---
title: "European Parliament Policy Department; study on Private Law and the Digital Market in the EU; harmonisation could boost the Digital Single Market"
sdDatePublished: "2026-09-15T15:07:00Z"
source: "https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2026/790625/IUST_STU(2026)790625_EN.pdf"
topics:
  - name: "law"
    identifier: "medtop:20000121"
  - name: "administrative law"
    identifier: "medtop:20001197"
  - name: "civil law"
    identifier: "medtop:20000122"
  - name: "regulations"
    identifier: "medtop:20000124"
  - name: "legislative body"
    identifier: "medtop:20000615"
locations:
  - "Slovenia"
  - "Estonia"
  - "Portugal"
  - "Denmark"
  - "Croatia"
  - "Finland"
  - "Spain"
  - "Hungary"
  - "Slovakia"
  - "Italy"
  - "Greece"
  - "Bulgaria"
  - "Belgium"
  - "Luxembourg"
  - "Cyprus"
  - "Sweden"
  - "Lithuania"
  - "Germany"
  - "Latvia"
  - "Ireland"
  - "Malta"
  - "Netherlands"
  - "France"
  - "United Kingdom"
  - "Romania"
  - "United States"
  - "Poland"
  - "Austria"
---


European Parliament Policy Department; study on Private Law and the Digital Market in the EU; harmonisation could boost the Digital Single Market

Private Law and the Digital Market-The Interface between Harmonised and National Private Law

Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs
Author: Hans SCHULTE-NÖLKE, Mary-Rose McGUIRE, Christoph BUSCH,
Sören SEGGER-PIENING, Fryderyk ZOLL
Directorate-General for Citizens' Rights, Justice and Institutional Affairs
PE 790.625 – September 2026
STUDY
Requested by the JURI Committee
EN

Private Law and the
Digital Market
The Interface between Harmonised
and National Private Law

Abstract
This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy
Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs at
the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs, examines
whether, and to what extent, the fragmentation of national
private laws constitutes an obstacle to the Digital Single Market.
It identifies the main functions of private law in the creation of the
Digital Single Market, and the main sources of malfunction.
Arising from this systemic approach, the study presents
examples, including data sharing agreements, general terms and
conditions as well as limitation periods, where further
harmonisation of European private law would substantially
enhance the Digital Single Market. On this basis, it discusses
possible courses of action and suggests specific measures for
future development.

Private Law and the
Digital Market
The Interface between Harmonised
and National Private Law

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs.

AUTHORS
Hans SCHULTE-NÖLKE, European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück/Germany
Mary-Rose McGUIRE, European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück/Germany
Christoph BUSCH, European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück/Germany
Sören SEGGER-PIENING, European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück/Germany
Fryderyk ZOLL, European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück/Germany

ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE
Mariusz MACIEJEWSKI

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Safae LEND SAHNINE

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS
Original: EN

ABOUT THE EDITOR
Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other
parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies.

To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe for updates, please write to:
Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs
European Parliament
B-1047 Brussels
Email: poldep-iust-b@europarl.europa.eu

Manuscript completed in September 2026
© European Union, 2026

This document is available on the internet at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is
acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.
© Cover image used under licence from Adobe Stock.com

Private Law and the Digital Market

PE 790.625
3
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
4
LIST OF TABLES
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7

INTRODUCTION
12

READING GUIDE TO THE SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND TERMINOLOGY
15
2.1. Reading guide
15
2.1. The meaning of ‘private law’ and ‘civil law’ for the purposes of this study
16

BACKGROUND: EU AND MEMBER STATE PRIVATE LAW
17
3.1. The Main Private Law Regimes across the EU Member States
17
3.1.1. Overview of the Private Law Systems in the EU
17
3.1.2. Different kinds of transposition of directives in Member States
21
3.2. Previous and ongoing efforts to harmonise private law in the EU
24
3.3. Experiences of harmonisation beyond the EU as a model?
31
3.3.1. Composition of working groups: representativeness instead of exclusiveness
32
3.3.2. Role of case-law from other states
33
3.3.3. Scope and function of restatements or ‘best rules’
35
3.4. Impact of EU legal fragmentation compared to common law
36

EU PRIVATE LAW AND THE DIGITAL MARKET
38
4.1. The state of EU private law in the Digital Single Market
39
4.2. Costs and other impacts of fragmented private law regimes on the digital single market 44
4.3. Examples of effects of the fragmentation of private law regimes on the digital single
market
48
4.3.1. Data sharing agreements
48
4.3.2. Europe-wide rules for general terms and conditions
57
4.3.3. Contracts for the provision of digital content
64
4.3.4. Contract law of digital subscriptions
66
4.3.5. Limitation periods for rights and claims under EU law
70

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
80
5.1. Reasons for the success and failure in harmonising the fragmented national private laws 81
5.2. Achievable and desirable level of harmonisation
82
5.3. Way forward: ‘Quality units’ for a better Digital Single Market and better interaction with
national private laws
83
5.4. Possible models and legislative acts to be derived from the analysis
85
REFERENCES
88

IUST | Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs

4
PE 790.625

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABGB
ACQP
AI
ALI
B2B
B2C
BGB
BW
CEPS
CESL
Cf.
CISG
CJEU
CPI
CoPECL
CRD
DA
DCD
DGA
DMA
DSA
DSM
ECJ
EEC
EECC
e.g.
EIG
EP
EU
FENEX
FRAND
Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ([Austrian] Civil Code)
Acquis Principles
Artificial Intelligence
American Law Institute
Business to business
Business to consumer
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ([German] Civil Code)
Burgerlijk Wetboek ([Dutch] Civil Code)
Centre for European Policy Studies
Common European Sales Law
Confer
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
Court of Justice of the European Union
Code de la propriété intellectuelle
Joint Network on European Private Law
Consumer Rights Directive
Data Act
Digital Content Directive
Data Governance Act
Digital Market Act
Digital Service Act
Directive on copyright in the digital single market
European Court of Justice
European Economic Community
European Electronic Communications Code
exempli gratia
European Impact Group
European Parliament
European Union
Federatie van Nederlandse Expediteurs
Fair reasonable and non-discriminatory
GDPR
General Data Protection Regulation

Private Law and the Digital Market

PE 790.625
5
HGB
i.e.
IPL
InsO
IoT
JURI
KC
MCT
PatG
PECL
PEL
SGD
TFEU
UCTD
UPCA
ULC
UrhG
UPC
US
U.S.C.
UPR
UWG
VAT
VGG
Handelsgesetzbuch ([German] Commercial Code)
id est
(Polish) Industrial Property Law
Insolvenzordnung
Internet of Things
European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Afffairs
Kodeks cywilny
Model Contract Term
Patentgesetz
Principles of European Contract Law
Principles of European Law
Sale of Goods Directive
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Unfair Contract Terms Directive
Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Uniform Law Commission
Urheberrechtsgesetz
Unified Patent Court
United States
United States Code
Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012
Gesetz gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb ([German] Act against Unfair Competition
Value added tax
Verbrauchergewährleistungsgesetz

IUST | Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs

6
PE 790.625

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Main areas of functions of private law and the main sources of malfunction
8
Table 2: Specific objectives
15
Table 3: Civil and Contract Codes of the EU Member States
20
Table 4: Examples of major digital initiatives of the EEC/EU
39
Table 5: Different causes of malfunctioning
42

Private Law and the Digital Market

PE 790.625
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study examines whether, and to what extent, the fragmentation of national private law constitutes
an obstacle to the Digital Single Market. It provides examples of this fragmentation and proposes
tailored solutions in this regard.
– A systemic approach to identifying gaps and selecting areas for action
A key finding of the analysis in this study is that, with regard to the specific objective of creating the
Digital Single Market, the role of (national and European) private law can be presented as a system
comprising three main areas of function and three main sources of malfunction. This systemic
approach, developed for the purposes of this study, helps identify shortcomings and gaps in the Digital
Single Market, as well as areas for action and possible corrective measures. Arising from this systemic
approach, the study presents some examples of areas where action could be taken and some possible
courses of action.
The three main areas of private law relevant to the creation of the Digital Single Market can be
characterised by the keywords ‘Creating and Defining Digital Assets’, ‘Contractual Arrangements for
Digital Assets and Remedies for their Breach’ and ‘Protecting Digital Assets through Extra-Contractual
Rights’:
•
Creating and Defining Digital Assets: The creation of new legal objects and specially protected
rights in the digital space, such as rights in personal data, machine-generated data and trade
secrets.
•
Contractual Arrangements for Digital Assets and Remedies for Breach of Contract: The
creation of possibilities for contractual arrangements regarding digital assets for participants
in the Digital Single Market and the provision of contractual remedies in the event of breaches,
such as consent under data protection law or remedies where data use exceeds the scope of
an agreement under the Data Act.
•
Protecting Digital Assets by Extra-contractual Rights: The protection of digital assets through
tortious rights and quasi-in rem claims against third parties (erga omnes), such as injunctions
and the right to damages.
The EU has made significant progress in all three of these areas. The fact that this progress does not
fully tap into the potential of the Digital Single Market appears to be due, in particular, to three main
sources of malfunction
•
Incompleteness or inconsistency of EU law
•
Missing or dysfunctional interfaces with national private law
•
Fragmentation and heterogeneity of national private law
While the first cause is a typical phase in the development of new areas of law, albeit one where early
intervention can prevent further fragmentation, the latter two causes are clearly closely linked to the
fact that private law, in particular contract law and the law of non-contractual obligations, are, for the
most part, not harmonised, but rather governed by national laws with many differences. Fragmentation,
therefore, lies at the heart of all three causes.
This framework of three main areas of functions and three main sources of malfunction can be simplified
and presented in a nine-field matrix that maps European and national law in relation to the Digital Single
Market. This makes it possible to clearly identify possible measures to improve EU law. Notably, this

IUST | Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs

8
PE 790.625

classification means that some examples can be assigned to multiple categories. This highlights that
there are different options for addressing these measures.
That said, the five examples this study analyses have been chosen first and foremost because of their
practical importance and the need for their resolution, but also to highlight the different sources of
malfunction within the Digital Single Market. The five examples are:
• Data sharing agreements (e.g. integration of new types of contracts into EU and national
private law)
• Contracts for digital content or services (e.g. clarification as to whether machine-generated
data qualifies as counter-performance)
• Gen