COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online
Date: 2018-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, access to information, cross-border cooperation, digital single market, dissemination of information, fight against crime, freedom of expression, information, provision of services, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.9.2018  SWD(2018) 409 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online  {COM(2018) 640 final} - {SEC(2018) 397 final} - {SWD(2018) 408 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  

A. Need for action 

The  proliferation  of  terrorist  content  online  continues  to  be  a  strong  and  urgent  societal  and  political  concern. 
Despite a number of non-regulatory measures, online hosting services continue to be used for the dissemination 
of terrorist content. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  

This initiative aims to achieve greater trust in the online environment in the Digital Single Market by limiting the 
availability of terrorist content online, whilst ensuring a high level of security for EU citizens. Specifically, it aims 
to increase the effectiveness of measures to detect and remove terrorist content, while increasing transparency 
and  accountability  of  hosting  service  providers.  The  measure  also  aims  to  improve  the  ability  of  relevant 
authorities to intervene against terrorist content online, and to safeguard against the risk of erroneous removal of 
legal content, and the appropriate protection of fundamental rights.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  

Most online platforms operate across borders and enable the access to content regardless of where the users or 
the providers of information are located. Member States have legislated in the field of removal of illegal content 
online, but the need to ensure public security at national level has to be balanced with the fundamental freedom 
of provision of services and freedom of establishment under single market rules. 

A  patchy  framework  of  national  rules  is  appearing  or  risks  to  increase,  which  would  jeopardise  an  effective 
exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provider services in the EU, while also limiting the 
effectiveness of the fight against terrorist content online, as they would lead to increased compliance costs for 
businesses.  

Member  State  action  alone  cannot  effectively  address  the  challenge  of  limiting  availability  of  illegal  content 
online, given the nature of the services in question, and the emerging fragmentation of the internal market.  

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why?  

The  Impact  Assessment  considered  three  options  in  addition  to  the  baseline,  reflecting  a  similar  intervention 
logic with different degrees of intensity in terms of effectiveness and impact on fundamental rights. The building 
blocks for the options include:  

Provisions  to  harmonise  the  procedures  for  removal  or  disabling  access  to  terrorist  content  following  a 
removal  order  from  a  national  authority.  To  enable  the  procedures,  harmonisation  further  includes  a  common 
definition of terrorist content online (different definitions considered under the three options), as well as clarity 
concerning judicial redress available to hosting service providers and content providers against removal orders 
(common to all options).  

Provisions to ensure transparent processes and reporting to authorities and the Commission (similar across 
the options), would increase the accountability and trust in the content moderation process, and would support 
policy-makers  and  national  authorities  in  combatting  terrorist  content,  in  addition  to  allowing  users  to  better 
understand how hosting service providers apply their content management policies. 

Cooperation across national authorities and Europol (to different intensities across options) would improve 
their  ability  to  act  collectively  against  terrorist  content,  avoiding  duplication,  and  would  reduce  complexity  and 
costs  on  hosting  service  providers  in  interacting  with  national  authorities  when  offering  their  services  cross-
border.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  addition,  provisions  to  ensure  that,  in  those  cases  where  companies  are  exposed  to  terrorist  content,  the 
hosting  service  providers  put  in  place  appropriate  and  proportionate  measures  to  proactively  detect 
terrorist content (different requirements across options).  

Safeguards  (common  to  all  options)  and  provisions  to  ensure  that  measures  taken  to  detect  and  remove 
terrorist content do not lead to erroneous removal of legal content and comply with fundamental rights.  

Provisions to ensure that measures are enforceable (common to all options), including the establishment of 
legal representatives for non-EU companies, establishing points of contact and ensuring Member States have a 
coherent set of sanctions in place. 

The  report  presents  a  combination  of  the  measures  assessed  as  most  effective  in  tackling  terrorist  content 
online. It also presents an evaluation of the advantages of different building blocks in terms of effectiveness. 

The  Impact  Assessment  concludes  that  including  measures  such  as  a  comprehensive  definition  of  terrorist 
content,  requirements  to  remove  content  flagged  through  removal  orders  within  one  hour,  to  assess  referrals 
from both Europol and Member States, as well as requirements for hosting service providers exposed to terrorist 
content to take proactive measures to detect new terrorist content and prevent re-upload of known material, as 
well  as  a  robust  set  of  safeguards  against  erroneous  removal  of  legal  content  and  transparency  obligations 
would be more effective in achieving the policy objectives.  

Who supports which option?  
Hosting  service  providers  are  generally  supporting  the  baseline  option,  they  consider  the  full  effects  of  non-
regulatory  efforts  should  be  evaluated  first.  If  a  legal  instrument  is  adopted,  they  then  support  a  targeted 
intervention on specific issues of particular public value.  

Member  States  acknowledge  the  need  for  further  supporting  measures  (i.e.  continued  development  of  the 
baseline)  and  support  an  intervention  targeting  terrorist  content.  Member  States  highlighted  in  particular  the 
necessity  to  have  a  common  definition  of  terrorist  content,  requirements  for  action  upon  referrals,  proactive 
measures  as  well  as  transparency  and  measures  facilitating  that  removed  content  is  accessible  for  law 
enforcement purposes. The European Council called upon the Commission ‘to present a legislative proposal to 
improve the detection and removal of content that incites hatred and to commit terrorist acts. 

Civil society representing digital rights and academia have shown support to the evolution of the baseline. They 
have  advised  caution  on  some  components  included  in  the  regulatory  options,  in  particular  with  regards 
proactive measures and effects on fundamental rights. Individuals shared these concerns in their responses to 
the public consultation; a representative sample of citizens responding to a dedicated Eurobarometer supported 
additional measures at EU level against illegal content online. 

C. Costs and Benefits of the Preferred Option 

This  Impact  Assessment  details  costs  and  benefits  for  the  measures  included  under  each  option.  The 
assessment  concludes  that  option  3  is  most  effective.  The  policy  option  would  significantly  contribute  to 
achieving the policy objectives and bring most  benefit in relation to the scale and scope of the problem. While 
the  third  option  is  expected  to  have  the  highest  economic  impact  in  relation  to  expected  costs  and  additional 
administrative burden, it would also bring the highest benefits. 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

D. Follow up 

A  detailed  programme  of  monitoring  the  outputs,  results  and  impacts  of  the  legislation  will  be  established  in 
order  to  inform  the  evaluation.  The  monitoring  will  be  based  primarily  on  information  from  Member  States 
gathered  by  the  competent  authorities  during  the  course  of  their  duties  complemented  by  publicly  available 
transparency  reports.  Other  data,  in  particular  on  proactive  measures,  will  be  provided  by  hosting  service 
providers as part of their reporting obligations. This monitoring will in all options be complemented by research 
to  better  understand  the  spread  of  illegal  content  online,  as  well  as  tracking  the  technological  evolution 
concerning automated tools for illegal content removals.