Debate: Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Date: MONDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2020
Speaker: Margrethe Vestager
Language: EN

We will respond to your initiatives with two legislative proposals: the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, and this will reflect ideas. Fundamentally we share the same goals. I think that is most obvious. We want to better protect citizens when they use the internet, whether that is in protection against illegal goods, services, content online. As it was put, we need to make sure that as we feel safe offline we should feel safe online.  Also, to better secure the freedom of expression online. This of course, as you have heard already, is a tricky balance to strike. To achieve this, we need to lay down a solid and impactful EU—wide accountability framework. Obviously that has to come with enforcement, because words alone will not do it; then it would be just window dressing. The balance we will have to strike here is of course that we will have to say to some of the gatekeepers, the largest platforms, that things will change.  Europe is open and we will do this in full compliance with our international obligations, also because we would want to work with the rest of the world to set new standards. In order to do so, we intend to break down legal barriers in the internal market and combat unfair practices by gatekeeper platforms. This will help European innovators, small businesses, to scale, to grow, to be able to compete for our attention, to compete for our business.  With the Digital Services Act I think two things have stood the test of time: no general monitoring of user content is one; and, second, a well—balanced system of liability, and the internal market as the core.  But things have changed, so obviously we also need to set out in law the responsibilities that platforms must have in relation to their role as societal and economic impactors, as they are. This is one of the reasons why we’re working on this Digital Markets Act in parallel with the Digital Services Act. This regulation will specifically target large digital gatekeepers defined by objective criteria, setting out a clear list of ‘dos and don’ts’ in full compliance again, of course, with international obligations. It will also provide for a market investigation framework to address digital markets that may be prone to market failure and prone to the creation of new gatekeepers.  On artificial intelligence, let me thank also MEP Ibán García Del Blanco for the intense work. I really welcome Parliament’s contribution here. This is ground—breaking, this has not been done before. We share the same ambition to create a sound and future—proof legal framework for trustworthy artificial intelligence in Europe so that people can benefit from AI—driven products and services that are safe and that respect European fundamental rights and values. For this we need an AI framework that creates new opportunities for European businesses to innovate, to scale up. We ought to be the global hub for AI Made in Europe and set the global standard for trustworthy AI. We want to fully leverage the potential of AI while mitigating associated risks, and I think we all recognise that this is the balance. We will be discussing this back and forth and back and forth, because it is indeed a balance to be struck as not every AI implies a risk. High—risk applications of AI should be put under intense scrutiny. However, we should not define high—risk AI so broadly that it creates legal uncertainty and disproportionately overburdens businesses or hampers innovation. We need to form a framework that is future—proof, and I expect that we will engage in this very intensely because it is indeed a balance.  We also welcome the report for dealing with liability for AI, and here Axel Voss has done outstanding work. It’s very impressive, and we agree that the current liability rules are challenged by AI characteristics. Our institutions also agree on the objective for liability aiming for the same level of protection for victims of AI—related damages, and victims of damages of other technologies. I think that is a very sound and straightforward principle. For what concerns the Product Liability Directive, the Commission appreciates the Parliament report. We will carefully consider it and then we will discuss. On the Parliament report on intellectual property (IP) rights, I think that shows the pivotal role of IP rights for the EU to become a leader in artificial intelligence. Without this, it will not happen, and we want to thank also MEP Stéphane Séjourné for his excellent work. We need an EU IP framework that enables innovations in the field of AI technologies. Companies in the European Union, must be able to efficiently protect but also to share their inventions in the field of AI technologies. That is what will create excellence in artificial intelligence. Thank you again also for this ground—breaking work.  Last, but not least, I think this will be an amazing debate. We have started it, I think, already in the best possible manner. One of the delights is to see how there is convergence between the different reports, between the thinking of the Commission and what Parliament is proposing here. I think that is very strong because that shows citizens that what we want to create is a society where technology serves humans, where humans are empowered, where humans are in control. We don’t want a society where people feel estranged, feel that there is the risk that some machine will take some decision in complete transparency without knowing if their rights are actually being fulfilled. We have one generation to do this. This is now, it is happening, and I do hope that you will recognise many of these valuable points in what we suggest. I’m looking forward not only to the debate today, not only to the proposals, but also to the debate that we will have to make sure that we get a strong European regulatory framework that can actually be enforced in real life.