, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

    To apply online visit sba.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

    The deadline to return economic injury applications is Aug. 1, 2025.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow or expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia’s superannuation regulator is worried about your fund’s spending. Should you be?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Melatos, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

    GettyImages skynesher/Getty

    Australia’s superannuation regulator has written to Australian superannuation funds raising concerns their spending might not be benefiting members.

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is not just concerned with the type of expenses, but with the corporate governance around their approval, evaluation and reporting.

    The letter refers to a “lack of robust governance and oversight of fund expenditure” and funds making “decisions not supported by an expenditure management framework”.

    Concern about funds’ spending and governance has grown since construction industry super fund, CBUS, last year admitted it spent A$387,000 of members’ retirement savings on a 40th birthday bash attended by 750 guests.

    At the same time the fund was being criticised for its links with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union as three of its board members were members. The union was alleged to have been infiltrated by criminal elements.

    Protecting members

    Since July 1 2021, legislation requires regulated superannuation funds – industry and retail funds, but not self-managed funds – to act in the best financial interests of their members. This is referred to as their “best financial interest duty”.

    In the superannuation industry, what economists call the principal-agent problem – in this case, ensuring super fund trustees (agents) protect the financial interests of members (principals) whose retirement savings they manage – is particularly acute.

    Compared to public company shareholders, for example, super fund members have little opportunity to monitor and challenge management decisions. This includes spending decisions that affect their super balance. There is no annual general meeting at which members can vote or question their fund’s trustees.

    Fund members also cannot rely to the same extent as shareholders on the market to optimise the performance of management. The threat of takeover and replacement of executives tends to be lower than for publicly listed companies. Apart from switching funds, the regulator’s oversight and enforcement are the main protection for members against trustee maladministration or malfeasance.

    There is also a significant public interest in ensuring each super fund meets its financial duty obligations. The squandering of a member’s retirement savings increases the likelihood they will need to rely on the public pension, a cost for all taxpayers.

    Can super fund expenses be justified?

    It has been reported that spending under the regulator’s microscope includes “sports sponsorships, travel, conferences and other payments to affiliated unions or employer groups”.

    Whether or not such expenses are compatible with members’ best financial interests is often difficult to judge. That is why funds are being asked to report and justify expenses more transparently.

    For example, a fund’s spending on marketing and travel might be consistent with best financial interest duty if there is scope associated with increased membership and funds under management.

    There are significant fixed administration and regulatory costs associated with running a super fund.

    Core customer service functions, such as processing death benefit claims, require sensitive (and expensive) handling.

    Spreading such costs over more members likely helps reduce fees charged to members and can encourage investment in improved customer service.

    Large super funds are increasingly investing in alternative assets such as private equity and taking direct stakes in bespoke projects (such as airport ownership and apartment construction). While such investments can enhance returns, they usually require access to significant financial firepower.

    Bigger may not always be better

    In short, if size matters, and if, for example, sports sponsorship allows super funds to grow cost-effectively, then marketing and travel expenses may be compatible with best financial interest requirements. That might even include an executive’s travel to the AFL Grand Final to network with potential co-investors.

    Neverthless, there may also be disadvantages associated with increased fund size. Larger funds are likely to find it harder to outperform the market and their peers, at least when investing in listed equities. So spending to grow membership may not always be in members’ interests.

    Whether super fund payments to affiliated unions or employer groups are justifiable is complicated by legislative requirements. While a fund cannot give benefits to an employer or union, it can give benefits to a firm’s employees or a union’s members. This might include preferential death benefits or financial literacy seminars.

    Questionable expenses

    Some fund expenses might reflect the pursuit of “private benefits” by super fund executives or trustees. They might, for example, approve questionable investments that burnish their CVs for their next corporate gig. Or they might approve sponsorship of a football team so they can network with potential future employers or business partners at a game.

    More innocently, but no less perniciously, the executive remuneration consultants super funds hire may define key performance indicators that are inappropriate for super fund executives (for example, membership growth at all costs).

    What can the regulator do?

    The superannuation regulator has broad powers to license and supervise superannuation funds to ensure they “keep the financial promises” made to their members.

    Ultimately, a fund’s trustees are responsible for ensuring the fund is meeting its financial interests obligations.

    One tool at the regulator’s disposal is to seek a court enforceable undertaking from an offending fund. This is a legal promise to address governance and legislative breaches. Failure to deliver can jeopardise a fund’s licence to operate.

    Ultimately, the legal burden of proof in any civil legal action to show they have met their best financial interests responsibilities, now lies with the trustees.

    Now the Prudential Regulation Authority has put super funds on notice to lift their game.

    Mark Melatos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Australia’s superannuation regulator is worried about your fund’s spending. Should you be? – https://theconversation.com/australias-superannuation-regulator-is-worried-about-your-funds-spending-should-you-be-259881

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let’s stop it from being loved to death

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darla Hatton MacDonald, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Tasmania

    VCG via Getty Images

    The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term.

    Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet.

    Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues.

    It’s not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country’s control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics.

    Future visitor trends

    We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish.

    The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent’s interior.

    Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO).

    The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers.

    Pressure on a fragile continent

    About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by:

    • compacting soils
    • trampling fragile vegetation
    • introducing non-native microbes and plant species
    • disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals.

    Even when cruise ships don’t dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed.

    Then there’s carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year.

    Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation.

    Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline.

    Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel.

    IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization.

    Can economics protect Antarctica?

    Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control.

    One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research.

    Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn’t deter high income, experience-driven tourists.

    Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable.

    Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system.

    Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica’s carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive.

    Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing.

    Looking ahead

    Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures.

    So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution.


    The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based.

    Darla Hatton MacDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Forest and Wood Innovations Centre, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the Soils CRC. She has received in-kind support from Antarctic tour operator HX.

    Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, and DFAT. She also receives in-kind support and occasional funding from Antarctic tourism operator HX and in-kind support from other tour operators.

    ref. More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let’s stop it from being loved to death – https://theconversation.com/more-and-more-tourists-are-flocking-to-antarctica-lets-stop-it-from-being-loved-to-death-258294

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Coons, Representative Chu lead bicameral letter demanding accountability for President Trump’s discriminatory travel ban

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.) led 68 of their Democratic colleagues in sending a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to rescind his discriminatory travel ban that will keep families apart and devastate the U.S. economy. The members are demanding transparency into President Trump’s decision-making process and answers about how the travel ban will impact communities across the U.S.  

    In a letter addressed to President Trump, Secretary of Homeland Security Noem, Secretary of State Rubio, and Attorney General Bondi, the members outlined the disastrous consequences that President Trump’s travel ban will have on both families and the American economy.

    “The effects of President Trump’s discriminatory travel ban will be devastating. In the last year alone over 126,000 visas have been issued to nationals from just the twelve countries on the fully restricted list. These are individuals who are looking to come to the United States to reunite with family, support our economy, or otherwise enrich our country in innumerable ways,” wrote the members.

    During his first term, President Trump enacted extreme travel bans that disrupted thousands of lives and weakened our nation’s economy and global standing. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden rescinded these bans, but on June 4, 2025, President Trump enacted another sweeping, discriminatory travel ban.

    President Trump is imposing full restrictions on entry into the United States from nationals of Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and partial restrictions on entry from nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela—meaning individuals from these countries cannot come to the U.S. permanently or apply for certain visas. President Trump is also reportedly considering imposing travel restrictions on an additional 36 countries.

    “President Trump’s actions once again disgrace the founding principles of our nation and enshrine cruelty into our immigration system,” the members continue. “Additionally, this travel ban will harm our economy by depriving the United States of workers in key fields experiencing labor shortages like medicine and agriculture and further devastating our domestic tourism industry which is already expected to decline by $12.5 billion in 2025.”

    As a result, the members demand accountability and answers from the Trump administration. The members wrote, “Given these severe impacts, we condemn this proclamation and urge President Trump to rescind it immediately. We also seek transparency into President Trump’s decision-making process and, accordingly, request answers to the following questions by July 3rd, 2025.”

    Earlier this year, Senator Coons and Representative Chu, alongside 130 of their colleagues, reintroduced the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, which would prevent any president from implementing a discriminatory travel ban by strengthening the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination based on religion. The bill would also require that any suspension of entry into the United States be narrowly tailored, backed by credible evidence, and subject to appropriate consultation with Congress.

    You can read the full letter here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Aguilar: The GOP’s One Big Ugly Bill is fundamentally un-American

    Source: US House of Representatives – Democratic Caucus

    The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI – July 02, 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar joined Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle, Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone and House Democrats for a press conference on Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill. 

    CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Donald Trump promised the American people that he would cut costs on day one. Republicans in Congress swore up and down that their policies would fight inflation and make life easier for everyday Americans. More lies. But we’ve all seen under this President, and this Republican majority, the prices continue to rise and the American Dream slipping further from reach. 

    Today marks the culmination of Donald Trump’s betrayal of working people across this country. Because of this bill, your health care is going to go up. Your electric bill is going to be more expensive. The clothes and groceries that you buy are already rising due to his reckless tariffs. The only people who make out in this bill are people who can already afford to pay a little bit more at the checkout line. But that’s not the reality for most people in this country. This bill isn’t for the American people—it’s a reward to the mega-rich campaign donors that bankroll Republican campaigns. 

    Why would Gabe Evans in Colorado vote for this bill? 29,000 people will lose access to health care in his district. 30,000 households will lose access to food nutrition programs, and almost 1,000 energy jobs will be lost. No one asked 17 million people to lose their health insurance. No one asked for hospitals to close or nursing homes to be shuttered because billionaires want more tax breaks. Where I’m from, that’s not big or beautiful. That’s small and ugly. No one asked for food assistance to be taken away from children to give handouts to the same corporations gouging the American people. 

    House Democrats believe that this bill is fundamentally un-American. We are going to fight to make sure billionaires and wealthy corporations pay their fair share, so that we can build an economy that works for everyone. We are going to fight to make America less expensive. And we’re going to fight to give working class people more breathing room and opportunities to get ahead.

    I want to thank my House colleagues for standing with us in this time, against this bill. I want to thank the community members who have joined us as well. And members of the faith-based community as well.

    We’re not here in a partisan exercise. We’re here because the American people don’t deserve this suffering. Now we did take a little bit of liberty when we said, “Hell no.” We didn’t ask them, members of the clergy, but we stand in unison against this dangerous bill. And today, however long it takes, we will continue to vote against this bill. We will do it together, and we will do it with the American people in mind. Thank you so much. 

    Video of the full press conference can be viewed here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom marks historic expansion of California’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program, announces 16 new projects to film in the Golden State

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jul 2, 2025

    What you need to know: Governor Newsom is more than doubling the state’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program, and adding 16 new television projects that will generate $1.1 billion in new economic activity.

    BURBANK – Today, Governor Gavin Newsom joined labor representatives, entertainment leaders and state officials to mark the official expansion of California’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program—solidifying the Golden State’s status as the global epicenter of film and television production. The move more than doubles the program’s annual funding—from $330 million to $750 million—and introduces key updates to keep production, below-the-line jobs, and investments rooted in California.

    The Governor is also awarding 16 new television shows through the program which, taken together, are collectively anticipated to bring in $1.1 billion in total spending and nearly 6,700 cast and crew jobs across the Golden State.

    California is where filmed entertainment was born, and with this expansion, we’re making sure it stays here. We’re not just investing in productions and soundstages—we’re investing in middle-class careers, small businesses, and the communities that power this iconic industry.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Doubling down on California’s creative economy

    Since 2009, the tax credit has generated over $27 billion in economic activity and supported more than 209,000 well-paying jobs with health and pension benefits by awarding nearly  850 projects. In years past, for every dollar of tax credit awarded, California has seen massive returns – $24.40 in economic output, $16.14 in GDP and $8.60 in wages.

    The expanded program – now one of the largest capped film incentives in the nation – maintains California’s competitive edge in the creative economy while continuing to prioritize workforce diversity provisions, more funding for the Career Pathways Training Program, and the nation’s first Safety on Production Pilot Program.

    “This expansion is about California’s long game—supporting a dynamic industry that fuels our creative economy and reflects who we are,” said Dee Dee Myers, Senior Advisor to the Governor & Director of GO-Biz. “By doubling down on this commitment, we’re ensuring California remains the premier place to work, create, and tell stories that reach across the world.”

    Why this expansion matters

    Critically, this historic investment in the entertainment industry is projected to increase the number of film jobs supported by the program by approximately fifty percent.

    This program has been oversubscribed year after year, with more productions applying than can be accommodated under the current cap. And in recent years, projects that were unable to secure California’s tax credits and were forced to move to other locations contributed to significant economic losses for California, with an estimated 69% of rejected projects subsequently filming out-of-state.

    Through the expansion of this program, local economies will now be able to keep these creative jobs and livelihoods here in California, all while investing in the future of the industry.

    “This expansion is a powerful investment in California’s future, strengthening the state’s position as the global leader in content creation, fueling job growth and supporting thousands of small businesses that rely on a thriving production industry,” said Colleen Bell, Director of the California Film Commission. “This program isn’t just about keeping cameras rolling — it’s about sustaining careers, building opportunity and ensuring that the economic and cultural benefits of filmmaking stay right here in the Golden State.”

    16 new projects to film in California

    These new projects, which have been approved across the program’s last three television application windows, include nine renewals, two pilots, four new shows and one relocating show.

    Altogether, these 16 projects are expected to hire 6,664 cast and crew members, as well as 59,000 background performers (measured in days worked), across 1,308 total California filming days. Highlights from the projects include:

    • Nine returning TV series, including HBO Max’s “The Pitt,” Hulu’s hit “Paradise,” and CBS’s “NCIS: Origins”

    • Two shows that will film outside of the Los Angeles area for a total of 23 filming days

    • One relocating series – Prime Video’s “Mr. & Mrs. Smith”

    “We are thrilled that we are going to be able to continue shooting our second season of Paradise in Los Angeles, thanks in no small part to California’s film and TV tax credit,” said “Paradise” Creator/Executive Producer/Showrunner Dan Fogelman and Star/Executive Sterling K. Brown. “We’ve been lucky enough to shoot in Los Angeles for the majority of our careers – it is home to the best crews in the world and allowing series to shoot (and remain) in L.A. provides consistent work for countless craftspeople, allowing us all to remain in town with our families and loved ones.”

    See the full list of productions that are part of the Film and Television Tax Credit Program here.

    What comes next

    While last week’s state budget bill delivered the $750 million expansion, the Governor is expected to soon sign additional legislation to modernize and further improve the program.

    In the meantime, these tax credits have become refundable for all projects for the first time since the program’s inception in 2009, beginning with Program 4.0 which officially commenced yesterday, July 1.

    The California Film Commission will integrate the expanded funding and refundable credit mechanism into its immediately upcoming application cycles, which are scheduled for July 7–9, 2025 (television) and August 25–27, 2025 (film). Updated guidelines and resources will be provided by the Film Commission in the coming days. 

    Recent news

    News SACRAMENTO — Republicans spent the last 6 months fearmongering that gasoline prices would “increase by 65 cents on July 1.” Did that happen?The answer: NoIn fact, in California, gasoline prices at the pump (on average) are cheaper than yesterday, cheaper than it…

    News What you need to know: California is delivering on its promises – significant investments in public safety help ensure safety in communities statewide with lower crime rates in 2024. Sacramento, California – As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on…

    News What you need to know: After weeks of pressure from Governor Newsom, President Trump finally allowed California’s wildfire crews to return to the frontlines — but nearly 5,000 soldiers, including California National Guard members, remain sidelined in Los Angeles,…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Sobyanin took part in a meeting with members of the Russian Government

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –

    Vladimir Putin held meeting with members of the Government of the Russian Federation via videoconference. Participation in it was taken by Sergei Sobyanin.

    The meeting began with a discussion of measures to support participants in the special military operation (SVO) who were injured and remained in military service. Their social security should remain one of the priority areas of work, the Russian President emphasized.

    The meeting also discussed topics related to the construction of high-speed highways, the first of which will connect Moscow and St. Petersburg. According to Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Savelyev, systematic work is underway to implement this project – all key financial and organizational procedures have already been completed.

    “The construction of a test section of the route, from Zelenograd to Tver, 129 kilometers long, will be critical for the implementation of the high-speed railway project. The section includes the sixth and seventh stages of the project and will be completed in the fourth quarter of 2027. It will become an experimental testing ground for all systems of the domestic high-speed train, developed at the Ural Locomotives plant by the Sinara Group. The delivery of the first two trains is synchronized with the construction of these sections,” said Vitaly Savelyev.

    Once the highway opens, travel time from Moscow to St. Petersburg will be just 2 hours and 15 minutes. Passenger traffic on the route is expected to be at least 23 million people by the end of 2030.

    It is planned that by 2045 the length of the high-speed highway network will exceed 4.5 thousand kilometers.

    Vitaly Savelyev also promised to report next spring on the completion dates and parameters of the remaining high-speed railways that are planned to be built next. These are the roads from Moscow to Yekaterinburg, Adler, Ryazan and Minsk.

    In addition, the meeting discussed issues of developing the country’s backbone airport network. According to Vladimir Putin, this work must be carried out dynamically, without losing momentum.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect

    https: //vv.mos.ru/mayor/tkhemes/13021050/

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Phil Scott Appoints Dave Wolk to Serve on School District Redistricting Task Force

    Source: US State of Vermont

    Montpelier, Vt. – Governor Phil Scott today announced the appointment of Dave Wolk, of Rutland, to serve as the Governor’s appointee on the School District Redistricting Task Force after signing H.454, An act relating to transforming Vermont’s education governance, quality, and finance systems into law. The Task Force is charged with recommending new school district boundaries and configurations to the General Assembly for action next legislative session.

    “The passage of H.454 serves as a guide for education transformation in Vermont. The work ahead, this summer and into next legislative session, will be just as important, so we can deliver better outcomes for our kids at a price taxpayers can afford,” said Governor Phil Scott. “I believe Dave’s experience in education and leadership in all branches of government will bring an important perspective to this work and will prioritize what’s best for our kids.”

    “I am honored that Governor Scott has appointed me, and I am delighted to continue to serve Vermont.  I approach the Task Force with an open mind, knowing that the results of the endeavor are not likely to be popular or widely embraced across the state,” said Wolk. “But it is important work, with a short timeline, and it must be done thoughtfully, with a focus on what is best for all of our students and educators, as well as Vermont taxpayers.  It will be very challenging but very necessary, for the benefit of Vermont.”

    Wolk is a lifelong Vermonter and has led intertwined careers in education and government leadership, in all three branches of government, for over 50 years. He grew up in Rutland and graduated from Rutland High School before going on to earn degrees from Middlebury College, the University of Vermont, and Harvard University.

    He served as a guidance counselor and teacher at Mt. St. Joseph Academy, academic dean at the St. Sebastian’s School, principal of Barstow Memorial School, principal of Rutland High

    School, superintendent of schools in Rutland City (with a one-year return engagement in 2019) and Vermont’s Commissioner of Education.

    His government service included four years as a Vermont state senator from 1988-92. Wolk began his presidency at what later became Castleton University in 2001, and was the longest serving president in Castleton’s history, culminating in his first failed retirement in December 2017.

    After leaving Castleton he developed Wolk Leadership Solutions, where he assisted school, college and private sector leaders as a mentor and coach. He closed that enterprise in November 2022 when he was elected Rutland County Assistant Judge, and he has served in that capacity ever since. During his professional career he served on more than 40 state and national boards and commissions, including 12 years as a member and later chairman of the board of the Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

    Outside of his professional work, Wolk has officiated 39 weddings (often for former students) and serves as a hospice volunteer. His favorite days are weddings and the births of grandchildren, currently there are eight.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Minister of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation delivers Egypt’s address at the roundtable on “Revitalizing international development cooperation”


    Download logo

    H.E. Dr. Rania Al-Mashat, Minister of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation, delivered Egypt’s speech at the multilateral roundtable titled “Revitalizing international development cooperation”, on behalf of H.E. Dr. Mostafa Madbouly, Prime Minister of Egypt, during the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development held in Spain from June 29 to July 3, 2025.

    Dr. Rania Al-Mashat explained that the current period is witnessing a significant decline in progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, due to escalating geopolitical tensions and multiple ongoing crises, which has resulted in successive negative impacts, especially on developing and least developed countries, which bear the heaviest burden of the global debt crisis leading to a widening and deepening gap between developed and developing countries day by day.

    H.E.  added that the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development represents an important opportunity to reaffirm the existence of genuine political will to address the situation and to discuss effective proposals that would enhance concessional financing, support existing financial mechanisms, including Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), as well as develop new mechanisms to mobilize the required financing.

    The Minister of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation pointed out that among these mechanisms, development-linked debt instruments are an example of financial instruments that can contribute to stimulate funding linked to development priorities, affirming the importance of donor countries’ commitment to their pledges to developing countries, adding that the challenges faced by developing countries are also beginning to affect many middle-income countries, which face the risk of undermine the progress they have achieved due to the worsening global debt situation.

    Al-Mashat emphasized the need to focus on priority sectors, such as health and education, while making concerted efforts to alleviate debt burdens, which can be achieved by implementing sustainable mechanisms that contribute to supporting developing countries in a integrated manner.

    In conclusion of her speech, H.E. stated that the conversation should not be limited to increasing the volume of financing alone, but should also focus on capacity building of countries, so that they are able to work effectively to achieve their national priorities and implementing their development strategies independently and sustainably, expressing her hope that the conference would come out with concrete recommendations capable of making a real, positive impact in advancing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation – Egypt.

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Lubero: United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) supports military justice in trials for sexual violence


    Download logo

    Mobile court hearings conducted by the Butembo Military Court began on Thursday, 26 June, in the town of Lubero, North Kivu. Ninety-two defendants, including 45 Congolese soldiers and 47 civilians, are facing charges of rape, sexual violence, child abduction, and extortion. The crimes were committed between 2021 and 2024. These hearings, expected to last around ten days, are being held with the technical, logistical and financial support of MONUSCO’s Justice Support Section.

    The trials take place in a context of heightened militarization in this area of North Kivu, linked to Sukola I operations against armed groups.Judicial sources report that the prolonged interaction between civilians and military personnel has contributed to a rise in sexual violence, particularly involving minors.

    Formally requested by the Butembo Military Court, MONUSCO is supporting the initiative to ensure justice for victims, combat impunity and bring the judiciary closer to communities.These mobile hearings aim to enable victims to participate in the legal process, reduce prolonged pretrial detention at the Butembo urban prison, and deter future perpetrators of similar crimes.

    This initiative is part of MONUSCO’s strategic plan, which seeks to reduce violence, protect civilians and reinforce the rule of law.MONUSCO is providing technical and logistical support, including the transportation of trial participants, coordination of hearings and legal monitoring.

    The North Kivu Women’s League welcomed the initiative. Its coordinator, Hélène Makule, called it a step forward, while urging for strict enforcement of court rulings. “We want the perpetrators to be punished in accordance with the law. Too often, we are told they are in prison, but they remain at large, which puts human rights defenders at risk.” she said. This partnership between the Congolese military justice system and MONUSCO represents a key pillar in the fight against impunity.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Mission de l’Organisation des Nations unies en République démocratique du Congo (MONUSCO).

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Public procurement: when Brussels finances Turkish and Iranian companies – E-002575/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002575/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Virginie Joron (PfE)

    Some French people find it difficult to watch their taxes being used to pay for free motorways in Poland, trains in Spain or nursery assistants in Romania. For example, the Commission has earmarked EUR 1.5 billion for the Romanian border[1], EUR 419 million for railway infrastructure in Spain (Almeria)[2] and EUR 448 million for the training of nursery assistants in Romania[3].

    Brussels should ensure a European preference when awarding public contracts.

    In Spain, Romania and Greece, many EU public contracts are awarded or subcontracted to companies from non-EU countries that do not apply reciprocity or are not signatories to the GPA[4]. For example, EU taxpayers finance companies supplying pipes and water pipes manufactured in Türkiye (SMS), China and Iran (Hanyco).

    • 1.How does the Commission ascertain if products used for public contracts benefiting from EU subsidies are made in Europe or in a country with reciprocal access to public contracts?
    • 2.Why does the Commission not publish a list of the countries that have not offered reciprocal access to their public contracts in the last five years?[5]
    • 3.Will the Commission require tenders – regardless of the amount and percentage rule[6] – containing products from third countries that do not apply reciprocity to be excluded, whether or not those countries have signed the GPA?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    • [1] Border-Curtici-Simeria railway line. Total budget (2013-2023): €1 809 360 168.12; EU contribution: €1 537 956 142.91 (85 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3095706.
    • [2] Murcia-Almería railway line. Total budget: €523 966 300.00; EU contribution: €1 419 173 142.91 (80 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3159194.
    • [3] ‘Progress in the quality of alternative childcare’. EU contribution: €448 million out of a budget of €530 million, https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3097484.
    • [4] WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm.
    • [5] Article 86(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU (water, energy, transport and postal services), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0025.
    • [6] Article 85(2): any tender submitted may be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries exceeds 50 % of the total value of the products.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Public procurement: when Brussels finances Turkish and Iranian companies – E-002575/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002575/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Virginie Joron (PfE)

    Some French people find it difficult to watch their taxes being used to pay for free motorways in Poland, trains in Spain or nursery assistants in Romania. For example, the Commission has earmarked EUR 1.5 billion for the Romanian border[1], EUR 419 million for railway infrastructure in Spain (Almeria)[2] and EUR 448 million for the training of nursery assistants in Romania[3].

    Brussels should ensure a European preference when awarding public contracts.

    In Spain, Romania and Greece, many EU public contracts are awarded or subcontracted to companies from non-EU countries that do not apply reciprocity or are not signatories to the GPA[4]. For example, EU taxpayers finance companies supplying pipes and water pipes manufactured in Türkiye (SMS), China and Iran (Hanyco).

    • 1.How does the Commission ascertain if products used for public contracts benefiting from EU subsidies are made in Europe or in a country with reciprocal access to public contracts?
    • 2.Why does the Commission not publish a list of the countries that have not offered reciprocal access to their public contracts in the last five years?[5]
    • 3.Will the Commission require tenders – regardless of the amount and percentage rule[6] – containing products from third countries that do not apply reciprocity to be excluded, whether or not those countries have signed the GPA?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    • [1] Border-Curtici-Simeria railway line. Total budget (2013-2023): €1 809 360 168.12; EU contribution: €1 537 956 142.91 (85 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3095706.
    • [2] Murcia-Almería railway line. Total budget: €523 966 300.00; EU contribution: €1 419 173 142.91 (80 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3159194.
    • [3] ‘Progress in the quality of alternative childcare’. EU contribution: €448 million out of a budget of €530 million, https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3097484.
    • [4] WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm.
    • [5] Article 86(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU (water, energy, transport and postal services), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0025.
    • [6] Article 85(2): any tender submitted may be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries exceeds 50 % of the total value of the products.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Finland’s derogation for mink fur farming and the ban on fur farming throughout the EU – E-002603/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002603/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Maria Ohisalo (Verts/ALE)

    The Commission has added the American mink to the EU list of invasive alien species.[1]However, Finland wants to continue mink fur farming and is therefore going to apply for a derogation to do this.

    To obtain a derogation, it must be demonstrated that there are compelling reasons of public interest for mink fur farming. However, public interest does not come into play in this case because fur farming in Finland is not economically viable, nor is it important for the country’s economy. Fur farming actually poses huge problems in terms of animal rights[2] and pandemic risk[3].

    The vast majority of EU Member States have already banned fur farming either partially or completely. Significant fur farming activities now only take place in Finland, Poland, Greece and Lithuania.

    The European Citizens’ Initiative on a fur-free Europe, which calls for an EU-wide ban on fur farming, has garnered over 1.5 million validated signatures and has been referred to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s response to the initiative is due by March 2026.[4]

    • 1.Why is the Commission granting problematic derogations to a list of invasive alien species that has already been drawn up on the basis of scientific assessment?
    • 2.Is the Commission planning to propose an EU-wide ban on fur farming?

    Submitted: 27.6.2025

    • [1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/invasive-alien-species_en
    • [2] https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/new-scientific-report-fur-farming-animal-welfare-needs-cannot-be-met
    • [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09007-w
    • [4] https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2022/000002_en
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports – A10-0133/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports

    (2025/2037(INI))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the report of 31 March 2022 by the Wise Persons Group on the Reform of the EU Customs Union entitled ‘Putting More Union in the European Customs: Ten proposals to make the EU Customs Union fit for a Geopolitical Europe’,

     having regard to its position of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Customs Code and the European Union Customs Authority, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013[1],

     having regard to the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 entitled ‘A comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce’ (COM(2025(0037),

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937[2],

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859[3],

     having regard to the report of April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled ‘Much more than a market: Speed, Security, Solidarity – Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens’[4],

     having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A10-0133/2025),

    A. whereas e-commerce has transformed how consumers purchase and engage with businesses worldwide, unlocking unprecedented opportunities; whereas e-commerce presents significant challenges to the EU’s competitiveness and raises concerns over consumer rights and health and safety, particularly as certain product categories raise urgent concerns regarding their impact on vulnerable consumer groups; whereas it has an environmental impact, particularly through increased waste generation and carbon emissions resulting from transportation and logistics; whereas e-commerce has an impact on retailers’ attractiveness and therefore contributes to the hollowing out of city centres; whereas e-commerce also has social implications, particularly concerning working conditions in the warehousing and delivery sector;

    B. whereas over 75 % of EU consumers shop online; whereas the continued growth of e-commerce enhances consumer access, quality and price competition; whereas e-commerce lowers market entry barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs, fosters digital inclusion, supports underserved communities, and contributes to innovation, productivity and economic growth across the single market;

    C. whereas, with the surge in e-commerce imports, mainly coming from China, non-compliant sellers evading regulatory costs and undermining law-abiding businesses through means such as counterfeiting, have intensified unfair competition; whereas there is an urgent need to re-establish a level playing field for all businesses, especially SMEs; whereas it is crucial to ensure that enforcement efforts are adequately funded and equipped at both national and EU level, while avoiding excessive delegation of enforcement responsibilities to private actors;

    D. whereas European companies, namely SMEs, must comply with strict regulations and compete on an unlevel playing field with non-EU e-commerce platforms that avoid these obligations; whereas European companies dedicate material and human resources to ensure regulatory compliance, assuming significant administrative and financial burdens;

    E. whereas certain non-EU companies fail to comply with European data protection regulations, which guarantee a high level of privacy for consumers, by engaging in consumer profiling practices using personal data; whereas enhanced enforcement and cooperation is required to ensure consistent privacy protections for all consumers;

    F. whereas Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in her 2024-2029 political guidelines, referred to the need to tackle challenges with online platforms to ensure that consumers and businesses alike benefit from a level playing field based on effective customs, tax and safety controls and sustainability standards, and tasked several Executive Vice-Presidents and Commissioners with fulfilling that mission;

    G. whereas the process of adapting the EU acquis to the online environment began several years ago, and numerous laws on products, consumer protection and product safety now include provisions to ensure robust safeguards in the digital landscape; whereas, notwithstanding these efforts, critical shortcomings persist in empowering authorities to hold the full supply chain accountable and ensure consumer protection, which need to be urgently addressed;

    H. whereas the Digital Services Act[5] (DSA), the General Product Safety Regulation[6] (GPSR), the Market Surveillance Regulation[7] (MSR) and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (CPC)[8] contribute to a safer and fair e-commerce environment, if well implemented and enforced; whereas, despite these laws, consumer and other organisations, as well as national authorities, have raised concerns over the large number of unsafe products detected in the EU that fail to comply with EU legislation on product safety and environmental and chemical standards; whereas better funding of and coordination among Member States’ enforcement authorities are essential to address these risks effectively;

    I. whereas e-commerce may significantly impact consumers by providing them with unparalleled convenience, access to diverse products and competitive pricing; whereas e-commerce also exposes consumers to risks such as unsafe products, a lack of transparency and manipulative practices that exploit their vulnerabilities;

    J. whereas the protection of consumers is essential to the functioning of the EU’s internal market, as it ensures trust and fairness in commercial practices, thereby enabling sustainable economic growth and innovation; whereas addressing these concerns is important in promoting transparency, fairness and the responsible development of digital services and e-commerce;

    K. whereas people from more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, including low-income families and children, are more exposed to the risks posed by unsafe products due to their lower prices, aggressive marketing and widespread distribution;

    L. whereas concerns over the suitability of customs procedures under the current Union Customs Code[9] for e-commerce were a significant driver of the Commission’s customs reform package, including the legislative proposals on the revision of the Union Customs Code and establishing an EU Customs Authority (UCC reform), and the removal of the EUR 150 exemption threshold (de minimis) for the payment of customs duties and VAT on imported products;

    M. whereas customs authorities are in need of substantial investments, particularly to ensure a sufficient number of properly trained staff to guarantee the functioning of EU customs systems, which are facing an exponential increase in demand for customs checks; whereas without the necessary investments in staff, digital solutions cannot achieve benefits in terms of efficiency and harmonisation;

    N. whereas advanced screening technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, could significantly enhance the capacity of customs and market surveillance authorities to flag high-risk shipments and automate compliance checks at scale; whereas investment in such technologies remains fragmented and uneven across Member States; whereas increased EU-level funding, coordination and efforts to ensure interoperability are essential to accelerate their deployment and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms;

    O. whereas digital tools, such as artificial intelligence and the internet of things, can help track non-compliant products, but must respect consumer privacy and must not lead to the general monitoring of users;

    P. whereas the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce, highlights that the volume of e-commerce goods bought by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms is expected to continue growing rapidly, benefiting from the current customs duty exemption for low-value consignments (up to EUR 150);

    The surge in non-compliant goods in e-commerce

    1. Highlights the increasingly high number of purchases being made by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms in business-to-consumer environments and in emerging manufacturer-to-consumer and direct-to-consumer environments; emphasises, as described in the Letta report on the future of the single market[10], that the circulation of harmful products in the single market is escalating and that EU consumers are wasting EUR 19.3 billion per year buying dangerous products that can lead to injuries and that are detrimental to our economies;

    2. Notes that 4.6 billion e-commerce items under the EUR 150 exemption threshold were imported into the EU in 2024, 91 % of which originated from China, amounting to up to 12 million small e-commerce items per day and amounting to almost twice the number recorded in 2023 (2.4 billion) and more than triple the number in 2022 (1.4 billion); notes that this surge has exacerbated compliance challenges, especially in product safety, and that market surveillance authorities and independent investigations have reported alarming non-compliance rates;

    3. Stresses that most unsafe and illegal products are shipped to the EU in large volumes of individual, and often small, parcels sold to EU consumers via online platforms from non-EU countries, in particular China; stresses that such products are difficult to control, in particular for customs authorities at the entry points, which are mostly located at major ports and logistical airports for e-commerce; emphasises that this makes it almost impossible to stop such products from entering the EU and makes it increasingly difficult for market surveillance authorities to detect and remove such products from the internal market and for consumer authorities to do so once the products reach EU consumers;

    4. Stresses that the rapid growth of e-commerce has significant environmental implications due to issues such as a rise in packaging waste, the larger carbon footprint from low-quality and short life cycle products and their shipment, and problems with waste management and non-recyclable materials; underlines, in this respect, the need to ensure compliance with environmental legislation and to encourage sustainable ways of consuming;

    5. Stresses that some non-EU online marketplaces are facing allegations regarding the use of forced labour; underlines, in this respect, that Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 prohibits products made with forced labour from entering the EU market, and that it must be effectively enforced after its application, including for online sales;

    6. Notes that, on 1 December 2025, Regulation No 2023/2411[11] on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products will come into force; notes that, if not accompanied by adequate promotion and protection, especially with respect to the markets of non-EU countries, geographical indications risk remaining ineffective; calls, therefore, on the Commission, together with the customs authorities of the Member States, to strengthen checks aimed at intercepting products that violate the rules on geographical indications;

    7. Is concerned that the prevailing business model of certain major non-EU online platforms is based on the rapid, large-scale production and distribution of fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion products, prioritising speed and low cost over sustainability, safety and quality; regrets that many such products do not comply with EU legislation, yet non-compliant sellers frequently evade meaningful enforcement or sanctions; stresses that such practices constitute a form of social and environmental dumping, resulting in a persistent and unfair competitive advantage for these non-EU platforms, exerting disproportionate pressure on European undertakings, in particular SMEs and micro-enterprises; emphasises that this hampers the development of the EU’s textile and clothing sector;

    E-commerce crossroads: navigating compliance challenges

    8. Recognises that the EU has established a robust compliance framework, which also applies to products sold online, but that greater efforts are still needed for the full enforcement of the compliance framework; underlines, in this respect, the importance of the DSA, the DMA, the MSR, the GPSR, consumer protection rules and various product and environmental laws; emphasises that market surveillance authorities face challenges in applying these frameworks to online platforms as evidenced by the Commission’s recently published evaluation report on the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and, in particular, in cases where large quantities of a product are sold in small consignments; considers that the thorough implementation of the DSA and other regulatory acquis is necessary to combat unsafe, non-compliant and counterfeit products;

    9. Stresses the need to implement the existing compliance framework and evaluate these measures when considering new legislation, including new obligations for online marketplaces;

    10. Notes that conducting physical tests is particularly impractical for small parcels sent directly to the final consumer and that customs authorities will therefore continue to rely primarily on checking the documentation, rather than inspecting the products themselves;

    11. Highlights the significant enforcement gaps caused by the limited resources and insufficient level of digitalisation of customs and market surveillance authorities, the lack of human resources and harmonised and interoperable technological tools across Member States, and the insufficient data sharing and overall lack of cooperation and coordination between customs authorities, platforms and market surveillance entities; acknowledges that physical inspections are unavoidably and inherently limited given the volume of e-commerce parcels entering the EU;

    12. Considers that mystery shopping exercises by market surveillance authorities, as put forward in the Commission communication on e-commerce, are an important tool to verify compliance for products sold through online platforms; stresses, however, that if sellers are based outside the EU or are not traceable and if fake addresses are used for responsible persons, there is no liable legal entity and it is impossible for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement actions;

    13. Considers that EU manufacturers and retailers, particularly SMEs, face unfair competition due to non-EU platforms enabling non-EU manufacturers and their non-compliant products to easily enter the EU market, bypassing applicable regulations and standards; highlights that, while EU manufacturers must comply with strict safety, environmental and quality rules, many low-value products sold through these platforms evade customs and market surveillance checks due to the way they are shipped to the EU; raises concerns that some of these platforms and non-EU traders deliberately exploit this loophole, allowing non-compliant imports to enter the EU single market unchecked, putting European manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers at a disadvantage, weakening their competitiveness and hindering their ability to innovate, which could lead to the closure of many micro-enterprises and small enterprises;

    14. Stresses that EU manufacturers are de facto subject to significantly stricter market surveillance compared to non-EU manufactures that reach EU consumers via e-commerce platforms; deeply regrets the loss of market share and jobs caused by the influx of cheaper products that do not comply with European standards, particularly on safety and quality, as well as other illegal products, shipped from non-EU countries, directly affecting EU SMEs and the strength of EU companies and their capacity to invest and maintain profitability;

    15. Highlights the difference between online platforms acting as intermediaries and those acting as importers; notes, in particular, that the EU e-commerce platforms that act as importers face compliance costs that increase their retail prices up to 40 %, which has an impact on final consumers; underlines that EU-based importers face stricter obligations and higher costs, while intermediary platforms allow non-EU sellers to ship directly to EU consumers without ensuring compliance;

    16. Recognises that e-commerce platforms are subject to various obligations under the DSA and the GPSR and may be held liable under the Product Liability Directive[12] (PLD) in specific circumstances; recalls, in this respect, that online platforms are liable if they do not respect their specific obligations as intermediaries; believes, however, that consumer redress must be ensured in all cases; underlines, in this respect, that where the manufacturer is established outside the EU and no importer, authorised representative, or fulfilment service provider can be identified, online marketplaces should provide adequate and proportionate remedies to consumers where they fail to comply with the DSA, particularly with Articles 30 and 31 or with Article 22 of the GPSR;

    17. Emphasises that online marketplaces are requested to trace their traders (‘know your business customer’) under the DSA, which should discourage traders from selling unsafe or counterfeit goods, and are obliged to comply with the ‘compliance by design’ rules to increase overall traceability; highlights the lack of accountability of online platforms in case of untraceable sellers or sellers based outside the jurisdiction of the EU; notes the considerable level of non-compliance with the ‘know your business customer’ principle and the rise in new selling practices via social media platforms, where this obligation is not effectively applied, allowing non-EU sellers to offer non-compliant goods to EU users directly; stresses, therefore, the need for online platforms to make best efforts to ensure full traceability of sellers and products, preventing listings from appearing without verified product compliance details;

    18. Highlights the fact that the information of a responsible economic operator in the EU under the GPSR, acting on behalf of a non-EU trader or platform, is often wrong or missing; notes that even when this information is available, the responsible person in the EU may not be accountable, particularly when the responsible person is an authorised representative; is concerned that market surveillance authorities report significant difficulties in contacting these non-EU traders and enforcing EU law, and that even when contact is established, enforcing penalties against them is often unfeasible;

    19. Considers that creating a database of the responsible persons in the EU to enable real-time cross-checking for verification, along with establishing an accreditation procedure for them, could enhance transparency and reinforce accountability throughout the e-commerce import supply chain;

    20. Supports research and enforcement actions by consumer organisations and the opening of investigations initiated by consumer authorities in the EU, as part of the CPC network, as well as under the DSA, against non-EU online platforms for potential violations of EU product safety and consumer laws; expresses concern over the slow progress of these investigations and calls for their swift conclusion; underlines the need for enforcement to be a deterrent that includes adequate sanctions to ensure compliance; underlines, in this respect, that particular attention is necessary at national and EU level to address recurrent non-compliance that may have been identified in previous controls of similar products, including via the application of interim measures; stresses that the enforcement and effectiveness of commitments received from online platforms should be closely monitored;

    21. Urges the Commission and CPC authorities to initiate a structured enforcement dialogue with consumer representatives, traders and other stakeholders to identify systemic infringements requiring stronger enforcement;

    22. Notes the complexity for EU authorities to enforce EU laws when the economic operators are established outside the EU; highlights the need for enhanced international cooperation agreements, particularly with major e-commerce exporters;

    Strong enforcement policies to combat non-compliant e-commerce products

    Urgent need for short-term measures

    23. Urges the Member States to increase funding and resources for market surveillance, customs, consumer protection and digital services authorities so that they can better address the challenges posed by unsafe and illicit products; asks the Commission to support stronger cooperation, information sharing and data exchange between competent authorities, including market surveillance and customs authorities, and stresses that cooperation across different sectors should be improved; urges the Member States to ensure effective coordination among different market surveillance authorities in their territories, and to strengthen the powers of the single liaison offices; highlights that the Member States and the EU have the responsibility to ensure that market surveillance and customs authorities are properly resourced, trained and equipped to have the capacity to fulfil their mission, including proper investigative powers;

    24. Calls on market surveillance authorities to invest more resources in joint or coordinated activities with other Member States or relevant authorities and, in particular, to increase the number and the frequency of coordinated enforcement actions such as sweeps, mystery-shopping exercises and peer-reviews; urges relevant authorities to actively participate in these activities and the Commission to make full use of its coordination powers;

    25. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to coordinate the control of customs and market surveillance authorities under priority control areas focused on products from non-EU countries that pose significant safety hazards and a risk of non-compliance; emphasises that this initiative should generate valuable risk profile data, which could be used in further enforcement activities and penalties to non-compliant actors; calls on the Commission to strengthen cooperation within the EU Product Compliance Network and to increase EU funding for customs cooperation under the customs programme and for market surveillance operations under the single market programme; stresses that the lack of adequate resources has hindered the effective deployment of tools, such as the widespread use of mystery shopping activities by market surveillance authorities or the use of trusted flaggers under the DSA; points out to the Commission that, in addition to existing testing facilities for toys and radio equipment, more testing facilities for e-commerce goods are urgently needed, such as for batteries, textiles, cosmetics, electrical appliances and other products; asks the Member States to deploy sufficient resources to guarantee an increased capacity of testing facilities and to increase investments in equipment for the detection of unsafe and illegal goods;

    26. Emphasises that for data and security reasons, Member States should restrict high-risk vendors from operating in their critical infrastructure and border security systems, including for the procurement of security screening and cargo scanning equipment used at airports and ports;

    27. Highlights the fact that, under the GPSR, online marketplaces are obliged to establish a single point of contact, register with the Safety Gate Portal and indicate the information concerning their single contact point on the portal; asks the Commission to effectively enforce this and other obligations of online marketplaces and to support the Member States’ market surveillance authorities in implementing the GPSR and the MSR; notes that the GPSR introduced direct data exchanges between enforcement authorities and e-commerce platforms; believes, however, that in order for the system to work effectively, a direct link with customs authorities should be provided;

    28. Notes that the current system is more reactive than preventive, as authorities intervene only after dangerous products have already been sold to consumers, rather than preventing their distribution; recalls that, under the GPSR, online marketplace providers are encouraged to check products against the Safety Gate Portal before listing them on their interfaces; underlines that random sampling testing can only be efficient if it is conducted regularly;

    29. Emphasises that the swift implementation of the Digital Product Passport (DPP) for several critical products sold online is essential to strengthen the enforcement of existing legislation; urges the Commission to present the necessary secondary legislation on the DPP as soon as possible, in particular for textiles, toys, cosmetics, electronics and other products with high non-compliance rates and associated risks; calls on the Commission to continuously assess the requirements, technical design and operation of the DPP under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation[13] (ESPR) as a priority; calls on the Commission to support businesses, in particular micro-enterprises and SMEs, in the implementation of the DPP;

    30. Proposes a mandatory DPP with early compliance verification for all products imported via e-commerce, including detailed quality and compliance data, to be integrated directly into the EU customs data hub, allowing authorities to pre-screen information on products before they are placed on the single market;

    31. Urges the Member States to make substantial efforts to increase customs controls and improve risk analysis, as the detection and removal of non-compliant goods can reduce the harm to EU consumers and protect the economic interests of EU businesses; underlines that the introduction in the customs risk analysis of a presumption of non-compliance for goods identical to those already found non-compliant could facilitate controls by customs authorities and improve cost efficiency; stresses the importance of reinforcing customs centres so they are better equipped to handle the large volume of small parcels that are difficult to control using traditional methods, including advanced screening technologies to identify suspicious packages at entry points; asks for more rigorous compliance checks, as well as random checks by the authorities on high-tonnage transport; urges the Member States, furthermore, to significantly increase the level of digitalisation of import procedures in customs authorities in order to implement existing legislation and accelerate customs procedures, especially in view of the high numbers of parcels;

    32. Underlines that businesses, particularly SMEs, urgently require clear guidelines from the Commission for the effective implementation of the GPSR, including clarification on its interplay with overlapping legislation, such as the DSA, the MSR, the PLD, and sector-specific laws on toys, cosmetics and detergents; calls on the Commission to issue these guidelines before the end of the first half of 2025 to facilitate businesses’ compliance; considers that the evaluation report on the interaction of the DSA with other legal acts, which is due on 17 November 2025, should take into account different legislation, in particular on product compliance, the obligations of online marketplaces, enforcement rules and possible future improvements on simplification and implementation; calls on the Commission to assess all possible further actions, including the evaluation of sectoral legislation, which is necessary to ensure legal predictability and that no legal loopholes or enforcement gaps are left when it comes to direct imports from non-EU countries via online marketplaces;

    33. Calls on the relevant national authorities to make full use of the existing and recently adopted enforcement toolbox, especially in relation to provisions on e-commerce set out in the MSR, GPSR and DSA, such as takedown orders, prohibition, restriction on the making available of a product on the market or its removal, recalls and sanctions as measures to counter the rise of illegal and non-compliant imports from non-EU countries;

    34. Underlines that regulatory enforcement measures taken against non-compliant actors should not put disproportionate burdens on compliant actors or cause unintentional harm to the second-hand market;

    35. Stresses the need to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights in the light of the increase in non-European counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms; notes that these practices harm the competitiveness of European companies and pose risks to innovation and the incentives for research and development; calls for stronger measures against the sale of counterfeit goods online; urges the Commission to issue clear guidelines on trusted flaggers and stresses that rights holders should be recognised as eligible trusted flaggers when they meet the criteria outlined in Article 22 of the DSA;

    36. Points out that the Member States should make better use of the available sets of penalties and sanctions against economic operators, as well as other available tools including interim measures, in order to create a deterrent effect to dissuade economic operators from infringing upon the applicable legislation;

    37. Urges the Commission to take effective measures, including legislative measures where legal loopholes are clearly identified, without delay to ensure legal certainty and a level playing field for European companies, placing particular emphasis on SMEs;

    The need for regulatory reforms

    38. Calls for the removal of barriers to enforcing consumer rights, such as legal warranty claims and the right to return items; calls on the Commission to review the CPC Regulation without delay as this will be fundamental for a more effective cross-border enforcement of EU consumer law and the fight against unsafe products; asks the Commission, in this context, to provide for clear measures to further strengthen enforcement powers over non-EU traders and platforms and ensure better coordination of EU and national actions and the exchange of information among authorities, as well as with authorities in non-EU countries; highlights that the structure of the European Competition Network could be used as an example to follow for enforcement and information exchange in the case of suspected violations impacting multiple Member States, especially to combat non-compliant products effectively; stresses the importance of granting the Commission direct powers to investigate and sanction certain high impact breaches of consumer law, thus ensuring more effective, simultaneous and uniform enforcement and sanctions under EU consumer law;

    39. Notes that the CPC Regulation already empowers enforcement authorities to act against non-compliant traders and even gives the possibility for Member States to impose penalties and interim measures such as restricting access to the website; acknowledges, however, that the limitation is that this action must be taken on a country-by-country basis rather than at EU level, with each country applying its own penalties, making the consequences of violations uneven;

    40. Notes that enforcement in the Member States is fragmented, which leads to inefficiencies; calls for better coordination of enforcement and compliance oversight effective information exchange between Member States and for a more uniform application of the EU acquis; calls on the Commission to assess the MSR, particularly the need for an EU Market Surveillance Authority that would ensure consistency and provide operational support to the activities conducted by the relevant national market surveillance authorities and foster cooperation with the new EU Customs Authority (EUCA), as well as the implementation of Article 4 of the MSR, defining the responsible economic operators in the EU for product compliance; stresses that, to date, the designated responsible economic operator often lacks the capacity to provide redress or compensation to consumers, in particular when being an authorised representative;

    41. Supports the Commission’s ambition to swiftly advance the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament and the Council on the UCC reform and the two proposals for Council acts on removing the exemption threshold on customs duties for goods valued under EUR 150; urges, therefore, the Member States to accelerate the negotiation procedure in the Council, recognising the urgency of the customs reform for EU competitiveness and the protection of EU consumers; underlines, however, that removing the threshold is a necessary step but not a stand-alone solution, as customs authorities will still only be able to inspect a limited percentage of parcels; stresses that immediate removal of the customs duty exemption is necessary for high-risk imports from product and consumer safety perspectives; emphasises the need for the customs reform to ensure coherence across regulatory frameworks, particularly avoiding duplication or conflicts with the DSA, and highlights the essential role customs authorities play in detecting non-compliant and unsafe products;

    42. Stresses that the UCC reform will provide the necessary tools for customs authorities to better supervise and control the goods entering the EU, help to strengthen the single market and customs union, improve the detection of unsafe and illicit products, and contribute to a level playing field among economic operators; welcomes, in this respect, the proposal under the UCC Regulation to establish the cooperation mechanism with market surveillance authorities that will improve the effectiveness of product controls; emphasises the importance of enhancing customs infrastructure and staffing to manage e-commerce effectively; highlights the need for simplified compliance processes tailored specifically to SMEs; calls on the Member States to introduce automated, forward-looking customs clearing systems, for instance by obliging platforms to enrol and clear customs automatically at the point of sales;

    43. Is concerned that some non-EU traders are circumventing EU customs checks by clearing goods by customs at the point of origin; stresses that those non-EU trading companies often prefer to pay penalties rather than open packages upon arrival at EU customs, aiming to unload shipments and depart immediately; is deeply concerned that customs authorities find that many packages are either undeclared or incorrectly declared and are sometimes fraudulently labelled; highlights that the UCC reform should also address these aspects;

    44. Takes note of the concern expressed by the ECC network regarding the drop-shipping business model, which raises challenges in consumer protection, product safety and regulatory compliance; regrets that consumers often face misleading practices, difficulties in returning products, and unexpected import duties, while a significant share of drop-shipped products fail to comply with EU safety standards; stresses that drop-shipping complicates enforcement due to untraceable businesses and cross-border complexities, while VAT and data protection compliance remain key concerns; notes that when combined with influencer marketing, drop-shipping may exacerbate transparency issues, reputational risks and inconsistent outcomes; calls on the Commission to assess how to address drop-shipping-related issues;

    45. Highlights the fact that the concept of a ‘deemed importer’ aims to ensure a level playing field for both EU and non-EU online platforms; notes that, in the context of an online sale from outside the EU, this measure would relieve customers of non-EU online platforms from being considered importers, as they are under the current UCC, while a non-EU platform or trader would instead be considered the ‘deemed importer’; believes that ‘deemed importer’ responsibilities should be clearly defined and consistent with the provisions of the DSA; emphasises that platforms being responsible for ensuring that VAT and customs duties are collected at the point of sale, rather than upon entry into the EU, will reduce fraud and tax evasion;

    46. Expresses concern about the optional nature of the Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS) scheme for all online operators, which deviates from the original objectives of the VAT in the digital age (ViDA) initiative; underlines the necessity of additional actions to strengthen the system’s robustness and curb potential misuse; urges the Commission to engage closely with stakeholders to establish safeguards for the IOSS against fraudulent practices; recommends that such safeguards be both comprehensive and streamlined to effectively deter fraud while avoiding excessive administrative burdens; stresses the necessity of extending the IOSS applicability to goods beyond the customs duty exemption threshold of EUR 150 to prevent undervaluation and ensure fair competition;

    47. Calls for the establishment of a new EUCA in 2026 to provide expert support to the Member States’ customs authorities; underlines that the EUCA should in its coordination role also map testing and control capabilities of customs and market surveillance authorities in and across the Member States and be mandated to execute unannounced inspections to detect possible unsafe or non-compliant products and issue sanctions in case of non-compliance; notes that the new EU customs data hub will allow for enhanced cooperation between the EUCA and customs and other authorities through data exchange and the interoperability of national IT systems, and thus facilitate coordinated controls and the detection of non-compliant products; considers that it is essential to fully integrate the functionalities of the Customs Single Window into the EU customs data hub; notes in the context of the proposed EUCA, the importance of regularly consulting representatives of various stakeholders to provide early warning to the EUCA;

    48. Stresses that, given the urgency, the entry into force of different obligations planned in the UCC revision should be accelerated, such as the establishment of the EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to immediately start the preparatory work necessary for the establishment of the EU customs data hub, so as to speed up the preparation of its e-commerce functions in 2026;

    49. Urges the Commission to carry out an impact assessment regarding the idea of e-commerce items being shipped to the EU in bulk and, in turn, the establishment of warehouses in the EU by non-EU traders for such goods before they are put into parcels for delivery to customers; recognises that such shipments of e-commerce items in bulk and their storage in warehouses in the EU might increase the oversight of customs and market surveillance authorities and improve their controls and detection of non-compliant goods compared to single parcel shipments; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider all possible options to incentivise such practices, including a simplified status for trust and check traders and cost-benefit assessments for incentive schemes; further notes that bulk shipping may not be feasible for all non-EU traders, particularly those operating consumer-to-consumer (C2C) or second-hand models; emphasises that this approach should strike a balance between the compliance advantages and the practical requirements of e-commerce operators, ensuring that it avoids creating logistical bottlenecks or placing an undue burden on varying business models;

    50. Acknowledges that the Commission has released a non-paper outlining the introduction of a non-discriminatory handling fee on e-commerce items, to be charged by customs authorities for goods sold in distance sales with the aim of covering the increased supervisory costs of custom authorities, namely the checking of the data, carrying out risk analysis, performing documentary and physical controls and specifically the financing of the EUCA and the data hub; insists that Member States should avoid unilateral fees to avoid a fragmentation of the customs union; underlines that the proposal suggests a flat EUR 2 rate per item delivered directly to the customer or a smaller 50 cent fee for Trust and Check Traders operating a business model of a customs warehouse for distance sales within the EU; calls on the Commission to conduct a proper evaluation of whether the proposed amount complies with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and whether it is sufficient and proportionate to reach the objectives; insists that this handling fee not be incurred by the consumer;

    51. Notes the enormous waste management and product destruction cost arising from the huge amount of non-compliant and unsafe products imported via non-EU country e-commerce; underlines that a large share of these products is non-recyclable, environmentally harmful or non-compliant with applicable chemicals legislation, further driving up environmental costs for public authorities; calls therefore on the Commission to evaluate the necessary measures to mitigate the environmental impact of non-EU countries’ e-commerce activities including the feasibility of a waste management fee on all products sold via non-EU countries’ online marketplaces to ensure that environmental costs are not supported by EU taxpayers;

    52. Stresses that inconsistent penalties and different enforcement strategies for non-compliance in different Member States lead to ‘border shopping’ or ‘customs shopping’; supports the minimum harmonisation of infringements and non-criminal sanctions for non-compliance across the Member States and through the EUCA as this would avoid creating weak entry points in the EU customs territory; stresses that this should entail a common framework for minimum harmonisation to close existing loopholes and thus tackle e-commerce challenges; underlines that Member States can impose additional sanctions tailored to national contexts;

    53. Notes that the Commission is scrutinising certain non-EU online marketplaces for employing manipulative practices, including dark patterns, addictive design features, deceptive influencer marketing, and the dissemination of fake or misleading online reviews; recognises that, according to the Digital Fairness Fitness Check report, unfair commercial practices cost consumers nearly EUR 8 billion annually, and that the use of unfair techniques to pressure consumers, especially vulnerable ones and children, into impulse purchases leads to overconsumption and overspending; calls on the Commission to address these issues in the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, unless they are already covered by existing legislation, with a view to effectively tackling unfair practices and closing existing legal loopholes, while staying consistent with existing legal frameworks and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens;

    54. Emphasises the need to ensure that any new initiatives proposed by the Commission in the area of customs enforcement or compliance do not result in additional administrative burdens for European businesses, particularly SMEs;

    55. Stresses the importance of the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the field of cross-border investigations of customs offences, which notably include fraud, for example the illicit undervaluing of the price of products in order to avoid paying the import taxes; emphasises that the large-scale circumvention of customs duties, including fraudulent e-commerce declarations and undervaluation, as well as the avoidance of controls and ‘forum shopping,’ must be effectively combated through criminal law investigations conducted by the EPPO, with the support of customs authorities; stresses that the EPPO’s robust legal framework for cross-border investigations should be leveraged to dismantle the criminal networks behind such operations;

    Additional enforcement actions

    56. Calls on the Commission and the national competent authorities to strongly enforce the DSA with regard to the responsibility of online marketplaces, in particular their obligations in terms of recommender systems, interface design, right to information, the compliance by design rules to increase the overall traceability, and their ‘know your business customer’ obligation; highlights that compliance with these obligations should dissuade non-compliant traders from offering their products in the EU through marketplaces or shopping services of social media falling in this category, and calls on the Commission to provide practical support in tracing traders that do not abide by EU rules; stresses the need for a DSA-based network of trusted flaggers for illegal products and e-commerce to ensure that platforms fulfil their obligations effectively;

    57. Stresses that the enhancement of cooperation and coordination with national competent authorities is crucial; asks for more cooperation among all relevant authorities, such as Member State authorities, customs authorities, and consumer protection authorities, and for stronger coordination among all established expert groups; stresses that, under the DSA, the investigative actions against non-compliant online marketplaces need to yield results and lead to deterrent sanctions in order to prevent the offer of non-compliant products; emphasises the importance of these investigations in addressing systemic risks, compliance failures, illegal content dissemination, addictive design features, dark patterns and the use of influencers for manipulative advertising;

    58. Calls on enforcement authorities to strengthen monitoring and enforcement actions targeting new sales channels; recommends that competent authorities be equipped with adequate resources, technological tools, and cross-border cooperation mechanisms to effectively identify and take action against non-compliant traders operating via social media and other emerging platforms;

    59. Suggests that online marketplace sellers must provide a reshipping address and contact point within the EU to allow consumers to easily return non-compliant goods without undue costs and to allow authorities to inspect goods; believes that online marketplaces should be responsible for checking this and should be held accountable for enforcement;

    60. Calls for an urgent in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the provision of the ‘responsible person for products placed on the Union market’, particularly those of non-EU traders, building on the results of the evaluation report on Article 4 of the MSR; calls on the Commission to consider among its future actions the introduction of a mandatory requirement for non-EU traders to appoint a responsible person in the EU with increased legal and financial liability;

    61. Notes that postal and other delivery services are undergoing significant transformations due to the rapid growth of e-commerce; raises concerns that the Universal Postal Union’s terminal dues system in practice does not apply to e-commerce flows; notes that, as a result, Chinese e-commerce businesses, due to shipment volumes, enter into commercial agreements directly with the EU postal operators for exceptionally attractive delivery rates that are lower than those for goods manufactured within the EU, leading to deeper fragmentation of the single market for postal services; urges the Commission to evaluate the impact of e-commerce on postal services and the internal market, and to consider how postal services can contribute to strengthening the single market and benefiting consumers, and to the overall competitiveness of the EU;

    62. Welcomes the approval of the ViDA reforms, which represent a significant step towards modernising VAT collection in the e-commerce sector; emphasises the importance of the Single VAT ID for online marketplaces and for European manufacturers, enabling them to compete on a level playing field by simplifying VAT compliance across the Member States; highlights that this measure can also facilitate in-bulk importation and the warehousing of goods within the EU, reducing reliance on fragmented cross-border shipments and ensuring that value-added services, such as fulfilment and logistics, take place within the single market; stresses that these reforms will enhance tax compliance, reduce administrative burdens, and improve enforcement while supporting fair competition and strengthening EU supply chains; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the effective implementation of these measures to maximise their benefits for European businesses and consumers;

    63. Calls on the Commission to consider measures aimed at reducing the unnecessary regulatory and administrative compliance burden for EU manufacturers, in particular for SMEs, in order to level the playing field and enable them to better compete with global competitors operating under more efficient compliance standards;

    64. Calls on the Commission to enhance international cooperation with other like-minded countries to exchange best practices, identify common challenges and risks and develop joint actions on e-commerce;

    65. Welcomes, in this regard, the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce; notes that the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses by facilitating cross-border electronic transactions, reducing barriers to digital trade and promoting innovation in e-commerce; underlines, however, that the agreement is only a foundation and encourages the Commission to pursue ambitious trade agreements in negotiations with partners to ensure binding provisions on e-commerce;

    Increased use of IT tools

    66. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is preparing a project to streamline existing databases, including the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance, the EU Safety Gate and the Customs Risk Management System, into a common interoperable system gathering all information on the safety of products, counterfeit product tracking and notifications of accidents and to ensure interoperability with the DPP and the future EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to publish information regarding the implementation timeline and the resource requirements of this initiative;

    67. Supports the Commission’s aim to provide market surveillance authorities with the e-Surveillance WebCrawler tool to flag reappearing dangerous products; asks the Commission to make available another web crawler for detecting new listings as soon as possible, in order to flag non-compliant products before they reach consumers;

    68. Supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things for scanning and analysing product listings on e-commerce platforms, automating customs and market surveillance inspections and risk identification and integrating product compliance databases for real-time checks between market surveillance and customs authorities, in line with EU and national laws; notes, however, that the high implementation costs of these technologies remain a barrier; underlines that the full uptake of these technologies will make handling more efficient, especially for low-value goods, and that the high volume of parcels containing many different items faces limited inspection capabilities;

    69. Demands that the Commission and the Member States exchange best practices and find incentives to provide the necessary funding and support for national authorities in order to increase the responsible use of technological solutions; suggests that artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things could be used to scan and analyse product listings on e-commerce platforms, automate inspections and risk profiling, and integrate product compliance databases for real-time checks by several authorities;

    70. Underlines that Member States should reinforce customs checks in particular with low-value shipments by implementing risk-based assessment systems and digital tracking to prevent non-compliant products from bypassing customs controls; calls on the Member States to increase the level of automated processes, such as automated scans of labels when processing parcels at customs;

    71. Recognises that some online marketplaces also use a number of IT tools to detect and remove unsafe and illicit products that are found on their platforms; highlights, however, the fact that online marketplaces need to further invest in and increase their use of these IT tools to effectively avoid the offer and sale of unsafe and illicit products; calls on the Commission to further incentivise the use of IT tools by online marketplaces in this regard, while ensuring full compliance with Article 8 of the DSA, which provides that there is no general obligation to monitor the information that providers of intermediary services transmit or store;

    72. Suggests that, without prejudice to the principle enshrined in the DSA that providers of intermediary services online should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of general nature, online intermediaries engaged in the sale, promotion or distribution of products within the EU market should consider on their own the use of risk-based digital monitoring systems to identify and prevent the presence of illegal content (presentation, description or offering for sale of illegal or dangerous products); stresses the importance of implementing swift response mechanisms to ensure the permanent removal of specific illegal content as soon as providers of intermediary services online have actual knowledge of such illegal content being presented on their interfaces, as well as the necessity for hosting service providers to take all necessary measures to prevent the reappearance of the same or equivalent illegal content on their platform;

    Improvement of consumer awareness and information

    73. Emphasises that EU consumers and European SMEs engaged in importing activities often lack sufficient information on the possible dangers of potentially unsafe products and the harm they can cause; stresses that consumers are increasingly targeted by traders who, despite their legal obligations, often do not inform consumers that their products are made and shipped from outside of the EU; acknowledges that there is demand among EU consumers for cheaper products, which are purchased on non-EU online marketplaces due to their much lower production costs and uncompetitive conditions for EU businesses and online platforms; stresses that online marketplaces may use manipulative design techniques (dark patterns) to influence purchasing decisions; warns against the risks associated with compulsive purchasing behaviours, financial difficulties and the accumulation of unnecessary goods; calls on the Commission and the Member States to organise information and awareness-raising campaigns on the purchase of unsafe products online and their possible health, privacy, environmental and competitiveness consequences, with a special focus on vulnerable consumers and at peak consumption times;

    74. Recommends fostering second-hand consumption as a sustainable approach to addressing EU consumers’ need for affordable goods; stresses the importance of promoting and incentivising the reuse of second-hand products as an important driver for unlocking the potential of the circular economy;

    75. Asks the Commission and the Member States to strictly enforce the ecodesign requirements for textiles and other products under the ESPR, as well as the provisions of the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition[14] in order to make sure that consumers are better informed about sustainability aspects, such as environmental impacts, energy use, reparability and durability of products purchased on online marketplaces;

    76. Considers that consumer authorities, organisations, industry associations and chambers of commerce should be encouraged to conduct large, coordinated awareness-raising campaigns on consumer rights, potential risks, including the possibilities for collective redress, and redress mechanisms when purchasing online, in particular on non-EU online platforms; stresses the need to also raise awareness about the environmental, health and social impacts of unsustainable business practices and to alert consumers about the role of new advertising techniques, such as influencers and digital opinion leaders, in shaping perceptions of product safety and reliability; calls on the Commission to take a coordinating role as mentioned in the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on e-commerce and to explore possibilities to finance cross-border information campaigns developed in cooperation with researchers, civil society and other relevant stakeholders;

    Trade and development considerations

    77. Calls on the Commission to implement its level of ambition in agreements with international partners at the multilateral level, as unsafe products constitute not only a European, but also a global challenge; reiterates that, as set out in Parliament’s position on the UCC revision, the EUCA should establish working arrangements with the authorities of non-EU countries and international organisations; stresses that such arrangements should enable the EUCA to exchange information, including best practices, with non-EU authorities and international organisations, and to carry out joint activities; supports continued engagement in the UN Trade and Development working group on consumer product safety, which plays a crucial role in developing best practices for cross-border enforcement;

    78. Calls on the Commission to step up cooperation with international partners, within forums such as the WTO, the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the G7, to counterbalance China’s influence and ensure reciprocity and rules-based trade; calls on the Commission to explicitly incorporate robust and enforceable obligations addressing forced labour when reviewing and renegotiating current trade and investment agreements; underscores the need for stronger EU-China cooperation mechanisms and transparent certification requirements to ensure compliance;

    79. Highlights the need to consider service and product safety and regulatory compliance provisions when negotiating future EU trade agreements; stresses the importance of specific regulatory dialogues and cooperation through administrative arrangements, improved customs enforcement cooperation, the traceability of shipments to the highest standards and enhanced data-sharing arrangements between customs authorities to effectively tackle non-compliant imports;

    80. Urges the Commission to be proactive and swiftly deploy targeted trade defence instruments, including anti-subsidy investigations, to address the adverse impacts on European businesses; emphasises that such actions must be coordinated closely with key international partners, to ensure effective global enforcement and reciprocal market fairness;

    81. Encourages the Commission to enhance diplomatic efforts and cooperation within international forums, particularly the WTO, the WCO and the G7, to counterbalance China’s strategic expansion into digital governance frameworks, including its Digital Silk Road initiative; stresses the need for open, more transparent and responsible digital trade rules in international standard-setting bodies to prevent internet fragmentation and mitigate the risks posed by restrictive digital governance models;

    82. Welcomes the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce as a vital step towards global digital trade rules; stresses, however, its current limitations, especially regarding customs transparency; urges the Commission to advocate stronger binding provisions to ensure its effective implementation and integration into the WTO legal framework, and to ensure enhanced global compliance standards;

    83. Emphasises the need for international capacity-building initiatives to support the sustainable and compliant participation of developing countries in digital trade; calls on the Commission to collaborate closely with international organisations, especially the WTO, to enhance regulatory frameworks and technical assistance for e-commerce in developing countries;

    °

    ° °

    84. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports – A10-0133/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports

    (2025/2037(INI))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the report of 31 March 2022 by the Wise Persons Group on the Reform of the EU Customs Union entitled ‘Putting More Union in the European Customs: Ten proposals to make the EU Customs Union fit for a Geopolitical Europe’,

     having regard to its position of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Customs Code and the European Union Customs Authority, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013[1],

     having regard to the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 entitled ‘A comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce’ (COM(2025(0037),

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937[2],

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859[3],

     having regard to the report of April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled ‘Much more than a market: Speed, Security, Solidarity – Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens’[4],

     having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A10-0133/2025),

    A. whereas e-commerce has transformed how consumers purchase and engage with businesses worldwide, unlocking unprecedented opportunities; whereas e-commerce presents significant challenges to the EU’s competitiveness and raises concerns over consumer rights and health and safety, particularly as certain product categories raise urgent concerns regarding their impact on vulnerable consumer groups; whereas it has an environmental impact, particularly through increased waste generation and carbon emissions resulting from transportation and logistics; whereas e-commerce has an impact on retailers’ attractiveness and therefore contributes to the hollowing out of city centres; whereas e-commerce also has social implications, particularly concerning working conditions in the warehousing and delivery sector;

    B. whereas over 75 % of EU consumers shop online; whereas the continued growth of e-commerce enhances consumer access, quality and price competition; whereas e-commerce lowers market entry barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs, fosters digital inclusion, supports underserved communities, and contributes to innovation, productivity and economic growth across the single market;

    C. whereas, with the surge in e-commerce imports, mainly coming from China, non-compliant sellers evading regulatory costs and undermining law-abiding businesses through means such as counterfeiting, have intensified unfair competition; whereas there is an urgent need to re-establish a level playing field for all businesses, especially SMEs; whereas it is crucial to ensure that enforcement efforts are adequately funded and equipped at both national and EU level, while avoiding excessive delegation of enforcement responsibilities to private actors;

    D. whereas European companies, namely SMEs, must comply with strict regulations and compete on an unlevel playing field with non-EU e-commerce platforms that avoid these obligations; whereas European companies dedicate material and human resources to ensure regulatory compliance, assuming significant administrative and financial burdens;

    E. whereas certain non-EU companies fail to comply with European data protection regulations, which guarantee a high level of privacy for consumers, by engaging in consumer profiling practices using personal data; whereas enhanced enforcement and cooperation is required to ensure consistent privacy protections for all consumers;

    F. whereas Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in her 2024-2029 political guidelines, referred to the need to tackle challenges with online platforms to ensure that consumers and businesses alike benefit from a level playing field based on effective customs, tax and safety controls and sustainability standards, and tasked several Executive Vice-Presidents and Commissioners with fulfilling that mission;

    G. whereas the process of adapting the EU acquis to the online environment began several years ago, and numerous laws on products, consumer protection and product safety now include provisions to ensure robust safeguards in the digital landscape; whereas, notwithstanding these efforts, critical shortcomings persist in empowering authorities to hold the full supply chain accountable and ensure consumer protection, which need to be urgently addressed;

    H. whereas the Digital Services Act[5] (DSA), the General Product Safety Regulation[6] (GPSR), the Market Surveillance Regulation[7] (MSR) and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (CPC)[8] contribute to a safer and fair e-commerce environment, if well implemented and enforced; whereas, despite these laws, consumer and other organisations, as well as national authorities, have raised concerns over the large number of unsafe products detected in the EU that fail to comply with EU legislation on product safety and environmental and chemical standards; whereas better funding of and coordination among Member States’ enforcement authorities are essential to address these risks effectively;

    I. whereas e-commerce may significantly impact consumers by providing them with unparalleled convenience, access to diverse products and competitive pricing; whereas e-commerce also exposes consumers to risks such as unsafe products, a lack of transparency and manipulative practices that exploit their vulnerabilities;

    J. whereas the protection of consumers is essential to the functioning of the EU’s internal market, as it ensures trust and fairness in commercial practices, thereby enabling sustainable economic growth and innovation; whereas addressing these concerns is important in promoting transparency, fairness and the responsible development of digital services and e-commerce;

    K. whereas people from more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, including low-income families and children, are more exposed to the risks posed by unsafe products due to their lower prices, aggressive marketing and widespread distribution;

    L. whereas concerns over the suitability of customs procedures under the current Union Customs Code[9] for e-commerce were a significant driver of the Commission’s customs reform package, including the legislative proposals on the revision of the Union Customs Code and establishing an EU Customs Authority (UCC reform), and the removal of the EUR 150 exemption threshold (de minimis) for the payment of customs duties and VAT on imported products;

    M. whereas customs authorities are in need of substantial investments, particularly to ensure a sufficient number of properly trained staff to guarantee the functioning of EU customs systems, which are facing an exponential increase in demand for customs checks; whereas without the necessary investments in staff, digital solutions cannot achieve benefits in terms of efficiency and harmonisation;

    N. whereas advanced screening technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, could significantly enhance the capacity of customs and market surveillance authorities to flag high-risk shipments and automate compliance checks at scale; whereas investment in such technologies remains fragmented and uneven across Member States; whereas increased EU-level funding, coordination and efforts to ensure interoperability are essential to accelerate their deployment and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms;

    O. whereas digital tools, such as artificial intelligence and the internet of things, can help track non-compliant products, but must respect consumer privacy and must not lead to the general monitoring of users;

    P. whereas the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce, highlights that the volume of e-commerce goods bought by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms is expected to continue growing rapidly, benefiting from the current customs duty exemption for low-value consignments (up to EUR 150);

    The surge in non-compliant goods in e-commerce

    1. Highlights the increasingly high number of purchases being made by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms in business-to-consumer environments and in emerging manufacturer-to-consumer and direct-to-consumer environments; emphasises, as described in the Letta report on the future of the single market[10], that the circulation of harmful products in the single market is escalating and that EU consumers are wasting EUR 19.3 billion per year buying dangerous products that can lead to injuries and that are detrimental to our economies;

    2. Notes that 4.6 billion e-commerce items under the EUR 150 exemption threshold were imported into the EU in 2024, 91 % of which originated from China, amounting to up to 12 million small e-commerce items per day and amounting to almost twice the number recorded in 2023 (2.4 billion) and more than triple the number in 2022 (1.4 billion); notes that this surge has exacerbated compliance challenges, especially in product safety, and that market surveillance authorities and independent investigations have reported alarming non-compliance rates;

    3. Stresses that most unsafe and illegal products are shipped to the EU in large volumes of individual, and often small, parcels sold to EU consumers via online platforms from non-EU countries, in particular China; stresses that such products are difficult to control, in particular for customs authorities at the entry points, which are mostly located at major ports and logistical airports for e-commerce; emphasises that this makes it almost impossible to stop such products from entering the EU and makes it increasingly difficult for market surveillance authorities to detect and remove such products from the internal market and for consumer authorities to do so once the products reach EU consumers;

    4. Stresses that the rapid growth of e-commerce has significant environmental implications due to issues such as a rise in packaging waste, the larger carbon footprint from low-quality and short life cycle products and their shipment, and problems with waste management and non-recyclable materials; underlines, in this respect, the need to ensure compliance with environmental legislation and to encourage sustainable ways of consuming;

    5. Stresses that some non-EU online marketplaces are facing allegations regarding the use of forced labour; underlines, in this respect, that Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 prohibits products made with forced labour from entering the EU market, and that it must be effectively enforced after its application, including for online sales;

    6. Notes that, on 1 December 2025, Regulation No 2023/2411[11] on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products will come into force; notes that, if not accompanied by adequate promotion and protection, especially with respect to the markets of non-EU countries, geographical indications risk remaining ineffective; calls, therefore, on the Commission, together with the customs authorities of the Member States, to strengthen checks aimed at intercepting products that violate the rules on geographical indications;

    7. Is concerned that the prevailing business model of certain major non-EU online platforms is based on the rapid, large-scale production and distribution of fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion products, prioritising speed and low cost over sustainability, safety and quality; regrets that many such products do not comply with EU legislation, yet non-compliant sellers frequently evade meaningful enforcement or sanctions; stresses that such practices constitute a form of social and environmental dumping, resulting in a persistent and unfair competitive advantage for these non-EU platforms, exerting disproportionate pressure on European undertakings, in particular SMEs and micro-enterprises; emphasises that this hampers the development of the EU’s textile and clothing sector;

    E-commerce crossroads: navigating compliance challenges

    8. Recognises that the EU has established a robust compliance framework, which also applies to products sold online, but that greater efforts are still needed for the full enforcement of the compliance framework; underlines, in this respect, the importance of the DSA, the DMA, the MSR, the GPSR, consumer protection rules and various product and environmental laws; emphasises that market surveillance authorities face challenges in applying these frameworks to online platforms as evidenced by the Commission’s recently published evaluation report on the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and, in particular, in cases where large quantities of a product are sold in small consignments; considers that the thorough implementation of the DSA and other regulatory acquis is necessary to combat unsafe, non-compliant and counterfeit products;

    9. Stresses the need to implement the existing compliance framework and evaluate these measures when considering new legislation, including new obligations for online marketplaces;

    10. Notes that conducting physical tests is particularly impractical for small parcels sent directly to the final consumer and that customs authorities will therefore continue to rely primarily on checking the documentation, rather than inspecting the products themselves;

    11. Highlights the significant enforcement gaps caused by the limited resources and insufficient level of digitalisation of customs and market surveillance authorities, the lack of human resources and harmonised and interoperable technological tools across Member States, and the insufficient data sharing and overall lack of cooperation and coordination between customs authorities, platforms and market surveillance entities; acknowledges that physical inspections are unavoidably and inherently limited given the volume of e-commerce parcels entering the EU;

    12. Considers that mystery shopping exercises by market surveillance authorities, as put forward in the Commission communication on e-commerce, are an important tool to verify compliance for products sold through online platforms; stresses, however, that if sellers are based outside the EU or are not traceable and if fake addresses are used for responsible persons, there is no liable legal entity and it is impossible for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement actions;

    13. Considers that EU manufacturers and retailers, particularly SMEs, face unfair competition due to non-EU platforms enabling non-EU manufacturers and their non-compliant products to easily enter the EU market, bypassing applicable regulations and standards; highlights that, while EU manufacturers must comply with strict safety, environmental and quality rules, many low-value products sold through these platforms evade customs and market surveillance checks due to the way they are shipped to the EU; raises concerns that some of these platforms and non-EU traders deliberately exploit this loophole, allowing non-compliant imports to enter the EU single market unchecked, putting European manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers at a disadvantage, weakening their competitiveness and hindering their ability to innovate, which could lead to the closure of many micro-enterprises and small enterprises;

    14. Stresses that EU manufacturers are de facto subject to significantly stricter market surveillance compared to non-EU manufactures that reach EU consumers via e-commerce platforms; deeply regrets the loss of market share and jobs caused by the influx of cheaper products that do not comply with European standards, particularly on safety and quality, as well as other illegal products, shipped from non-EU countries, directly affecting EU SMEs and the strength of EU companies and their capacity to invest and maintain profitability;

    15. Highlights the difference between online platforms acting as intermediaries and those acting as importers; notes, in particular, that the EU e-commerce platforms that act as importers face compliance costs that increase their retail prices up to 40 %, which has an impact on final consumers; underlines that EU-based importers face stricter obligations and higher costs, while intermediary platforms allow non-EU sellers to ship directly to EU consumers without ensuring compliance;

    16. Recognises that e-commerce platforms are subject to various obligations under the DSA and the GPSR and may be held liable under the Product Liability Directive[12] (PLD) in specific circumstances; recalls, in this respect, that online platforms are liable if they do not respect their specific obligations as intermediaries; believes, however, that consumer redress must be ensured in all cases; underlines, in this respect, that where the manufacturer is established outside the EU and no importer, authorised representative, or fulfilment service provider can be identified, online marketplaces should provide adequate and proportionate remedies to consumers where they fail to comply with the DSA, particularly with Articles 30 and 31 or with Article 22 of the GPSR;

    17. Emphasises that online marketplaces are requested to trace their traders (‘know your business customer’) under the DSA, which should discourage traders from selling unsafe or counterfeit goods, and are obliged to comply with the ‘compliance by design’ rules to increase overall traceability; highlights the lack of accountability of online platforms in case of untraceable sellers or sellers based outside the jurisdiction of the EU; notes the considerable level of non-compliance with the ‘know your business customer’ principle and the rise in new selling practices via social media platforms, where this obligation is not effectively applied, allowing non-EU sellers to offer non-compliant goods to EU users directly; stresses, therefore, the need for online platforms to make best efforts to ensure full traceability of sellers and products, preventing listings from appearing without verified product compliance details;

    18. Highlights the fact that the information of a responsible economic operator in the EU under the GPSR, acting on behalf of a non-EU trader or platform, is often wrong or missing; notes that even when this information is available, the responsible person in the EU may not be accountable, particularly when the responsible person is an authorised representative; is concerned that market surveillance authorities report significant difficulties in contacting these non-EU traders and enforcing EU law, and that even when contact is established, enforcing penalties against them is often unfeasible;

    19. Considers that creating a database of the responsible persons in the EU to enable real-time cross-checking for verification, along with establishing an accreditation procedure for them, could enhance transparency and reinforce accountability throughout the e-commerce import supply chain;

    20. Supports research and enforcement actions by consumer organisations and the opening of investigations initiated by consumer authorities in the EU, as part of the CPC network, as well as under the DSA, against non-EU online platforms for potential violations of EU product safety and consumer laws; expresses concern over the slow progress of these investigations and calls for their swift conclusion; underlines the need for enforcement to be a deterrent that includes adequate sanctions to ensure compliance; underlines, in this respect, that particular attention is necessary at national and EU level to address recurrent non-compliance that may have been identified in previous controls of similar products, including via the application of interim measures; stresses that the enforcement and effectiveness of commitments received from online platforms should be closely monitored;

    21. Urges the Commission and CPC authorities to initiate a structured enforcement dialogue with consumer representatives, traders and other stakeholders to identify systemic infringements requiring stronger enforcement;

    22. Notes the complexity for EU authorities to enforce EU laws when the economic operators are established outside the EU; highlights the need for enhanced international cooperation agreements, particularly with major e-commerce exporters;

    Strong enforcement policies to combat non-compliant e-commerce products

    Urgent need for short-term measures

    23. Urges the Member States to increase funding and resources for market surveillance, customs, consumer protection and digital services authorities so that they can better address the challenges posed by unsafe and illicit products; asks the Commission to support stronger cooperation, information sharing and data exchange between competent authorities, including market surveillance and customs authorities, and stresses that cooperation across different sectors should be improved; urges the Member States to ensure effective coordination among different market surveillance authorities in their territories, and to strengthen the powers of the single liaison offices; highlights that the Member States and the EU have the responsibility to ensure that market surveillance and customs authorities are properly resourced, trained and equipped to have the capacity to fulfil their mission, including proper investigative powers;

    24. Calls on market surveillance authorities to invest more resources in joint or coordinated activities with other Member States or relevant authorities and, in particular, to increase the number and the frequency of coordinated enforcement actions such as sweeps, mystery-shopping exercises and peer-reviews; urges relevant authorities to actively participate in these activities and the Commission to make full use of its coordination powers;

    25. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to coordinate the control of customs and market surveillance authorities under priority control areas focused on products from non-EU countries that pose significant safety hazards and a risk of non-compliance; emphasises that this initiative should generate valuable risk profile data, which could be used in further enforcement activities and penalties to non-compliant actors; calls on the Commission to strengthen cooperation within the EU Product Compliance Network and to increase EU funding for customs cooperation under the customs programme and for market surveillance operations under the single market programme; stresses that the lack of adequate resources has hindered the effective deployment of tools, such as the widespread use of mystery shopping activities by market surveillance authorities or the use of trusted flaggers under the DSA; points out to the Commission that, in addition to existing testing facilities for toys and radio equipment, more testing facilities for e-commerce goods are urgently needed, such as for batteries, textiles, cosmetics, electrical appliances and other products; asks the Member States to deploy sufficient resources to guarantee an increased capacity of testing facilities and to increase investments in equipment for the detection of unsafe and illegal goods;

    26. Emphasises that for data and security reasons, Member States should restrict high-risk vendors from operating in their critical infrastructure and border security systems, including for the procurement of security screening and cargo scanning equipment used at airports and ports;

    27. Highlights the fact that, under the GPSR, online marketplaces are obliged to establish a single point of contact, register with the Safety Gate Portal and indicate the information concerning their single contact point on the portal; asks the Commission to effectively enforce this and other obligations of online marketplaces and to support the Member States’ market surveillance authorities in implementing the GPSR and the MSR; notes that the GPSR introduced direct data exchanges between enforcement authorities and e-commerce platforms; believes, however, that in order for the system to work effectively, a direct link with customs authorities should be provided;

    28. Notes that the current system is more reactive than preventive, as authorities intervene only after dangerous products have already been sold to consumers, rather than preventing their distribution; recalls that, under the GPSR, online marketplace providers are encouraged to check products against the Safety Gate Portal before listing them on their interfaces; underlines that random sampling testing can only be efficient if it is conducted regularly;

    29. Emphasises that the swift implementation of the Digital Product Passport (DPP) for several critical products sold online is essential to strengthen the enforcement of existing legislation; urges the Commission to present the necessary secondary legislation on the DPP as soon as possible, in particular for textiles, toys, cosmetics, electronics and other products with high non-compliance rates and associated risks; calls on the Commission to continuously assess the requirements, technical design and operation of the DPP under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation[13] (ESPR) as a priority; calls on the Commission to support businesses, in particular micro-enterprises and SMEs, in the implementation of the DPP;

    30. Proposes a mandatory DPP with early compliance verification for all products imported via e-commerce, including detailed quality and compliance data, to be integrated directly into the EU customs data hub, allowing authorities to pre-screen information on products before they are placed on the single market;

    31. Urges the Member States to make substantial efforts to increase customs controls and improve risk analysis, as the detection and removal of non-compliant goods can reduce the harm to EU consumers and protect the economic interests of EU businesses; underlines that the introduction in the customs risk analysis of a presumption of non-compliance for goods identical to those already found non-compliant could facilitate controls by customs authorities and improve cost efficiency; stresses the importance of reinforcing customs centres so they are better equipped to handle the large volume of small parcels that are difficult to control using traditional methods, including advanced screening technologies to identify suspicious packages at entry points; asks for more rigorous compliance checks, as well as random checks by the authorities on high-tonnage transport; urges the Member States, furthermore, to significantly increase the level of digitalisation of import procedures in customs authorities in order to implement existing legislation and accelerate customs procedures, especially in view of the high numbers of parcels;

    32. Underlines that businesses, particularly SMEs, urgently require clear guidelines from the Commission for the effective implementation of the GPSR, including clarification on its interplay with overlapping legislation, such as the DSA, the MSR, the PLD, and sector-specific laws on toys, cosmetics and detergents; calls on the Commission to issue these guidelines before the end of the first half of 2025 to facilitate businesses’ compliance; considers that the evaluation report on the interaction of the DSA with other legal acts, which is due on 17 November 2025, should take into account different legislation, in particular on product compliance, the obligations of online marketplaces, enforcement rules and possible future improvements on simplification and implementation; calls on the Commission to assess all possible further actions, including the evaluation of sectoral legislation, which is necessary to ensure legal predictability and that no legal loopholes or enforcement gaps are left when it comes to direct imports from non-EU countries via online marketplaces;

    33. Calls on the relevant national authorities to make full use of the existing and recently adopted enforcement toolbox, especially in relation to provisions on e-commerce set out in the MSR, GPSR and DSA, such as takedown orders, prohibition, restriction on the making available of a product on the market or its removal, recalls and sanctions as measures to counter the rise of illegal and non-compliant imports from non-EU countries;

    34. Underlines that regulatory enforcement measures taken against non-compliant actors should not put disproportionate burdens on compliant actors or cause unintentional harm to the second-hand market;

    35. Stresses the need to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights in the light of the increase in non-European counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms; notes that these practices harm the competitiveness of European companies and pose risks to innovation and the incentives for research and development; calls for stronger measures against the sale of counterfeit goods online; urges the Commission to issue clear guidelines on trusted flaggers and stresses that rights holders should be recognised as eligible trusted flaggers when they meet the criteria outlined in Article 22 of the DSA;

    36. Points out that the Member States should make better use of the available sets of penalties and sanctions against economic operators, as well as other available tools including interim measures, in order to create a deterrent effect to dissuade economic operators from infringing upon the applicable legislation;

    37. Urges the Commission to take effective measures, including legislative measures where legal loopholes are clearly identified, without delay to ensure legal certainty and a level playing field for European companies, placing particular emphasis on SMEs;

    The need for regulatory reforms

    38. Calls for the removal of barriers to enforcing consumer rights, such as legal warranty claims and the right to return items; calls on the Commission to review the CPC Regulation without delay as this will be fundamental for a more effective cross-border enforcement of EU consumer law and the fight against unsafe products; asks the Commission, in this context, to provide for clear measures to further strengthen enforcement powers over non-EU traders and platforms and ensure better coordination of EU and national actions and the exchange of information among authorities, as well as with authorities in non-EU countries; highlights that the structure of the European Competition Network could be used as an example to follow for enforcement and information exchange in the case of suspected violations impacting multiple Member States, especially to combat non-compliant products effectively; stresses the importance of granting the Commission direct powers to investigate and sanction certain high impact breaches of consumer law, thus ensuring more effective, simultaneous and uniform enforcement and sanctions under EU consumer law;

    39. Notes that the CPC Regulation already empowers enforcement authorities to act against non-compliant traders and even gives the possibility for Member States to impose penalties and interim measures such as restricting access to the website; acknowledges, however, that the limitation is that this action must be taken on a country-by-country basis rather than at EU level, with each country applying its own penalties, making the consequences of violations uneven;

    40. Notes that enforcement in the Member States is fragmented, which leads to inefficiencies; calls for better coordination of enforcement and compliance oversight effective information exchange between Member States and for a more uniform application of the EU acquis; calls on the Commission to assess the MSR, particularly the need for an EU Market Surveillance Authority that would ensure consistency and provide operational support to the activities conducted by the relevant national market surveillance authorities and foster cooperation with the new EU Customs Authority (EUCA), as well as the implementation of Article 4 of the MSR, defining the responsible economic operators in the EU for product compliance; stresses that, to date, the designated responsible economic operator often lacks the capacity to provide redress or compensation to consumers, in particular when being an authorised representative;

    41. Supports the Commission’s ambition to swiftly advance the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament and the Council on the UCC reform and the two proposals for Council acts on removing the exemption threshold on customs duties for goods valued under EUR 150; urges, therefore, the Member States to accelerate the negotiation procedure in the Council, recognising the urgency of the customs reform for EU competitiveness and the protection of EU consumers; underlines, however, that removing the threshold is a necessary step but not a stand-alone solution, as customs authorities will still only be able to inspect a limited percentage of parcels; stresses that immediate removal of the customs duty exemption is necessary for high-risk imports from product and consumer safety perspectives; emphasises the need for the customs reform to ensure coherence across regulatory frameworks, particularly avoiding duplication or conflicts with the DSA, and highlights the essential role customs authorities play in detecting non-compliant and unsafe products;

    42. Stresses that the UCC reform will provide the necessary tools for customs authorities to better supervise and control the goods entering the EU, help to strengthen the single market and customs union, improve the detection of unsafe and illicit products, and contribute to a level playing field among economic operators; welcomes, in this respect, the proposal under the UCC Regulation to establish the cooperation mechanism with market surveillance authorities that will improve the effectiveness of product controls; emphasises the importance of enhancing customs infrastructure and staffing to manage e-commerce effectively; highlights the need for simplified compliance processes tailored specifically to SMEs; calls on the Member States to introduce automated, forward-looking customs clearing systems, for instance by obliging platforms to enrol and clear customs automatically at the point of sales;

    43. Is concerned that some non-EU traders are circumventing EU customs checks by clearing goods by customs at the point of origin; stresses that those non-EU trading companies often prefer to pay penalties rather than open packages upon arrival at EU customs, aiming to unload shipments and depart immediately; is deeply concerned that customs authorities find that many packages are either undeclared or incorrectly declared and are sometimes fraudulently labelled; highlights that the UCC reform should also address these aspects;

    44. Takes note of the concern expressed by the ECC network regarding the drop-shipping business model, which raises challenges in consumer protection, product safety and regulatory compliance; regrets that consumers often face misleading practices, difficulties in returning products, and unexpected import duties, while a significant share of drop-shipped products fail to comply with EU safety standards; stresses that drop-shipping complicates enforcement due to untraceable businesses and cross-border complexities, while VAT and data protection compliance remain key concerns; notes that when combined with influencer marketing, drop-shipping may exacerbate transparency issues, reputational risks and inconsistent outcomes; calls on the Commission to assess how to address drop-shipping-related issues;

    45. Highlights the fact that the concept of a ‘deemed importer’ aims to ensure a level playing field for both EU and non-EU online platforms; notes that, in the context of an online sale from outside the EU, this measure would relieve customers of non-EU online platforms from being considered importers, as they are under the current UCC, while a non-EU platform or trader would instead be considered the ‘deemed importer’; believes that ‘deemed importer’ responsibilities should be clearly defined and consistent with the provisions of the DSA; emphasises that platforms being responsible for ensuring that VAT and customs duties are collected at the point of sale, rather than upon entry into the EU, will reduce fraud and tax evasion;

    46. Expresses concern about the optional nature of the Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS) scheme for all online operators, which deviates from the original objectives of the VAT in the digital age (ViDA) initiative; underlines the necessity of additional actions to strengthen the system’s robustness and curb potential misuse; urges the Commission to engage closely with stakeholders to establish safeguards for the IOSS against fraudulent practices; recommends that such safeguards be both comprehensive and streamlined to effectively deter fraud while avoiding excessive administrative burdens; stresses the necessity of extending the IOSS applicability to goods beyond the customs duty exemption threshold of EUR 150 to prevent undervaluation and ensure fair competition;

    47. Calls for the establishment of a new EUCA in 2026 to provide expert support to the Member States’ customs authorities; underlines that the EUCA should in its coordination role also map testing and control capabilities of customs and market surveillance authorities in and across the Member States and be mandated to execute unannounced inspections to detect possible unsafe or non-compliant products and issue sanctions in case of non-compliance; notes that the new EU customs data hub will allow for enhanced cooperation between the EUCA and customs and other authorities through data exchange and the interoperability of national IT systems, and thus facilitate coordinated controls and the detection of non-compliant products; considers that it is essential to fully integrate the functionalities of the Customs Single Window into the EU customs data hub; notes in the context of the proposed EUCA, the importance of regularly consulting representatives of various stakeholders to provide early warning to the EUCA;

    48. Stresses that, given the urgency, the entry into force of different obligations planned in the UCC revision should be accelerated, such as the establishment of the EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to immediately start the preparatory work necessary for the establishment of the EU customs data hub, so as to speed up the preparation of its e-commerce functions in 2026;

    49. Urges the Commission to carry out an impact assessment regarding the idea of e-commerce items being shipped to the EU in bulk and, in turn, the establishment of warehouses in the EU by non-EU traders for such goods before they are put into parcels for delivery to customers; recognises that such shipments of e-commerce items in bulk and their storage in warehouses in the EU might increase the oversight of customs and market surveillance authorities and improve their controls and detection of non-compliant goods compared to single parcel shipments; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider all possible options to incentivise such practices, including a simplified status for trust and check traders and cost-benefit assessments for incentive schemes; further notes that bulk shipping may not be feasible for all non-EU traders, particularly those operating consumer-to-consumer (C2C) or second-hand models; emphasises that this approach should strike a balance between the compliance advantages and the practical requirements of e-commerce operators, ensuring that it avoids creating logistical bottlenecks or placing an undue burden on varying business models;

    50. Acknowledges that the Commission has released a non-paper outlining the introduction of a non-discriminatory handling fee on e-commerce items, to be charged by customs authorities for goods sold in distance sales with the aim of covering the increased supervisory costs of custom authorities, namely the checking of the data, carrying out risk analysis, performing documentary and physical controls and specifically the financing of the EUCA and the data hub; insists that Member States should avoid unilateral fees to avoid a fragmentation of the customs union; underlines that the proposal suggests a flat EUR 2 rate per item delivered directly to the customer or a smaller 50 cent fee for Trust and Check Traders operating a business model of a customs warehouse for distance sales within the EU; calls on the Commission to conduct a proper evaluation of whether the proposed amount complies with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and whether it is sufficient and proportionate to reach the objectives; insists that this handling fee not be incurred by the consumer;

    51. Notes the enormous waste management and product destruction cost arising from the huge amount of non-compliant and unsafe products imported via non-EU country e-commerce; underlines that a large share of these products is non-recyclable, environmentally harmful or non-compliant with applicable chemicals legislation, further driving up environmental costs for public authorities; calls therefore on the Commission to evaluate the necessary measures to mitigate the environmental impact of non-EU countries’ e-commerce activities including the feasibility of a waste management fee on all products sold via non-EU countries’ online marketplaces to ensure that environmental costs are not supported by EU taxpayers;

    52. Stresses that inconsistent penalties and different enforcement strategies for non-compliance in different Member States lead to ‘border shopping’ or ‘customs shopping’; supports the minimum harmonisation of infringements and non-criminal sanctions for non-compliance across the Member States and through the EUCA as this would avoid creating weak entry points in the EU customs territory; stresses that this should entail a common framework for minimum harmonisation to close existing loopholes and thus tackle e-commerce challenges; underlines that Member States can impose additional sanctions tailored to national contexts;

    53. Notes that the Commission is scrutinising certain non-EU online marketplaces for employing manipulative practices, including dark patterns, addictive design features, deceptive influencer marketing, and the dissemination of fake or misleading online reviews; recognises that, according to the Digital Fairness Fitness Check report, unfair commercial practices cost consumers nearly EUR 8 billion annually, and that the use of unfair techniques to pressure consumers, especially vulnerable ones and children, into impulse purchases leads to overconsumption and overspending; calls on the Commission to address these issues in the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, unless they are already covered by existing legislation, with a view to effectively tackling unfair practices and closing existing legal loopholes, while staying consistent with existing legal frameworks and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens;

    54. Emphasises the need to ensure that any new initiatives proposed by the Commission in the area of customs enforcement or compliance do not result in additional administrative burdens for European businesses, particularly SMEs;

    55. Stresses the importance of the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the field of cross-border investigations of customs offences, which notably include fraud, for example the illicit undervaluing of the price of products in order to avoid paying the import taxes; emphasises that the large-scale circumvention of customs duties, including fraudulent e-commerce declarations and undervaluation, as well as the avoidance of controls and ‘forum shopping,’ must be effectively combated through criminal law investigations conducted by the EPPO, with the support of customs authorities; stresses that the EPPO’s robust legal framework for cross-border investigations should be leveraged to dismantle the criminal networks behind such operations;

    Additional enforcement actions

    56. Calls on the Commission and the national competent authorities to strongly enforce the DSA with regard to the responsibility of online marketplaces, in particular their obligations in terms of recommender systems, interface design, right to information, the compliance by design rules to increase the overall traceability, and their ‘know your business customer’ obligation; highlights that compliance with these obligations should dissuade non-compliant traders from offering their products in the EU through marketplaces or shopping services of social media falling in this category, and calls on the Commission to provide practical support in tracing traders that do not abide by EU rules; stresses the need for a DSA-based network of trusted flaggers for illegal products and e-commerce to ensure that platforms fulfil their obligations effectively;

    57. Stresses that the enhancement of cooperation and coordination with national competent authorities is crucial; asks for more cooperation among all relevant authorities, such as Member State authorities, customs authorities, and consumer protection authorities, and for stronger coordination among all established expert groups; stresses that, under the DSA, the investigative actions against non-compliant online marketplaces need to yield results and lead to deterrent sanctions in order to prevent the offer of non-compliant products; emphasises the importance of these investigations in addressing systemic risks, compliance failures, illegal content dissemination, addictive design features, dark patterns and the use of influencers for manipulative advertising;

    58. Calls on enforcement authorities to strengthen monitoring and enforcement actions targeting new sales channels; recommends that competent authorities be equipped with adequate resources, technological tools, and cross-border cooperation mechanisms to effectively identify and take action against non-compliant traders operating via social media and other emerging platforms;

    59. Suggests that online marketplace sellers must provide a reshipping address and contact point within the EU to allow consumers to easily return non-compliant goods without undue costs and to allow authorities to inspect goods; believes that online marketplaces should be responsible for checking this and should be held accountable for enforcement;

    60. Calls for an urgent in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the provision of the ‘responsible person for products placed on the Union market’, particularly those of non-EU traders, building on the results of the evaluation report on Article 4 of the MSR; calls on the Commission to consider among its future actions the introduction of a mandatory requirement for non-EU traders to appoint a responsible person in the EU with increased legal and financial liability;

    61. Notes that postal and other delivery services are undergoing significant transformations due to the rapid growth of e-commerce; raises concerns that the Universal Postal Union’s terminal dues system in practice does not apply to e-commerce flows; notes that, as a result, Chinese e-commerce businesses, due to shipment volumes, enter into commercial agreements directly with the EU postal operators for exceptionally attractive delivery rates that are lower than those for goods manufactured within the EU, leading to deeper fragmentation of the single market for postal services; urges the Commission to evaluate the impact of e-commerce on postal services and the internal market, and to consider how postal services can contribute to strengthening the single market and benefiting consumers, and to the overall competitiveness of the EU;

    62. Welcomes the approval of the ViDA reforms, which represent a significant step towards modernising VAT collection in the e-commerce sector; emphasises the importance of the Single VAT ID for online marketplaces and for European manufacturers, enabling them to compete on a level playing field by simplifying VAT compliance across the Member States; highlights that this measure can also facilitate in-bulk importation and the warehousing of goods within the EU, reducing reliance on fragmented cross-border shipments and ensuring that value-added services, such as fulfilment and logistics, take place within the single market; stresses that these reforms will enhance tax compliance, reduce administrative burdens, and improve enforcement while supporting fair competition and strengthening EU supply chains; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the effective implementation of these measures to maximise their benefits for European businesses and consumers;

    63. Calls on the Commission to consider measures aimed at reducing the unnecessary regulatory and administrative compliance burden for EU manufacturers, in particular for SMEs, in order to level the playing field and enable them to better compete with global competitors operating under more efficient compliance standards;

    64. Calls on the Commission to enhance international cooperation with other like-minded countries to exchange best practices, identify common challenges and risks and develop joint actions on e-commerce;

    65. Welcomes, in this regard, the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce; notes that the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses by facilitating cross-border electronic transactions, reducing barriers to digital trade and promoting innovation in e-commerce; underlines, however, that the agreement is only a foundation and encourages the Commission to pursue ambitious trade agreements in negotiations with partners to ensure binding provisions on e-commerce;

    Increased use of IT tools

    66. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is preparing a project to streamline existing databases, including the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance, the EU Safety Gate and the Customs Risk Management System, into a common interoperable system gathering all information on the safety of products, counterfeit product tracking and notifications of accidents and to ensure interoperability with the DPP and the future EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to publish information regarding the implementation timeline and the resource requirements of this initiative;

    67. Supports the Commission’s aim to provide market surveillance authorities with the e-Surveillance WebCrawler tool to flag reappearing dangerous products; asks the Commission to make available another web crawler for detecting new listings as soon as possible, in order to flag non-compliant products before they reach consumers;

    68. Supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things for scanning and analysing product listings on e-commerce platforms, automating customs and market surveillance inspections and risk identification and integrating product compliance databases for real-time checks between market surveillance and customs authorities, in line with EU and national laws; notes, however, that the high implementation costs of these technologies remain a barrier; underlines that the full uptake of these technologies will make handling more efficient, especially for low-value goods, and that the high volume of parcels containing many different items faces limited inspection capabilities;

    69. Demands that the Commission and the Member States exchange best practices and find incentives to provide the necessary funding and support for national authorities in order to increase the responsible use of technological solutions; suggests that artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things could be used to scan and analyse product listings on e-commerce platforms, automate inspections and risk profiling, and integrate product compliance databases for real-time checks by several authorities;

    70. Underlines that Member States should reinforce customs checks in particular with low-value shipments by implementing risk-based assessment systems and digital tracking to prevent non-compliant products from bypassing customs controls; calls on the Member States to increase the level of automated processes, such as automated scans of labels when processing parcels at customs;

    71. Recognises that some online marketplaces also use a number of IT tools to detect and remove unsafe and illicit products that are found on their platforms; highlights, however, the fact that online marketplaces need to further invest in and increase their use of these IT tools to effectively avoid the offer and sale of unsafe and illicit products; calls on the Commission to further incentivise the use of IT tools by online marketplaces in this regard, while ensuring full compliance with Article 8 of the DSA, which provides that there is no general obligation to monitor the information that providers of intermediary services transmit or store;

    72. Suggests that, without prejudice to the principle enshrined in the DSA that providers of intermediary services online should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of general nature, online intermediaries engaged in the sale, promotion or distribution of products within the EU market should consider on their own the use of risk-based digital monitoring systems to identify and prevent the presence of illegal content (presentation, description or offering for sale of illegal or dangerous products); stresses the importance of implementing swift response mechanisms to ensure the permanent removal of specific illegal content as soon as providers of intermediary services online have actual knowledge of such illegal content being presented on their interfaces, as well as the necessity for hosting service providers to take all necessary measures to prevent the reappearance of the same or equivalent illegal content on their platform;

    Improvement of consumer awareness and information

    73. Emphasises that EU consumers and European SMEs engaged in importing activities often lack sufficient information on the possible dangers of potentially unsafe products and the harm they can cause; stresses that consumers are increasingly targeted by traders who, despite their legal obligations, often do not inform consumers that their products are made and shipped from outside of the EU; acknowledges that there is demand among EU consumers for cheaper products, which are purchased on non-EU online marketplaces due to their much lower production costs and uncompetitive conditions for EU businesses and online platforms; stresses that online marketplaces may use manipulative design techniques (dark patterns) to influence purchasing decisions; warns against the risks associated with compulsive purchasing behaviours, financial difficulties and the accumulation of unnecessary goods; calls on the Commission and the Member States to organise information and awareness-raising campaigns on the purchase of unsafe products online and their possible health, privacy, environmental and competitiveness consequences, with a special focus on vulnerable consumers and at peak consumption times;

    74. Recommends fostering second-hand consumption as a sustainable approach to addressing EU consumers’ need for affordable goods; stresses the importance of promoting and incentivising the reuse of second-hand products as an important driver for unlocking the potential of the circular economy;

    75. Asks the Commission and the Member States to strictly enforce the ecodesign requirements for textiles and other products under the ESPR, as well as the provisions of the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition[14] in order to make sure that consumers are better informed about sustainability aspects, such as environmental impacts, energy use, reparability and durability of products purchased on online marketplaces;

    76. Considers that consumer authorities, organisations, industry associations and chambers of commerce should be encouraged to conduct large, coordinated awareness-raising campaigns on consumer rights, potential risks, including the possibilities for collective redress, and redress mechanisms when purchasing online, in particular on non-EU online platforms; stresses the need to also raise awareness about the environmental, health and social impacts of unsustainable business practices and to alert consumers about the role of new advertising techniques, such as influencers and digital opinion leaders, in shaping perceptions of product safety and reliability; calls on the Commission to take a coordinating role as mentioned in the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on e-commerce and to explore possibilities to finance cross-border information campaigns developed in cooperation with researchers, civil society and other relevant stakeholders;

    Trade and development considerations

    77. Calls on the Commission to implement its level of ambition in agreements with international partners at the multilateral level, as unsafe products constitute not only a European, but also a global challenge; reiterates that, as set out in Parliament’s position on the UCC revision, the EUCA should establish working arrangements with the authorities of non-EU countries and international organisations; stresses that such arrangements should enable the EUCA to exchange information, including best practices, with non-EU authorities and international organisations, and to carry out joint activities; supports continued engagement in the UN Trade and Development working group on consumer product safety, which plays a crucial role in developing best practices for cross-border enforcement;

    78. Calls on the Commission to step up cooperation with international partners, within forums such as the WTO, the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the G7, to counterbalance China’s influence and ensure reciprocity and rules-based trade; calls on the Commission to explicitly incorporate robust and enforceable obligations addressing forced labour when reviewing and renegotiating current trade and investment agreements; underscores the need for stronger EU-China cooperation mechanisms and transparent certification requirements to ensure compliance;

    79. Highlights the need to consider service and product safety and regulatory compliance provisions when negotiating future EU trade agreements; stresses the importance of specific regulatory dialogues and cooperation through administrative arrangements, improved customs enforcement cooperation, the traceability of shipments to the highest standards and enhanced data-sharing arrangements between customs authorities to effectively tackle non-compliant imports;

    80. Urges the Commission to be proactive and swiftly deploy targeted trade defence instruments, including anti-subsidy investigations, to address the adverse impacts on European businesses; emphasises that such actions must be coordinated closely with key international partners, to ensure effective global enforcement and reciprocal market fairness;

    81. Encourages the Commission to enhance diplomatic efforts and cooperation within international forums, particularly the WTO, the WCO and the G7, to counterbalance China’s strategic expansion into digital governance frameworks, including its Digital Silk Road initiative; stresses the need for open, more transparent and responsible digital trade rules in international standard-setting bodies to prevent internet fragmentation and mitigate the risks posed by restrictive digital governance models;

    82. Welcomes the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce as a vital step towards global digital trade rules; stresses, however, its current limitations, especially regarding customs transparency; urges the Commission to advocate stronger binding provisions to ensure its effective implementation and integration into the WTO legal framework, and to ensure enhanced global compliance standards;

    83. Emphasises the need for international capacity-building initiatives to support the sustainable and compliant participation of developing countries in digital trade; calls on the Commission to collaborate closely with international organisations, especially the WTO, to enhance regulatory frameworks and technical assistance for e-commerce in developing countries;

    °

    ° °

    84. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    MIL OSI Europe News