Can Cooperatives Replace Marketplaces?

When the Middleman Becomes the Infrastructure Owner

A marketplace's power stems not only from the size of its commission. Its main asset is concentrated demand: buyers go where there are already many sellers, and sellers go where the buyers are. Network effects, economies of scale, and data accumulation can strengthen a platform's market power and raise barriers for new entrants.¹

The operator sees the entire market: prices, search queries, conversion rates, advertising results, and demand dynamics. An individual seller receives only a limited portion of this information. As a result, the platform gradually stops being a neutral digital storefront and becomes the infrastructure for accessing customers.

Russian legislation already recognizes the special position of such intermediaries. Federal Law No. 289-FZ of July 31, 2025 will take effect on October 1, 2026. It regulates discounts, contract modifications, search results, blocking of product listings and accounts, as well as the handling of partner complaints.² The operator must provide at least 45 days' notice of substantial unilateral contract changes; price reductions at the seller's expense require their consent; disputes over blocking, ratings, and listing placement first go through an internal appeals system.³

These are important safeguards, but they don't change the ownership structure. The seller gains the right to be notified and to appeal decisions, but doesn't participate in setting commission rates, determining how algorithms work, or deciding the platform's development direction.

What the Cooperative Model Changes

A platform cooperative uses the same digital tools—website, app, matching and rating algorithms, payment and logistics. The difference lies in who owns the platform and who makes strategic decisions.

The International Cooperative Alliance defines a cooperative as a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. For primary cooperatives, the principle of equal voice among members applies: "one member, one vote."⁴ In a platform model, this means that sellers, workers, or users can influence the maximum commission rate, blocking rules, data usage, profit distribution, and dispute resolution procedures.

In a conventional model, seller payments increase the value of someone else's digital asset. In a cooperative model, part of the funds can form collective property: software, brand, database, warehouses, transport, or customer support. Revenue can be directed toward implementing targeted programs, reducing fees, building reserves, developing the platform, or making cooperative distributions—depending on the law, charter, and members' decisions.

Is such a platform possible under Russian law

The legal foundation already exists. The Civil Code defines a consumer cooperative as a membership-based association of citizens and legal entities formed to satisfy their material and other needs through pooled membership contributions.⁵ For a platform, the most obvious form is a consumer society established under RF Law No. 3085-1.

A consumer cooperative has the right to conduct business activity if it serves its statutory purposes, and to create and participate in business entities. Its property is formed from, among other sources, membership contributions and income from business activity.⁶ The law simultaneously enshrines democratic governance based on the principle of "one member—one vote."⁷

A two-tier structure is practically feasible: the cooperative owns the brand, software, and platform rules, while operational activity is conducted by a business entity it creates. This allows for recruiting a professional team, separating technical processes from membership relations, while maintaining member control over key assets.

However, simply registering a cooperative does not create a platform economy. What's needed are bylaws and a mission statement, membership rules, contracts with sellers and buyers, payment procedures, algorithmic operating regulations, personal data documentation, a dispute resolution mechanism, and clear distribution of liability among the cooperative, seller, and technical operator.

Membership cannot be used as a formal substitute for actual contracts. If a citizen is effectively purchasing goods for personal use, their consumer rights remain intact. Cooperative status also does not exempt the platform from requirements regarding advertising, cash register discipline, personal data, and product safety.

A large cooperative platform may also fall under the special regime of Law No. 289-FZ. Additional quantitative criteria were established by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 54 of January 28, 2026: at least 100,000 users per day on average over the previous year and simultaneously either at least 10,000 sellers who completed a paid transaction, or a turnover of such transactions of at least 50 billion rubles.⁸ The resolution will also enter into force on October 1, 2026.

International examples show the model works

Platform cooperatives are already operating in transportation, delivery, and digital content. The Drivers Cooperative in New York is owned by drivers and managed by a board they elect.⁹ The CoopCycle Federation provides courier cooperatives with an order and delivery management system; its license permits commercial use of the platform only by cooperative and non-profit projects.¹⁰

Stocksy is built as an artist-owned platform for licensing photographs and videos. Its members have a voice in management and, when there are financial results, may receive cooperative distributions.¹¹ The OECD views platform cooperatives as a genuine alternative to traditional digital platforms, capable of improving value distribution and supporting local development, but emphasizes the challenges of financing, scaling, and professional management.¹²

Why cooperatives haven't displaced marketplaces yet

The first constraint is capital. A digital product requires spending on development, cybersecurity, advertising, payments, logistics, and support. An investor is willing to finance rapid growth, but typically demands a stake in equity and management. If control is transferred to an outside investor, the platform risks losing its core cooperative distinction.

The second is decision-making speed. Democratic governance doesn't mean the general assembly must approve every app update. Members set strategy, commission limits, data usage rules, and profit distribution. Day-to-day operations are handled by professional management bodies within pre-established authority.

The third is conflict of interest. Buyers want low prices, sellers want sustainable margins, couriers want decent pay, and the platform needs funds for development. A cooperative doesn't eliminate these contradictions, but makes the resolution process more transparent: rules aren't set unilaterally by the owner, but with participation from those affected.

Where the model has real advantages

Cooperatives shouldn't start by trying to create a universal federal marketplace. It's more realistic to build sector-specific and regional platforms where participants are already connected by a common need: selling local products, food delivery, farmer cooperation, group purchasing, equipment rental, professional services, or tourism offerings.

Experience in providing legal support to cooperatives shows that the main difficulty lies not in choosing the legal structure, but in precisely describing the economic mechanism. Before launch, simple questions must be answered: who contributes funds, what assets are created, who bears expenses, who owns the data, how commissions are set, and what does a member receive beyond a formal voting right.

The federated model is especially promising. Local cooperatives work with their own sellers and buyers, but jointly use software, security standards, payment solutions, and support. This reduces technology costs while keeping governance at the community level.

An alternative—not necessarily a complete replacement

Cooperative platforms are unlikely to displace the largest marketplaces anytime soon: the latter already have audiences, logistics, data, and access to capital. But a cooperative can become a second sales channel, reduce an entrepreneur's dependence on a single operator, and retain part of the created value within the industry or region.

Federal Law No. 289-FZ makes the relationship between major platforms and their partners more formalized. The next step is not just to limit platform power, but to create conditions for alternative ownership models.

A digital platform is inherently neutral. It can concentrate control in the hands of a single owner, or it can become a shared tool for sellers, workers, and buyers. That's why the key question for the future platform economy isn't whether we need marketplaces, but whether infrastructure built through the efforts of thousands of participants must necessarily belong only to the operator. The cooperative model shows that a different answer is possible.