20 Amendments of Marcos ROS SEMPERE related to 2020/2216(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the importance of a functioning digital single market and the ethical use of AI, robotics and related technologies for EU citizens, since they have the potential to tackle the challenges societies face, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with our social and democratic values, as it was demonstrated in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic; considers however, socio- economic, legal and ethical impacts have to be carefully addressed;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Maintains that SMEs and start-ups need to be supported in their digital transformation due to their limited resources; invites, therefore, the Commission to pursue a fitness check for SMEs before publishing legislation and to keep administrative burdens to a minimum by, inter alia, developing standards; as they are the backbone of Europe's economy; invites, therefore, the Commission to assess a proportionate approach to enable them to develop and innovate, including specific measures for the digitalisation of SMEs and start-ups in future legislation and to keep administrative burdens to a minimum by, inter alia, taking into account their position in every step of the digital transformation;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Acknowledges that market imbalances exist in relation to digital businesses that enjoy a significant market power, enabling them to impose their business practices on consumers and customers, and makes it increasingly difficult for other players, especially SMEs and start-ups, to compete and for new businesses to even enter the market;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Welcomes the launching of a new financing instrument, in the form of a co- investment facility of up to €150 million, to support artificial intelligence companies across Europe and asks to pay special attention to support SMEs and start-ups;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the digital single market and AI are diverse and subject to quick and dynamic developments; urges the Commission to base proposals and initiatives on the right balance avoiding on the one hand an one-size-fits-all approach and on the other hand a fragmentation of the market through national approaches on the othere an harmonised and future-proof regulatory framework that is inspired by a humanistic and human-centric approach in technological development;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that a new regulatory framework for AI is needed focusing order to deal withn guaranteeing fundamental rights and establishing clear ethical principles, legal safeguards and liability in order to harness the potential risks of autonomous behaviour and to maximise the trust of and the benefit for users; invites, while safeguarding the best interests of EU citizens; invites, therefore, the Commission to propose a risk-based and innovation-friendly robust legislative framework for AI that focuses on identifying and closing gaps within existing legislation and being coherent with thewithout prejudice to existing sector- specific legislation;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Reminds that to be ethical, AI must be developed, deployed and used in a sustainable and socially responsible manner, including a gender equality strategy, cultural diversity, promoting digital literacy, closing the digital gap and safeguarding intellectual property rights;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the firm view that harmonised future-proof definitions of ‘AI’ and ‘high- risk’ should be future- proof to ensure legal clarity for consumers and businesses and should consider human oversight for high-risk AI applications; ; recalls that the risk based approach should take into account the potential that these technologies entail to breach fundamental rights and to cause any prejudice or harm to individuals or society at a whole; reminds that the development, deployment and use of any high-risk AI applications should guarantee full human oversight at any time and must include principles of transparency, safety, accessibility and accountability, non-discrimination and fairness, protection of privacy and personal data, good governance and be socially and environmentally sustainable;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is convinced that existing legislation needs to be adapted to new technologies; askurges the Commission to adjustupdate inter alia the Product Liability Directive1 , in particular by redefining the terms ‘product’ and, ‘damage’, ‘defect’ and considreversing adjustments to the concept ofthe ‘burden of proof’, which should mirror the modifications to the General Product Safety Directive2 ; _________________ 1 2; OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p.29. OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to make a proposal for the introduction of a liability regime that is based on the proportion of control the party holds over the risk of the operation taking into account the development and the deployment phase and ensure compensation for non-material damages caused by AI;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Outlines that society, including consumers, should benefit from the responsible development and, deployment of AI whichand use of AI technologies that benefit citizens, generate opportunities for businesses and serves the good of society; asks the Commission, therefore, to define ethical rules for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies taking into account the principles of better regulationhat respect fundamental rights guaranteeing human dignity, autonomy and safety taking into account the principles of better regulation, emphasising on evidence and transparent processes involving citizens and stakeholders, including trade unions and consumers’ associations;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that, for the training of AI, the free flow of data within the common data spaces of the digital single market is essential and this should be underpinned by thea solid underlying legal framework which promotes trust among businesses and includes, where necessary, appropriate and fair contractual rules addressing existing power or market imbalances, and ensuring a consumer- friendly approach to data access and control;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to support the development of international standards to govern theRecalls the global dimension of the opportunities and risks implicit in AI technologies; calls on the Commission to promote consistent international cooperation that contributes to create synergies on AI between European entities as well as other multilateral fora to align efforts and to better coordinate the development of AI; urges the Commission to support multilateral efforts to discuss in relevant fora an effective international regulatory framework to guide the development, deployment and use of AI;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that citizens, as users and consumers, are already benefiting from strong data protection rules such as the GDPR3 and ePrivacy Directive4 ; appreciates that the Commission foresees measures ensuring full coordination and avoiding duplication of the data protection existing legislations to empower individuals to exercise their rights, which must at least partly be based on civil law; _________________ 3 4OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1. OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p.37.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Asks the Commission to ensure that userscitizens, as users and consumers, are properly informed and that their rights are effectively guaranteed when they interact with automated decision-making systems and thata system uses AI, when AI systems personalise a product or service for its users, and when they interact with automaticed decision- making systems do not generate unfairly biased outputor are subjected to autonomous processes for consumers in the single marketdecisions that influence their experience with digital products and services;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recalls that bias in and discrimination by software, algorithms and data is unlawful; urges the Commission to propose measures to assure that automatic decision-making systems do not generate subjective, unjustifiable, unreasonable or illegitimate biased outputs for consumers in the single market;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Urges the Commission to ensure a strong protection for fundamental rights and users’ civil law rights in the forth-coming proposal for a Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Market Act (DMA), particularly in order to protect, inter alia, the freedom of expression and information and the freedom to provide services, and to protect users from harmful micro-targetingillegal content and harmful business practices based on targeting or the exploitation of data;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Outlines that it is unacceptable that users and consumers are exposed to unsafeillegal content as well as unsafe and counterfeit products and; therefore, increased responsibilities for online marketplaces are neededcontent hosting platforms and online marketplaces are needed to reinforce the digital single market; asks the Commission to set up clear rules for the responsibility of content hosting platforms, for the illegal content and for the goods sold or advertised on them in the DSA proposal in order to consider the consumer safeguards in place, which should be observed at all times, and the concomitant redress measures for retailers and consumers by inter alia close the legal gap in which the buyers failed to obtain the satisfaction to which he or she is entitled according to the law or the contract for the supply of goods, for example because of the inability to identify the primary seller (know your customer business principle);
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that the use of smart contracts in the digital single market must be firmly foundealls on the Commission to assess the development and use of distributed ledger technologies including blockchain, namely smart contracts in the digital single market, provide guidance to ensure legal certainty for businesses and con civil and contract law in order to ensure the rights of businesses and consumerssumers, in particular the question of legality, enforcement of smart contracts in cross border situations, and notarisation requirements where applicable, and make proposals for the appropriate legal framework;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that large platforms with significant network effects could act as de facto ‘online gatekeepers’ of the digital economy and urges the Commission to analyse the impact that the power of these large platforms have on the rights of users, consumers, start-ups and SMEs.;