53 Amendments of Andżelika Anna MOŻDŻANOWSKA related to 2020/2018(INL)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 12 December 2018 on the single market package (2018/2903(RSP),
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
- having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 10 March 2020, entitled “An SME Strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe” (COM/2020/103),
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to the commitments made by the Commission in its “Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024" and before the European Parliament on 10 September 2019,
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas recent efforts to introduce national regulations within the scope of the announced Digital Services Act could undermine the achievements made regarding the Digital Single Market and introduce barriers to the detriment of cross-border commerce;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the social and economic challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic are showing the resilience of the e-commerce sector and its potential as a driver for relaunching the European economy; whereas, at the same time, the pandemic has also exposed serious shortcomiCOVID-19 outbreak caused major supply and demand shocks, adversely affected European businesses and has brought new social and economic challenges of the current regulatory framework which call for action at Union level to address the difficulties identified and to prevent them from happenthat deeply affect our citizens; whereas the e-commerce sector showed resilience and offers potential as a driver for relaunching in the futureEuropean economy;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas legal certainty and business-friendly legislation is essential to seed and grow innovative businesses in the Union, and to further close the gap to the global digital leaders;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ConsiderStresses that the main principles of the E-Commerce Directive, such as the internal market clause, freedom of establishment and the prohibition on imposing a general monitoring obligation should be maintained; underlines that the principle of “what is illegal offline is also illegal online”, as well as the principles of; considers that the consumer protection and user safety, should also become guiding principles of the future regulatory framework;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that there are distinctions and differences between digital services providers and the services they provide; stresses that what might make sense for some digital services providers in terms of content moderation may not be appropriate, nor technically feasible, for other types of services; therefore, calls on the Commission consider sector or purpose specific requirements approach;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that a level playing field in the internal market between the platform economy and the "traditional" offline economy, based on the same rights and obligations for all interested parties - consumers and businesses - is needed; considers that social protection and social rights of workers, especially of platform or collaborative economy workers should be properly addressed in a specific instrument, accompanying the future regulatory framework;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that information society services providers, and in particular online platforms and social networking sites - because of their wide-reaching ability to reach and influence broader audiences, behaviour, opinions, and practices - bear significant social responsibility in terms of protecting users and society at large and preventing their services from being exploited abusively.; warns in that regard against applying pressure that would push online platforms and social networking sites into taking unnecessarily broad measures which have a chilling effect on content sharing and may undermine fundamental rights;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that confusing the role a private platform should play with those more properly within the remit of public bodies charged with enforcing or setting the law is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizens and businesses, neither of which are qualified to take such decisions;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that recent scandals regarding data harvesting and selling, Cambridge Analytica, fake news, political advertising and manipulation and a host of other online harms (from hate speech to the broadcast of terrorism) have shown the need to revisit the existing rules and reinforce fundamental rights; considers that any reflection should consider how to reinforce fundamental rights, especially freedom of expression; recalls in this respect certain established self-regulatory and co-regulatory schemes such as the Code of Practice on disinformation, which have played a positive role in addressing those issues and could serve as a basis for future legislation;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that the Digital Services Act should achievebe based on the pright balance betweennciples of the internal market freedoms and the fundamental rights and principles set out in the Charterrecognition of Ffundamental Rrights of the European Union;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how vulnerable EU consumers are toexposed the challenges EU consumers may face when shopping online, e.g. misleading trading practices by dishonest traders selling fake or illegal products online that are not compliant with Union safety rules or imposing unjustified and abusive price increases or other unfair conditions on consumers; recalls however, the number of proactive measures introduced by some online platforms that are addressing these issues;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that this problem is aggravated by the fact that often the identity of these companies cannot be established; and recalls that recent legislation adopted under the « New Deal for Consumers » imposes transparency obligations on marketplaces, making it clear with whom a consumer is contracting;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers thatSupports the current transparency and information requirements set out in the E-Commerce Directive on information society services providers and their business customers, and the minimum information requirements on commercial communications, should be substantially strengthened; requests proper enforcement of the existing framework before new obligations are put forward; proposes the continued review of the existing requirements based on the dialogue with stakeholders and social partners in search of potential added value in case of either strengthening or softening the current rulebook;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to introduce enforceable obligations on internet service providers aimed at increasing transparency and informationwith respect to privacy rules; considers that these obligations should be enforced by appropriortionate, effective and dissuasive penalties;.
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that existing obligations, set out in the E-Commerce Directive and the Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directiveʼ)3 on transparency of commercial communications and digital advertising should be strengthenfrequently reviewed; points out that pressing consumer protection concerns about profiling, targeting and personalised pricing cannot be addressed by transparency obligawere recently addressed in the “New Deal for Consumers”3a legislation which awaits full transpositions and left to consumer choice aloneenforcement; __________________ 3 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to- consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22). 3aDirective of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that while AI-driven services, currently governed by the E- cCommerce Directive, have enormous potential to deliver benefits to consumers and service providers, the new Digital Services Act should also address the challenges they present in terms of ensuringssess whether the existing legislation and policy in the areas of data protection, competition, consumer protection and business to business obligations do not adequately address non- discrimination, transparency and explainability of algorithms, as well as liability; points out the need to monitor algorithms and to assess associated risks, to use high quality and unbiased datasets, without compromising trade secrets, violating user privacy or data disclosure laws, as well as to help individuals acquire access to diverse content, opinions, high quality products and services;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Notes that automated content moderation tools are incapable of effectively understanding the subtlety of context and meaning in human communication, which is necessary to determine whether assessed content may be considered to violate the law or terms of service; stresses therefore that the use of such tools should not be mandated by law;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to all types of illegal and harmful content and cases of misinformation online; believes, however, that a more aligned approach at Union level, taking into account the different types of content,recalls the fact that misinformative and harmful content is not always illegal; requests further to establish a definition of illegal information and activities to simplify compliance; believes, that a more aligned approach at Union level will make the fight against illegal content more effective;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Considers that more legal clarity is needed to encourage platforms and information society services providers to engage in additional voluntary actions for content moderation, above what is required by law; points out that the current EU legal regime creates an incentive for platforms and information society services providers to either refrain from taking reasonable proactive moderation, or to over-remove valuable content in the course of moderating for fear of losing their safe harbour protections and facing legal consequences;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Considers that any deployment of voluntary measures for content moderation shall not be treated as information society services providers having actual knowledge about illegal activities happening on their platforms, underlines that information society services providers shall not be held liable if they have not obtained actual knowledge or awareness of such activities; stresses that the limited liability principle has been one of the key enablers of European innovation;
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to address the increasing differences and fragmentations of national rules in the Member States and to propose concrete legislative measures including a well- defined notice- and-actiotakedown mechanism with boundaries, that can empower users to notify online intermediaries of the existence of potentially illegal online content or behaviour; highlights that such mechanism could be only complete if it is introduced together with a counter-notice mechanism; is of the opinion that such measures would guarantee a high level of users' and consumeprotection to all actors' protectionarticipating in the system, while promoting consumer trust in the online economy;
Amendment 436 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that, today, some markets are characterised by large platforms with significant network effects which are able to act as de facto “online gatekeepers” of the digital economy; reminds that regulation may also act as a gatekeeper, as large companies can benefit from their scale and regulatory reach which enables them to adapt to new regulations which smaller companies find too complex or costly to comply with;
Amendment 445 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Considers that by reducing barriers to market entry and by regulating large platforms, an internal market instrument imposing ex-ante regulatory remedies on these large platforms has the potential to open up markets to new entrants, including SMEs and start-ups, thereby promoting consumer choice and driving innovation beyond what can be achieved by competition law enforcement alone; believes that any regulatory intervention in this area should be supported by evidence demonstrating proven market failures and that the activities of such large platforms have resulted in significant consumer harm;
Amendment 535 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 – indent 1 – subi. 2
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 – indent 1 – subi. 2
- clear and detailed procedures and measures related to the removal of illegal content online, including a harmonised legally-binding European notice-and action-take- down and counter-notice mechanisms;
Amendment 537 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 – indent 1 – subi. 3
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 – indent 1 – subi. 3
- effective supervision, cooperation and sanctions which are proportionate, effective and dissuasive with regard to the systemic failure in question;
Amendment 542 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 – indent 2
Annex I – part I – paragraph 6 – indent 2
- an internal market legal instrument imposing ex-ante obligations on large platforms irrespective of their country of origin with a gatekeeper role in the digital ecosystem, complemented by an effective institutional enforcement mechanism, where there are proven market failures and where it has been proven that large platforms undermine the EU competition principles.
Amendment 560 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II – paragraph 4
Annex I – part II – paragraph 4
The Digital Services Act should maintain the possibility for Member States to notify the Commission of its intention to set a higher level of consumer protection and pursue legitimate public interest objectives, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, in accordance with EU and national law;
Amendment 567 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II – paragraph 6
Annex I – part II – paragraph 6
The Digital Services Act should also clarify in a coherent way how its provisions interact with recently adopted rules on geo-blocking, product safety, platforms to business relations and consumer protection, among others, and other anticipated initiatives such as AI regulation;
Amendment 573 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – paragraph 1 – indent 1
Annex I – part III – paragraph 1 – indent 1
- clarify if and to what extent “new digital services”, such as social media networks, collaborative economy services, search engines, wifi hotspots, online advertising, cloud services, content delivery networks, and domain name services fall within the scope of the Digital Services Act;
Amendment 582 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – paragraph 1 – indent 4
Annex I – part III – paragraph 1 – indent 4
- clarify of what falls within the remit of the "illegal content” definition making it clear that a violation of EU rules on consumer protection, product safety or the offer or sale of food or tobacco products and counterfeit medicines, also falls within the definition of illegal contentand “illegal activity” definitions;
Amendment 623 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
The Digital Services Act should require service providers to adopt fair and transparent contract terms and general conditions in compliance with at least the followingcombining existing and new requirements:
Amendment 631 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – indent 4
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – indent 4
Amendment 636 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – indent 5
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – indent 5
- to specify clearly and unambiguously in their contract terms and general conditions the exactmain parameters of their AI systems and how they can affect the choice or behaviour of their usersdetermining ranking and the reasons and importance of those parameters as opposed to other parameters.
Amendment 647 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 3 – indent 3
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 3 – indent 3
- TheIf technically feasible, proportionate and proven to provide the added-value, transparency requirements shcould include the obligation to disclose who is paying for the advertising, including both direct and indirect payments or any other contributions received by service providers; those requirements should apply also to platforms, even if they are established in third countries; consumers and public authorities should be able to identify who should be held accountable in case of, for example, false or misleading advertisement;
Amendment 655 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 4
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 4
Amendment 659 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 4
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 4
Amendment 683 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
The compliance of the due diligence provisions should be reinforced with effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, including the imposition of fines, which shall be proportionate to the systemic failures in question.
Amendment 718 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – subheading 1
Annex I – part V – subheading 1
1. A notice-and-actiotakedown mechanism
Amendment 719 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – introductory part
The Digital Services Act should establish a harmonised and legally enforceable notice- and-actio takedown mechanism based on a set of clear processes and precise timeframes for each step of the notice- and-actiotakedown procedure. That procedure should be completed by the counter-notice mechanism. That notice-and-actiotakedown mechanism should:
Amendment 752 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 11
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 11
- create an obligation for the online intermediaries to verify the notified contentcontent of the notice and reply to the notice provider and the content uploader with a reasoned decision;
Amendment 753 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 12
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 12
- provide remedies to contest the decision via a counter-notice, including if the content that has been removed via automated solutions, if technically feasible and free from the risk of exposing the underlying technology and allowing « gaming » of the system, or unless such a counter- notice would conflict with an ongoing investigation by law enforcement authorities.
Amendment 781 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 3 – indent 5
Annex I – part V – paragraph 3 – indent 5
- the description of the content moderation model applied by the hosting intermediary, as well as any algorithmic decision making which influences the content moderation process.
Amendment 804 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 6 a (new)
Annex I – part V – paragraph 6 a (new)
Voluntary measures A voluntary measures clause would encourage companies to engage in additional voluntary actions for content moderation, above what is required by law. The purpose would be to remove an assumption and a risk that if a company engages in a good faith in such voluntary actions, it automatically loses the safe harbour protection. In the current legislative environment, companies undertake such measures at their own risk, as they may incur liability for failing to act in relation to illegal content that they identify, even when they conclude in good faith that the content need not be removed. The risk of liability creates a perverse incentive for companies to either refrain from taking reasonable proactive moderation, or to over-remove valuable content in the course of moderating and consequently possibly violating the freedom of speech or other fundamental rights. A voluntary measures clause would also ensure that where a platform or an information society service provider has voluntarily reviewed one or more pieces of content in respect of one or more types of unlawfulness (or for violations of its content policies, e.g., defamation), the provider is not deemed to have knowledge of the unlawfulness of other, unreviewed, pieces of content on its platform (copyright violations). Equally, the provision would ensure that where the information society service provider has voluntarily reviewed content in respect of one or more types of unlawfulness (or for violations of its content policies), the provider is not deemed to have knowledge of all of the other potential ways in which that same content might be unlawful.
Amendment 813 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 4
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 4
- ensure that online marketplaces remove, in accordance with notification made by relevant authorities any misleading information given by the supplier or by customers, including misleading guarantees and statements made by the supplier;
Amendment 823 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 5
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 5
- once products have been identified as unsafe by the Union’s rapid alert systems or by consumer protection authorities, it should be compulsory to remove products from the marketplace within 24 houra reasonable time of receiving a notification from the relevant authorities;
Amendment 844 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 9
Annex I – part VI – paragraph 2 – indent 9
- explore expanding the commitment made by somepositive incentives that could e-ncommerce retailers and the Commission to remove dangerous products from sale more rapidly under the voluntary commitment scheme called “Product Safety Pledge” and indicate which of those commitments could become mandatoryurage further companies to join the voluntary commitment scheme called “Product Safety Pledge”.
Amendment 858 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 1
- set up an ex-ante mechanism to prevent (instead of merely remedy) unfair marketmarket failures caused by the behaviour byof “systemic platforms” in the digital world, building on the Platform to Business Regulation; such mechanism should allow regulatory authorities to impose remedies on these companies in order to address market failures, without the establishment of a breach of regulatory rules;
Amendment 863 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 2
- empower regulatory authorities to issue orders prohibiting undertakings, which have been identified as “systemic platforms”, from the following practices, inter alia: discrimination in intermediary services; making the use of data for making market entry by third parties more difficult; and engaging in practices aimed at locking- in consumers; in response to detailed findings by a regulatory authority, undertakings should be given the possibility to demonstrate that the behaviour in question is justified, yet they should bear the burden of proof for this prior to any order entering into force;
Amendment 884 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 6
Annex I – part VII – paragraph 2 – indent 6
- impose high levels of interoperability measures requiring “systemic platforms” operating in the same markets to share appropriate tools, data, expertise, and resources deployed in order to limit the risks of users and consumers’ lock-in and the artificially binding users to one systemic platform with no possibility or incentives for switching between digital platforms operating in the same markets or internet ecosystems. As part of those measures, the Commission should explore different technologies and open standards and protocols, including the possibility of a mechanical interface (Application Programming Interface) that allows users of competing platforms to dock on to the systemic platform and exchange information with it.