Activities of Karen MELCHIOR related to 2020/0374(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital Services Act - Digital Markets Act (debate)
Amendments (76)
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, operating systems, online social networking, web browsers, video sharing platform services, number- independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services and online advertising services all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services should be considered irrespective of the technology used to provide such services. In this sense, virtual or voice activated assistants and other connected devices fall within the scope of this Regulation whether their software is considered an operating system, an online intermediation service or a search engine. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes. _________________ 32Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Such an assessment can only be done in light of a market investigation, while taking into account the quantitative thresholds. In its assessment the Commission should pursue the objectives of preserving and fostering the level of innovation, the quality of digital products and services, the degree to which prices are fair and competitive, and the degree to which quality or choice for business users and for end users is or remains high. Elements that are specific to the providers of core platform services concerned, such as extreme scale economies, very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, lock-in effects, a lack of multi- homing or vertical integration, can be taken into account. The potential negative and positive impacts of these elements for business users, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and consumers should be taken into consideration. In addition, a very high market capitalisation, a very high ratio of equity value over profit or a very high turnover derived from end users of a single core platform service can point to the tipping of the market or leveraging potential of such providers. Together with market capitalisation, high growth rates, or decelerating growth rates read together with profitability growth, are examples of dynamic parameters that are particularly relevant to identifying such providers of core platform services that are foreseen to become entrenched. The Commission should be able to take a decision by drawing adverse inferences from facts available where the provider significantly obstructs the investigation by failing to comply with the investigative measures taken by the Commission.
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users. The obligations laid down in the Regulation should specifically take into account the nature of the core platform services provided and the presence of different business models. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, following an in-depth investigation, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations.
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are necessary to address identified public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices.
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, the business users of these gatekeepers should be free in promoting and choosing the distribution channel they consider most appropriate to interact with any end users that these business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect distribution channel such a business user may use. This should apply to the promotion of offers, any communications and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. Moreover, the ability of end users to freely acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, it should be avoided that gatekeepers restrict end users from access to and use of such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application download or purchased from a software application store should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the gatekeeper’s core platform service simply because it was purchased outside such software application or software application store.
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)
Recital 39 a (new)
(39 a) The national competition authorities should gather complaints from third parties on unfair behaviours by gatekeepers that fall within the scope of this Regulation and report relevant cases to the Commission. Based on clearly defined conditions and investigation priorities, the Commission should then examine the complaints and act accordingly by, for example, opening a formal market investigation.
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users from un- installing any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications. The gatekeeper may restrict such un-installation when such applications are essential to the functioning of the operating system or the device.
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48 a (new)
Recital 48 a (new)
(48 a) Gatekeepers can offer software applications or services which may be used on, or in conjunction with, a core platform service, such as operating systems or cloud computing services, offered by the same gatekeeper. If, in such circumstances, the gatekeeper prevents end users being able to use their software applications or services on, or in conjunction with, products or services of alternative providers under equal conditions as with the products or services of the gatekeeper, this could significantly undermine choice for end users and innovation by alternative providers. It should therefore be ensured that gatekeepers do not restrict to their advantage and to the detriment of alternative providers, end users and business users in choosing the products or services of alternative providers which they use in conjunction with the core platform service offered by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 313 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) This Regulation should aim to ensure contestability and fairness of the digital economy, with a view to promoting innovation, high quality of digital products and services, fair and competitive prices, as well as a high quality and choice for end users in the digital sector. To ensure the effectiveness of the obligations laid down by this Regulation, while also making certain that these obligations are limited to what is necessary and proportionate to ensure contestability and tackling the harmful effects of the unfair behaviour by gatekeepers, it is important to clearly define and circumscribe them so as to allow the gatekeeper to immediately comply with them, in full respect of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, consumer protection, cyber security and product safety. The gatekeepers should ensure the compliance with this Regulation by design. The necessary measures should therefore be as much as possible and where relevant integrated into the technological design used by the gatekeepers. However, it may in certain cases be appropriate for the Commission, following a dialogue with the gatekeeper concerned, toIn view of that, further specification should be possible where specific modalities of the implementation of an obligation set out in Article 6 can be affected by differences in business models where the provision concerned applies to a broad range of core platform services. To this end, the gatekeeper should be granted the opportunity to engage in a regulatory dialogue whereby the Commission may further specify some of the measures that the gatekeeper concerned should adopt in order to effectively comply with the objectives of those obligations that are susceptible of being further specified. This regulatory dialogue should be limited to the questions around ensuring effective compliance with the obligation in line with the protection of safety, security and privacy. During such regulatory dialogue, the Commission should be able to consult with interested third parties in relation to the measures that the gatekeeper is expected to implement. The Commission will nevertheless retain discretion in deciding when further specification should be provided. This would ensure that the regulatory dialogue is not used to circumvent the present regulation. Furthermore, the regulatory dialogue is without prejudice to the powers of the Commission to adopt a decision pursuant to Articles 25, 26 or 27. Such decisions would be normally adopted when the gatekeeper acts in bad faith during the regulatory dialogue or in case of blatant non-compliance with an obligation. The possibility of a regulatory dialogue should facilitate compliance by gatekeepers and expedite the correct implementation of the Regulation.
Amendment 331 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) In order to ensure the full and lasting achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should be able to assess whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper without meeting the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation; whether systematic non- compliance by a gatekeeper warrants imposing additional remedies; and whether the list of obligations addressing unfair practices by gatekeepers should be reviewed and additional practices that are similarly unfair and limiting the contestability of digital markets should be identified; and whether the prior designation of gatekeepers or introduction of obligations has had a significant impact on business users, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises, or consumers. Such assessment should be based on market investigations to be run in an appropriate timeframe, by using clear procedures and deadlines, in order to support the ex ante effect of this Regulation on contestability and fairness in the digital sector, and to provide the requisite degree of legal certainty.
Amendment 336 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) Following a market investigation, an undertaking providing a core platform service could be found to fulfil all of the overarching qualitative criteria for being identified as a gatekeeper. It should then, in principle, comply with all of the relevant obligations laid down by this Regulation which are appropriate and necessary to guarantee contestability. However, for gatekeepers that have been designated by the Commission as likely to enjoy an entrenched and durable position in the near future, the Commission should only impose those obligations that are necessary and appropriate to prevent that the gatekeeper concerned achieves an entrenched and durable position in its operations. With respect to such emerging gatekeepers, the Commission should take into account that this status is in principle of a temporary nature, and it should therefore be decided at a given moment whether such a provider of core platform services should be subjected to the full set of gatekeeper obligations because it has acquired an entrenched and durable position, or conditions for designation are ultimately not met and therefore all previously imposed obligations should be waived.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematic non- compliance with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, which has further strengthened its gatekeeper position. This would be the case if the gatekeeper’s size in the internal market has further increased, economic dependency of business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services has further strengthened as their number has further increased and the gatekeeper benefits from increased entrenchment of its position. The Commission should therefore in such cases have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. Structural remedies, such as legal, functional or structural separation, including the divestiture of a business, or parts of it, should only be imposed either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the undertaking concerned than the structural remedy. Changes to the structure of an undertaking as it existed before the systematic non- compliance was established would only be proportionate where there is a substantial risk that this systematic non- compliance results from the very structure of the undertaking concerned. The Commission should be able to impose interim measures at any time during proceedings to prevent serious or immediate damages for business users or end users.
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65 a (new)
Recital 65 a (new)
(65 a) Interim measures can be an important tool to ensure that, while an investigation is ongoing, the infringement being investigated does not lead to serious and immediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers. In case of urgency, where a risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end-users of gatekeepers could result from new practices that may undermine contestability of core platform services, the Commission should be empowered to impose interim measures by temporarily imposing obligations to the gatekeeper concerned. These interim measures should be limited to what is necessary and justified. They should apply pending the conclusion of the market investigation and the corresponding final decision of the Commission pursuant to Article 17.
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67 a (new)
Recital 67 a (new)
(67 a) The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the commitments to be tested, for example, by using split-run tests and other randomised experiments, in order to optimise their effectiveness. The commitments should be reviewed after they have been in place for an appropriate period. Where the review of the commitments by the Commission shows that they have not led to effective compliance, the Commission should be entitled to require amendment or revocation thereof.
Amendment 361 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
Recital 72
(72) The Commission should be able to take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with the obligations laid down in this Regulation. Such actions should include the ability of the Commission to appoint independent external experts, such as and auditors to assist the Commission in this process, including where applicable from competent independent authorities, such as data or consumer protection authorities.
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Recital 75
(75) In the context of proceedings carried out under this Regulation, the undertakings concerned should be accorded the right to be heard by the Commission and the decisions taken should be widely publicised. While ensuring the rights to good administration and the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned, in particular, the right of access to the file and the right to be heard, it is essential that confidential informationand sensitive commercial information, which could affect the privacy of trade secrets, be protected. Furthermore, while respecting the confidentiality of the information, the Commission should ensure that any information relied on for the purpose of the decision is disclosed to an extent that allows the addressee of the decision to understand the facts and considerations that led up to the decision. Finally, under certain conditions certain business records, such as communication between lawyers and their clients, may be considered confidential if the relevant conditions are met.
Amendment 372 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) The Commission should periodically evaluate this Regulation and closely monitor its effects on the contestability and fairness of commercial relationships in the online platform economy, in particular with a view to determining the need for amendments in light of relevant technological or commercial developments. This evaluation should include the regular review of the list of core platform services and the obligations addressed to gatekeepers as well as enforcement of these, in view of ensuring that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair. In order to obtain a broad view of developments in the sector, the evaluation should take into account the experiences of Member States and relevant stakeholders. The Commission may in this regard also consider the opinions and reports presented to it by the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy that was first established by Commission Decision C(2018)2393 of 26 April 2018, by Eurostat, and by the national statistics offices of the countries where the service providers operate. Following the evaluation, the Commission should take appropriate measures. The Commission should to maintain a high level of protection and respect for the common EU rights and values, particularly equality and non-discrimination, as an objective when conducting the assessments and reviews of the practices and obligations provided in this Regulation.
Amendment 379 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 a (new)
Recital 79 a (new)
(79 a) The Commission shall apply the provisions of this Regulation in close cooperation with the competent national competition authorities, acting within the framework of the European Competition Network, to ensure effective enforceability as well as coherent implementation of this Regulation and to facilitate the cooperation with national authorities.
Amendment 381 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 b (new)
Recital 79 b (new)
(79 b) Without prejudice to the budgetary procedure and through existing financial instruments, adequate human, financial and technical resources should be allocated to the Commission to ensure that it can effectively perform its duties and exercise its powers as necessary for the enforcement of this Regulation.
Amendment 390 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) related to electronic communications services as defined in point (4) of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 other than those related to number-independent interpersonal communication services as defined in point (4)(b7) of Article 2 of that Directive.
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. This Regulation shall not apply to the data that is used to maintain or improve security of online transactions and prevent fraud.
Amendment 392 #
5. In order to ensure the frictionless and coherent application of this Regulation throughout the internal market and to guarantee a fully harmonized approach, the European Commission shall be the sole enforcer and decision maker on the correct application of the rules and obligations outlined in this Regulation. Member States shall not impose on gatekeepers further obligations by way of laws, regulations or administrative action for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to rules pursuing other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. In particular, nothing in this Regulation precludes Member States from imposing obligations, which are compatible with Union law, on undertakings, including providers of core platform services where these obligations are unrelated to the relevant undertakings having a status of gatekeeper within the meaning of this Regulation in order to protect consumers or to fight against acts of unfair competition.
Amendment 399 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. In addition to Article 32a, national competition authorities shall notify the Commission at least four weeks before the opening of any formal proceedings against any provider of core platform services if there is any possible overlap with the scope of this Regulation in order to ensure close coordination and cooperation at Union and national level.
Amendment 411 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 7
Article 1 – paragraph 7
7. National authorities shall not take decisions which would run counter to a decision adopted by the Commission under this Regulation. The Commission and Member States shall work in close cooperation and coordination in their enforcement actions on the basis of the principles and rules established in Article 32a.
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
(g) cloud computing services, except if those services are used by business users as underlying facilities for the purposes of developing and deploying their own solutions;
Amendment 433 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h a (new)
(h a) web browsers;
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h b (new)
(h b) virtual assistants;
Amendment 443 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
(3 b) ‘Web browser’ means a client software program that runs against a Web server or other Internet server and enables a user to navigate the World Wide Web to access and display data, including standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar;
Amendment 445 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) ‘Online search engine’ means a digital service as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, thus excluding the search functions on other online intermediation services;
Amendment 526 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where a provider of core platform services meets all the thresholds in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission thereof within threewo months after those thresholds are satisfied and provide it with the relevant information identified in paragraph 2.. That notification shall include the relevant information identified in paragraph 2 for each of the core platform services of the provider that meets the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). The notification shall be updated whenever other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b).
Amendment 558 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) the degree of multi-homing among business users and active end users;
Amendment 572 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. When designating a gatekeeper, the Commission shall specify, under Article 7, which obligations are to be implemented by the gatekeeper, taking into account the business models of the gatekeeper concerned.
Amendment 574 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8
Article 3 – paragraph 8
8. The gatekeeper shall comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 withiand shall notify the Commission of the details of its compliance with those obligations as soon as possible, and in any case no later than six months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.
Amendment 584 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission shall regularly, and at least every 2 years, review whether the designated gatekeepers continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 3(1), or whether new providers of core platform services satisfy those requirements. The regular review shall also examine whether the list of affected core platform services of the gatekeeper needs to be adjusted and if any business users, especially small and medium-sized enterprises or consumers, have been negatively impacted by the designation of a core platform service as a gatekeeper.
Amendment 623 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) allow business users to promote offers to or communicate with end users acquired via the core platform service, within or outside the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper, unless the gatekeeper can demonstrate that such access bypasses the security measures of the gatekeeper's core platform service;
Amendment 673 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) provide individual advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, with information concerningon the visibility and availability of advertisement portfolio as well as pricing conditions concerning the bids placed by advertisers and advertising intermediaries, the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 723 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) allow end users to un-install any pre-installed software applications, and delete the accompanying collected and stored data, on its core platform service without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to restrict such un-installation in relation to software applications that are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third- parties;
Amendment 733 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper or undermine the protection of user safety and data protection, provided that such measures are duly justified and proportionate;
Amendment 746 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from treatingharming competition by embedding or treating, in an unjustified, abusive or harmful manner, more favourably in ranking services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking;
Amendment 762 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain from technically restricting the ability of end users to switch between and subscribe to different software applications and services to be accessed using the operating system of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access provider for end users, or using its virtual assistant;
Amendment 769 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) allow business users, end-users and providers of ancillary services access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking justified, non-discriminatory and proportionate measures to ensure that third party ancillary services do not endanger user safety, data protection, or the functionality and integrity of the operating system or hardware;
Amendment 786 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) provide advertisers and publishers, or third parties authorised by advertisers and publishers, upon their request and free of charge, with access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the ad inventory, including aggregated data and performance data in a manner that would allow advertisers and publishers to run their own verification and measurement tools to assess performance of the core services provided for by the gatekeepers;
Amendment 805 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access and use of aggregated orand non-aggregated data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; for personal data, provide access and use only where directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679; ;
Amendment 822 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(k a) refrain from imposing on business users or end users software applications or services which are used on, or in conjunction with a core service platform of the gatekeeper, any licensing conditions or economic terms that have the effect of limiting, in a discriminatory manner relative to the gatekeeper’s own offerings, end users’ ability or economic incentive to use software applications or services on, or in conjunction with, products or services that compete with those of the gatekeeper for instance by attributing a preferential treatment to its own offerings which would bring them forward to the attention of the end users or business users.
Amendment 854 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may act on its own initiative and may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. The Commission shall adopt such a decision wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian six months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.
Amendment 861 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to effectively comply with the obligations laid down in Article 6, the gatekeeper shall be granted the opportunity to engage in a regulatory dialogue, whereby the Commission can further specify relevant measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall adopt in order to effectively comply with those obligations. When doing so, the Commission may decide to consult third parties whose views it considers necessary in relation to the measures that the gatekeeper is expected to implement. Further specification of obligations laid down in Article 6 shall be limited to issues relating to ensuring effective compliance with the obligation while protecting safety, security and privacy and where the modalities of implementation of an obligation can be affected by differences in business models. The Commission shall retain discretion in deciding whether to engage in such a dialogue.
Amendment 863 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 872 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. In view of adopting the decision under paragraph 2, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian three months from the opening of the proceedings. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain the measures it considers to take or it considers that the provider of core platform services concerned should take in order to effectively address the preliminary findings.
Amendment 882 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Amendment 890 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may, on a reasoned request by the gatekeeper, exceptionally suspend, in whole or in part, a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 for a core platform service by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), where the gatekeeper demonstrates that compliance with that specific obligation would endanger, due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the gatekeeper, the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union, and only to the extent necessary to address such threat to its viability. The Commission shall aim to adopt the suspension decision without delay and at the latest 3 months following receipt of a complete reasoned request. The suspension decision shall be accompanied by a reasoned statement explaining the grounds for the suspension.
Amendment 899 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Where the suspension is granted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its suspension decision every year. Following such a review the Commission shall either in whole or in part lift the suspension or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.
Amendment 902 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
In assessing the request, the Commission shall take into account, in particular, the impact of the compliance with the specific obligation on the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union as well as on third parties, in particular smaller business users and consumers. The suspension may be made subject to conditions and obligations to be defined by the Commission in order to ensure a fair balance between these interests and the objectives of this Regulation. Such a request may be made and granted at any time pending the assessment of the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 911 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Where the exemption is granted pursuant paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its exemption decision every year. Following such a review, the Commission shall either lift the exemption or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.
Amendment 919 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 927 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) there is an imbalance of rights and obligations on business users andor the gatekeeper is obtaining an advantage from business users that is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users; or
Amendment 936 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. A gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 are fully and effectively complied with. While the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 apply in respect of core platform services designated pursuant to Article 3, their implementation shall not be undermined by any behaviour of thea gatekeeper, including any undertaking to which the gatekeeper belongs, shall not engage in any behaviour regardless of whether this behaviour is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature that would undermine these obligations.
Amendment 947 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. A gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5 and 6, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end- user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting user's autonomy, decision- making, or choice via the structure, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof.
Amendment 986 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. In the course of a market investigation pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall endeavour to communicate its preliminary findings to the provider of core platform services concerned wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian six months from the opening of the investigation. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain whether it considers, on a provisional basis, that the provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(6).
Amendment 994 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Where the provider of core platform services satisfies the thresholds set out in Article 3(2), but has presented significantly substantiated arguments in accordance with Article 3(4), the Commission shall endeavour to conclude the market investigation wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian five months from the opening of the market investigation by a decision pursuant to paragraph 1. In that case the Commission shall endeavour to communicate its preliminary findings pursuant to paragraph 2 to the provider of core platform services wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian three months from the opening of the investigation.
Amendment 1005 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may conduct a market investigation for the purpose of examining whether a gatekeeper has engaged in systematic non-compliance. Where the market investigation shows that a gatekeeper has systematically infringed the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and has further strengthened or extended its gatekeeper position in relation to the characteristics under Article 3(1), the Commission may by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) impose on such gatekeeper any behavioural or structural remedies which are proportionate to the infringement committed and necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the remedies to be tested to optimise their effectiveness. The Commission shall conclude its investigation by adopting a decision wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian twelve months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 1014 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1028 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5
Article 16 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall communicate its objections to the gatekeeper concerned wias soon as possible, and in any case no later thian six months from the opening of the investigation. In its objections, the Commission shall explain whether it preliminarily considers that the conditions of paragraph 1 are met and which remedy or remedies it preliminarily considers necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 1044 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) The Commission shall be entitled to impose interim measures if there is a risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers.
Amendment 1057 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
The Commission mayand the competent national competition authorities, may, in accordance with Article 32a, interview any natural or legal person which consents to being interviewed for the purpose of collecting information, relating to the subject-matter of an investigation, pursuant to Articles 7, 16, 16, 17, 25 and 26, including in relation to the monitoring, implementing and enforcing of the rules laid down in this Regulation.
Amendment 1060 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission, upon a prior notice, may conduct on- site inspections at the premises of an undertaking or association of undertakings.
Amendment 1064 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 a (new)
Article 21 a (new)
Amendment 1067 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. In case of urgency due to the risk of serious and irreparablmmediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers, the Commission may, by decision adopt in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), order interim measures against a gatekeeper on the basis of a prima facie finding of an infringement of Articles 5 or 6.
Amendment 1069 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In the case of urgency, due to the risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers, resulting from new practices implemented by one or more gatekeepers that could undermine contestability of core platform services or that could be unfair pursuant to Article 10(2), the Commission may impose interim measures on the concerned gatekeepers in order to avoid the materialization of such risk.
Amendment 1070 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. A decision referred to in paragraph 1 may only be adopted in the context of a market investigation pursuant to Article 17 and within 6 months of the opening of such an investigation. The interim measures shall apply for a specified period of time and, in any case, shall be replaced by any new obligations that may arise under the final decision resulting from the market investigation pursuant to Article 17.
Amendment 1074 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. If during proceedings under Articles 16 or 25 the gatekeeper concerned offers commitments for the relevant core platform services to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, the Commission may by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) make those commitments binding on that gatekeeper and declare that there are no further grounds for action. The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the commitments to be tested to optimise their effectiveness.
Amendment 1089 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. In the non-compliance decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall order the gatekeeper to cease and desist with the non-compliance within an appropriate deadline and to provide explanations on how it plans to comply with the decisionimpose behavioural or structural remedies as necessary and proportionate to the infringement.
Amendment 1145 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Digital Markets Advisory Committee. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. Each Member State shall appoint two representatives to the Committee. If the appointed representatives are unable to attend, other representatives may replace them. At least one of the representatives of a Member State shall be competent in matters of restrictive practices, abuses of dominant positions and other forms of unilateral conduct. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of confidential information by their representatives.
Amendment 1149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 a (new)
Article 32 a (new)
Amendment 1154 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When three or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Articles 15, 16 and 17 or institute proceedings in respect of possible non-compliance pursuant to Article 25 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper, the Commission shall wiat a gatekeeper is not complying with its obligations as laid down in Articles 5 and 6, that one or more services within the digital sector should be added to the list of core platform services pursuant to point (2) of Article 2 or that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that one or several types of practices are not effectively addressed by this Regulation and can limit the contestability of core platform services or can be unfair, the Commission shall as soon as possible, and in any case no later thian four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation.
Amendment 1183 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission may adopt implementing acts concerning articles: 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 30 with respect to:
Amendment 1192 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 38 – paragraph 2
2. The evaluations shall establish whether inclusion of additional rules or deletion of the existing ones, including regarding the list of core platform services laid down in point 2 of Article 2, the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and their enforcement, may be required to ensure that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair. Following the evaluations, the Commission shall take appropriate measures, which may include legislative proposals.