# Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under DSA — legal context bundle > Curated from overview.legal on 2026-08-22. Canonical page: https://overview.legal/topics/out-of-court-dispute-settlement-dsa > Sources are cited per item. Verify against the official texts before relying on them. This is a distinct DSA topic that warrants its own entry, as it covers specific procedures, requirements, and mechanisms for resolving disputes outside of court, including mediator qualifications, settlement procedures, and accessibility requirements that are not adequately covered by existing topics. ## Overview ## Legal Framework The out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism under the Digital Services Act (DSA) is governed by Recitals 59 and 60. Recital 59 establishes the requirement for accessible out-of-court dispute settlement to resolve disputes, including those unsatisfactorily handled by a provider's internal complaint-handling system. The law mandates that such settlement be conducted by certified bodies possessing requisite independence, expertise, and means to operate in a fair, swift, and cost-effective manner. Recital 60 clarifies that these DSA rules are without prejudice to Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative consumer dispute resolution, preserving existing consumer rights under that framework. ## Practical Application The authoritative commentary, drawing analogies from the framework for independent supervisory authorities, emphasizes that the core legal requirement is the demonstrable independence of the certified dispute settlement bodies. This independence is crucial for ensuring fair proceedings and democratic oversight, akin to principles highlighted in the context of data protection authorities. While specific DSA case law on this mechanism is still developing, the procedural fairness underscored in national administrative law cases, such as those from the Dutch Council of State (e.g., Raad van State - 202004638/1/A3), informs the general standards for impartial dispute resolution. In practice, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and other providers must ensure that users can engage, in good faith, with these certified external bodies after exhausting internal complaint procedures. ## Key Considerations * **Provider Obligation:** Online platforms must inform users about the possibility of out-of-court dispute settlement and cannot obstruct access to these certified bodies, especially after an internal complaint is not resolved to the user's satisfaction. * **Body Certification:** When directing users to a dispute settlement body, providers should verify it is officially certified under the DSA framework, ensuring it meets the strict independence and expertise criteria mandated by Recital 59. * **Consumer Rights Preservation:** For business-to-consumer disputes, the out-of-court process under the DSA does not override a consumer's right under Directive 2013/11/EU to withdraw from the alternative dispute resolution procedure at any stage. ## Legislation (full text of key provisions) ### Internal complaint-handling system *Source: DSA, dsa-art-20-en, 2022-10-19 — https://overview.legal/posts/94297* ### Out-of-court dispute settlement *Source: DSA, dsa-art-21-en, 2022-10-19 — https://overview.legal/posts/94315* ### Recital 59 — certified out-of-court dispute settlement *Source: DSA, dsa-rec-59-en, 2022-10-19 — https://overview.legal/posts/95515* In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of engaging, in good faith, in the out-of-court dispute settlement of such disputes, including those that could not be resolved in a satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost-effective manner. The independence of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies should be ensured also at the level of the natural persons in charge of resolving disputes, including through rules on conflict of interest. The fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies should be reasonable, accessible, attractive, inexpensive for consumers and proportionate, and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Where an out-of-court dispute settlement body is certified by the competent Digital Services Coordinator, that certification should be valid in all Member States. Providers of online platforms should be able to refuse to engage in out-of-court dispute settlement procedures under this Regulation when the same dispute, in particular as regards the information concerned and the grounds for taking the contested decision, the effects of the decision and the grounds raised for contesting the decision, has already been resolved by or is already subject to an ongoing procedure before the competent court or before another competent out-of-court dispute settlement body. Recipients of the service should be able to choose between the internal complaint mechanism, an out-of-court dispute settlement and the possibility to initiate, at any stage, judicial proceedings. Since the outcome of the out-of-court dispute settlement procedure is not binding, the parties should not be prevented from initiating judicial proceedings in relation to the same dispute. The possibilities to contest decisions of providers of online platforms thus created should leave unaffected in all respects the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned, and therefore should not affect the exercise of the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47 of the Charter. The provisions in this Regulation on out-of-court dispute settlement should not require Member States to establish such out-of-court settlement bodies. ### Recital 60 — consumer dispute resolution directive compatibility *Source: DSA, dsa-rec-60-en, 2022-10-19 — https://overview.legal/posts/95517* For contractual consumer-to-business disputes regarding the purchase of goods or services, Directive 2013/11/EU ensures that Union consumers and businesses in the Union have access to quality-certified alternative dispute resolution entities. In this regard, it should be clarified that the rules of this Regulation on out-of-court dispute settlement are without prejudice to that Directive, including the right of consumers under that Directive to withdraw from the procedure at any stage if they are dissatisfied with the performance or the operation of the procedure. ### Recital 45 — intermediary service terms and conditions transparency *Source: DSA, dsa-rec-45-en, 2022-10-19 — https://overview.legal/posts/95487* Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of unfair or arbitrary outcomes. Providers of the intermediary services should clearly indicate and maintain up-to-date in their terms and conditions the information as to the grounds on the basis of which they may restrict the provision of their services. In particular, they should include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review, as well as the rules of procedure of their internal complaint-handling system. They should also provide easily accessible information on the right to terminate the use of the service. Providers of intermediary services may use graphical elements in their terms of service, such as icons or images, to illustrate the main elements of the information requirements set out in this Regulation. Providers should inform recipients of their service through appropriate means of significant changes made to terms and conditions, for instance when they modify the rules on information that is permitted on their service, or other such changes which could directly impact the ability of the recipients to make use of the service. ## Recent developments ### Manipulation by Algorithms. Exploring the Triangle of Unfair Commercial Practice, Data Protection, and Privacy Law *Source: SSRN, 2022-10-09 — https://overview.legal/posts/6262 — original: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835259#entry-1001* Machine learning can be used to optimize sales practices in consumer markets, but it also raises concerns about manipulation. According to this article, in order to mitigate these risks, we need to understand how unfair commercial practice, data protection, and privacy law interact. ## Related topics - **Competent Authorities Designation and Powers under DSA** — https://overview.legal/topics/dsa-competent-authorities-designation The content is titled 'Competences' from the DSA and discusses the allocation and scope of authority powers under the Digital Services Act. This requires a dedi - **Digital Services Coordinators under DSA** — https://overview.legal/topics/digital-services-coordinators-dsa This new topic is needed because Digital Services Coordinators are a distinct institutional role under DSA with specific designation procedures, responsibilitie - **Digital Services Coordinator** — https://overview.legal/topics/digital-services-coordinator-establishment-role While 'digital-services-coordinators-dsa' exists, a more specific topic on the establishment, institutional framework, and foundational role of DSCs would bette - **Certification** — https://overview.legal/topics/certification Data protection certification mechanisms - **DSA Terms and Conditions Requirements** — https://overview.legal/topics/dsa-terms-conditions-requirements This new topic is needed to specifically address the requirements for terms and conditions documents under the DSA, including transparency, accessibility, and m - **Recipient** — https://overview.legal/topics/recipient A person or body to which personal data are disclosed (Art 4(9) GDPR). --- Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/topics/out-of-court-dispute-settlement-dsa · 2026-08-22