Activities of Jessica STEGRUD related to 2020/0361(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) ~~Since 2000, n~~New technologies have emerged that improve the availability, efficiency, speed, reliability, capacity and security of systems for the transmission and storage of data online, leading to an increasingly complex online ecosystem. In this regard, it should be recalled that providers of services establishing and facilitating the underlying logical architecture and proper functioning of the internet, including technical auxiliary functions, can also benefit from the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, to the extent that their services qualify as ‘mere conduits’, ‘caching’ or hosting services. Such services include, as the case may be, wireless local area networks, domain name system (DNS) services, top–level domain name registries, certificate authorities that issue digital certificates, or content delivery networks, that enable or improve the functions of other providers of intermediary services. Likewise, services used for communications purposes, and the technical means of their delivery, have also evolved considerably, giving rise to online services such as Voice over IP, messaging services and web-based e-mail services, where the communication is delivered via an internet access service. Those services, too, can benefit from the exemptions from liability, to the extent that they qualify as ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ or hosting service.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34

(34) In order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation, and in particular to improve the functioning of the internal market and ensure a safe and transparent online environment, it is necessary to establish a clear and balanced set of harmonised due diligence obligations for providers of intermediary services. Those obligations should aim in particular to guarantee different public policy objectives such as the safety and trust of the recipients of the service, including minors ~~and vulnerable users~~, protect the relevant fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, to ensure meaningful accountability of those providers and to empower recipients and other affected parties, whilst facilitating the necessary oversight by competent authorities.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36

(36) In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to establish a single point of contact and to publish relevant information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications. ~~The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services.~~ In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location .

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36

(36) In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to establish a single point of contact and to publish relevant information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications. The point of contact can ~~also~~ be used by ~~trusted flaggers and by~~ professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location .

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40

(40) Providers of hosting services play a particularly important role in tackling manifestly illegal content online, as they store information provided by and at the request of the recipients of the service and typically give other recipients access thereto, sometimes on a large scale. It is important that all providers of hosting services, regardless of their size, put in place user-friendly notice and action mechanisms that facilitate the notification of specific items of information that the notifying party considers to be manifestly illegal content to the provider of hosting services concerned ('notice'), pursuant to which that provider can decide whether or not it agrees with that assessment and wishes to remove or disable access to that content ('action'). Provided the requirements on notices are met, it should be possible for individuals or entities to notify multiple specific items of allegedly illegal content through a single notice. The obligation to put in place notice and action mechanisms should apply, for instance, to file storage and sharing services, web hosting services, advertising servers and paste bins, in as far as they qualify as providers of hosting services covered by this Regulation.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) Member States are increasingly introducing, or are considering introducing, national laws on the matters covered by this Regulation, imposing, in particular, diligence requirements for providers of intermediary services. Those diverging national laws negatively affect the internal market, which, pursuant to Article 26 of the Treaty, comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment are ensured, taking into account the inherently cross-border nature of the internet, which is generally used to provide those services. The conditions for the provision of intermediary services across the internal market should be harmonised, so as to provide businesses with access to new markets and opportunities to exploit the benefits of the internal market, while allowing consumers and other recipients of the services to have increased choice.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44

(44) Recipients of the service should be able to easily and effectively contest certain decisions of online platforms that negatively affect them. Therefore, online platforms should be required to provide for internal complaint-handling systems, which meet certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the systems are easily accessible and lead to swift and fair outcomes. In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of out-of-court and in-court dispute settlement of disputes, including those that could not be resolved in satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost- effective manner. The possibilities to contest decisions of online platforms thus created should complement, yet leave unaffected in all respects, the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46

(46) Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner and have a long history of unpartisan behaviour. Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations and semi- public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right- holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions. The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council.43 _________________ 43Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) It should be clarified that this Regulation is without prejudice to the rules of Union law on copyright and related rights, which establish specific rules and procedures that should remain unaffected.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47

(47) The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing manifestly illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfounded notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate and proportionate safeguards against such misuse. Information should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Users and material should never be deleted in an automatic way due to notices and complaints. Under certain conditions, online platforms should temporarily suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish stricter measures in the case of manifestly illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditions of the online platforms. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of “illegal content” should be defined broadly and also covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities, thereby following the general idea that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online, while ensuring that what is legal offline should also be legal online. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non- consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is consistent with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52

(52) Online advertisement ~~plays an important role in the online environment, including in relation to the provision of the services of online platforms. However, online advertisement~~ can contribute to significant risks, ranging from advertisement that is itself illegal content, to contributing to financial incentives for the publication or amplification of illegal or otherwise harmful content and activities online, or the discriminatory display of advertising with an impact on the equal treatment and opportunities of citizens. In addition to the requirements resulting from Article 6 of Directive 2000/31/EC, online platforms should therefore be required to ensure that the recipients of the service have certain individualised information necessary for them to understand when and on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed. In addition, recipients of the service should have information on the main parameters used for determining that specific advertising is to be displayed to them, providing meaningful explanations of the logic used to that end, including when this is based on profiling. The requirements of this Regulation on the provision of information relating to advertisement is without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular those regarding the right to object, automated individual decision-making, including profiling and specifically the need to obtain consent of the data subject prior to the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. Similarly, it is without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC in particular those regarding the storage of information in terminal equipment and the access to information stored therein.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53

(53) Given the importance of very large online platforms, due to their reach, in particular as expressed in number of recipients of the service, in facilitating public debate, economic transactions and the dissemination of information, opinions and ideas and in influencing how recipients obtain and communicate information online, it is necessary to impose specific obligations on those platforms, in addition to the obligations applicable to all online platforms. Those additional obligations on very large online platforms are necessary to ~~address those public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result.~~ ensure that very large online platforms fulfil the aforementioned roles to the fullest extent and do not limit the public debate, or silence dissenting opinions, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result. In general, everyone shall have the right to be on a very large online platform. Only in very exceptional cases, one can be permanently denied access to a very large online platform. These exceptional cases in cases where the recipient repeatedly disseminates of manifest illegal content that violates the public order, or the public health. The decision to permanently ban a recipient should always be able to be revoked by a competent court in accordance with the law of the Member States.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53

(53) Given the importance of very large online platforms, due to their reach, in particular as expressed in number of recipients of the service, in facilitating public debate, economic transactions and the dissemination of information, opinions and ideas and in influencing how recipients obtain and communicate information online, it is necessary to impose specific obligations on those platforms, especially the basic right to an account for all legal users, in addition to the obligations applicable to all online platforms. Those additional obligations on very large online platforms are necessary to address those public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56 a (new)

(56 a) Very large online platforms have a special responsibility when it comes to the public debate especially around elections. Therefore, deletion of legal content must be prohibited for very large online platforms.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57

(57) Three categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth. A first category concerns the risks associated with the misuse of their service through the dissemination of illegal content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services prohibited by Union or national law, including counterfeit products. For example, and without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms for possible illegality of his or her activity under the applicable law, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systematic risk where access to such content may be amplified through accounts with a particularly wide reach. When it comes to hate speech, it must be underlined that it is nearly impossible for online platforms to asses whether hate speech constitutes as illegal hate speech, or that it is protected by the freedom of expression. For example: an expression done in the context of the public debate, in the context of a religion, an expression made by a comedian or a politician will in almost all of the occasions be protected by the freedom of expression according to the European Court of Human Rights. It is therefore not up to online platforms to determine whether an expression constitutes as illegal hate speech, but up to judges. A second category concerns the impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of expression and information, the right to private life, the right to non- discrimination and the rights of the child. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. A third category of risks concerns the intentional and, oftentimes, coordinated manipulation of the platform’s service, with a foreseeable impact on health, civic discourse, electoral processes, public security and protection of minors, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. Such risks may arise, for example, through the creation of fake accounts, the use of bots, and other automated or partially automated behaviours, which may lead to the rapid and widespread dissemination of information that is illegal content ~~or incompatible with an online platform’s terms and conditions~~.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58

(58) Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment. Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content, adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions. They may ~~also includ~~not impose corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue ~~for specific content~~, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources as long as the content is not deemed manifestly illegal. Very large online platforms may reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They may also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding the freedom of expression, public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) ~~Since 2000, n~~New technologies have emerged that improve the availability, efficiency, speed, reliability, capacity and security of systems for the transmission and storage of data online, leading to an increasingly complex online ecosystem. In this regard, it should be recalled that providers of services establishing and facilitating the underlying logical architecture and proper functioning of the internet, including technical auxiliary functions, can also benefit from the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, to the extent that their services qualify as ‘mere conduits’, ‘caching’ or hosting services. Such services include, as the case may be, wireless local area networks, domain name system (DNS) services, top–level domain name registries, certificate authorities that issue digital certificates, or content delivery networks, that enable or improve the functions of other providers of intermediary services. Likewise, services used for communications purposes, and the technical means of their delivery, have also evolved considerably, giving rise to online services such as Voice over IP, messaging services and web-based e-mail services, where the communication is delivered via an internet access service. Those services, too, can benefit from the exemptions from liability, to the extent that they qualify as ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ or hosting service.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)

(28a) Providers of intermediary services should not be obliged to use automated tools for content moderation because such tools are incapable of effectively understanding the subtlety of context and meaning in human communication, which is necessary to determine whether assessed content violates the law or terms of service.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68

(68) It is appropriate that this Regulation identify certain areas of consideration for such codes of conduct. In particular, risk mitigation measures concerning specific types of illegal content should be explored via self- and co-regulatory agreements. Another area for consideration is the possible negative impacts of systemic risks on society and democracy, such as disinformation or manipulative and abusive activities. This includes coordinated operations aimed at amplifying information, including disinformation, such as the use of bots or fake accounts for the creation of fake or misleading information, sometimes with a purpose of obtaining economic gain, which are particularly harmful for vulnerable recipients of the service, such as children. In relation to such areas, adherence to and compliance with a given code of conduct by a very large online platform may be considered as an appropriate risk mitigating measure. The refusal without proper explanations by an online platform of the Commission’s invitation to participate in the application of such a code of conduct could be taken into account, where relevant, when determining whether the online platform has infringed the obligations laid down by this Regulation.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)

(30a) In order to avoid conflicting interpretations of what constitutes illegal content and to ensure the accessibility of information that is legal in the Member State in which the provider is established, orders to act against illegal content should in principle be issued by judicial authorities of the Member State in which the provider has its main establishment, or, if not established in the Union, its legal representative. The judicial authorities of other Member States should be able to issue orders the effect of which are limited to the territory of the Member State where the judicial authority issuing the order is based.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71

(71) In case of extraordinary circumstances affecting public security or public health, ~~the Commission~~service providers may initiate the drawing up of crisis protocols to coordinate a rapid, collective and cross- border response in the online environment. Extraordinary circumstances may entail any unforeseeable event, such as earthquakes, ~~hurricanes,~~ pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health, war and acts of terrorism, where, for example, online platforms may be misused for the rapid spread of illegal content or disinformation or where the need arises for rapid dissemination of reliable information. In light of the important role of very large online platforms in disseminating information in our societies and across borders, such platforms should be encouraged in drawing up and applying specific crisis protocols. Such crisis protocols should be activated only for a limited period of time and the measures adopted should also be limited to what is strictly necessary to address the extraordinary circumstance. Those measures should be consistent with this Regulation, and should not amount to a general obligation for the participating very large online platforms to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal content.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 88

(88) In order to ensure a consistent application of this Regulation, it is necessary to set up an independent advisory group at Union level, which should support the Commission and help coordinate the actions of Digital Services Coordinators. That European Board for Digital Services should consist of the Digital Services Coordinators, without prejudice to the possibility for Digital Services Coordinators to invite in its meetings or appoint ad hoc delegates from other competent authorities entrusted with specific tasks under this Regulation, where that is required pursuant to their national allocation of tasks and competences. In case of multiple participants from one Member State, the voting right should remain limited to one representative per Member State.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34

(34) In order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation, and in particular to improve the functioning of the internal market and ensure a safe and transparent online environment, it is necessary to establish a clear and balanced set of harmonised due diligence obligations for providers of intermediary services. Those obligations should aim in particular to guarantee different public policy objectives such as the safety and trust of the recipients of the service, including minors ~~and vulnerable users~~, protect the relevant fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, to ensure meaningful accountability of those providers and to empower recipients and other affected parties, whilst facilitating the necessary oversight by competent authorities.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 89

(89) The Board should contribute to achieving a common Union perspective on the consistent application of this Regulation and to cooperation among competent authorities, including by advising the Commission and the Digital Services Coordinators about appropriate investigation and enforcement measures, in particular vis à vis very large online platforms. The Board should also contribute to the drafting of relevant templates and codes of conduct and analyse emerging general trends in the development of digital services in the Union.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 90

(90) For that purpose, the Board should be able to adopt opinions, requests and recommendations addressed to Digital Services Coordinators or other competent national authorities. While not legally binding, the decision to deviate therefrom should be properly explained and could be taken into account by the Commission in assessing the compliance of the Member State concerned with this Regulation.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36

(36) In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to establish a single point of contact and to publish relevant information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications. ~~The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services.~~ In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location .

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 91

(91) The Board should bring together the representatives of the Digital Services Coordinators and possible other competent authorities under the chairmanship of the Commission, with a view to ensuring an assessment of matters submitted to it in a fully European dimension. In view of possible cross- cutting elements that may be of relevance for other regulatory frameworks at Union level, the Board should be allowed to cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups with responsibilities in fields such as equality, including equality between women and men, and non-discrimination, data protection, electronic communications, audiovisual services, detection and investigation of frauds against the EU budget as regards custom duties, or consumer protection, as necessary for the performance of its tasks.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 92

(92) The Commission, through the Chair, should participate in the Board without voting rights. Through the Chair, the Commission should ensure that the agenda of the meetings is set in accordance with the requests of the members of the Board as laid down in the rules of procedure and in compliance with the duties of the Board laid down in this Regulation.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 93

(93) In view of the need to ensure support for the Board’s activities, the Board should be able to rely on the expertise and human resources of the Commission and of the competent national authorities. The specific operational arrangements for the internal functioning of the Board should be further specified in the rules of procedure of the Board.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 95

(95) In order to address those public policy concerns it is therefore necessary to provide for a common system of enhanced supervision and enforcement at Union level. Once an infringement of one of the provisions that solely apply to very large online platforms has been identified, for instance pursuant to individual or joint investigations, auditing or complaints, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, upon its own initiative or upon the Board’s advice, should monitor any subsequent measure taken by the very large online platform concerned as set out in its action plan. That Digital Services Coordinator should be able to ask, where appropriate, for an additional, specific audit to be carried out, on a voluntary basis, to establish whether those measures are sufficient to address the infringement. At the end of that procedure, it should inform the Board, the Commission and the platform concerned of its views on whether or not that platform addressed the infringement, specifying in particular the relevant conduct and its assessment of any measures taken. The Digital Services Coordinator should perform its role under this common system in a timely manner and taking utmost account of any opinions and other advice of the Board.deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of unfair or arbitrary outcomes. In order to safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression, providers should not be allowed to arbitrarily suppress legal content or act against those providing it.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

(e) Regulation (EU) …./….on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and Directive (EU) …./….laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings [e-evidence once adopted]deleted

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44

(44) Recipients of the service should be able to easily and effectively contest certain decisions of online platforms that negatively affect them. Therefore, online platforms should be required to provide for internal complaint-handling systems, which meet certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the systems are easily accessible and lead to swift and fair outcomes. In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of out-of-court and in-court dispute settlement of disputes, including those that could not be resolved in satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost- effective manner. The possibilities to contest decisions of online platforms thus created should complement, yet leave unaffected in all respects, the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46

(46) Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in a timely, diligent and objective manner and have a long history of unpartisan behaviour. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner. Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations and semi- public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right- holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions. The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council.43 _________________ 43Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47

(47) The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing manifestly illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfounded notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate and proportionate safeguards against such misuse. Information should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Users and material should never be deleted in an automatic way due to notices and complaints. Under certain conditions, online platforms should temporarily suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish stricter measures in the case of manifestly illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditions of the online platforms. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) ‘proven illegal content’ means any information,, which, in itself or by its reference to an activity, including the sale of products or provision of services is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that lawis all content a competent judicial body has deemed illegal;

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52

(52) Online advertisement ~~plays an important role in the online environment, including in relation to the provision of the services of online platforms. However, online advertisement~~ can contribute to significant risks, ranging from advertisement that is itself illegal content, to contributing to financial incentives for the publication or amplification of illegal or otherwise harmful content and activities online, or the discriminatory display of advertising with an impact on the equal treatment and opportunities of citizens. In addition to the requirements resulting from Article 6 of Directive 2000/31/EC, online platforms should therefore be required to ensure that the recipients of the service have certain individualised information necessary for them to understand when and on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed. In addition, recipients of the service should have information on the main parameters used for determining that specific advertising is to be displayed to them, providing meaningful explanations of the logic used to that end, including when this is based on profiling. The requirements of this Regulation on the provision of information relating to advertisement is without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular those regarding the right to object, automated individual decision-making, including profiling and specifically the need to obtain consent of the data subject prior to the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. Similarly, it is without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC in particular those regarding the storage of information in terminal equipment and the access to information stored therein.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53

(53) Given the importance of very large online platforms, due to their reach, in particular as expressed in number of recipients of the service, in facilitating public debate, economic transactions and the dissemination of information, opinions and ideas and in influencing how recipients obtain and communicate information online, it is necessary to impose specific obligations on those platforms, especially the basic right to an account for all legal users, in addition to the obligations applicable to all online platforms. Those additional obligations on very large online platforms are necessary to ~~address those public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result.~~ ensure that very large online platforms fulfil the aforementioned roles to the fullest extent and do not limit the public debate, or silence dissenting opinions, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result. In general, everyone shall have the right to be on a very large online platform. Only in very exceptional cases, one can be permanently denied access to a very large online platform, as in cases where the recipient repeatedly disseminates manifest illegal content that violates the public order, or the public health. The decision to permanently ban a recipient should always be able to be revoked by a competent court in accordance with the law of the Member States.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p

(p) ‘content moderation’ means the activities undertaken by providers of intermediary services aimed at detecting, identifying and addressing ~~illegal content or information incompatible with their terms and conditions~~allegedly, manifestly, or proven illegal content or content incompatible with their terms and conditions to the extent the intermediary service is allowed to moderate this content under their terms and conditions in accordance with Article 12 and 25a of this regulation, provided by recipients of the service, including measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of that illegal content or that information, such as demotion, disabling of access to, or removal thereof, or the recipients’ ability to provide that information, such as the termination or suspension of a recipient’s account;

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

(56a) Very large online platforms have a special responsibility when it comes to the public debate especially around elections. Therefore, deletion of legal content must be prohibited for very large online platforms.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57

(57) Three categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth. A first category concerns the risks associated with the misuse of their service through the dissemination of illegal content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services prohibited by Union or national law, including counterfeit products. For example, and without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms for possible illegality of his or her activity under the applicable law, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systematic risk where access to such content may be amplified through accounts with a particularly wide reach. A second category concerns the impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of expression and information, the right to private life, the right to non-discrimination and the rights of the child. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. A third category of risks concerns the intentional and, oftentimes, coordinated manipulation of the platform’s service, with a foreseeable impact on health, civic discourse, electoral processes, public security and protection of minors, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. Such risks may arise, for example, through the creation of fake accounts, the use of bots, and other automated or partially automated behaviours, which may lead to the rapid and widespread dissemination of information that is illegal content ~~or incompatible with an online platform’s terms and conditions~~.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58

(58) Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment. Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content, adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions. They may also include corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources. Very large online platforms may reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They may also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) does not have actual knowledge of ~~illegal activity or~~the manifestly illegal content and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the ~~illegal activity or~~manifestly illegal content is apparent; or

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the manifestly illegal content.; or

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) upon obtaining knowledge or awareness of an order from a competent judicial body, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the proven illegal content.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Providers of intermediary services shall not be deemed ineligible for the exemptions from liability referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5 solely because they carry out voluntary own-initiative investigations or other activities aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling of access to, manifestly illegal content, or take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation.

2021/06/23
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68

(68) It is appropriate that this Regulation identify certain areas of consideration for such codes of conduct. In particular, risk mitigation measures concerning specific types of illegal content should be explored via self- and co-regulatory agreements. Another area for consideration is the possible negative impacts of systemic risks on society and democracy, such as disinformation or manipulative and abusive activities. This includes coordinated operations aimed at amplifying information, including disinformation, such as the use of bots or fake accounts for the creation of fake or misleading information, sometimes with a purpose of obtaining economic gain, which are particularly harmful for vulnerable recipients of the service, such as children. In relation to such areas, adherence to and compliance with a given code of conduct by a very large online platform may be considered as an appropriate risk mitigating measure. The refusal without proper explanations by an online platform of the Commission’s invitation to participate in the application of such a code of conduct could be taken into account, where relevant, when determining whether the online platform has infringed the obligations laid down by this Regulation.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71

(71) In case of extraordinary circumstances affecting public security or public health, ~~the Commission~~service providers may initiate the drawing up of crisis protocols to coordinate a rapid, collective and cross- border response in the online environment. Extraordinary circumstances may entail any unforeseeable event, such as earthquakes, ~~hurricanes,~~ pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health, war and acts of terrorism, where, for example, online platforms may be misused for the rapid spread of illegal content or disinformation or where the need arises for rapid dissemination of reliable information. In light of the important role of very large online platforms in disseminating information in our societies and across borders, such platforms should be encouraged in drawing up and applying specific crisis protocols. Such crisis protocols should be activated only for a limited period of time and the measures adopted should also be limited to what is strictly necessary to address the extraordinary circumstance. Those measures should be consistent with this Regulation, and should not amount to a general obligation for the participating very large online platforms to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal content.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71 a (new)

(71a) "Soft law" instruments such as codes of conduct and crisis protocols may pose a risk to fundamental rights because, unlike legislation, they are not subject to democratic scrutiny and their compliance with fundamental rights is not subject to judicial review. In order to enhance accountability, participation and transparency, procedural safeguards for drawing up codes of conduct and crisis protocols are needed.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 88

(88) In order to ensure a consistent application of this Regulation, it is necessary to set up an independent advisory group at Union level, which should support the Commission and help coordinate the actions of Digital Services Coordinators. That European Board for Digital Services should consist of the Digital Services Coordinators, without prejudice to the possibility for Digital Services Coordinators to invite in its meetings or appoint ad hoc delegates from other competent authorities entrusted with specific tasks under this Regulation, where that is required pursuant to their national allocation of tasks and competences. In case of multiple participants from one Member State, the voting right should remain limited to one representative per Member State.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

(89) The Board should contribute to achieving a common Union perspective on the consistent application of this Regulation and to cooperation among competent authorities, including by advising the Commission and the Digital Services Coordinators about appropriate investigation and enforcement measures, in particular vis à vis very large online platforms. The Board should also contribute to the drafting of relevant templates and codes of conduct and analyse emerging general trends in the development of digital services in the Union.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 90

(90) For that purpose, the Board should be able to adopt opinions, requests and recommendations addressed to Digital Services Coordinators or other competent national authorities. While not legally binding, the decision to deviate therefrom should be properly explained and could be taken into account by the Commission in assessing the compliance of the Member State concerned with this Regulation.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 91

(91) The Board should bring together the representatives of the Digital Services Coordinators and possible other competent authorities under the chairmanship of the Commission, with a view to ensuring an assessment of matters submitted to it in a fully European dimension. In view of possible cross- cutting elements that may be of relevance for other regulatory frameworks at Union level, the Board should be allowed to cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups with responsibilities in fields such as equality, including equality between women and men, and non-discrimination, data protection, electronic communications, audiovisual services, detection and investigation of frauds against the EU budget as regards custom duties, or consumer protection, as necessary for the performance of its tasks.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 92

(92) The Commission, through the Chair, should participate in the Board without voting rights. Through the Chair, the Commission should ensure that the agenda of the meetings is set in accordance with the requests of the members of the Board as laid down in the rules of procedure and in compliance with the duties of the Board laid down in this Regulation.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 93

(93) In view of the need to ensure support for the Board’s activities, the Board should be able to rely on the expertise and human resources of the Commission and of the competent national authorities. The specific operational arrangements for the internal functioning of the Board should be further specified in the rules of procedure of the Board.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 95

(95) In order to address those public policy concerns it is therefore necessary to provide for a common system of enhanced supervision and enforcement at Union level. Once an infringement of one of the provisions that solely apply to very large online platforms has been identified, for instance pursuant to individual or joint investigations, auditing or complaints, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, upon its own initiative or upon the Board’s advice, should monitor any subsequent measure taken by the very large online platform concerned as set out in its action plan. That Digital Services Coordinator should be able to ask, where appropriate, for an additional, specific audit to be carried out, on a voluntary basis, to establish whether those measures are sufficient to address the infringement. At the end of that procedure, it should inform the Board, the Commission and the platform concerned of its views on whether or not that platform addressed the infringement, specifying in particular the relevant conduct and its assessment of any measures taken. The Digital Services Coordinator should perform its role under this common system in a timely manner and taking utmost account of any opinions and other advice of the Board.deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point c

~~(c) Union law on copyright and r~~delaeted ~~rights;~~

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point e

(e) Regulation (EU) …./….on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and Directive (EU) …./….laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings [e-evidence once adopted]deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. Providers of hosting services shall put mechanisms in place to allow any individual or entity to notify them of the presence on their service of specific items of information that the individual or entity considers to be manifestly illegal content. Those mechanisms shall be easy to access, user- friendly, and allow for the submission of notices exclusively by electronic means.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be such as to facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated notices, on the basis of which a diligent economic operator can identify twhe ~~illegality of~~ther the content in question qualifies as manifestly illegal. To that end, the providers shall take the necessary measures to enable and facilitate the submission of notices containing all of the following elements:

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) an explanation of the reasons why the individual or entity considers the information in question to be manifestly illegal content;

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

(g) ‘proven illegal content’ means any information,, which, in itself or by its reference to an activity, including the sale of products or provision of services is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that lawis all content a competent judicial body has deemed illegal;

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p

(p) ‘content moderation’ means the activities undertaken by providers of intermediary services aimed at detecting, identifying and addressing ~~illegal content or information incompatible with their terms and conditions~~allegedly, manifestly, or proven illegal content or content incompatible with their terms and conditions to the extent the intermediary service is allowed to moderate this content under their terms and conditions in accordance with Articles 12 and 25(a) of this Regulation, provided by recipients of the service, including measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of that illegal content or that information, such as demotion, disabling of access to, or removal thereof, or the recipients’ ability to provide that information, such as the termination or suspension of a recipient’s account;

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) does not have actual knowledge of ~~illegal activity or~~the manifestly illegal content and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the ~~illegal activity or~~manifestly illegal content is apparent; or

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the manifestly illegal content.; or

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Providers of intermediary services shall not be deemed ineligible for the exemptions from liability referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5 solely because they carry out voluntary own-initiative investigations or other activities aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling of access to, manifestly illegal content, or take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Providers of intermediary services shall not be obliged to use automated tools for content moderation or for monitoring the behaviour of a large number of natural persons.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point d

(d) where the decision concerns allegedly manifestly illegal content, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be manifestly illegal content on that ground;

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Online platforms shall provide recipients of the service, for a period of at least six months following the decision referred to in this paragraph, the access to an effective internal complaint-handling system, which enables the complaints to be lodged electronically and free of charge, against the following decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is manifestly illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions:

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3

3. Online platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the online platform to consider that the information to which the complaint relates is not manifestly illegal and is not incompatible with its terms and conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the suspension or termination of the service or the account, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. If a decision is reversed under paragraph 3 the online platform shall compensate the recipient with an amount of 25 EUR or 50 EUR if the online platform qualifies as a VLOP. This is without prejudice to the recipients right to seek compensation for his real damages.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

1. Providers of hosting services shall put mechanisms in place to allow any individual or entity to notify them of the presence on their service of specific items of information that the individual or entity considers to be manifestly illegal content. Those mechanisms shall be easy to access, user- friendly, and allow for the submission of notices exclusively by electronic means.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be such as to facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated notices, on the basis of which a diligent economic operator can identify twhe ~~illegality of~~ther the content in question qualifies as manifestly illegal. To that end, the providers shall take the necessary measures to enable and facilitate the submission of notices containing all of the following elements:

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) an explanation of the reasons why the individual or entity considers the information in question to be manifestly illegal content;

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) it has particular expertise and competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying manifestly illegal content;

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point d

(d) where the decision concerns allegedly manifestly illegal content, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be manifestly illegal content on that ground;

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Online platforms shall provide recipients of the service, for a period of at least six months following the decision referred to in this paragraph, the access to an effective internal complaint-handling system, which enables the complaints to be lodged electronically and free of charge, against the following decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is manifestly illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions:

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3

3. Online platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the online platform to consider that the information to which the complaint relates is not manifestly illegal and is not incompatible with its terms and conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the suspension or termination of the service or the account, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. If the recipients account is suspended and the online platform constitutes as a very large online platform, the Freedom of Expression Officer is notified about the suspension immediately.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 a (new)

Article 25 a The right to an account 1. Very large online platforms shall have the obligation of providing the ability for every user with legal intentions to create an account. The user shall be able to verify its account. 2. Very large online platforms shall only be able to delete an account if the user uses the account for illegal activities like abuse, fraud or terrorist propaganda.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 b (new)

Article 25 b Content moderation 1. Only illegal content may be deleted on a very large online platform by the provider itself. 2. The user may block and delete content on the section of platform which he or she controls, for example comments on his or her posts.

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 a (new)

Article 25 a Terms and conditions of very large online platforms The terms and conditions of very large online platforms shall not provide additional conditions defining what content is allowed on their very large online platform. These boundaries are prescribed by applicable Union and national law. The terms and conditions of very large online platforms shall not have any adverse effects on the fundamental rights as enshrined in the EU Charter on fundamental rights, especially not on the fundamental right on freedom of expression, in accordance with the applicable law of the Member States and the applicable Union law.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 a (new)

Article 25 a The right to an account 1. Very large online platforms shall have the obligation of providing the ability for every user with legal intentions to create an account. The user shall be able to verify its account. 2. Very large online platforms shall only be able to delete an account if the user uses the account for illegal activities like abuse, fraud or terrorist propaganda.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 b (new)

Article 25 b Equal treatment of legal content The algorithms of very large online platforms will not assess the intrinsic character of the content disseminated through their platform. Furthermore, very large online platforms are not allowed to take corrective measures on legal content, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 b (new)

Article 25 b Content moderation 1. Only illegal content may be deleted on a very large online platform by the provider itself. 2. The user may block and delete content on the section of platform which he or she controls, for example comments on his or her posts.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 c (new)

Article 25 c Shadow banning The practice of shadow banning, which means that the user still can use and post on the very large online platform but the spread is significantly reduced, shall be prohibited.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 d (new)

Article 25 d Algorithms and political views The very large online platform’s algorithm, which selects content to be shown, shall never favour or disadvantage particular political views.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) any negative effects for the exercise of the fundamental rights to respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and information, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of the child, as enshrined in Articles 7, 11, 21 and 24 of the Charter respectively, with particular regard to the freedom of expression;

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2

2. When conducting risk assessments, very large online platforms shall take into account, in particular, how their content moderation systems, recommender systems and systems for selecting and displaying advertisement influence any of the systemic risks referred to in paragraph 1, including the potentially rapid and wide dissemination of manifestly illegal content and of information that is incompatible with their terms and conditions.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35

1. The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct at Union level to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account in particular the specific challenges of tackling different types of illegal content and systemic risks, in accordance with Union law, in particular on competition and the protection of personal data. 2. Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may invite the very large online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as civil society organisations and other interested parties, to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes. 3. When giving effect to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct clearly set out their objectives, contain key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives and take due account of the needs and interests of all interested parties, including citizens, at Union level. The Commission and the Board shall also aim to ensure that participants report regularly to the Commission and their respective Digital Service Coordinators of establishment on any measures taken and their outcomes, as measured against the key performance indicators that they contain. 4. The Commission and the Board shall assess whether the codes of conduct meet the aims specified in paragraphs 1 and 3, and shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of their objectives. They shall publish their conclusions. 5. The Board shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of the objectives of the codes of conduct, having regard to the key performance indicators that they may contain.Article 35 deleted Codes of conduct

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37

~~[...]~~deleted

2021/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e

~~(e) initiating or adjusting cooperation with other online platforms through the codes of conduct and the crisis protocols referred to in Article 35 and 37 respectively.~~deleted

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) any commitments undertaken pursuant to the codes of conduct referred to in Articles 35 and 36 and the crisis protocols referred to in Article 37.~~deleted

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35

1. The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct at Union level to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account in particular the specific challenges of tackling different types of illegal content and systemic risks, in accordance with Union law, in particular on competition and the protection of personal data. 2. Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may invite the very large online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as civil society organisations and other interested parties, to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes. 3. When giving effect to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct clearly set out their objectives, contain key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives and take due account of the needs and interests of all interested parties, including citizens, at Union level. The Commission and the Board shall also aim to ensure that participants report regularly to the Commission and their respective Digital Service Coordinators of establishment on any measures taken and their outcomes, as measured against the key performance indicators that they contain. 4. The Commission and the Board shall assess whether the codes of conduct meet the aims specified in paragraphs 1 and 3, and shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of their objectives. They shall publish their conclusions. 5. The Board shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of the objectives of the codes of conduct, having regard to the key performance indicators that they may contain.Article 35 deleted Codes of conduct

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35

1. The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct at Union level to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account in particular the specific challenges of tackling different types of illegal content and systemic risks, in accordance with Union law, in particular on competition and the protection of personal data. 2. Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may invite the very large online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as civil society organisations and other interested parties, to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes. 3. When giving effect to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct clearly set out their objectives, contain key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives and take due account of the needs and interests of all interested parties, including citizens, at Union level. The Commission and the Board shall also aim to ensure that participants report regularly to the Commission and their respective Digital Service Coordinators of establishment on any measures taken and their outcomes, as measured against the key performance indicators that they contain. 4. The Commission and the Board shall assess whether the codes of conduct meet the aims specified in paragraphs 1 and 3, and shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of their objectives. They shall publish their conclusions. 5. The Board shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of the objectives of the codes of conduct, having regard to the key performance indicators that they may contain.Article 35 deleted Codes of conduct

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37

~~[...]~~deleted

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37

~~[...]~~deleted

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Member States shall make publicly available, and communicate to the Commission and the Board, the name of their competent authority designated as Digital Services Coordinator and information on how it can be contacted. The Commission, as well, shall publish and update a register containing the name and contact information of the Digital Service Coordinators responsible in each Member State;

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1

Recipients of the service shall have the right to lodge a complaint against providers of intermediary services alleging an infringement of this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established. The Digital Services Coordinator shall assess the complaint and, where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Service Coordinator receiving the complaint shall transmit it to that authority. Complaints shall, to the extent possible, be made public.

2021/06/24
Committee: ITRE