Activities of Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ related to 2020/0374(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital Markets Act (debate)
Amendments (120)
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation to providers of core platform services which are most likely to satisfy these objective requirements, and where unfair conduct weakening contestability is most prevalent and impactful, the Commission should be able to directly designate as gatekeepers those providers of core platform services which meet certain quantitative thresholds even if offering only one essential platform service. Such undertakings should in any event be subject to a fast designation process which should start upon the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by providing new business opportunities in the Union and facilitating cross-border trading. They serve as essential facilities for the digital economy by providing access to critical infrastructures.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The combination of those features of gatekeepers is likely to lead in many cases to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users as well as end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, privacy and security standards, choice and innovation therein.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users, to reach end users, everywhere in the Union and on different markets. The adverse impact of unfair practices on the internal market and particularly weak contestability of core platform services, including their negative societal and economic implications, have led national legislators and sectoral regulators to act. A number of national regulatory solutions at national level have already been adopted or proposed to address unfair practices and the contestability of digital services or at least with regard to some of them. This has created a risk of divergent regulatory solutions and thereby fragmentation of the internal market, thus raising the risk of increased compliance costs due to different sets of national regulatory requirements.
Amendment 142 #
(8) By approximating diverging national laws, obstacles to the freedom to provide and receive services, including retail services, within the internal market should be eliminated. A targeted set of harmonised mandatory rulelegal obligations should therefore be established at Union level to ensure contestable and fair digital markets featuring the presence of gatekeepers within the internal market.
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) A fragmentation of the internal market can only be effectively averted if Member States are prevented from applying national rules which are specific to the types of undertakings and services covered by this Regulation. At the same time, since this Regulation aims at complementing the enforcement of competition law, it should be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to the corresponding national competition rules and to other national competition rules regarding unilateral behaviour that are based on an individualised assessment of market positions and behaviour, including its likely effects and the precise scope of the prohibited behaviour, and which provide for the possibility of undertakings to make efficiency and objective justification arguments for the behaviour in question. However, the application of the latter rules should not affect the obligations and prohibitions imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation and their uniform and effective application in the internal market.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the corresponding national competition rules concerning anticompetitive multilateral and unilateral conduct as well as merger control have as their objective the protection of undistorted competition on the market. This Regulation pursues an objective that is complementary to, but different from that of protecting undistorted competition on any given market, as defined in competition-law terms, which is to ensure that markets where gatekeepers are present are and remain contestable and fair, and to protect the respective rights of business users and end users, independently from the actual, likely or presumed effects of the conduct of a given gatekeeper covered by this Regulation on competition on a given market. This Regulation therefore aims at protecting a different legal interest from those rules and should be without prejudice to their application.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced for certain digital services than for others. This is the case in particular for widespread and commonly used digital services that mostly directly intermediate between business users and end users and where features 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 are the most prevalent. Often, there is only one or very few large providers of those digital services. These providers of core platform services have emerged most frequently as gatekeepers for business users and end users with far-reaching impacts, gaining the ability to easily set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner for their business users and end users. Accordingly, it is necessary to focus only on those digital services that are most broadly used by business users and end users and where, based on current market conditions, concerns about weak contestability and unfair practices by gatekeepers are more apparent and pressing from an internal market perspective.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, operating systems, (including, inter alia, smart TVs and IPTVs), digital voice assistants and platforms that use integrated voice assistant technologies, mobile payment services, web-browsers, online social networking, video sharing platform services, video and audio on demand services, number- independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing servicesdigital services which allow the creation of, processing of, accessing or storage of data in digital form, including software as a service such as cloud computing services, meaning an electronic platform or a cloud storage facility, that the consumer selects for receiving or storing the digital content or digital service 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 includedstated as example of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. This is without prejudice to the inclusion of other categories of digital services into the definition ofscope of the regulation. The fact that weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced in certain digital services than in others does not imply that other categories of services are exempt from it. The core platform services and fall intog under the scope of this Regulation should therefore not be limited to certain types of services. 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 165 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) A number of other ancillary services, such as identification or payment services (which depending on their function can act either as core service or as ancillary service) and technical services which support the provision of payment services, may be provided by gatekeepers together with their core platform services. As gatekeepers frequently provide the portfolio of their services as part of an integrated ecosystem to which third-party providers of such ancillary services do not have access, at least not subject to equal conditions, and can link the access to the core platform service to take-up of one or more ancillary services, the gatekeepers are likely to have an increased ability and incentive to leverage their gatekeeper power from their core platform services to these ancillary services, to the detriment of choice and contestability of these services.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The fact that a digital service qualifies as a core platform service in light of its widespread and common use and its importance for connecting business users and end users does not as such give rise to sufficiently serious concerns of contestability and unfair practices. It is only when a core platform service constitutes an important gateway and is operated by a provider with a significant impact in the internal market and an entrenched and durable position, or by a provider that will foreseeably have such a position in the near future, that such concerns arise. Accordingly, the targeted set of harmonised rules laid down in this Regulation should apply only to undertakings designated on the basis ofthat fulfill these three objective criteria or are designated on the basis of those, and they should only apply to those of their core platform services that individually constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users.
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation to providers of core platform services which are most likely to satisfy these objective requirements, and where unfair conduct weakening contestability is most prevalent and impactful, the Commission should be able to directly designate as gatekeepers those providers of core platform services which meet certain quantitative thresholds even if offering only one essential platform service. Such undertakings should in any event be subject to a fast designation process which should start upon the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Provision should also be made for the assessment of the gatekeeper role of providers of core platform services which do not satisfy all of the quantitative thresholds, in light of the overall objective requirements that they have a significant impact on the internal market, act as an important gateway for business users to reach end users and benefit from a durable and entrenched position in their operations or it is foreseeable that it will do so in the near future as well as in light of their market share in the relevant market.
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) The very rapidly changing and complex technological nature of core platform services requires a regular review of the status of gatekeepers, including those that are foreseen to enjoy a durable and entrenched position in their operations in the near future. To provide all of the market participants, including the gatekeepers, with the required certainty as to the applicable legal obligations, a time limit for such regular reviews is necessary. It is also important to conduct such reviews on a regular basis and at least every two years. four years for designated gatekeepers to assess whether they continue to satisfy the requirements, and at least every year to assess whether new providers of core platform services satisfy those requirements.
Amendment 205 #
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 enforcementhey can have a negative direct impact ofn the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end userbusiness users and end users. A general fairness clause allows for the necessary flexibility and ensures future-proofness. 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 211 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The conduct of combining end user data from different sources or signing in users to different services of gatekeepers gives them potential advantages in terms of accumulation of data, thereby raising barriers to entry. To ensure that gatekeepers do not unfairly undermine the contestability of core platform services, they should enable their end usand in orders to freely choose to opt-in to such business practices by offering a less personalised alternative. The possibility should cover all possible sources of impede business models that are based on the collection of users’personal data, including own services of the gatekeeper as well as third party websites, and should be proactively presented to the end user in an explicit, clear and straightforward manner view of the fact that the design makes it often too hard if not impossible to refuse consent, combining personal data should be prohibited.
Amendment 223 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation servicedistribution channels. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation servicedistribution channels, limiting inter- platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediadistribution channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepbe prohibited that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restricprohibition should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or, de-listing or less favourable ranking of the offers of business users.
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To safeguard a fair commercial environment and protect the contestability of the digital sector it is important to safeguard the right of business users and end users to raise concerns about unfair behaviour by gatekeepers with any relevant administrative or other public authorities. For example, business users or end users may want to complain about different types of unfair practices, such as discriminatory access conditions, unjustified closing of business user accounts or unclear grounds for product de-listings. Any practice that would in any way inhibit or hinder such a possibility of raising concerns or seeking available redress, for instance by means of confidentiality clauses in agreements or other written terms, should therefore be prohibited. This should be without prejudice to the right of business users or end users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use including the use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms, including any use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or of the jurisdiction of specific courts in compliance with respective Union and national law This should therefore also be without prejudice to the role gatekeepers play in the fight against illegal content online.
Amendment 240 #
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. The Commission should set up rotating auditor teams with members from different organisations and with experience in the various sectors involved. The teams should rotate and be restructured on a regular basis. This should also apply to any external independent control authority. Auditors or staff from the external independent control authority should also be subject to an appropriate cooling-off period.
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) Gatekeepers should not restrict the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services or through product design. Gatekeepers should therefore ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and should not raise artificial technical barriers so as to hamper or make switching impossible or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to end users, including by means of pre- installation, as well the improvement of end user offering, such as better prices or increased quality, would not in itself constitute a barrier to switching.
Amendment 252 #
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-install software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications as this inhibits user choice. The only exception shall be pre-installations that are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot be technically offered on as standalone basis by third-parties.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) Gatekeepers are often vertically integrated and offer certain products or services to end users through their own core platform services, or through a business user over which they exercise controlthat it cooperates with, which frequently leads to conflicts of interest. This can include the situation whereby a gatekeeper offers its own online intermediation services through an online search engine. When offering those products or services on the core platform service, gatekeepers can reserve a better position to their own offering, in terms of ranking, as opposed to the products of third parties also operating onusing that core platform service. This can occur for instance with products or services, including other core platform services, which are ranked in the results communicated by online search engines, or which are partly or entirely embedded in search results of online search engines results, groups of results specialised in a certain topic, displayed along with the results of an online search engine, which armay be considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine. Other instances are those ofSuch preferential or embedded display should constitute an inadmissible preference, irrespective of whether the information or results may also be provided by competing services and are as such ranked in a non-discriminatory way. Inadmissible preferencing can also take place in other instances, such as software applications which are distributed through software application stores, or products or services that are given prominence and display in the newsfeed of a social network, or products or services ranked in search results or displayed on an online marketplace, or products or services users are directed to following a request by an end user to a digital voice assistant. In those circumstances, the gatekeeper is in a dual- role position as intermediary for third party providers and as direct provider of products or services of the gatekeeper. Consequently, these gatekeepers have the ability to undermine directly the contestability for those products or services on these core platform services, to the detriment of business users which are not controlled by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Gatekeepers should not restrict or prevent the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services. This would allow more providers to offer their services, thereby ultimately providing greater choice to the end user. Gatekeepers should ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and shall not raise artificial technical barriers so as to make switching impossible or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to consumers, including by means of pre-installation, as well as the improvement of the offering to end users, such as price reductions or increased quality, should not be construed as constituting a prohibited barrier to switching.
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) Gatekeepers can hamper the ability of end users to access online content and services including software applications. Therefore, rules should be established to ensure that the rights of end users to access an open internet are not compromised by the conduct of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can also technically limit the ability of end users to effectively switch between different Internet access service providers, in particular through their control over operating systems or hardware. This distorts the level playing field for Internet access services and ultimately harms end users. It should therefore be ensured that gatekeepers do not unduly restrict end users in choosing their Internet access service provider.
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) The value of online search engines to their respective business users and end users increases as the total number of such users increases. Providers of online search engines collect and store aggregated and anonymised datasets containing information about what users searched for, and how they interacted with, the results that they were served. Providers of online search engine services collect these data from searches undertaken on their own online search engine service and, where applicable, searches undertaken on the platforms of their downstream commercial partners. Access by gatekeepers to such ranking, query, click and view data constitutes an important barrier to entry and expansion, which undermines the contestability of online search engine services. Gatekeepers should therefore be obliged to provide access, on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, to these ranking, query, click and view data in relation to free and paid search generated by consumers on online search engine services to other providers of such services, so that these third-party providers can optimise their services and contest the relevant core platform services. Such access should also be given to third parties contracted by a search engine provider, who are acting as processors of this data for that search engine. When providing access to its search data, a gatekeeper should ensure the protection of the personal data of end users by appropriate means, without substantially degrading the quality or usefulness of the data.
Amendment 310 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) In particular gatekeepers which provide access to software application storeCore platform services offered by gatekeepers serve as an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application storesthe relevant core platform service; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application storegatekeeper for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application storegatekeeper for the same service the gatekeeper offers to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right and it should be without prejudice to the ability of providers of software application stores to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in Regulation [Digital Services Act]. This obligation shall ensure that access conditions to core platform services are also fair and non-discriminatory for end- users.
Amendment 316 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) 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 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, to furthertechnically specify some of the measures that the gatekeeper concerned should adopt in order to effectively comply with those obligations that are susceptible of being further specifiedtechnically implement those obligations. This possibility of a regulatory dialogue should facilitate compliance by gatekeepers and expedite the correct implementation of the Regulation and should by no means constitute grounds to assume thatthe gatekeeper may invoke an efficiency defence. In order ensure the exante effects on fairness and contestability of markets and for the sake of legal certainty, it is essential that the Commission takes compliance decisions within legally binding deadlines.
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited and duly justified suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability.
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) The data protection and privacy interests of end users are relevant to any assessment of potential negative effects of the observed practice of gatekeepers to collect and accumulate large amounts of data from end users. EIn order to ensuringe an adequate level of transparency of profiling practices employed by gatekeepers facilitates contestability of core platform services, by puttingdata and consumer protection, external pressure should be put on gatekeepers to prevent making deep consumer profiling the industry standard, in particular given that potential entrants or start-up providers cannot access data to the same extent and depth, and at a similar scale. Enhanced transparency should allow other providers of core platform services to differentiate themselves better through the use of superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. To ensure a minimum level of effectiveness of this transparency obligation, gProviders of core platform services should commit to superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. Businessmodels that are based on the commercial tracking and profiling of consumers should be proscribed. To that end the mixing of data from different services should be prohibited. Gatekeepers should at least provide a description of the basis upon which profiling is performed, including whether personal data and data derived from user activity is relied on, the processing applied, the purpose for which the profile is prepared and eventually used, the impact of such profiling on the gatekeeper’s services, and the steps taken to enable end users to be aware of the relevant use of such profiling, as well as to seek their consent. Suchinformation should be shared with other relevant enforcement authorities, in particular Data Protection Authorities.
Amendment 332 #
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. Such assessment should be based on market investigations to be run in an appropriate timeframe, by using clear procedures and legally binding 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 339 #
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 of systematic buy of growing companies, 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 entitled to require changes to the imposed remedies if, following an investigation, it finds that the remedies are not effective to ensure compliance by the gatekeeper with its obligations laid down in Articles 5 or 6.
Amendment 350 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
(67) Where, in the course of a proceeding into non-compliance or an investigation into systemic non- compliance, a gatekeeper offers commitments to the Commission, the latter should be able to adopt a decision making these commitments binding on the gatekeeper concerned, where it finds that the commitments ensure effective compliance with the obligations of this Regulation. This decision should also find that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission. If following an investigation, the commitments prove ineffective, the Commission shall be entitled to propose changes to the commitments to ensure its effectiveness.
Amendment 354 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) In order to ensure effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation, the Commission, supported by the Member States, should have strong investigative and enforcement powers, to allow it to investigate, enforce and monitor the rules laid down in this Regulation, while at the same time ensuring the respect for the fundamental right to be heard and to have access to the file in the context of the enforcement proceedings. The Commission should dispose of these investigative powers also for the purpose of carrying out market investigations for the purpose of updating and reviewing this Regulation.
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71 a (new)
Recital 71 a (new)
(71 a) The Commission should be empowered to request the assistance of Member State authorities that should have the same investigative powers as the Commission. The relevant national authorities may include competition authorities, consumer protection authorities and data protection authorities and other relevant national regulators.
Amendment 359 #
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. The Commission should set up rotating auditor teams with members from different organisations and backgrounds in order to strike a balance between obtaining institutional knowledge and experience on the one hand and avoiding regulatory capture on the other hand. The teams should rotate and be regularly restructured to achieve a proper balance between experience and modernity. Rotating teams of auditors are more difficult to capture than single persons. This should apply as well to any external independent control authority. Auditors or staff from any external independent control authority should also be subject to an appropriate “cooling off” period.
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 74 a (new)
Recital 74 a (new)
(74 a) Consumers should be entitled to enforce their rights in relation to the obligations imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation through collective redress actions in accordance with Directive (EU) 2020/1818.
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down harmonised rules ensuring contestable and fair markets for both business users and end users, in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present.
Amendment 403 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 6
Article 1 – paragraph 6
6. This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It is also without prejudice to the application of: national rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices and abuses of dominant positions; national competition rules prohibiting other forms of unilateral conduct insofar as they are applied to undertakings other than gatekeepers or amount to imposing additional obligations on gatekeepers; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200438 and national rules concerning merger control; Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Regulation (EU) …./.. of the European Parliament and of the Council39 . It is as well without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150; Regulation (EU) 2016/679; Directive 2002/58 and Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 93/13/EEC. _________________ 38Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1). 39Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 413 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
(2) ‘Core platform service’ means a widespread and commonly used digital service that intermediates between business users and end users or within either group and is provided by a multi- sided platform service provider that can but does not have to be multi sided, such as any of the following:
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) web browsers;
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) online on-demand audiovisual services;
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c b (new)
(c b) online on-demand audio media services;
Amendment 418 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d a (new)
(d a) voice assistants;
Amendment 419 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d b (new)
(d b) mobile payment services;
Amendment 424 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
(g) software as a service including cloud computing services;
Amendment 446 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6 a) ‘Webbrowser’ means software used by users of client PCs, smart mobile devices and other devices to access and interact with web content hosted on servers that are connected to networks such as the Internet, including standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar;
Amendment 447 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
(7 a) ‘Online on-demand audiovisual service’ means a service as defined in point (g)of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2010/13;
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new)
(7 b) ‘Online on-demand audio media service’ (i.e. a non-linear audio media service) means an audio media service provided by a media service provider for the listening of programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service provider;
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
(8 a) ‘Voice assistants’ means software that responds to oral or written commands and performs tasks such as executing search queries, accessing and interacting with other digital services on behalf of the end user;
Amendment 450 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 b (new)
(8 b) ‘Mobile payment service’ means a payment service operated under financial regulation and performed from or via a mobile device;
Amendment 457 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
(10 a) ‘software as a service’ means a method of software delivery in which software is accessed online via a subscription;
Amendment 475 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18
(18) ‘Ranking’ means the relative prominence given to goods or services offered through online intermediation services or online social networking services, or the relevance given to search results by online search engines, as presented, organised or communicated by the providers of online intermediation services or of online social networkingcore platform services or by providers of online search engines, respectively, whatever, irrespective of the technological means used for such presentation, organisation or communication;
Amendment 478 #
(18 a) ’Search results’ means any information in any format, including texts, graphics, voice or other output, returned by core platform services provider in response and related to a written or oral search query, irrespective of whether the information is an organic result, a paid result, a direct answer or any product, service or information offered in connection with, or displayed along with, or partly or entirely embedded in, the organic results;
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – title
Article 3 – title
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain(d) be banned from treating more favourably in ranking services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking in any core platform service compared to similar services or products of third party and applyin order to ensure the application of fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking;
Amendment 550 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of the provider of core platform services as well as the market share in the relevant market;
Amendment 556 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Affected third parties showing a legitimate interest shall be consulted and be part of the regulatory dialogue. At the same time, Member States’ authorities may also be involved in this dialogue if they deem it appropriate.
Amendment 573 #
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 within sixas soon as possible, and in any case no later than two months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article. If a gatekeeper fails to comply with the obligations within these 2 months, Articles 25 and 26 are applicable.
Amendment 586 #
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 24 years, review whether the in line with Article 3 (6) designated gatekeepers continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 3(1), oand at least every year 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. The review shall not have any suspending effect on the obligations.
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall publish and update the list of gatekeepers and the list of the core platform services for which they need to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 on an on-going basis. The Commission shall publish an annual report setting out the findings of its monitoring activities and present it to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
Amendment 601 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) refrain fromnot combininge personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from the same core platform service and any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and fromnot signing in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and provided consent in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ;
Amendment 617 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services or its own online services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
Amendment 640 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain fromnot preventing nor restricting business users not end users from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers;
Amendment 651 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain fromnot requiringe business users nor end users to use, offer or interoperate with an identificationcillary services of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;
Amendment 662 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) refrain fromnot requiringe business users or end users to subscribe to or register with any other core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3 or which meets the thresholds in Article 3(2)(b) as a condition to access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Article nor achieving the same result through product design;
Amendment 670 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Article 21 – paragraph 3
3. During on-site inspections the Commission and auditors or experts appointed by it may require the undertaking or association of undertakings to provide access to and explanations on its organisation, functioning, IT system, algorithms, data-handling and business conducts. The Commission shall appoint rotating auditor or expert teams within the platform with the aim of having continuous access to the data and algorithms. They should run behavioural experiments to evaluate the algorithm and use of the data. The Commission and auditors or experts appointed by it may address questions to key personnel.
Amendment 674 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) provide advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, with complete information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher,-setting mechanisms and schemes for the calculation of the fees as well as the price and fees paid by the advertiser and publisher, including any deductions and surcharges 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 686 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall designate authorities with special knowledge and experience to assist the Commission in the implementation of this Regulation with the aim of promoting the exchange of information and best practices.
Amendment 693 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) not use, any data that has been generated in the relationship between business users and end users, and that is not also available to the business user itself; this includes not using such data to launch products or services that compete with the products or services offered by their business users;
Amendment 700 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(g b) not install any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to do such pre- 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 707 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – title
Article 6 – title
Obligations for gatekeepers susceptible of being further technically specified
Amendment 709 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 718 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 729 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) allow the installation, default setting by business users and end users 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 end user shall be required to decide which application or application store should become the default. 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 provided that the gatekeeper can prove that such measures are necessary, proportionate and justified to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system;
Amendment 736 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When threone or more designated authorities of the Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Articles 15, 16 and 17 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper, that there is a new core platform service, or that there is a situation of systemic non-compliance, the Commission shall within fourthree months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation. If the Commission decides not to open an investigation, the Commission shall publish the respective reasons.
Amendment 747 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain(d) be banned from treating more favourably in ranking services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking in any core platform service compared to similar services or products of third party and applyin order to ensure the application of fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking;
Amendment 752 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain fromnot treating more favourably in ranking services and, products and settings 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 transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such rankingthird party services and products;
Amendment 766 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain fromnot 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;
Amendment 785 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) provide advertisers and publishers, upon their request and free of charge, with access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and provide for entire disclosure and transparency of the parameters and data used for decision making, execution and measurement of the intermediation services. A gatekeeper shall further provide, free of charge, complete and the information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent high-quality and real- time evaluation of intermediation services, including verification of the ad inventory;
Amendment 794 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) provideimplement appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring effective portability of data generated through the activity of a business user or end user and shall, in particular, provide tools for end users to facilitate the exercise of data portability that is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary, in line with Regulation EU 2016/679, including by the provision of continuous and real-time access ;
Amendment 802 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) provide business users and end users, or third parties authorised by a business user or end user, free of charge, in a user friendly manner 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 in line with the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679; ;
Amendment 809 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) provide to any third party providers of online search engines, upon their request, with access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to ranking, query, click and view data in relation to free and paid search generated by end users on online search engines of the gatekeeper, subject to anonymisation for the ranking, query, click and view data that constitutes personal data;
Amendment 815 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users and end users to any of its core platform services by default through implementing appropriate technical and organisational measures to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.
Amendment 833 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 835 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1 data that is not publicly available shall include any aggregated and non-aggregated data generated by business users that can be inferred from, or collected through, the commercial activities of business users or their customers on the core platform service of the gatekeeper. The Commission is required to publish the technical specifications for individual gatekeepers, without prejudice to business secrets.
Amendment 848 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Affected third parties showing a legitimate interest shall be consulted and be part of the regulatory dialogue. At the same time, Member States’ authorities may also be involved in this dialogue if they deem it appropriate.
Amendment 858 #
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 by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. The Commission shall adopt such a decision within sixthree months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.
Amendment 874 #
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 within three monthsix weeks 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 884 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
7. A gatekeeper may request within the implementation deadline of Article 3 paragraph 8the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 for the Commission to determine whether the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented under Article 6 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. A gatekeeper may, with its request, provide a reasoned submission to explain in particular why the measures that it intends to implement or has implemented are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. The Commission shall adopt its decision within six months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.
Amendment 891 #
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 and accompany this by a reasoned statement explaining the grounds for the suspension.
Amendment 904 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), exempt it, in whole or in part, from a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 in relation to an individual core platform service identified pursuant to Article 3(7), where such exemption is justified on the grounds set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Commission shall adopt the exemption decision at the latest 3 months after receiving a complete reasoned request and accompany by a reasoned statement explaining the grounds for the suspension.
Amendment 925 #
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 and the gatekeeper is obtaining an advantage from business users that is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or end users; or
Amendment 934 #
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 by the gatekeeper themselves as well as undertakings which they belong. 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 the undertaking to which the gatekeeper belongs, regardless of whether this behaviour is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature.
Amendment 944 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Where consent for collecting and, processing and sharing of personal data is required to ensure compliance with this Regulation, a gatekeeper shall take the necessary steps to either enable business users to directly obtain the required consent to their processing, where required under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, or to comply with Union data protection and privacy rules and principles in other ways including by providing business users with duly anonymised data where appropriate. The gatekeeper shall not make the obtaining of this consent by the business user more burdensome than for its own services.
Amendment 952 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – title
Article 12 – title
Amendment 953 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A gatekeeper shall informnotify the Commission of any intended concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving another provider of core platform services or of any other services provided in the digital sector irrespective of whether it is notifiable to a Union competition authority under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or to a competent national competition authority under national merger rules.
Amendment 959 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A gatekeeper shall informnotify the Commission of such a concentration prior to its implementation and following the conclusion of the agreement, the announcement of the public bid, or the acquisition of a controlling interest, in accordance with the procedure set out in Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.
Amendment 963 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The notification pursuant to paragraph 1 shall at least describe for the acquisition targets their EEA and worldwide annual turnover, for any relevant core platform services their respective EEA annual turnover, their number of yearly active business users and the number of monthly active end users, as well as the rationale of the intended concentration, and its potential impact on the rights and interests of business users and end users.
Amendment 968 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The information gathered pursuant this Article may be used in parallel competition cases, especially for purposes of merger control.
Amendment 975 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Within six months after its designation pursuant to Article 3, a gatekeeper shall submit to the Commission an d Data Protection Authorities an independently audited description of any techniques for profiling of consumers that the gatekeeper applies to or across its coreany platform services identified pursuant to Article 3 and make them publicly available. This description shall be updated at least annually.
Amendment 990 #
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 within 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 1008 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. 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 mayshall 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 full compliance with this Regulation. The Commission shall conclude its investigation by adopting a decision within twelvesix months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 1022 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. A gatekeeper shall be deemed to have engaged in a systematic non- compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, where the Commission has issued at least threetwo non-compliance or fining decisions pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 respectively against a gatekeeper in relation to any of its core platform services within a period of five years prior to the adoption of the decision opening a market investigation in view of the possible adoption of a decision pursuant to this Article.
Amendment 1033 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. In order to ensure effective compliance by the gatekeeper with its obligations laid down in Articles 5 or 6, the Commission shall regularly review the remedies imposed in accordance with paragraph 1 or commitments accepted in accordance with paragraph 6. The Commission shall be entitled to require changes to the imposed remedies if, following an investigation, it finds that the remedies are not effective.
Amendment 1058 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
The Commission mayshall 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, including in relation to the monitoring, implementing and enforcing of the rules laid down in this Regulation.
Amendment 1063 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Article 21 – paragraph 3
3. During on-site inspections the Commission and auditors or experts appointed by it may require the undertaking or association of undertakings to provide access to and explanations on its organisation, functioning, IT system, algorithms, data-handling and business conducts. The Commission shall appoint rotating auditor or expert teams within the platform in order to have continuous and direct access to the data and algorithms. They should run behavioural experiments to evaluate the algorithm and use of the data. The Commission and auditors or experts appointed by it may address questions to key personnel.
Amendment 1076 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. Should the Commission consider that the commitments submitted by the gatekeeper concerned cannot ensure effective compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, it shall explain the reasons for not making those commitments binding in the decision concluding the relevant proceedings and, following an investigation, require changes to the commitments in order to make them effective.
Amendment 1079 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 1080 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. End-users as well as their representatives have the right to submit formal complaints about gatekeepers non- compliance with the obligations set out in this Regulation in order to facilitate the monitoring of obligations and measures.
Amendment 1082 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall designate authorities with particular expertise and experience to assist the Commission in the enforcement of this Regulation. They should support the Commission in the tasks of monitoring and investigating compliance. The Commission shall entitle designated authorities to use the powers enshrined in Articles 19, 20 and 21 for this purpose as well as to receive complaints from end users and business users on non-compliance by gatekeepers in their territory to report them to the Commission.
Amendment 1083 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall adopt a non- compliance decision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) within a period of 6 months beginning from the moment of non- compliance where it finds that a gatekeeper does not comply with one or more of the following:
Amendment 1093 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 4
Article 25 – paragraph 4
4. The gatekeeper shall provide the Commission with the description of the measures it took to ensure compliance with the decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1. If the Commission, following an investigation, finds that the measures are not effective to ensure compliance by the gatekeeper with its obligations under Articles 5 and 6, the Commission shall be entitled to require changes to these measures.
Amendment 1105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. In fixing the amount of the fine, regard shall be had to the gravity, duration, recurrence, and, for fines imposed pursuant to paragraph 2, delay caused to the proceedings. To calculate the duration of the infringement, the starting point shall be the moment of the first non- compliance under Article 3 paragraph 8.
Amendment 1116 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The powers conferred on the Commission by Articles 26 and 27 shall be subject to a threfive year limitation period.
Amendment 1118 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. The power of the Commission to enforce decisions taken pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 shall be subject to a limitation period of fiseven years.
Amendment 1121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Before adopting a decision pursuant to Article 7, Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Articles 15, 16, 22, 23, 25 and 26 and Article 27(2), the Commission shall give the gatekeeper or undertaking or association of undertakings concerned and third parties with a legitimate interest the opportunity of being heard on:
Amendment 1123 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) all relevant procedures or decisions that affect consumers such as inter alia market investigations for designating a gatekeeper, compliance with, suspensions of and exemption from obligations, interim measures, fines.
Amendment 1126 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Gatekeepers, undertakings and, associations of undertakings concerned and third parties with a legitimate interest may submit their observations to the Commission’s preliminary findings within a time limit which shall be fixed by the Commission in its preliminary findings and which may not be less than 14 days.
Amendment 1152 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – title
Article 33 – title
Request for a market investigation and non-compliance proceedings
Amendment 1155 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When threone or more designated authorities of the Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 15, 16 or 17 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper that there are new core platform services and practices to be added, or that there is a situation of (systemic) non-compliance, the Commission shall within fourthree months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation. If the Commission decides not to open an investigation, the Commission shall publish the respective reasons.