§2.1.2.1 General approach

35. It follows from Article 2(8) that the concept of ‘relative prominence’ relates to how goods and services are offered through the online intermediation services in a variety of circumstances (10). This is confirmed in Recital 24, which states that ‘[r]anking refers to the relative prominence of the offers of business users or relevance given to search results as presented, organised or communicated by providers of online intermediation services … resulting from the use of algorithmic sequencing, rating or review mechanisms, visual highlights, or other saliency tools, or combinations thereof’. 36. Thus, algorithmic sequencing of results in response to a search query is just one example of how goods or services can be presented, organised or communicated as part of a ranking mechanism covered by Article 5. Indeed, in this regard, goods and services can be presented, organised or communicated to consumers in numerous manners. These include ‘default’ ordering of goods and services that consumers may navigate without using search queries, through the seamless use of different online intermediation services through ‘buy buttons’ (see above), visual exposure (including in online intermediation services that take the form of maps or directories), highlighting, lead generation and editorial interventions, etc. 37. Depending on what consumers see when they look for goods and services on a given service covered by the Regulation, the information presented, organised or communicated may be basic or complicated. For example, at the most basic level, this may be one list of goods with no other features. For other services, this may be more diverse and consumers may see an array of goods or services set out and grouped in a multitude of different ways when they look at any given page on the service, or when they apply different ‘filters’. Providers of online intermediation services may, for example, combine ordered lists of search results with paid ranking results and editorial features such as recommendations, all in a single, seamless interface. Or they may differentiate such ordered lists by, for example, using different markings, annotations or headings, at different positions on the page (i.e. regardless of the ‘position’ of the products or services concerned in the list). 38. Given the varying degrees of complexity of ranking and given the potentially broad scope of the technologically neutral notion of ‘relative prominence’, providers should take all relevant features of ranking into account when determining what the ‘main parameters’ are for their specific service.

← 2.1.2 · All articles · 3 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07