New DSA B2B Obligation: Standalone Websites Must Disclose a Summary of Their Recommendation Logic

Starting October 1, 2026, B2B standalone websites that provide product or service recommendation functions to EU users will face a more specific DSA implementation requirement: companies must publish a plain-language summary of the core recommendation algorithm logic on the “About Us” or “Compliance Center” page. This change is directly relevant to digital customer acquisition and matching scenarios such as industrial product catalog websites and customized solution websites, and will also affect export, procurement, platform operations, and compliance review processes. It therefore deserves the early attention of relevant professionals.

What Does This New Requirement Address?

The confirmed information indicates that on July 27, 2026, the European Commission issued a supplementary notice on DSA implementing rules, requiring all B2B standalone websites that provide product or service recommendation functions to EU users to publish a summary of their core recommendation algorithm logic on the “About Us” or “Compliance Center” page.

The disclosure must include the ranking criteria, weighting factors, and manual intervention mechanisms. It must be expressed in plain language and cover three languages: EN, DE, and FR. Examples of applicable website types include industrial product catalog websites and customized solution websites. The above requirements will become mandatory on October 1, 2026.

Recommendation Transparency Requirements Are Moving to the Front End of B2B Transactions

Export-Oriented Standalone Websites Targeting EU Customers

The analysis indicates that these companies are affected first because product recommendations, solution recommendations, or ranking displays on their websites are directly related to what potential customers see, whom they contact first, and how they assess supply capabilities. The primary business impacts will involve website content governance, compliance page configuration, multilingual disclosure, and the review of recommendation display logic. The key issue requiring attention now is whether recommendation functions targeting EU users have established fixed ranking mechanisms and whether the relevant explanations can be organized into summary text for external disclosure.

Procurement Matching Processes Relying on Online Selection and Inquiry Conversion

From an industry perspective, scenarios such as industrial product procurement and customized solution comparison generally rely on catalog displays, parameter matching, or recommendation rankings to shorten the decision-making process. The new obligation may affect how procurement parties understand website recommendation results, as well as how suppliers present information during inquiry conversion. The change requiring attention is not the addition of a particular type of transaction document, but whether the recommendation criteria, weighting factors, and manual adjustment mechanisms will become supplementary information in procurement reviews, supplier communications, or compliance verification.

Supply Chain Service Roles Responsible for Website Development and Content Maintenance

For roles involving website operations, digital marketing, technical services, or compliance support, the primary impact is that the content delivered will change. Previously, the focus may have been on page launch, product categorization, and conversion design. Now, the summary of recommendation logic, the location of the disclosure entry, and multilingual versions must also be included in the scope of delivery. This indicates that greater coordination will be required among website maintenance, content updates, and compliance reviews.

What Practical Actions Should Companies Prepare Now?

First, Check Which Pages Already Include Recommendation Functions

Companies should first identify whether their standalone websites provide product or service recommendation functions to EU users, including catalog ranking, priority display of solutions, or other forms of recommendation presentation. If such functions exist, they must further confirm whether the disclosure page should be placed under “About Us” or “Compliance Center” and prepare the corresponding versions of the summary content.

Distinguish Disclosable Content from Internal Mechanisms

The analysis indicates that this requirement concerns the disclosure of a “summary of the core recommendation algorithm logic,” rather than the publication of complete technical details. Companies should focus on how to organize the ranking criteria, weighting factors, and manual intervention mechanisms into an explicit, readable explanation suitable for external display, while ensuring that the external wording remains consistent with the actual internal operating logic.

Address Consistency Across Multilingual Versions in Advance

Because the disclosure must cover EN, DE, and FR, companies need to ensure consistency among the different language versions when preparing the text and avoid misunderstandings caused by translation differences. For companies that already have a compliance center or brand information page, this work is closer to supplementing the page and calibrating its content. For websites that have not yet established the relevant page structure, page configuration and text review must be arranged at the same time.

Continue Monitoring Subsequent Implementation Guidance

The input information has clarified the disclosure requirements, page location, language requirements, and effective date, but does not provide more detailed implementation examples, verification methods, or industry-specific guidance. In practice, companies should therefore regard this change as a clearly effective compliance requirement while continuing to monitor subsequent official statements, customer review requirements, and whether related extended requirements appear in tender documents or supplier admission materials.

This Is More Like an Implementation Signal Than a Simple Supplement to Information Disclosure

The key point of this development is not merely the addition of an explanatory paragraph to a website. Rather, it incorporates recommendation mechanism transparency into the front-end compliance requirements for EU users in B2B digital transaction scenarios. It is more appropriate to understand this as a rule that has reached the implementable level. For companies that rely on online presentation, matching, and conversion in particular, recommendation logic is no longer merely an internal operational issue; it is also becoming an externally visible compliance matter.

At the same time, the available information is still insufficient to support more specific conclusions regarding industry implementation. For example, the appropriate level of page presentation under different business models, the boundaries for expressing a “summary of the core logic” on different websites, and how the market will interpret this requirement all require continued observation.

For Relevant Industries, the Priority Is to Complete Identification and Calibration as Soon as Possible

Overall, this change has a clear effective date and specific disclosure requirements, and therefore cannot be viewed merely as a general policy trend. For B2B standalone websites engaged in online customer acquisition, presentation, and recommendation targeting the EU, it is currently more appropriate to understand this as an implemented requirement and to promptly complete internal calibration around page configuration, multilingual text, recommendation logic review, and compliance consistency.

As for the extent to which its subsequent impact will expand, a rational assessment should still be maintained. At this stage, greater attention should be paid to whether companies can complete the required basic disclosure and whether the market and implementation authorities will introduce more detailed verification standards.

Basis of This Article and Scope of Subsequent Verification

This article was generated based on the information title, event date, and event summary provided by the user. The confirmed scope of facts is limited to the information contained in that input itself. For events of this type, continuous verification usually also requires reference to official announcements, publications by regulatory authorities, information from trade or industry authorities, industry association information, documents issued by standards organizations, and reports from authoritative media.

It should be noted that the input does not provide a link to a specific official source. Therefore, the relevant text and implementation guidance still need to be continuously verified. Issues worth continuing to monitor include whether supplementary interpretations of the policy details will emerge, whether actual certification or compliance review standards will become stricter, whether tender documents and supplier admission requirements will change, and how industry feedback and corporate implementation will evolve.