Millions of Europeans buy used cars every year. Under the EU’s proposed new rules, most of them would still have no way to independently check what they are buying. In a Q&A with EU Perspectives, Miglė Savickaitė from carVertical argues that the Roadworthiness Package offers consumers a false sense of security rather than genuine protection.
The Roadworthiness Package has been working its way through the EU institutions since 2023. Miglė Savickaitė, Head of Strategic Communications at carVertical, has been watching it closely and she has concerns about where it falls short.
Does the current proposal go far enough on transparency?
No, the current proposal does not go far enough. While it is a positive step towards acknowledging the problem, it fails at the most critical moment of the transaction. By granting direct data access only to state institutions and the current vehicle owner, the regulation preserves the fundamental ‘information asymmetry’ that enables fraud. A buyer is still forced to ask the seller for the vehicle’s history. True transparency is only achieved when the prospective buyer can independently verify the vehicle’s history without relying on the seller’s goodwill.
How can the package claim to strengthen consumer protection without giving buyers direct access to vehicle history?
This is the central contradiction of the current proposal. It claims to strengthen consumer protection but risks creating a ‘false sense of security’. A consumer might hear that the EU has created a system for mileage verification and assume they are protected. In reality, without direct and independent access, they are not.
The claim of strengthened protection is more of a political statement than a practical reality. The system only becomes a genuine consumer protection tool when the buyer can access the information themselves, before any money changes hands, through a process that respects data privacy while empowering the consumer.
Why are non-EU imports excluded and does that create a safety loophole?
Yes, this exclusion creates a big and dangerous loophole. The United States, for example, is a primary source of used cars for many EU countries. Our data shows that 10.1% of all cars checked on our platform in Lithuania were imported from the US.
Of those vehicles, 94.7% had sustained prior damage, and 7.4% had confirmed mileage rollbacks. While this data is from Lithuania, it highlights a broader, EU-wide vulnerability. By excluding third-country imports, the regulation effectively ignores a huge part of the problem. This ‘grey zone’ will continue to thrive, allowing high-risk vehicles to be sold to unsuspecting EU consumers, directly undermining the goal of a safer internal market.
You might be interested
Should the EU integrate private data to complete vehicle histories?
While building a system on state-held data is a logical starting point for ensuring security and public oversight, it is insufficient on its own to create a comprehensive history. State registers typically contain information from official inspections and registrations. This misses a vast amount of critically important data, such as insurance write-offs, service history, and damage records from auctions, which are primarily held by private entities.
State and private data are not competitors; they are complementary. We are not advocating for replacing a public system, but for enhancing it. A more robust solution would be a multi-tiered model: a free, basic check for all consumers based on public data, with an option to access more detailed reports from certified, GDPR-compliant private partners. This approach provides a baseline of safety for everyone while giving consumers the choice to seek deeper assurance.
The claim of strengthened protection is more of a political statement than a practical reality.
— Miglė Savickaitė, Head of Strategic Communications, carVertical
On the other hand, there are far too many private companies possibly having some vehicle condition-describing data for governmental institutions or global organisations to handle. Implementing countless additional data angles to serve a single additional purpose could be a significant burden on the organisation or the governmental institution.
What changes would you prioritise before interinstitutional negotiations begin?
To make this regulation truly effective and credible, we would prioritise two fundamental changes focused on long-term viability and fair competition.
First, empower consumers with controlled, direct access. The regulation must be amended to allow potential buyers to access a vehicle’s history data directly, for example, through a secure online portal using the VIN. Crucially, this access must be governed by strict, GDPR-compliant controls to prevent data misuse, ensuring that consumer privacy is paramount. The only way to solve the problem of unfair competition is by advocating for used car buyers or protecting the public interest – private individuals, as well as fair dealers.
Second, create a future-proof and pro-competitive framework for data integration. Rather than creating a closed system, the legislation must establish a clear, transparent, and non-discriminatory accreditation process for any qualified private entity to contribute data. This approach fosters innovation among European tech companies, and ensures the system can evolve to include new data sources over time.
A pilot programme in a few member states could be an excellent way to test and refine this public-private partnership model before a full EU-wide rollout. If there is data that is not being used by a certified, already well-established business, a substantial number of car buyers can suffer due to data use limitations. There is no point in having data that could potentially protect people and not using it at all.
