What do the general terms and conditions of ERE service providers really say about consumer protection?

The market for ERE service provision is growing rapidly. More and more consumers with an electric car or charging station can participate in the Emission Reduction Unit (ERE) system through an ERE service provider. In simple terms: your charged electricity can be administratively entered into a system that creates value, and a portion of that value can be paid out to you.

Many consumers primarily focus on the expected compensation or commission percentage. This is understandable, but not sufficient. At least as important are the general terms and conditions. These state how long you are committed, how you can cancel, what happens if something goes wrong, whether you are entitled to payment, how liability is regulated, and what rights you retain as a consumer.

That is why ERE-vergelijk.nl has created a Transparency Index. We have assessed the general terms and conditions of 25 ERE service providers for consumer-friendliness, legal transparency, and compliance with basic rules of consumer law. In addition, ERE-vergelijk.nl is working on a separate online page where ERE service providers will be transparently scored based on criteria derived from the black list and grey list in Articles 6:236 and 6:237 of Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code. The aim is that consumers will soon be able to see the main legal points of concern for each provider.

We assessed the terms and conditions based on eight categories. Each category examined specific sub-criteria, such as the level of a liability cap, the length of the notice period, the presence of a right of withdrawal, and whether consumer rights such as suspension and set-off are restricted.

A score of 0, 1, or 2 points was assigned per sub-criterion. A score of 0 means the clause is unfavourable or unclear for the consumer. A score of 1 means the clause is limited or moderately consumer-friendly. A score of 2 means the clause is clear, transparent, and consumer-friendly. All ERE service providers were assessed using exactly the same standard: the same categories, the same sub-criteria, the same scoring, and the same weightings were applied to each provider.

The eight categories do not all carry the same weight. For example, liability and cancellation are weighed more heavily than readability, because they directly determine the financial and practical risk a consumer runs. These weightings were determined in advance and applied exactly the same for every ERE service provider. Therefore, there was no individual assessment of which criteria turned out favourably or unfavourably for each provider; every party was assessed according to the same objective evaluation system. In addition, automatic corrections were applied for serious indicators, such as black-list clauses, high cancellation fees, or terms and conditions demonstrably heavily copied from other providers.

Four of the 25 providers could not be substantively assessed because their general terms and conditions were not available or because the button or link to the general terms and conditions did not work. These providers were therefore not scored but separately marked as: “Not assessable — terms and conditions not available”.

The first category is also one of the most important. If a provider makes a mistake, misses a payment, processes data incorrectly, or falls short in its service, a consumer wants to know what damages can be compensated.

The study shows that liability is severely limited in almost all terms and conditions. For several providers, liability is capped at the amount paid to the consumer in the last contract year. This sounds logical, but it can turn out to be very low in practice. If nothing has been paid out yet, the cap may be worth little to nothing.

For some providers, the liability cap is a fixed low amount, for example, a few hundred euros. In approximately one-third of the assessed terms and conditions, the liability cap is so low or so dependent on previous payouts that it constitutes a serious point of concern for consumers.

It is also notable that indirect damage, consequential damage, or lost income are often excluded. This means that in many cases, a consumer cannot claim compensation for damages that can be particularly relevant in this market, such as lost ERE income or delayed payouts.

On a positive note, several providers do acknowledge that limitations do not apply in cases of intent or gross negligence. However, this explicit exception is not present everywhere. This is an important area for improvement. A consumer must be able to trust that a provider cannot hide behind a limitation of liability in the event of seriously reprehensible conduct.

The second category concerns how easily a consumer can terminate the agreement. This is important because ERE service provision is often linked to a calendar year, an EAN code, or a charging point. If consumers cannot easily switch providers, the market becomes less transparent and less competitive.

Approximately half of the assessed providers offer consumers a one-month notice period after the initial contract period. This aligns with the principle of the Wet Van Dam (Dutch law on consumer contracts). A smaller proportion goes further and also offers relatively flexible cancellation options during the contract term.

Conversely, for a significant number of providers, early termination during the first calendar year is difficult or impossible. This is sometimes justified by reference to the NEa system or the fact that ERE registration takes place per calendar year. While this practical background may be understandable, it must be clear to consumers what this specifically means. Can the consumer cancel, but the authorisation continues until the end of the calendar year? Or is cancellation legally completely excluded? This nuance is often missing.

Another point of concern is the cancellation fee. Only a small proportion of providers charge a concrete cancellation fee for early termination. Where this occurs, it carries significant weight in the assessment. A consumer may formally be allowed to cancel, but if there is a financial barrier, that freedom is restricted in practice.

The third category concerns how long a consumer is bound. Most providers work with a minimum term of one calendar year. This is understandable from the administrative system of ERE registration. Nevertheless, it is important that consumers understand well before signing up that they may not be able to switch immediately.

A positive finding is that several providers explicitly refer to the Wet Van Dam (Dutch law on consumer contracts) or include in their terms and conditions that consumers can cancel with one month's notice after tacit renewal. Approximately half of the assessed terms and conditions contain such a provision.

At the same time, there are also terms and conditions where tacit renewal occurs without sufficiently clear explanation of the consequences. In some cases, it appears that after renewal, the consumer can still only cancel at the end of a calendar year. This is legally vulnerable, because consumer agreements, after tacit renewal, should in principle be cancellable at any time with a maximum notice period of one month.

For consumers, this is one of the most important points to pay attention to: a provider may offer an attractive rate, but if switching is difficult, that advantage can quickly disappear.

The fourth category concerns the transparency of remuneration. In this market, providers usually work with a commission percentage on the revenue from the EREs. Some providers state this percentage clearly, for example, as a fixed percentage or as a percentage dependent on the chosen package. Other providers use more open formulations, such as a “to be agreed upon” remuneration or a variable fee.

Approximately half of the assessed providers state the commission sufficiently clearly. With these providers, the consumer can reasonably estimate in advance what portion of the revenue remains with the provider and what portion is paid out to the consumer.

A point of concern is that several providers reserve the right to change the commission, calculation methodology, or payment moments. This does not have to be problematic, as long as the consumer is informed in good time and can cancel free of charge in the event of an unfavourable change. Approximately one third of providers regulate this reasonably well.

It becomes problematic when a provider can unilaterally adjust the remuneration without a clear right to cancel free of charge. This is unfavourable for consumers, as they may then be tied to a contract whose economic terms change later.

Good general terms and conditions therefore state three things: the commission percentage, the basis of calculation, and the consumer's right to cancel free of charge in the event of a materially adverse change.

The fifth category concerns the statutory right of withdrawal. If a consumer enters into an agreement online or at a distance, they generally have a 14-day cooling-off period. This is a fundamental right under consumer law.

It is striking that this right is missing in many terms and conditions. Only a minority of the assessed providers describe the right of withdrawal clearly and completely. Even fewer providers include a model form or adequately explain what costs, if any, may be charged if the consumer has already requested performance during the cooling-off period.

This is an important area for improvement for the sector. The right of withdrawal is not a minor detail. It is a statutory information obligation. If this right is not correctly stated, it can have consequences for the legal position of the provider and the consumer.

For consumers, the rule of thumb is simple: if you sign up online and the terms and conditions say nothing about a 14-day cooling-off period, that's a red flag.

The sixth category concerns fundamental consumer rights. A consumer may, in certain cases, suspend their obligations if the provider defaults. A consumer can also, under certain conditions, set off claims if both parties have something to claim from each other.

The exclusion of these rights is on the black list of Article 6:236 of the Dutch Civil Code. This means that such clauses in consumer relationships are always considered unreasonably onerous.

In the study, an explicit exclusion or limitation of suspension or set-off was found in a limited number of providers. This is serious, because it is not a grey area but provisions that, according to consumer law, are generally unacceptable.

Most providers do not explicitly mention these rights. This is legally less problematic, as the statutory rights then generally remain. Nevertheless, it would be better if providers more clearly state that consumer rights are not limited.

For the Transparency Index: a provider who explicitly uses black-list clauses can never score highly. Transparency means not only that terms and conditions are available, but also that they do not contain prohibited limitations of consumer rights.

The seventh category concerns practical access to justice. Even if a consumer is legally in the right, a short complaint period or strict formal requirement can make it difficult to actually enforce that right.

A number of providers apply forfeiture periods, for example, that claims must be reported in writing within 12 months. A period of 12 months is not by definition unreasonable, but it must be nuanced for consumers. Some providers do this by stating that for consumers, the statutory limitation period takes precedence if a shorter period would be unreasonably onerous. This is positive.

More problematic are very short periods, such as 48 hours, 7 days, or 14 days for certain complaints or defects. Such periods are poorly suited to consumer protection, especially when consumers are not daily engaged with these types of legal obligations.

The form of cancellation or complaints also plays a role. Providers who accept email, portal messages, or other unambiguous digital communication are positive. Less consumer-friendly are terms and conditions that only mention written communication at a specific address, or where it is unclear when a cancellation is valid.

The eighth category concerns the quality and origin of the terms and conditions themselves. This examined readability, version date, discoverability, and whether the terms and conditions were clearly drafted independently.

A striking finding is that multiple sets of terms and conditions bear a strong resemblance to each other. In some cases, passages are literally identical. This is not automatically prohibited, but it is relevant. If a provider largely copies their terms and conditions, the question arises whether sufficient thought has been given to their own service provision, risks, and the consumer's position.

Furthermore, some terms and conditions lack a clear version date or current location. This is problematic, as consumers must be able to verify which terms and conditions applied at the time of registration.

Most concerning are the providers where consumers can register, but where the general terms and conditions are not available at all, or the link/button to the terms and conditions does not work. Four of the 25 providers fall into this category. They were not substantively assessed, but separately marked as: “Not assessable — terms and conditions not available”.

In our opinion, this is worse than a low score. A provider with poor terms and conditions can at least be scrutinised. A provider without accessible terms and conditions effectively asks the consumer to sign a blank document.

For consumers, the lesson is clear: don't just look at the expected compensation. Also read the general terms and conditions, or use a comparison that includes the terms and conditions. ERE-vergelijk.nl is therefore working on a transparent score page where consumers can see, per provider, how the terms and conditions score on the same fixed criteria from, among others, Articles 6:236 and 6:237 of the Dutch Civil Code. This will show whether a provider respects, restricts, or insufficiently clearly regulates consumer rights.

Pay particular attention to the following points. Can you cancel with one month's notice after renewal? Is the commission percentage clear? Is the right of withdrawal mentioned? Is liability not extremely limited? Can you download or save the terms and conditions beforehand? And is there nowhere stated that you cannot suspend or set off?

If the answer to several of these questions is “no”, then caution is advised.

We are publishing our findings not to settle scores with providers, but to make the market more transparent. The ERE market is young, technically and legally complex. It is understandable that terms and conditions are still evolving. At the same time, consumers can expect basic rights to be properly regulated.

Therefore, the ERE service providers involved will be given the opportunity to respond to our findings. If they believe we have factually misjudged something, or if they substantially amend their general terms and conditions, they can inform us before publication.

We are therefore explicitly giving providers the opportunity to follow up on areas for improvement. The deadline for submitting changes is 24 July 2026. The publication of the Transparency Index is scheduled for 3 August 2026.

After publication, we will continue to update the index. If a provider improves its terms and conditions, this may lead to a higher score in a subsequent assessment.

The Transparency Index shows that the ERE service provision market varies widely in legal quality. Some providers regulate consumer rights reasonably well. Other providers have clear areas for improvement. And for some providers, the terms and conditions are even completely missing or inaccessible.

For consumers, transparency is not a luxury. It's about what you're signing up for, how long you're committed, how much you'll receive, what rights you retain, and what happens if something goes wrong.

Our call to the sector is therefore simple: make terms and conditions findable, understandable, and legally correct. That is better for consumers, better for trust in the market, and ultimately better for serious ERE service providers themselves.