P9_TA(2022)0014

Digital Services Act ***I

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 20 January 2022 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (COM(2020)0825 — C9-0418/2020 — 2020/0361(COD)) (1)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2022/C 336/15)

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (1) Information society services and especially intermediary services have become an important part of the Union’s economy and daily life of Union citizens. Twenty years after the adoption of the existing legal framework applicable to such services laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (25), new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and marketplaces, have allowed business users and consumers to impart and access information and engage in transactions in novel ways. A majority of Union citizens now uses those services on a daily basis. However, the digital transformation and increased use of those services has also resulted in new risks and challenges, both for individual users and for society as a whole. (1) Information society services and especially intermediary services have become an important part of the Union’s economy and daily life of Union citizens. Twenty years after the adoption of the existing legal framework applicable to such services laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (25), new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and marketplaces, have allowed business users and consumers to impart and access information and engage in transactions in novel and innovative ways , transforming their communication, consumption and business habits . A majority of Union citizens now uses those services on a daily basis. However, the digital transformation and increased use of those services has also resulted in new risks and challenges, for individual users , companies and for society as a whole.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

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

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (3) Responsible and diligent behaviour by providers of intermediary services is essential for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment and for allowing Union citizens and other persons to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), in particular the freedom of expression and information and the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to non-discrimination. (3) Responsible and diligent behaviour by providers of intermediary services is essential for a safe , accessible , predictable and trusted online environment and for allowing Union citizens and other persons to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), in particular the rights to privacy, to protection of personal data, respect for human dignity, private and family life, the freedom of expression and information , the freedom and the pluralism of the media, and the freedom to conduct a business, a high level of consumer protection, the equality between women and men and the right to non-discrimination. Children have particular rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As such, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all matters affecting them. The UNCRC General comment No 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment formally sets out how these rights apply to the digital world.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (4) Therefore, in order to safeguard and improve the functioning of the internal market, a targeted set of uniform, effective and proportionate mandatory rules should be established at Union level. This Regulation provides the conditions for innovative digital services to emerge and to scale up in the internal market. The approximation of national regulatory measures at Union level concerning the requirements for providers of intermediary services is necessary in order to avoid and put an end to fragmentation of the internal market and to ensure legal certainty, thus reducing uncertainty for developers and fostering interoperability. By using requirements that are technology neutral, innovation should not be hampered but instead be stimulated. (4) In order to safeguard and improve the functioning of the internal market, a targeted set of uniform, effective and proportionate mandatory rules should be established at Union level. This Regulation provides the conditions for innovative digital services to emerge and to scale up in the internal market. The approximation of national regulatory measures at Union level concerning the requirements for providers of intermediary services is necessary in order to avoid and put an end to fragmentation of the internal market and to ensure legal certainty, thus reducing uncertainty for developers , protecting consumers and fostering interoperability. By using requirements that are technology neutral, innovation should not be hampered but instead be stimulated , while respecting fundamental rights .

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (4a) Given the importance of digital services, it is essential that this Regulation ensures a regulatory framework which ensures full, equal and unrestricted access to intermediary services for all recipients of services, including persons with disabilities. Therefore, it is important that accessibility requirements for intermediary services, including their user interfaces, are consistent with existing Union law, such as the European Accessibility Act and the Web Accessibility Directive and that Union law is further developed, so that no one is left behind as result of digital innovation.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (6) In practice, certain providers of intermediary services intermediate in relation to services that may or may not be provided by electronic means, such as remote information technology services, transport, accommodation or delivery services. This Regulation should apply only to intermediary services and not affect requirements set out in Union or national law relating to products or services intermediated through intermediary services, including in situations where the intermediary service constitutes an integral part of another service which is not an intermediary service as specified in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. (6) In practice, certain providers of intermediary services intermediate in relation to services that may or may not be provided by electronic means, such as remote information technology services, transport of persons and goods , accommodation or delivery services. This Regulation should apply only to intermediary services and not affect requirements set out in Union or national law relating to products or services intermediated through intermediary services, including in situations where the intermediary service constitutes an integral part of another service which is not an intermediary service as specified in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (8) Such a substantial connection to the Union should be considered to exist where the service provider has an establishment in the Union or, in its absence, on the basis of the existence of a significant number of users in one or more Member States, or the targeting of activities towards one or more Member States. The targeting of activities towards one or more Member States can be determined on the basis of all relevant circumstances, including factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in that Member State, or the possibility of ordering products or services, or using a national top level domain. The targeting of activities towards a Member State could also be derived from the availability of an application in the relevant national application store, from the provision of local advertising or advertising in the language used in that Member State, or from the handling of customer relations such as by providing customer service in the language generally used in that Member State. A substantial connection should also be assumed where a service provider directs its activities to one or more Member State as set out in Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (27). On the other hand, mere technical accessibility of a website from the Union cannot, on that ground alone, be considered as establishing a substantial connection to the Union. (8) Such a substantial connection to the Union should be considered to exist where the service provider has an establishment in the Union or, in its absence, on the basis of the directing of activities towards one or more Member States. The directing of activities towards one or more Member States can be determined on the basis of all relevant circumstances, including factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in that Member State, or the possibility of ordering products or services, or using a national top level domain. The directing of activities towards a Member State could also be derived from the availability of an application in the relevant national application store, from the provision of local advertising or advertising in the language used in that Member State, or from the handling of customer relations such as by providing customer service in the language generally used in that Member State. A substantial connection should also be assumed where a service provider directs its activities to one or more Member State as set out in Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (27) . On the other hand, mere technical accessibility of a website from the Union cannot, on that ground alone, be considered as establishing a substantial connection to the Union.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (9) This Regulation should complement, yet not affect the application of rules resulting from other acts of Union law regulating certain aspects of the provision of intermediary services, in particular Directive 2000/31/EC, with the exception of those changes introduced by this Regulation, Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended (28), and Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council (29) – proposed Terrorist Content Online Regulation . Therefore, this Regulation leaves those other acts, which are to be considered lex specialis in relation to the generally applicable framework set out in this Regulation, unaffected. However, the rules of this Regulation apply in respect of issues that are not or not fully addressed by those other acts as well as issues on which those other acts leave Member States the possibility of adopting certain measures at national level . (9) This Regulation should complement, yet not affect the application of rules resulting from other acts of Union law regulating certain aspects of the provision of intermediary services, in particular Directive 2000/31/EC, with the exception of those changes introduced by this Regulation, Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended (28), and Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council (29). Therefore, this Regulation leaves those other acts, which are to be considered lex specialis in relation to the generally applicable framework set out in this Regulation, unaffected. However, the rules of this Regulation should apply in respect of issues that are not or not fully addressed by those other acts as well as issues on which those other acts leave Member States the possibility of adopting certain measures . To assist Member States and service providers, the Commission should provide guidelines as to how to interpret the interaction and complementary nature between different Union legal acts and this Regulation and how to prevent any duplication of requirements on providers or potential conflicts in the interpretation of similar requirements . In particular, the guidelines should clarify any potential conflicts between the conditions and obligations laid down in legal acts, referred to in this Regulation, explaining which legal act should prevail.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (9a) In line with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, cultural aspects should be taken into account, in particular in order to respect and to promote the cultural and linguistic diversity. It is essential that this Regulation contributes to protect the freedom of expression and information, media freedom and to foster media pluralism as well as cultural and linguistic diversity.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (10) For reasons of clarity, it should also be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30) and Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (32) and Regulation […/…] on temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC (33) as well as Union law on consumer protection, in particular Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (34), Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (35) and Directive 93/13/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (36), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37), and on the protection of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (38). The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by the rules of Union law on that subject, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. This Regulation is also without prejudice to the rules of Union law on working conditions. (10) For reasons of clarity, it should also be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30) and Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (32) and Regulation […/…] on temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC (33) , Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (33a) , as well as Union law on consumer protection, in particular Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (34), Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (35) and Directive 93/13/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (36), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37) , Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, Directive 2001/95/EC, Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 (37a), and on the protection of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (38). The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by the rules of Union law on that subject, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. This Regulation is also without prejudice to the rules of Union or national law on working conditions.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (11) It should be clarified that this Regulation is without prejudice to the rules of Union law on copyright and related rights, which establish specific rules and procedures that should remain unaffected. (11) It should be clarified that this Regulation is without prejudice to the rules of Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which establish specific rules and procedures that should remain unaffected.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined broadly and also covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non-consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is consistent with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question. (12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe , accessible , predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of ‘illegal content’ should underpin the general idea that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online. The concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined appropriately and should cover information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable Union or national law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech, or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that is not in compliance with Union law since it refers to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non-consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, illegal trading of animals, plants and substances, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law , the provision of illegal services in particular in the area of accommodation services on short-term rental platforms non-compliant with Union or national law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is in conformity with Union law , including the Charter and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (13) Considering the particular characteristics of the services concerned and the corresponding need to make the providers thereof subject to certain specific obligations, it is necessary to distinguish, within the broader category of providers of hosting services as defined in this Regulation, the subcategory of online platforms. Online platforms, such as social networks or online marketplaces, should be defined as providers of hosting services that not only store information provided by the recipients of the service at their request, but that also disseminate that information to the public, again at their request. However, in order to avoid imposing overly broad obligations, providers of hosting services should not be considered as online platforms where the dissemination to the public is merely a minor and purely ancillary feature of another service and that feature cannot, for objective technical reasons, be used without that other, principal service, and the integration of that feature is not a means to circumvent the applicability of the rules of this Regulation applicable to online platforms. For example, the comments section in an online newspaper could constitute such a feature, where it is clear that it is ancillary to the main service represented by the publication of news under the editorial responsibility of the publisher. (13) Considering the particular characteristics of the services concerned and the corresponding need to make the providers thereof subject to certain specific obligations, it is necessary to distinguish, within the broader category of providers of hosting services as defined in this Regulation, the subcategory of online platforms. Online platforms, such as social networks or online marketplaces, should be defined as providers of hosting services that not only store information provided by the recipients of the service at their request, but that also disseminate that information to the public, again at their request. However, in order to avoid imposing overly broad obligations, providers of hosting services should not be considered as online platforms where the dissemination to the public is merely a minor or a purely ancillary feature of another service or functionality of the principal service and that feature or functionality cannot, for objective technical reasons, be used without that other, principal service, and the integration of that feature or functionality is not a means to circumvent the applicability of the rules of this Regulation applicable to online platforms. For example, the comments section in an online newspaper could constitute such a feature, where it is clear that it is ancillary to the main service represented by the publication of news under the editorial responsibility of the publisher. For the purposes of this Regulation, cloud computing services should not be considered to be an online platform in cases where allowing the dissemination of specific content constitutes a minor or ancillary feature. Moreover, cloud computing services, when serving as infrastructure, for example, as the underlining infrastructural storage and computing services of an internet-based application or online platform, should not in itself be seen as disseminating to the public information stored or processed at the request of a recipient of an application or online platform which it hosts.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (14) The concept of ‘dissemination to the public’, as used in this Regulation, should entail the making available of information to a potentially unlimited number of persons, that is, making the information easily accessible to users in general without further action by the recipient of the service providing the information being required, irrespective of whether those persons actually access the information in question. The mere possibility to create groups of users of a given service should not , in itself, be understood to mean that the information disseminated in that manner is not disseminated to the public . However, the concept should exclude dissemination of information within closed groups consisting of a finite number of pre-determined persons . Interpersonal communication services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39), such as emails or private messaging services, fall outside the scope of this Regulation . Information should be considered disseminated to the public within the meaning of this Regulation only where that occurs upon the direct request by the recipient of the service that provided the information. (14) The concept of ‘dissemination to the public’, as used in this Regulation, should entail the making available of information to a potentially unlimited number of persons, that is, making the information easily accessible to users in general without further action by the recipient of the service providing the information being required, irrespective of whether those persons actually access the information in question. Accordingly, where access to information requires registration or admittance to a group of users, that information should be considered to have been disseminated to the public only where users seeking to access the information are automatically registered or admitted without a human decision on whom to grant access . Information exchanged using interpersonal communication services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39), such as emails or private messaging services, are not considered to have been disseminated to the public . Information should be considered disseminated to the public within the meaning of this Regulation only where that occurs upon the direct request by the recipient of the service that provided the information.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (16) The legal certainty provided by the horizontal framework of conditional exemptions from liability for providers of intermediary services, laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC, has allowed many novel services to emerge and scale-up across the internal market. That framework should therefore be preserved. However, in view of the divergences when transposing and applying the relevant rules at national level, and for reasons of clarity and coherence, that framework should be incorporated in this Regulation. It is also necessary to clarify certain elements of that framework, having regard to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. (16) The legal certainty provided by the horizontal framework of conditional exemptions from liability for providers of intermediary services, laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC, has allowed many novel services to emerge and scale-up across the internal market. That framework should therefore be preserved. However, in view of the divergences when transposing and applying the relevant rules at national level, and for reasons of clarity , consistency, predictability, accessibility and coherence, that framework should be incorporated in this Regulation. It is also necessary to clarify certain elements of that framework, having regard to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union , as well as technological and market developments .

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (18) The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not apply where, instead of confining itself to providing the services neutrally, by a merely technical and automatic processing of the information provided by the recipient of the service, the provider of intermediary services plays an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, that information. Those exemptions should accordingly not be available in respect of liability relating to information provided not by the recipient of the service but by the provider of intermediary service itself, including where the information has been developed under the editorial responsibility of that provider. (18) The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not apply where, instead of confining itself to providing the services neutrally, by a merely technical and automatic processing of the information provided by the recipient of the service, the provider of intermediary services plays an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, that information. The mere ranking or displaying in an order, or the use of a recommender system should not, however, be deemed as having control over an information. Those exemptions should accordingly not be available in respect of liability relating to information provided not by the recipient of the service but by the provider of intermediary service itself, including where the information has been developed under the editorial responsibility of that provider.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (20) A provider of intermediary services that deliberately collaborates with a recipient of the services in order to undertake illegal activities does not provide its service neutrally and should therefore not be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability provided for in this Regulation. (20) Where a provider of intermediary services deliberately collaborates with a recipient of the services in order to undertake illegal activities , the service should be deemed not to have been provided neutrally and the provider should therefore not be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability provided for in this Regulation.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (21) A provider should be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability for ‘mere conduit’ and for ‘caching’ services when it is in no way involved with the information transmitted. This requires, among other things, that the provider does not modify the information that it transmits. However, this requirement should not be understood to cover manipulations of a technical nature which take place in the course of the transmission, as such manipulations do not alter the integrity of the information transmitted. (21) A provider should be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability for ‘mere conduit’ and for ‘caching’ services when it is in no way involved in the content of the information transmitted. This requires, among other things, that the provider does not modify the information that it transmits. However, this requirement should not be understood to cover manipulations of a technical nature, which take place in the course of the transmission, as such manipulations do not alter the integrity of the information transmitted.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (22) In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal content , act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression. The provider can obtain such actual knowledge or awareness through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent economic operator to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content. (22) In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, after having become aware of the illegal nature of the content and thus obtaining actual knowledge or awareness, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of a high level of consumer protection and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the principle of freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority . The provider can obtain actual knowledge or awareness of the illegal nature of the content through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent hosting service provider to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content. As long as providers act upon obtaining actual knowledge, they should benefit from the exemptions from liability referred to in this Regulation.

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (23) In order to ensure the effective protection of consumers when engaging in intermediated commercial transactions online, certain providers of hosting services, namely, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation, in so far as those online platforms present the relevant information relating to the transactions at issue in such a way that it leads consumers to believe that the information was provided by those online platforms themselves or by recipients of the service acting under their authority or control, and that those online platforms thus have knowledge of or control over the information, even if that may in reality not be the case. In that regard, is should be determined objectively, on the basis of all relevant circumstances, whether the presentation could lead to such a belief on the side of an average and reasonably well-informed consumer. (23) In order to ensure the effective protection of consumers when engaging in intermediated commercial transactions online, certain providers of hosting services, namely, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation, in so far as those online platforms present the relevant information relating to the transactions at issue in such a way that it leads consumers to believe that the information was provided by those online platforms themselves or by recipients of the service acting under their authority or control, and that those online platforms thus have knowledge of or control over the information, even if that may in reality not be the case. In that regard, is should be determined objectively, on the basis of all relevant circumstances, whether the presentation could lead to such a belief on the side of a consumer. Such a belief may arise, for example, where the online platform allowing distance contracts with traders fails to display clearly the identity of the trader pursuant to this Regulation, or is marketing the product or service in its own name rather than using the name of the trader who will supply it, or where the provider determines the final price of the goods or services offered by the trader.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (25) In order to create legal certainty and not to discourage activities aimed at detecting, identifying and acting against illegal content that providers of intermediary services may undertake on a voluntary basis, it should be clarified that the mere fact that providers undertake such activities does not lead to the unavailability of the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, provided those activities are carried out in good faith and in a diligent manner. In addition, it is appropriate to clarify that the mere fact that those providers take measures, in good faith, to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation as regards the implementation of their terms and conditions, should not lead to the unavailability of those exemptions from liability. Therefore, any such activities and measures that a given provider may have taken should not be taken into account when determining whether the provider can rely on an exemption from liability, in particular as regards whether the provider provides its service neutrally and can therefore fall within the scope of the relevant provision, without this rule however implying that the provider can necessarily rely thereon. (25) In order to create legal certainty and not to discourage activities aimed at detecting, identifying and acting against illegal content that providers of intermediary services may undertake on a voluntary basis, it should be clarified that the mere fact that providers undertake such activities does not lead to the unavailability of the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, solely because they are carrying out voluntary own-initiative investigations, provided those activities are carried out in good faith and in a diligent manner and are accompanied with additional safeguards against over-removal of legal content. Providers of intermediary services should make best efforts to ensure that where automated tools are used for content moderation, the technology is sufficiently reliable to limit to the maximum extent possible the rate of errors where information is wrongly considered as illegal content . In addition, it is appropriate to clarify that the mere fact that those providers take measures, in good faith, to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation as regards the implementation of their terms and conditions, should not lead to the unavailability of those exemptions from liability. Therefore, any such activities and measures that a given provider may have taken should not be taken into account when determining whether the provider can rely on an exemption from liability, in particular as regards whether the provider provides its service neutrally and can therefore fall within the scope of the relevant provision, without this rule however implying that the provider can necessarily rely thereon.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (26) Whilst the rules in Chapter II of this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by those providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question. Recipients of the service should be held liable, where the applicable rules of Union and national law determining such liability so provide, for the illegal content that they provide and may disseminate through intermediary services. Where appropriate, other actors, such as group moderators in closed online environments, in particular in the case of large groups, should also help to avoid the spread of illegal content online, in accordance with the applicable law. Furthermore, where it is necessary to involve information society services providers, including providers of intermediary services, any requests or orders for such involvement should, as a general rule, be directed to the actor that has the technical and operational ability to act against specific items of illegal content, so as to prevent and minimise any possible negative effects for the availability and accessibility of information that is not illegal content. (26) Whilst the rules in Chapter II of this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by those providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question. Recipients of the service should be held liable, where the applicable rules of Union and national law determining such liability so provide, for the illegal content that they provide and may disseminate through intermediary services. Where appropriate, other actors, such as group moderators in closed and open online environments, in particular in the case of large groups, should also help to avoid the spread of illegal content online, in accordance with the applicable law. Furthermore, where it is necessary to involve information society services providers, including providers of intermediary services, any requests or orders for such involvement should, as a general rule, be directed to the specific provider that has the technical and operational ability to act against specific items of illegal content, so as to prevent and minimise any possible negative effects for the availability and accessibility of information that is not illegal content. Consequently providers should act where they are in the best place to do so.

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

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

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (27a) A single webpage or website may include elements that qualify differently between ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ or hosting services and the rules for exemptions from liability should apply to each accordingly. For example, a search engine could act solely as a ‘caching’ service as to information included in the results of an inquiry. Elements displayed alongside those results, such as online advertisements, would however still qualify as a hosting service.

Amendments 25 and 517/rev

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (28) Providers of intermediary services should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of a general nature. This does not concern monitoring obligations in a specific case and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation, in accordance with the conditions established in this Regulation. Nothing in this Regulation should be construed as an imposition of a general monitoring obligation or active fact-finding obligation, or as a general obligation for providers to take proactive measures to relation to illegal content. (28) Providers of intermediary services should not be subject to a monitoring obligation , neither de jure, nor de facto with respect to obligations of a general nature. This does not concern specific and properly identified monitoring obligations in a specific case , where set out in Union acts and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation that implement Union legal acts , in accordance with the conditions established in this Regulation and other Union law considered as lex specialis . Nothing in this Regulation should be construed as an imposition of a general monitoring obligation or active fact-finding obligation, or as a general obligation for providers to take proactive measures to relation to illegal content. Equally, Member States should not prevent providers of intermediary services from providing end-to-end encrypted services. Applying effective end-to-end encryption to data is essential for trust in and security on the Internet, and effectively prevents unauthorised third party access. Furthermore, to ensure effective digital privacy, Member States should not impose a general obligation on providers of intermediary services to limit the anonymous use of their services. In accordance with the principle of data minimisation and in order to prevent unauthorised disclosure, identity theft and other forms of abuse of personal data, recipients should have the right to use and pay for services anonymously wherever reasonable efforts can make this possible. This should apply without prejudice to the obligations in Union law on the protection of personal data. Providers can enable anonymous use of their services by refraining from collecting personal data regarding the recipient and their online activities and by not preventing recipients from using anonymising networks for accessing the service. Anonymous payment can take place for example by paying in cash, by using cash-paid vouchers or prepaid payment instruments.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (29) Depending on the legal system of each Member State and the field of law at issue, national judicial or administrative authorities may order providers of intermediary services to act against certain specific items of illegal content or to provide certain specific items of information. The national laws on the basis of which such orders are issued differ considerably and the orders are increasingly addressed in cross-border situations. In order to ensure that those orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, it is necessary to set certain conditions that those orders should meet and certain complementary requirements relating to the processing of those orders. (29) Depending on the legal system of each Member State and the field of law at issue, national judicial or administrative authorities may order providers of intermediary services to act against certain specific items of illegal content or to provide certain specific items of information. The national laws in conformity with Union law, including the Charter on the basis of which such orders are issued differ considerably and the orders are increasingly addressed in cross-border situations. In order to ensure that those orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, it is necessary to set certain conditions that those orders should meet and certain complementary requirements relating to the effective processing of those orders.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (30) Orders to act against illegal content or to provide information should be issued in compliance with Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the prohibition of general obligations to monitor information or to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity laid down in this Regulation. The conditions and requirements laid down in this Regulation which apply to orders to act against illegal content are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar systems for acting against specific types of illegal content, such as Regulation (EU) …/…. [proposed Regulation addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online], or Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 that confers specific powers to order the provision of information on Member State consumer law enforcement authorities, whilst the conditions and requirements that apply to orders to provide information are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar relevant rules for specific sectors. Those conditions and requirements should be without prejudice to retention and preservation rules under applicable national law, in conformity with Union law and confidentiality requests by law enforcement authorities related to the non-disclosure of information. (30) Orders to act against illegal content or to provide information should be issued in compliance with Union law, including the Charter and in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the prohibition of general obligations to monitor information or to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity laid down in this Regulation. The conditions and requirements laid down in this Regulation which apply to orders to act against illegal content are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar systems for acting against specific types of illegal content, such as Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online, or Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 that confers specific powers to order the provision of information on Member State consumer law enforcement authorities, whilst the conditions and requirements that apply to orders to provide information are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar relevant rules for specific sectors. Those conditions and requirements should be without prejudice to retention and preservation rules under applicable national law, in conformity with Union law and confidentiality requests by law enforcement authorities related to the non-disclosure of information.

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (31) The territorial scope of such orders to act against illegal content should be clearly set out on the basis of the applicable Union or national law enabling the issuance of the order and should not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objectives. In that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter. In addition , where the order referring to the specific information may have effects beyond the territory of the Member State of the authority concerned, the authority should assess whether the information at issue is likely to constitute illegal content in other Member States concerned and, where relevant, take account of the relevant rules of Union law or international law and the interests of international comity. (31) The territorial scope of such orders to act against illegal content should be clearly set out on the basis of the applicable Union or national law in conformity with Union law, including Directive 2000/31/EC and the Charter, enabling the issuance of the order and should not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objectives. In that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter. Exceptionally , where the order referring to the specific information may have effects beyond the territory of the Member State of the authority concerned, the authority should assess whether the information at issue is likely to constitute illegal content in other Member States concerned and, where relevant, take account of the relevant rules of Union law or international law and the interests of international comity.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (32) The orders to provide information regulated by this Regulation concern the production of specific information about individual recipients of the intermediary service concerned who are identified in those orders for the purposes of determining compliance by the recipients of the services with applicable Union or national rules. Therefore, orders about information on a group of recipients of the service who are not specifically identified, including orders to provide aggregate information required for statistical purposes or evidence-based policy-making, should remain unaffected by the rules of this Regulation on the provision of information. (32) The orders to provide information regulated by this Regulation concern the production of specific information about individual recipients of the intermediary service concerned who are identified in those orders for the purposes of determining compliance by the recipients of the services with applicable Union or national rules. Therefore, orders about information on a group of recipients of the service who are not specifically identified, including orders to provide aggregate information required for statistical purposes or evidence-based policy-making, should remain unaffected by the rules of this Regulation on the provision of information. Member States should ensure full implementation of the Union legal framework on confidentiality of communications and online privacy, as well as on protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data enshrined in Directive (EU) 2016/680. In particular, Member States should respect the rights of individuals and journalists and refrain from seeking information which could harm media freedom or freedom of expression.

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (33) Orders to act against illegal content and to provide information are subject to the rules safeguarding the competence of the Member State where the service provider addressed is established and laying down possible derogations from that competence in certain cases, set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, only if the conditions of that Article are met. Given that the orders in question relate to specific items of illegal content and information, respectively, where they are addressed to providers of intermediary services established in another Member State, they do not in principle restrict those providers’ freedom to provide their services across borders. Therefore, the rules set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC , including those regarding the need to justify measures derogating from the competence of the Member State where the service provider is established on certain specified grounds and regarding the notification of such measures, do not apply in respect of those orders . (33) Orders to act against illegal content and to provide information are subject to the rules safeguarding the competence of the Member State where the service provider addressed is established and laying down possible derogations from that competence in certain cases, set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, only if the conditions of that Article are met. Given that the orders in question relate to specific items of illegal content and information, as defined in Union or national law in compliance with Union law, respectively, where they are addressed to providers of intermediary services established in another Member State, they should not in principle restrict those providers’ freedom to provide their services across borders. The competent authority should transmit the orders to act against illegal content and to provide information directly to the relevant addressee by any electronic means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the service provider to establish authenticity, including the accuracy of the date and the time of sending and receipt of the order, such as by secured email and platforms or other secured channels , including those made available by the service provider, in line with the rules protecting personal data. This requirement should notably be met by the use of qualified electronic registered delivery services as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council. This Regulation should be without prejudice to the rules on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgements, namely as regards the right to refuse recognition and enforcement of an order to act against illegal content, in particular where such an order is contrary to the public policy in the Member State where recognition or enforcement is sought .

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (33a) This Regulation should not prevent the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, to issue an order to restore content, where such content has been in compliance with the terms and conditions of the intermediary service provider, but has been erroneously considered as illegal by the service provider and has been removed.

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (33b) To ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation, orders to act against illegal content and to provide information should comply with Union law, including with the Charter. The Commission should provide an effective response to breaches of Union law through infringement proceedings.

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

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

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (35) In that regard, it is important that the due diligence obligations are adapted to the type and nature of the intermediary service concerned. This Regulation therefore sets out basic obligations applicable to all providers of intermediary services, as well as additional obligations for providers of hosting services and, more specifically, online platforms and very large online platforms. To the extent that providers of intermediary services may fall within those different categories in view of the nature of their services and their size, they should comply with all of the corresponding obligations of this Regulation. Those harmonised due diligence obligations, which should be reasonable and non-arbitrary, are needed to achieve the identified public policy concerns, such as safeguarding the legitimate interests of the recipients of the service, addressing illegal practices and protecting fundamental rights online. (35) In that regard, it is important that the due diligence obligations are adapted to the type, nature and size of the intermediary service concerned. This Regulation therefore sets out basic obligations applicable to all providers of intermediary services, as well as additional obligations for providers of hosting services and, more specifically, online platforms and very large online platforms. To the extent that providers of intermediary services may fall within those different categories in view of the nature of their services and their size, they should comply with all of the corresponding obligations of this Regulation in relation to those services . Those harmonised due diligence obligations, which should be reasonable and non-arbitrary, are needed to achieve the identified public policy concerns, such as safeguarding the legitimate interests of the recipients of the service, addressing illegal practices and protecting fundamental rights online.

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (36) In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to establish a single point of contact and to publish relevant information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications. The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location . (36) In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to designate a single point of contact and to publish relevant and up to date information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications . Such information should be notified to the Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State of establishment . The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services. It should be possible that this contact point is the same contact point as required under other Union acts. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location.

Amendment 36

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (36a) Providers of intermediary services should also be required to designate a single point of contact for recipients of services, which allows rapid, direct and efficient communication in particular by easily accessible means such as telephone number, email addresses, electronic contact forms, chatbots or instant messaging. It should be explicitly indicated when a user communicates with chatbots. To facilitate rapid, direct and efficient communication, recipients of services should not be faced with lengthy phone menus or hidden contact information. In particular, phone menus should always include the option to speak to a human. Providers of intermediary services should allow recipients of services to choose means of direct and efficient communication which do not solely rely on automated tools. This requirement should not affect the internal organisation of providers of intermediary services, including the ability to use third-party services to provide this communication system, such as external service providers and call centres.

Amendment 37

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (37) Providers of intermediary services that are established in a third country that offer services in the Union should designate a sufficiently mandated legal representative in the Union and provide information relating to their legal representatives, so as to allow for the effective oversight and, where necessary, enforcement of this Regulation in relation to those providers. It should be possible for the legal representative to also function as point of contact, provided the relevant requirements of this Regulation are complied with. (37) Providers of intermediary services that are established in a third country that offer services in the Union should designate a sufficiently mandated legal representative in the Union and provide information relating to their legal representatives, so as to allow for the effective oversight and, where necessary, enforcement of this Regulation in relation to those providers. It should be possible for the legal representative to also function as point of contact, provided the relevant requirements of this Regulation are complied with. It should be possible that a legal representative is mandated by more than one provider of intermediary services, in accordance with national law, provided that such providers qualify as micro, small or medium sized enterprises as defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (38) Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of unfair or arbitrary outcomes. (38) Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of protecting fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and of information, transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of discriminatory, unfair or arbitrary outcomes. In particular, it is important to ensure that terms and conditions are drafted in a clear and unambiguous language in line with applicable Union and national law. The terms and conditions should include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making, human review, as well as on the right to terminate the use of the service. Providers of intermediary services should also provide recipients of services with a concise and easily readable summary of the main elements of the terms and conditions, including the remedies available, using, where appropriate graphical elements, such as icons.

Amendment 39

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (39) To ensure an adequate level of transparency and accountability, providers of intermediary services should annually report, in accordance with the harmonised requirements contained in this Regulation, on the content moderation they engage in, including the measures taken as a result of the application and enforcement of their terms and conditions. However, so as to avoid disproportionate burdens, those transparency reporting obligations should not apply to providers that are micro- or small enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (40) . (39) To ensure an adequate level of transparency and accountability, providers of intermediary services should draw up an annual report in a standardised and machine-readable format , in accordance with the harmonised requirements contained in this Regulation, on the content moderation they engage in, including the measures taken as a result of the application and enforcement of their terms and conditions. However, so as to avoid disproportionate burdens, those transparency reporting obligations should not apply to providers that are micro- or small enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (40) which do not also qualify as very large online platforms.

Amendment 40

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (39a) Recipients of a service should be able to make a free, autonomous and informed decisions or choices when using a service and providers of intermediary services shall not use any means, including via its interface, to distort or impair that decision-making. In particular, recipients of the service should be empowered to make such decision sinter alia regarding the acceptance of and changes to terms and conditions, advertising practices, privacy and other settings, recommender systems when interacting with intermediary services. However, certain practices typically exploit cognitive biases and prompt recipients of the service to purchase goods and services that they do not want or to reveal personal information they would prefer not to disclose. Therefore, providers of intermediary services should be prohibited from deceiving or nudging recipients of the service and from distorting or impairing the autonomy, decision-making, or choice of the recipients of the service via the structure, design or functionalities of an online interface or a part thereof (‘dark patterns’). This should include, but should not be limited to, exploitative design choices to direct the recipient to actions that benefit the provider of intermediary services, but which may not be in the recipients’ interests, presenting choices in a non-neutral manner, such as giving more visual prominence to a consent option, repetitively requesting or urging the recipient to make a decision such as making the procedure of cancelling a service significantly more cumbersome than signing up to it. However, rules preventing dark patterns should not be understood as preventing providers to interact directly with users and to offer new or additional services to them. In particular it should be possible to approach a user again in a reasonable time, even if the user had denied consent for specific data processing purposes, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act to define practices that could be considered as dark patterns.

Amendment 512

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (39b) To ensure an efficient and adequate application of the obligation on traceability of business users, without imposing any disproportionate burdens, the intermediary service providers covered should carry out due diligence checks prior to the use of their service to verify the reliability of the information provided by the business user concerned, in particular by using freely accessible official online databases or online interfaces, such as national trade registers or by requesting the business user concerned to provide trustworthy supporting documents, such as copies of identity documents, certified bank statements, company certificates and trade register certificates. They may also use other sources, available for use at a distance, which offer a similar degree of reliability for the purpose of complying with this obligation.

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (40) Providers of hosting services play a particularly important role in tackling illegal content online, as they store information provided by and at the request of the recipients of the service and typically give other recipients access thereto, sometimes on a large scale. It is important that all providers of hosting services, regardless of their size, put in place user-friendly notice and action mechanisms that facilitate the notification of specific items of information that the notifying party considers to be illegal content to the provider of hosting services concerned (‘notice’), pursuant to which that provider can decide whether or not it agrees with that assessment and wishes to remove or disable access to that content (‘action’). Provided the requirements on notices are met, it should be possible for individuals or entities to notify multiple specific items of allegedly illegal content through a single notice. The obligation to put in place notice and action mechanisms should apply, for instance, to file storage and sharing services, web hosting services, advertising servers and paste bins, in as far as they qualify as providers of hosting services covered by this Regulation. (40) Providers of hosting services play a particularly important role in tackling illegal content online, as they store information provided by and at the request of the recipients of the service and typically give other recipients access thereto, sometimes on a large scale. It is important that all providers of hosting services, regardless of their size, put in place easily accessible, comprehensive and user-friendly notice and action mechanisms that facilitate the notification of specific items of information that the notifying party considers to be illegal content to the provider of hosting services concerned (‘notice’), pursuant to which that provider can establish that the content in question is clearly illegal without additional legal or factual examination of the information indicated in the notice and remove or disable access to that content (‘action’) . Such mechanism should include a clearly identifiable reporting mechanism, located close to the content in question allowing to notify quickly and easily items of information considered to be illegal content under Union or national law . Provided the requirements on notices are met, it should be possible for individuals or entities to notify multiple specific items of allegedly illegal content through a single notice in order to ensure the effective operation of notice and action mechanisms. While individuals should always be able to submit notices anonymously, such notices should not give rise to actual knowledge, except in the case of information considered to involve one of the offences referred to in Directive 2011/93/EU . The obligation to put in place notice and action mechanisms should apply, for instance, to file storage and sharing services, web hosting services, advertising servers and paste bins, in as far as they qualify as providers of hosting services covered by this Regulation.

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (40a) Nevertheless, notices should be directed to the actor that has the technical and operational ability to act and the closest relationship to the recipient of the service that provided the information or content. Such hosting service providers should redirect such notices to the particular online platform and inform the Digital Services Coordinator.

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (40b) Moreover, hosting providers should seek to act only against the items of information notified. Where the removal or disabling of access to individual items of information is technically or operationally unachievable due to legal or technological reasons, such as encrypted file and data storage and sharing services, hosting providers should inform the recipient of the service of the notification and seek action.

Amendment 44

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 41

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (41) The rules on such notice and action mechanisms should be harmonised at Union level, so as to provide for the timely, diligent and objective processing of notices on the basis of rules that are uniform, transparent and clear and that provide for robust safeguards to protect the right and legitimate interests of all affected parties, in particular their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, irrespective of the Member State in which those parties are established or reside and of the field of law at issue. The fundamental rights include, as the case may be, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy of the recipients of the service; the freedom to conduct a business, including the freedom of contract, of service providers; as well as the right to human dignity, the rights of the child, the right to protection of property, including intellectual property, and the right to non-discrimination of parties affected by illegal content. (41) The rules on such notice and action mechanisms should be harmonised at Union level, so as to provide for the timely, diligent, objective , non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory processing of notices on the basis of rules that are uniform, transparent and clear and that provide for robust safeguards to protect the right and legitimate interests of all affected parties, in particular their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, irrespective of the Member State in which those parties are established or reside and of the field of law at issue. The fundamental rights include, as the case may be, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy of the recipients of the service; the freedom to conduct a business, including the freedom of contract, of service providers; as well as the right to human dignity, the rights of the child, the right to protection of property, including intellectual property, and the right to non-discrimination of parties affected by illegal content.

Amendment 45

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 41 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (41a) Providers of hosting services should act upon notices without undue delay, taking into account the type of illegal content that is being notified and the urgency of taking action. The provider of hosting services should inform the individual or entity notifying the specific content of its decision without undue delay after taking a decision whether to act upon the notice or not.

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 42

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (42) Where a hosting service provider decides to remove or disable information provided by a recipient of the service, for instance following receipt of a notice or acting on its own initiative, including through the use of automated means, that provider should inform the recipient of its decision, the reasons for its decision and the available redress possibilities to contest the decision, in view of the negative consequences that such decisions may have for the recipient, including as regards the exercise of its fundamental right to freedom of expression. That obligation should apply irrespective of the reasons for the decision, in particular whether the action has been taken because the information notified is considered to be illegal content or incompatible with the applicable terms and conditions. Available recourses to challenge the decision of the hosting service provider should always include judicial redress. (42) Where a hosting service provider decides to remove, disable access to, demote or impose other measures with regard to information provided by a recipient of the service, for instance following receipt of a notice or acting on its own initiative, including through the use of automated means, that have been proven to be efficient, proportionate and accurate, that provider should in a clear and user-friendly manner inform the recipient of its decision, the reasons for its decision and the available redress possibilities to contest the decision, in view of the negative consequences that such decisions may have for the recipient, including as regards the exercise of its fundamental right to freedom of expression. That obligation should apply irrespective of the reasons for the decision, in particular whether the action has been taken because the information notified is considered to be illegal content or incompatible with the applicable terms and conditions. Available recourses to challenge the decision of the hosting service provider should always include judicial redress. The obligation should however not apply in a number of situations, namely when the content is deceptive or part of high-volume of commercial content, or when it has been requested by a judicial or law enforcement authority to not inform the recipient due to an ongoing criminal investigation until the criminal investigation is closed. Where a provider of hosting service does not have the information necessary to inform the recipient by a durable medium, it should not be required to do so.

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 42 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (42a) A provider of hosting services may in some instances become aware, such as through a notice by a notifying party or through its own voluntary measures, of information relating to certain activity of a recipient of the service, such as the provision of certain types of illegal content, that reasonably justify, having regard to all relevant circumstances of which the online platform is aware, the suspicion that the recipient may have committed, may be committing or is likely to commit a serious criminal offence involving an imminent threat to the life or safety of person, such as offences specified in Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) . In such instances, the provider of hosting services should inform without delay the competent law enforcement authorities of such suspicion, providing, upon their request, all relevant information available to it, including where relevant the content in question and an explanation of its suspicion and unless instructed otherwise, should remove or disable the content. The information notified by the hosting service provider should not be used for any purpose other than those directly related to the individual serious criminal offence notified. This Regulation does not provide the legal basis for profiling of recipients of the services with a view to the possible identification of criminal offences by online platforms provider of hosting services. Providers of hosting services should also respect other applicable rules of Union or national law for the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals when informing law enforcement authorities. In order to facilitate the notification of suspicions of criminal offenses, Member States should notify to the Commission the list of the competent law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Amendment 48

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 43 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (43a) Similarly, in order to ensure that the obligations are only applied to those providers of intermediary services where the benefit would outweigh the burden on the provider, the Commission should be empowered to issue a waiver to the requirements of Chapter III Section 3, in whole or in parts, to those providers of intermediary services that are non-for profit t, or are medium-sized enterprises, but do not present any systemic risk related to illegal content and have limited exposure to illegal content. The providers should present justified reasons for why they should be issued a waiver and send their application first to their Digital Services Coordinators of establishment for a preliminary assessment. The Commission should examine such an application taking into account a preliminary assessment carried out by the Digital Services Coordinators of establishment. The preliminary assessment should be sent together with the application to the Commission. The Commission should monitor the application of the waiver and have the right revoke a waiver at any time. The Commission should maintain a public list of all waiver issued and their conditions.

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 44

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (44) Recipients of the service should be able to easily and effectively contest certain decisions of online platforms that negatively affect them. Therefore, online platforms should be required to provide for internal complaint-handling systems, which meet certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the systems are easily accessible and lead to swift and fair outcomes. In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of out-of-court dispute settlement of disputes, including those that could not be resolved in satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost-effective manner. The possibilities to contest decisions of online platforms thus created should complement, yet leave unaffected in all respects, the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned. (44) Recipients of the service, should be able to easily and effectively contest certain decisions, of online platforms that negatively affect them . This should include decisions of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders to suspend the provisions of their services to traders . Therefore, online platforms should be required to provide for internal complaint-handling systems, which meet certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the systems are easily accessible and lead to swift , non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary and fair outcomes within ten working days starting on the date on which the online platform received the complaint . In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of entering, in good faith, an out-of-court dispute settlement of disputes, including those that could not be resolved in satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost-effective manner and within a reasonable period of time . The possibilities to contest decisions of online platforms thus created should complement, yet leave unaffected in all respects, the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned.

Amendment 50

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (46) Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner. Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations and semi-public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right-holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions. The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (43). (46) Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers , acting within their designated area of expertise, through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, and expeditiously, taking into account due process and without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in an objective manner. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded , for a period of two years, to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner and have transparent funding structure. The Digital Services Coordinator should be allowed to renew the status where the trusted flagger concerned continues to meet the requirements of this Regulation . Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations , consumer organisations, and semi-public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. Trusted flaggers should publish easily comprehensible and detailed reports on notices submitted in accordance with Article 14. Those reports should indicate information such as notices categorised by the entity of the provider of hosting services, the type of content notified, the legal provisions allegedly breached by the content in question, and the action taken by the provider. The reports should also include information about any potential conflict of interest and sources of funding as well as the procedure put in place by the trusted flagger to retain its independence. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right-holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions and respect for exceptions and limitations to intellectual property rights . The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (43). In order to avoid abuses of the status of trusted flagger, it should be possible to suspend such status when a Digital Service Coordinator of establishment opened an investigation based on legitimate reasons. The suspension should not be longer than the time needed to conduct the investigation and should be maintained if the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment concluded that the entity in question could still be considered as a trusted flagger.

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (46a) The strict application of universal design to all new technologies and services should ensure full, equal and unrestricted access for all potential consumers, including persons with disabilities, in a way that takes full account of their inherent dignity and diversity. It is essential to ensure that providers of online platforms, which offer services in the Union, design and provide those services in accordance with the accessibility requirements, set out in Directive (EU) 2019/882. In particular, providers of online platforms should ensure that information provided, forms provided and procedures that are in place are made available in a manner that they are easy to find, easy to understand, and accessible to persons with disabilities.

Amendment 52

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (47) The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing manifestly illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfounded notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate and proportionate safeguards against such misuse. Information should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Under certain conditions, online platforms should temporarily suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish stricter measures in the case of manifestly illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditions of the online platforms. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law. (47) The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing i