Consumers in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia value the ability to access online services that are delivered in line with local consumer preferences and in their local languages. Compared to other regions, they are also relatively more likely to use comparison shopping services to search for the best price and value platforms which meet regionally specific payment preferences. The e‑commerce sector has also been shaped by the significant deployment of parcel lockers across the region, providing convenient and fast delivery for consumers. This chapter elaborates on these key market features, which emerged throughout the mapping exercise in Chapter 4, and which are distinctive to online marketplaces in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, impacting market dynamics and competition in the region.
Competition Market Study of Online Marketplaces in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania
5. Key market features in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia
Copy link to 5. Key market features in Poland, Lithuania and LatviaAbstract
This chapter presents an overview of various key market features which are distinctive to online marketplaces in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. Many of these features emerged throughout the mapping exercise in Chapter 4 and are highlighted here because of their particular relevance to the specific region under consideration in the report. As such, this chapter serves to bring together these aspects thematically, covering the need to provide services in the local languages, the particular price sensitivity of consumers, the importance of logistics networks and several unique dimensions relating to payment services. This overview will then support the discussion of competitive constraints and the relevant competitor set in Chapter 6, and the assessment of competition in online marketplaces in Chapter 7.
5.1. Local platforms and language support
Copy link to 5.1. Local platforms and language supportIn the context of online marketplaces, consumers may exhibit a preference towards platforms which are locally based or otherwise specifically tailored to the local market. This can reflect an offering more closely aligned with national consumer preferences – for instance, the types of products which are offered, the quality of these products and the pricing. More specifically, consumers will generally find it easier to search for, compare and purchase products in their own languages, as this reduces the frictions involved in accessing and using online marketplaces. This is particularly the case for older or less tech literate consumers who may not be as comfortable using online translation tools, although this may continue to evolve as these tools are more seamlessly integrated into devices and websites. Localised customer support, offered in the local languages and tailored to the particular country environment, can also help reduce frictions for users. As such, online marketplaces face strong incentives to tailor their platforms towards consumers’ national preferences and to communicate with customers in their own language, including responding in a prompt and tailored matter to customer issues.
In Poland, Lithuania and Latvia specifically, stakeholders identified that consumers in the three jurisdictions favour local e‑commerce providers, who cater to local consumers preferences and also provide services and customer support in their local languages. This is supported by evidence showing that consumers in the three countries, particularly Poland and Lithuania, buy predominantly from local e‑commerce retailers, including local online marketplaces. Table 5.1 shows that 94% of Polish individuals and 92% of Lithuanian individuals who made a purchase online in the last three months, purchased something from a national seller (broadly defined).1 This is substantially higher than the EU average of 83%.
Table 5.1. Online purchasing nationally and cross-border, as a share of individuals who purchased online in the last three months, 2023
Copy link to Table 5.1. Online purchasing nationally and cross-border, as a share of individuals who purchased online in the last three months, 2023|
From national sellers |
From sellers from other EU countries |
From sellers of the rest of the world (non-EU countries) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Poland |
94% |
13% |
7% |
|
Lithuania |
92% |
37% |
22% |
|
Latvia |
78% |
46% |
25% |
|
EU‑27 |
83% |
33% |
20% |
Similarly, Chapter 4 found that the most significant players across the e‑commerce sectors of Poland, Lithuania and Latvia include large domestic online marketplaces (such as Allegro, Pigu and 220.lv), online retailers (such as Senukai and 1a.lv) and OCAS platforms (such as OLX and ss.lv). This pattern is particularly visible in Poland. For example, in January 2026, Allegro was the fourth most popular website among users based in Poland and OLX ranked ninth – both ahead of foreign platforms such as Temu (18th) and AliExpress (36th). While the prominence of domestic platforms may reflect multiple factors – including potential barriers to competition, discussed further in Chapter 7 – stakeholder feedback suggests that language and locally tailored customer support can be an important driver of consumer choice.
The picture is more mixed in Lithuania and Latvia, where international marketplaces can rank alongside – or, in some cases, ahead of – domestic platforms in website popularity rankings. In Lithuania, for instance, the rankings show a more mixed picture: in January 2026, Senukai was the 25th most popular website and Pigu ranked 31st, while international marketplaces also featured prominently, with Temu ranked 19th and AliExpress 28th. In Latvia 78% of consumers purchase from local sellers, below the EU average and suggesting a weaker preference for domestic suppliers than in Poland and Lithuania. While the local OCAS platform ss.lv was the fourth most popular website for users based in Latvia in January 2026, Temu (29th) was ranked ahead of the local general online marketplace 220.lv (36th). On the other hand, AliExpress (49th) ranked slightly below.2
The key players present in each jurisdiction generally offer services in the relevant local languages. In Poland, where Polish is the main household language for 98.2% of Poland’s population of 38.5 million,3 Allegro, Amazon Poland and Morele’s marketplaces all operate in Polish. Lithuania’s official language is Lithuanian, which is the first language of approximately 85% of the country’s population of 2.8 million, while Russian is the first language of approximately 5% of the population.4 In Lithuania, Pigu’s platform is available in Lithuanian, Russian and English, while Varle operates in Lithuanian. In Latvia, 60.8% of the population of 1.9 million speak Latvian as their mother tongue, with 36% of the population being native Russian speakers (Offical statistics of Latvia, 2019[1]). As such, 220.lv, Pigu’s Latvian marketplace, is available in Latvian, Russian and English. Further, it is notable that Pigu highlights its offering of 24/7 customer support service with 3 call centres in 5 languages.5
Other online marketplaces which have entered these jurisdictions have adopted the local languages, providing further evidence of the importance of this to consumers. For example, Temu has a Polish platform, which is available in Polish, Ukrainian and English. Similarly, Temu’s Lithuanian platform is available in Lithuanian, Russian and English, and its Latvian platform is available in Latvian, Russian and English. AliExpress and Shein both also have Polish language platforms and, before its exit from the Polish market, the Singaporean online marketplace Shopee offered its platform in Polish and English. Moreover, retailers from outside the jurisdiction which have entered these markets, such as Zalando in all three countries and Decathlon in Poland, have launched separate tailored services in each country, customising their offering in each case to match the local language.
Due to the relatively larger number of Polish language speakers and larger size of the market, international online marketplaces may be more likely to provide services in the Polish language compared to in Lithuanian or Latvian. For example, there are no dedicated Lithuanian or Latvian platforms for either AliExpress or Shein – rather, consumers from these jurisdictions can access these firms’ international platforms which are available in English. This may be relatively accessible for some local consumers, with 44% of Lithuanians and 54% of Latvians speaking English,6 however it may present a barrier for the remaining percentage of the population.7 Further, some international platforms remain popular in Lithuania and Latvia, with stakeholders noting that consumers may place less value on customer support in local languages in light of the low prices of the goods available.
Taken together, the evidence above shows the importance to consumers in the region of accessing tailored online services, which meet local consumer preferences and are offered in their local languages. For online marketplaces and retailers already operating in the region, stakeholders have indicated that this is a significant part of their competitive advantage and contributes to their popularity amongst local consumers. Moreover, many online marketplaces or online retailers which have entered or expanded in the region appear to have prioritised offering services in the local languages although the extent of this varies between Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Alternatively, such platforms may need to enhance other aspects of their service offering (such as the low-cost aspect) in order to attract customers, since they don’t have these other advantages to make overcoming the resulting friction worthwhile.
5.2. Price sensitivity and use of comparison-shopping services
Copy link to 5.2. Price sensitivity and use of comparison-shopping servicesThe degree of price sensitivity of consumers can shape their behaviour in several different ways. Highly price sensitive consumers can be expected to prioritise securing a good deal when shopping online, whether by shopping around or seeking out promotions and deals. However, they can also be expected to take a certain level of care with how their money is spent, seeking to secure the best value for money. In this case, other factors such level of trust, ease of returns, and other costs such as delivery, may also be influential.
In Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, stakeholders have consistently highlighted the price sensitivity of consumers, pointing to specific trends in consumer behaviour, such as a high propensity to shop around for the best price, the popularity of promotions and deals in the region as well as of CSS platforms, discussed further below. Other industry sources state that Polish customers are recognised as being particularly price sensitive (Strategy&, 2024[2]; Ecommerce Germany, 2024[3]), including a 2024 survey by PwC which found that 47% of Polish consumers place the most value on promotions when shopping online, compared to 31% of consumers in Central and Eastern Europe (Strategy&, 2024[2]).
This is also supported by evidence showing that comparison shopping services (CSS) are highly popular in all three jurisdictions. CSS platforms, introduced in Chapter 2, provide a valuable service to price‑sensitive consumers who place a high value on the ability to shop around for the best deal. This, in turn, shapes competitive dynamics in other e‑commerce markets including online marketplaces.
In January 2026, Ceneo, the main Polish CSS, was the 25th most popular of all websites amongst users based in Poland, while Lithuania’s primary CSS platforms kaina24.lt and kainos.lt were ranked 27th and 43rd respectively amongst Lithuanians.8 In Latvia, kurpirkt.lv is ranked 86th and salidzini.lv is 44th amongst internet users based in Latvia.9 By way of comparison with other EU countries, the most popular CSS in France is ranked 295th in France, in Italy 122nd and in Spain 364th, showing that CSS are generally relatively more popular in the three countries than in some other parts of Europe.
Many Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian consumers will use both CSS platforms and general online marketplaces, vary based on their specific needs and preferences, for searching and choosing products. In Poland, 40% of Polish consumers who accessed Allegro within the 12‑month period January 2025 to December 2025 also used Ceneo at some point during the whole period, and, in turn, 78.6% of Ceneo’s users also accessed Allegro throughout the period.10 Throughout the same 12‑month period, 51.5% of Pigu.lt’s users visited kaina24.lt, while the figure for the other Lithuanian CSS, kainos.lt, is 46.2%. With 53‑55% of kaina24and kainos’s users also visiting Pigu.11 Similarly, 34.9% and 37.6% of 220.lv’s users visited at least one Latvian CSS (salidzini.lv and kurpirkt.lv respectively) at any point during the 12‑month period, with approximately 40% of the users of each of the CSS platforms visiting 220.lv in turn.12
This suggests that consumers in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia are relatively more likely to use CSS platforms to search for the best price when shopping online, as compared to consumers in other jurisdictions. This evidence, in combination with stakeholder feedback and various consumer surveys, points to a relatively high degree of price sensitivity amongst consumer groups. This has implications for the use of CSS and thus for the nature of competition between online marketplaces and other e‑commerce players in the region. For instance, the structure and design of particular CSS platforms may play a key role in the ability of existing players and new entrants to reach consumers in these jurisdictions and to effectively compete. However, as analysed further in Chapter 7, other dynamics present in these countries mean that the levels of price sensitivity and use of CSS tools may not necessarily result in an active demand side with low barriers to entry.
5.3. Logistics
Copy link to 5.3. LogisticsAs explained in Chapter 2, online marketplaces rely heavily on well-functioning logistics networks and delivery, using different approaches to organise their operations, including contracting with third-party parcel delivery and logistics services. Because logistics networks are essential to platform businesses, platforms have an incentive to significantly increase their available capacity by acquiring or forming partnerships with major logistics companies or entering the market in their own right. Further, these businesses face strong incentives to offer delivery options that meet the specific preferences of consumers in the region.
In Poland, Lithuania and Latvia specifically, these dynamics are shaped by the popularity and prevalence of parcel lockers, also referred to as automated parcel machine (APMs), as the preferred form of delivery for most customers. As set out in Chapter 4, parcel locker networks in these countries are amongst the densest in Europe. This particular situation has evolved due to the innovative business models of several providers in the region which focussed heavily on deploying significant numbers of APMs, as well as the availability and accessibility of the necessary physical space, land and other capacity required to support the deployment of a significant parcel locker network across the region. For example, InPost quickly grew its services in Poland following its entry into the Polish market with the offering of 24/7 parcel lockers managed via a dedicated user-friendly app (Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Department of Management Engineering, 2024[4]). In turn, other market players have also deployed their own APMs, and while initially parcel lockers were only available in major cities, this eventually expanded to cover a significant footprint across the country.13
In light of these developments, stakeholders have consistently identified parcel lockers as the preferred delivery network for customers in all three countries and consider that the use of APMs now constitutes a central part of consumers’ shopping habits and this is confirmed by the available data. For instance, in Poland 81% of e‑commerce customers used parcel lockers at some point during 2023 (Ecommerce Europe, 2023[5]). In Lithuania, 65% of parcels were collected from a parcel machine in 2025, increasing substantially from 47.7% in January 2021.14 Consumers highly value access to 24/7 pick-up facilities to collect their parcels, with data from InPost showing that 58% of parcels are collected “out of hours” between 6pm and 8am.15
Key parameters which determine the utility of APMs for consumers include their location, capacity and availability. This means considering how conveniently the lockers are located, how many lockers (and of what size) are available at a particular location and the rate of utilisation of those particular lockers. Importantly, logistics providers require access to physical spaces in order to deploy their lockers, which also need to be convenient for consumers to access. In many cases, APMs are found in high traffic areas such as supermarkets or train stations, or in easily accessible locations such as car parks. In some cases, particular logistics providers may enter exclusive partnerships for the placement of their lockers, such as with major supermarket chains, which may impact the ability of other logistics providers to enter or expand their service offerings.
Looking specifically at online marketplaces, as discussed in Chapter 4, Allegro has historically partnered with InPost, whose network of parcel lockers is the largest in Poland,16 with both companies benefiting from the significant growth in the e‑commerce sector that this has enabled. More recently, Allegro has added ORLEN Paczka into its delivery network, expanding the variety of delivery options available for both consumers and sellers. Importantly, Allegro has also entered the logistics sector itself, acquiring X-Press Couriers in October 2021 and building out its own network of parcel lockers since then.
Although more limited in extent, Pigu has taken a similar approach in Lithuania, operating its own lockers at seven locations in Vilnius, as described in Chapter 4. Pigu also partners with three of the six main providers of parcel lockers in Lithuania (which in 2023 together had over 65% of the APMs operating in Lithuania, discussed again in Section 7.3.1). In Latvia, Pigu does not directly operate parcel lockers, but it partners with four of the seven providers in Latvia. Its Fulfilment by Pigu (or FBP) programme is a significant part of its offering for sellers, with sellers able to deliver their parcels to Pigu’s warehouse in Vilnius or directly to the warehouse or lockers of its postal partners in both Lithuania and Latvia. Pigu states that products using FBP, which generally come with same or next day delivery for consumers, sell around 37% more than those which do not use the service.17
As such, across Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, the innovative and significant deployment of APMs across the region has supported online marketplaces to offer convenient and fast delivery options for consumers. In turn, access to sufficient logistics and delivery capacity, in line with consumer preferences, is essential for online marketplaces to be able to compete. In this context, there may be a potential impact on competition in online marketplaces if existing platforms or new entrants face challenges in accessing sufficient parcel delivery capacity to support their operations – for instance, if incumbent platforms have exclusive access to prominent APM locations (such as supermarkets). More broadly, concerns may arise in relation to the overall capacity of postal delivery services in each jurisdiction. In particular, constraints on available capacity may emerge if growth in e‑commerce outstrips growth in parcel delivery capacity. This may have an impact on the price and quality of these services, particularly if any capacity is tied up via exclusive partnerships with large e‑commerce platforms, making it more difficult for online marketplaces to expand or enter in these jurisdictions.
5.4. Payment services
Copy link to 5.4. Payment servicesConvenient, safe and functional payments services are critical to the e‑commerce sector. Where consumers can easily pay for goods online, using payment services that they trust, this will increase their confidence in shopping online and drive growth in the sector. More specifically, online marketplaces and retailers face strong incentives to offer payment options that align with consumer preferences, to increase the likelihood that they complete a purchase via their sales channel.
As such, payments services form an important part of online marketplaces’ service offering in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. This includes partnering with major global players (such as Mastercard and VISA) or regional players (such as BLIK) to give consumers a range of options for their purchases. It can also involve offering alternative payment services, such as Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL), either through partnerships with third-party services (such as Pigu’s partnership with InBank) or by providing their own services (such as Allegro Pay).
In cases where there are consumer preferences that are specific to the region, new players will face strong incentives to adopt the payment options favoured by local consumers, in order to compete. In Poland, stakeholders have identified a general reluctance by consumers to give credit card details when shopping online. Historically, this meant that Polish customers would often pay “cash on delivery” for online purchases (Mual, 2019[6]; Eurotext, 2025[7]). In this context, Polish mobile payment service BLIK was developed and introduced in 2014 through an alliance of six banks (Notes from Poland, 2024[8]). BLIK allows customers to transact online without giving their bank or credit card details to the merchant, by using a six‑digit code generated within their banking app. According to Alsendo market data, as of 2023, BLIK was the preferred payment option for 70% of Polish customers (Ecommerce Europe, 2023[5]; Ecommerce Germany, 2024[3]).
As such, e‑commerce entrants from outside the jurisdiction, such as Amazon, face a strong incentive to offer support for BLIK payments to enable their take up by Polish consumers. At the time of Amazon’s entry, BLIK was available on all Polish online stores and on an increasing number of foreign platforms, and it was considered necessary for Amazon to offer support for BLIK immediately upon entering the Polish market.18 Other market entrants, such as Temu and Shein, also allow consumers to pay using BLIK, as does the incumbent Allegro, who also allows consumers to pay “cash on delivery”, given the distinct Polish payments environment.
As an alternative to credit card payments, payment links (also called payment initiation services or account-to‑account payments) are very popular in Lithuania and Latvia (European Payments Council, 2023[9]; Latvijas Banka, 2022[10]), making up 96% and 97% of online payments respectively (excluding financing solutions such as BNPL) (Montonio, 2023[11]). Pigu provides the option for consumers to pay via payment link, and consumers can also pay by cash or bank card when collecting in store, or by card, Apple Pay or Google Pay when purchasing online.19
BNPL services are also popular in the region, meaning that market players have strong incentives to offer these services to attract consumers. For instance, in Poland, 38% of consumers who shop online have used deferred payments at least once as of 2023 (Ecommerce Europe, 2023[5]).
As such, online marketplaces have introduced BNPL options, either in partnership with third parties or via establishing their own services. Pigu offers BNPL services via its partner InBank, and Allegro introduced its own BNPL service Allegro Pay in 2020. While these online marketplaces use these services to attract consumers to purchase via their sales channel, in turn, the adoption of BNPL services by consumers also shapes their behaviour, increasing consumers’ willingness to spend and also driving growth for these firms.
In conclusion, it is evident that, in order to compete effectively in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, online marketplaces need to respond to the particular requirements and preferences of consumers in the region as relates to payment services. This includes the need to partner with innovative services such as BLIK or payment links or offer BNPL services. This appears to be essential to the ability to compete effectively in the region.
Key findings
Copy link to Key findingsPolish, Lithuanian and Latvian consumers place significant value on accessing tailored online marketplace services in their local languages. Platforms that do not operate in the local languages may need to enhance other aspects of their service offering (such as the low-cost aspect) in order to attract customers.
Stakeholders have consistently highlighted the relative price sensitivity of consumers in the region, in particular, that they are known to use comparison shopping services (CSS) to a greater extent than consumers in other jurisdictions. This means that CSS platforms may play a role in enabling or inhibiting online marketplaces from reaching consumers in the jurisdiction.
Access to sufficient logistics capacity is essential for online marketplaces to be able to compete and meet consumer preferences for convenient and fast delivery options. In Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, consumers particularly value the ability to access delivery to the extensive automated parcel machine (APM) networks present in these countries. There may be significant impacts on competition if platforms, including new entrants, face barriers to accessing sufficient parcel delivery and APM capacity.
The region also has a unique payments landscape, with the distinctive prevalence of BLIK in Poland and payment links in Lithuania and Latvia. Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services are also popular in the region. Online marketplaces entering or operating in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia face strong incentives to adopt these services in order to compete effectively.
References
[4] Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Department of Management Engineering (2024), “Competition on the Courier, Express and Postal Services Market”, Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series, Vol. 2024/193, pp. 489-512, https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2024.193.27.
[5] Ecommerce Europe (2023), A Decade of Polish E Commerce: 2013 - 2023, https://ecommerce-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-e-Chamber-Report-a-Decade-of-Polish-E-commerce.pdf.
[3] Ecommerce Germany (2024), “7 Things To Know About Polish E-commerce Consumers”, https://ecommercegermany.com/blog/7-things-to-know-about-polish-e-commerce-consumers.
[9] European Payments Council (2023), How Lithuania’s payment landscape is changing, https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/news-insights/insight/how-lithuanias-payment-landscape-changing.
[7] Eurotext (2025), E-commerce in Poland, https://eurotext.de/en/blog/e-commerce-in-poland/.
[10] Latvijas Banka (2022), Innovations – the new normal in the payment area of Latvia, https://www.bank.lv/en/statistics/stat-data/monetary-statistics/682-news-and-events/publications/articles/12951-innovations-the-new-normal-in-the-payment-area-of-latvia.
[11] Montonio (2023), Online payments statistics: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, https://web.archive.org/web/20250422041004/https:/montonio.com/blog/online-payments-statistics-estonia-latvia-and-lithuania/.
[6] Mual, M. (2019), “An overview of payment methods in Poland”, The Paypers, https://thepaypers.com/payments/expert-views/an-overview-of-payment-methods-in-poland.
[8] Notes from Poland (2024), Polish mobile payment system BLIK expands abroad, https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/09/03/polish-mobile-payment-system-blik-expands-abroad/.
[1] Offical statistics of Latvia (2019), Latvian is mother tongue of 60.8 % of the population of Latvia, https://stat.gov.lv/en/statistics-themes/education/level-education/press-releases/1911-latvian-mother-tongue-608.
[2] Strategy& (2024), Optimism only where the price is low: Attitudes and purchasing behavior of Polish consumers, https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/pl/en/publications/2024/attitudes-and-purchasing-behavior-of-polish-consumers.html.
Notes
Copy link to Notes← 1. This includes sellers on online marketplaces, as defined in Chapter 2 of this report, as well as other firms selling to consumers online, such as online retailers or individual sellers on online classified ads services. See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/18369653/KS-GQ-23-019-EN-N.pdf/d13e7278-2b0b-a472-6dff-84b03b21f647?version=1.0&t=1705915907066.
← 2. Based on data from SimilarWeb for users based in Latvia in January 2026. Country rank is determined by using the number of unique visitors during the last month in the chosen time period as well as the number of website views.
← 3. http://stat.gov.pl/download/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/5670/22/1/1/struktura_narodowo-etniczna.pdf, p 69‑70.
← 6. Survey question asks “which other language, if any, do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation?”, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2979.
← 7. In this context, it is fair to say that browsers and mobile applications increasingly offer automatic translation features that can mitigate language barriers to some extent, although these tools may not always provide fully accurate translations or a seamless user experience.
← 8. Based on data from SimilarWeb for users based in Poland and Lithuania, respectively, in January 2026. Country rank is determined by using the number of unique visitors during the last month in the chosen time period as well as the number of website views.
← 9. Based on data from SimilarWeb for users based in Latvia in January 2026. Country rank is determined by using the number of unique visitors during the last month in the chosen time period as well as the number of website views.
← 10. Based on data from SimilarWeb for users based in Poland over the 12‑month period January 2025 to December 2025. Audience Overlap shows the total unique visitors for up to five individual websites and the extent to which these audiences are shared between them over the specified period.
← 11. Based on data from SimilarWeb for worldwide users over the 12‑month period January 2025 to December 2025. Audience overlap shows the total unique visitors for up to five individual websites and the extent to which these audiences are shared between them over the specified period. As this metric cannot be limited to users based in Lithuania, the OECD analysed the behaviour of worldwide users, looking only at websites with a.lt domain (which generally had around 90% of their total traffic originating from Lithuania).
← 12. Based on data from SimilarWeb for worldwide users over the 12‑month period January 2025 to December 2025. Audience overlap shows the total unique visitors for up to five individual websites and the extent to which these audiences are shared between them over the specified period. As this metric cannot be limited to users based in Latvia, the OECD analysed the behaviour of worldwide users, looking only at websites with a.lv domain (which generally had around 90% of their total traffic originating from Latvia).
← 13. Ibid.
← 14. https://www.rrt.lt/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Pasto-sektoriaus-atskaita_2024-metine_RRT-svetainei_PDF.pdf.
← 16. Ibid.