The insurance intermediary distributes or sells insurance policies of various insurers using a popular website / mobile application / POS terminal (hereinafter together referred to as the Platform) owned by the third party and receives an insurance premium directly from the client or electronic money or payment institution, which is passed on to the insurance intermediary. The insurance policy purchase service is integrated into the Platform and is created as one of several services offered on the Platform. The main activity of third party is the operation of internet portals or the operation of an electronic money or payment institution. The insurance intermediary pays the remuneration to the third party and it depends on the number of insurance policies sold and the insurance premium.

The regulatory framework for insurance distribution activities does not ultimately depend on the business model used for conducting those activities (e.g. via websites, platforms, walk-in shops, mobile applications, online or face-to-face activities) as the IDD is technologically-neutral. For example, using the digital environment for offering a service is comparable to using a phone or paper as a medium for an insurance distribution activity (reference is made to “other media” in Article 2 (1) point 1 of the IDD ). The competent authority should determine on a case-by-case basis, depending on the activities performed using that particular business model, whether or not a provider should be identified and registered as an insurance intermediary or acts as an ancillary insurance intermediary.

The competent authority should take several aspects into account when determining whether the activities carried out by the third party provider could be identified as insurance distribution activities as defined in Article 2(1) (1) of the IDD or, for example, if they fall outside the scope of the Directive in accordance with one of the scenarios set out in Article 2(2) of the IDD. These aspects are, for example:

• The question who does the marketing and “branding” of the insurance product, and the perception of the end customer with regard to this;

• Whether the third party significantly influences or engages in the performance of the key parts of the distribution process such as specifying the customer´s demands and needs, proposing an insurance cover, customers disclosures (incl. provision of IPID), POG obligations etc. or whether it designes the IT tool e.g. for demands and needs inquiry;

• Whether the third party provider collects the premium paid for the insurance product;

• How it is ensured that this premium is transferred to the insurance undertaking;

• Whether the third party provider provides the customer with the possibility of finalising the contract directly through its services, has access to the contract and the essential information necessary to conclude the contract or whether it engages in characteristic activities during its conclusion administration or performance;

• The commission structure analysis, especially if the third party obtains commission or any remuneration directly for concluded contract, etc.

It would be particularly important for the competent authority to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the concrete situation could lead to consumer detriment because of the risks associated with the growth of new technologies and remote communication systems (e.g. “fake” or “ghost” insurance websites) or whether the arrangement is used to circumvent the professional and organisational requirements on insurance intermediaries. The decisive element from a competent authority’s standpoint, when assessing all of these activities, should be the consumer’s perspective and the potential for consumer detriment. This is without prejudice with the stricter requirements introduced at national level in order to tackle with the risks that may arise at national level (e.g. prohibition for outsourcing to a third party of the website of an insurance intermediary).