Activities of Evelyne GEBHARDT related to 2020/2216(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital future of Europe: digital single market and use of AI for European consumers (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers
Amendments (66)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29 a (new)
Citation 29 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 20 January 2021 on strengthening the single market: the future of free movement of services,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the importance of a functioning digital single market and the ethical use of AI, robotics and related technologies for EU citizens, since they have the potential to tackle the challenges societies face, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with our social and democratic values, as it was demonstrated in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic; considers however, socio- economic, legal and ethical impacts have to be carefully addressed;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the importance of a functioning digital single market and the use of AI, robotics and related technologies for EU citizens, since they have the potential to tackle the challenges societies face, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic; and underlines that AI-based applications raise new, so far unresolved, legal questions that affect consumers;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas a dismantling of online and offline rules in the European Single Market and the DSM, respectively, has to be prevented at all costs and whereas the principle “what is illegal offline is illegal online” has to be respected;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that the use of self- learning algorithms enables businesses to gain a comprehensive insight about consumer’s personal circumstances and behaviour patterns, allowing them to tailor their advertising and contract terms to specific profiles thus exploiting consumer’s willingness to purchase goods and services as well as deploying scoring systems to decide whether a specific consumer can purchase a product or take up a service;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Maintains that SMEs and start-ups need to be supported in their digital transformation due to their limited resources; invites, therefore, the Commission to pursue a fitness check for SMEs before publishing legislation and to keep administrative burdens to a minimum by, inter alia, developing standards; as they are the backbone of Europe's economy; invites, therefore, the Commission to assess a proportionate approach to enable them to develop and innovate, including specific measures for the digitalisation of SMEs and start-ups in future legislation and to keep administrative burdens to a minimum by, inter alia, taking into account their position in every step of the digital transformation;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Maintains that SMEs need to be supported in their digital transformation due to their limited resources; invites, therefore, the Commission to pursue a fitness check for SMEs before publishing legislation and to keep administrative burdens to a minimum by, inter alia, developing standardwhile at the same time achieving the underlying policy objectives;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Acknowledges that market imbalances exist in relation to digital businesses that enjoy a significant market power, enabling them to impose their business practices on consumers and customers, and makes it increasingly difficult for other players, especially SMEs and start-ups, to compete and for new businesses to even enter the market;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Welcomes the launching of a new financing instrument, in the form of a co- investment facility of up to €150 million, to support artificial intelligence companies across Europe and asks to pay special attention to support SMEs and start-ups;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes the EU needs to become a world leader in digital innovation; considers that the digital single market is about removingensuring the full potential of new technologies, removing unjustified national barriers and having a better organised and common European approach for market integration and harmonisation; believes that further actions are needed at both Member State and EU level to achieve this;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes the EU needs to become a world leader in digital innovation; considers that the digital single market is about removing unjustified national barriers and having a better organised and common European approach for market integration and harmonisation; believes that further actions are needed at both Member State and EU level to achieve this;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the digital single market and AI are diverse and subject to quick and dynamic developments; urges the Commission to base proposals and initiatives on the right balance avoiding on the one hand an one-size-fits-all approach and on the other hand a fragmentation of the market through national approaches on the othere an harmonised and future-proof regulatory framework that is inspired by a humanistic and human-centric approach in technological development;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the digital single market and AI are diverse and subject to quick and dynamic developments; urges the Commission to baseput forward proposals and initiatives on the right balance avoiding on the one hand an one-size-fits-all approach andthat avoid a fragmentation onf the other hand a fragmentation of thdigital single market through divergent national approaches oin the otherfield of AI;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that a new regulatory framework for AI is needed focusing order to deal withn guaranteeing fundamental rights and establishing clear ethical principles, legal safeguards and liability in order to harness the potential risks of autonomous behaviour and to maximise the trust of and the benefit for users; invites, while safeguarding the best interests of EU citizens; invites, therefore, the Commission to propose a risk-based and innovation-friendly robust legislative framework for AI that focuses on identifying and closing gaps within existing legislation and being coherent with thewithout prejudice to existing sector- specific legislation;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that a new regulatory framework for AI is needed in order to deal with the potential risks of autonomous behaviourmated decision making and to maximise the trust of and the benefit for users; invites the Commission to propose a risk-based and innovation-friendly legislative framework for AI that focuses on identifying and closing gaps within existing legislation and being coherent with the existing sector-specific legislationprecautionary approach to the development and use of AI and automated decision making systems as well as a more gradual establishment of risks and corresponding legal requirements including preventive impact assessment in order to allow the banning of highly dangerous technologies;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the firm view that harmonised future-proof definitions of ‘AI’ and ‘high- risk’ should be future- proof to ensure legal clarity for consumers and businesses and should consider human oversight for high-risk AI applications; ; recalls that the risk based approach should take into account the potential that these technologies entail to breach fundamental rights and to cause any prejudice or harm to individuals or society at a whole; reminds that the development, deployment and use of any high-risk AI applications should guarantee full human oversight at any time and must include principles of transparency, safety, accessibility and accountability, non-discrimination and fairness, protection of privacy and personal data, good governance and be socially and environmentally sustainable;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that digitalisation and technologies such as AI will be important forcould potentially achievinge the objectives of the Green Deal and for economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis; considers that the COVID-19 crisis also offers an opportunity to speed up digitalisation, and that the digital transformation must serve the public interest overall;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the firm view that definitions of ‘AI’ and ‘high-risk’ should be future- proof to ensure legal clarity for consumers and businesses and should consider human oversight for high-risk AI applicationsa methodology and criteria are necessary to define the level of risk of an application, and that this process shall be subject to human oversight and control;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that the Commission should adopt a balanced approach to legislation in order to create a digital single market thatcreate a digital single market that ensures the provision of public services, is competitive, fair, accessible, technologically neutral, innovation- friendly, consumer-friendly, human- centric and trustworthy, and that builds a secure data society and economy and ensures that equal conditions prevail as regards tax payment, meaning in particular that leading internet companies pay their taxes where their profits are generated;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is convinced that existing legislation needs to be adapted to new technologies; askurges the Commission to adjustupdate inter alia the Product Liability Directive1 , in particular by redefining the terms ‘product’ and, ‘damage’, ‘defect’ and considreversing adjustments to the concept ofthe ‘burden of proof’, which should mirror the modifications to the General Product Safety Directive2 ; _________________ 1 2; OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p.29. OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to make a proposal for the introduction of a liability regime that is based on the proportion of control the party holds over the risk of the operation taking into account the development and the deployment phase and ensure compensation for non-material damages caused by AI;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Outlines that society, including consumers, should benefit from the responsible development and, deployment of AI whichand use of AI technologies that benefit citizens, generate opportunities for businesses and serves the good of society; asks the Commission, therefore, to define ethical rules for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies taking into account the principles of better regulationhat respect fundamental rights guaranteeing human dignity, autonomy and safety taking into account the principles of better regulation, emphasising on evidence and transparent processes involving citizens and stakeholders, including trade unions and consumers’ associations;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to follow the ‘one in, one out’ principle in its future legislative proposals, and to address the fragmentation of the digital single market, remove any existing unjustified barriers, and support innovation by reducing red tape;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Outlines that society, including consumers, should benefit from the responsible development and deployment of AI which serves the good of society; asks the Commission, therefore, to define ethical rulelegal rights and obligations for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies taking into account ethe principles of better regulationical standards;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that, for the training of AI, the free flow of data within the common data spaces of the digital single market is essential and this should be underpinned by thea solid underlying legal framework which promotes trust among businesses and includes, where necessary, appropriate and fair contractual rules addressing existing power or market imbalances, and ensuring a consumer- friendly approach to data access and control;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Asks the Commission to ensure properan ambitious enforcement of both current and any new legislative requirements; believes that enforcement needs to work effectively across borders and across sectors, with greater cooperation between authorities, and with due regard for the expertise and relevant competence of each authority; believes that the Commission should provide a guiding framework to ensure coordination for any new regulatory requirements on AI or related fields;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to increase support for key enablers ofinvestment in the digital economy;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to support the development of international standards to govern theRecalls the global dimension of the opportunities and risks implicit in AI technologies; calls on the Commission to promote consistent international cooperation that contributes to create synergies on AI between European entities as well as other multilateral fora to align efforts and to better coordinate the development of AI; urges the Commission to support multilateral efforts to discuss in relevant fora an effective international regulatory framework to guide the development, deployment and use of AI;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that consumers should always be informed in a timely clear and intelligible manner about the existence, process and rationale of algorithmic systems and that while consumers are already benefiting from strong data protection rules such as the GDPR3 and ePrivacy Directive4 it should be considered whether additional regulatory measures may be needed to address the power asymmetries between individuals and businesses arising from the growth of digital devices and the expansion of digital data that they generate; appreciates that the Commission foresees measures to empower individuals to exercise their rights, which must at least partly be based on civil law; _________________ 3 OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1. 4 OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p.37.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that citizens, as users and consumers, are already benefiting from strong data protection rules such as the GDPR3 and ePrivacy Directive4 ; appreciates that the Commission foresees measures ensuring full coordination and avoiding duplication of the data protection existing legislations to empower individuals to exercise their rights, which must at least partly be based on civil law; _________________ 3 4OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1. OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p.37.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to propose restrictions to the use of systems building on consumers’ commercial surveillance and to encourage the deployment of consumer-centric systems based on fair and non-discriminatory practices;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to ensure wider coordination of investment in the NextGenerationEU recovery plan; calls on the Commission to propose concrete actions within this plan to support key digital enablers and high impact technologies in the EU;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Asks the Commission to ensure that users are properly informed and that their rights are effectively guaranteed when they interact with automated decision-making systems and urges the Commission to concretise these rights in its future legislative proposal by translating them into enforceable rules so that automaticed decision- making systems do notpowered technologies serve consumers and do not harm them nor generate unfairly biased outputs for consumers in the single market;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that there is a significant lack of European venture and seed capital, as well as of private equity funding, when compared to its two biggest competitors; believes that this both prevents the EU from realising the full potential benefits of new technology, and also hinders the EU from influencing the global governance of new and emerging technologies; calls on the Commission and the Member States to propose a comprehensive European approach to increase sources of capital for technological investments in the EU as well as to ensure the availability of venture and seed capital for European companies and start-ups;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Regrets, that the Digital Europe programme as well as the Horizon Europe and Connecting Europe programmes do not dispose over higher budgets; urges the Commission to ensure that these programmes are deployed as soon as possible;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Asks the Commission to ensure that userscitizens, as users and consumers, are properly informed and that their rights are effectively guaranteed when they interact with automated decision-making systems and thata system uses AI, when AI systems personalise a product or service for its users, and when they interact with automaticed decision- making systems do not generate unfairly biased outputor are subjected to autonomous processes for consumers in the single marketdecisions that influence their experience with digital products and services;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to work to position the EU as leader in the adoption and standardisation process for new technologies; highlights the need to work with standardisation organisations, industry and also with international partners on setting global standards; considers the use of CEN Workshops Agreement in specific areas, such as AI and new emerging technologies, as a way to increase efficiency in creating harmonised standards;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to work to position the EU as leader in the adoption and standardisation process for new technologies ensuring that “AI made in Europe” is based on European values and norms in order to promote not only economic development but especially social welfare; highlights the need to work with industry and also with international partners on setting global standards;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recalls that bias in and discrimination by software, algorithms and data is unlawful; urges the Commission to propose measures to assure that automatic decision-making systems do not generate subjective, unjustifiable, unreasonable or illegitimate biased outputs for consumers in the single market;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Urges the Commission to ensure a strong protection for fundamental rights and users’ civil law rights in the forth-coming proposal for a Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Market Act (DMA), particularly in order to protect, inter alia, the freedom of expression and information and the freedom to provide services, and to protect users from harmful micro-targetingillegal content and harmful business practices based on targeting or the exploitation of data;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Outlines that it is unacceptable that users and consumers are exposed to unsafeillegal content as well as unsafe and counterfeit products and; therefore, increased responsibilities for online marketplaces are neededcontent hosting platforms and online marketplaces are needed to reinforce the digital single market; asks the Commission to set up clear rules for the responsibility of content hosting platforms, for the illegal content and for the goods sold or advertised on them in the DSA proposal in order to consider the consumer safeguards in place, which should be observed at all times, and the concomitant redress measures for retailers and consumers by inter alia close the legal gap in which the buyers failed to obtain the satisfaction to which he or she is entitled according to the law or the contract for the supply of goods, for example because of the inability to identify the primary seller (know your customer business principle);
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that we need a data economy that works for the entire EU, as it is a key enabler of digitalisation; believes that it is important for the EU to guarantee a high degree of control over data, with clear and balanced rules on inter alia intellectual property rights (IPR), but considers it essential to maintain openness towards third countries, and that the free flow of non-personal data across borders is important;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that we need a data economy that works for the entire EU, as it is a key enabler of digitalisation; believes that it is important for the EU to guarantee a high degree of consumers’ control over data, with clear and balanced rules on intellectual property rights (IPR), but considers it essential to maintain openness towards third countries, and that the free flow of non-personal data across borders is important;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that the use of smart contracts in the digital single market must be firmly foundealls on the Commission to assess the development and use of distributed ledger technologies including blockchain, namely smart contracts in the digital single market, provide guidance to ensure legal certainty for businesses and con civil and contract law in order to ensure the rights of businesses and consumerssumers, in particular the question of legality, enforcement of smart contracts in cross border situations, and notarisation requirements where applicable, and make proposals for the appropriate legal framework;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act proposed by the Commission; believes that this should contribute to supporting innovation, and removing unjustified and disproportionate barriers and restrictions to the provision of digital services while improving consumer protection;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that large platforms with significant network effects could act as de facto ‘online gatekeepers’ of the digital economy and urges the Commission to analyse the impact that the power of these large platforms have on the rights of users, consumers, start-ups and SMEs.;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls that the geo-blocking of online services constitutes a significant barrier to the Single Market, a derogation from the European economic freedoms on which the EU integration is based and an unjustified discrimination between European consumers; notes the Commission’s first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation and urges the Commission to continue its assessment with a pro-consumer approach and to consider proposing follow-up appropriate measures to approach the problems related to copyright-protected content such as audio-visual, music, e-books, and games;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Strongly believes that AI canIs of the view that AI can, if developed adequately, be a force for good for all European citizens, and offer significant benefits and value for the economy, safety, security, education, healthcare, transport and the environment; believes the security, inclusiveness, accessibility and fairness, especially for groups in vulnerable situations,of consumers considered as vulnerable of AI- driven products and services need to be ensured;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Supports the expected Revision of the General Product Safety Directive announced in the Commission’s New Consumer Agenda, underlines that the revision of the Directive must go hand in hand with a revision of the Product Liability Directive in order to adapt both Directives to the digital economy;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that while AI offers great potential, it can also present certainhigh risks due to issues such as bias and opacity;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that a lack of consumer trust and confidence can holds back the widespread adoption of AI;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s white paper on AI, and calls on the Commission to develop a common EU regulatory framework for AI that is risk-based, proportionate and clear, clear and futureproof;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that, while to varying degrees, AI is already subject to current European legislation, andAI raises new, so far unresolved, legal questions that affect consumers and thus calls on the Commission to issue clear guidance on the functioning and synergy between any current applicable legislation and any proposed new measures; considers it important not to over-regulate AI;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Points out that the use of self- learning algorithms enables businesses to gain a comprehensive insight about consumer’s personal circumstances and behaviour patterns, allowing them to tailor their advertising and contract terms to specific profiles thus exploiting consumer’s willingness to purchase goods and services as well as deploying scoring systems to decide whether a specific consumer can purchase a product or take up a service; thus calls on the Commission to comprehensively regulate AI technologies and to forbid an unfair or abusive use of such systems;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Believes the regulatory framework needs to build public trust in AI while allowing companies to develop automated systems without losing the confidence of their customercomprise safeguards and follow a precautionary approach to the development and use of AI and automated decision making systems as well as a more gradual establishment of risks and corresponding legal requirements including a right of information about the use of AI and automated decision making as well as preventive impact assessments in order to allow the banning of highly dangerous technologies; believes also that the regulatory framework should ensure transparency, accountability and provide for clear communication of the relevant requirements to both consumers and regulatory authorities;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Believes the regulatory framework needs to build public trust in AI while allowing companies to develop automated systems without losing the confidence of their customers; believes also that the regulatory framework should ensure transparency, and provide for clear communication of the relevant requirements to both consumers and regulatory authorities, and incentivise AI developers and deployers proactively to promote trustworthy AI;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Believes that such a framework should be based on an ethical, human- centric and principle-based approach throughout the design, development and life cycle of AI products based on the preservation of fundamental rights and the principles of transparency, explainability (when relevant), and accountability;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that a voluntary labelling scheme for trustworthy AI, based on clear and common guidance drawn up by the Commission, could help imponce clear legal rules and enforcement mechanisms are in place, the role of a trustworthy label could be considered while at the same time it is important to bear in mind that the information asymmetry inherent to algorithmic learning systems, makes the rovle consumer trustof labelling schemes very complex;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that a voluntary labelling scheme for trustworthy AI, based on clear and common guidance drawn up by the Commission, could improve transparency of AI-based technology and help improve consumer trust;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that a voluntary labelling scheme for trustworthy AI, based on clear and common guidance drawn up by the Commission, could help improve consumer trust and empowering them to make an ethical choice;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. cCalls on the Commission and the Member States to makconsider the use of innovative regulatory tools such as ‘regulatory sandboxes’ to help provide a clear path to scale-up for start-ups and small companies, regardless of the risk profile of their productcalls that such tools must be considered by making use of the precautionary principle; believes that these tools canshould help encourageing innovation without any detriment to consumer protection;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Believes that the use of high-risk AI should follow a precautionary approach and be limited to specific and clearly warranted purposes, in full respect of the applicable law and subject to transparency obligations; underlines that this will be decisive for ensuring safety and security, data and consumer protection, public trust and support for the necessity and proportionality of the deployment of such technologies; calls on the Commission to carefully consider whether there are certain use cases, situations or practices for which specific technical standards, including underlying algorithms, should be adopted; deems necessary, should such technical standards be adopted, that these are regularly reviewed and re-evaluated, given the fast pace of technological development;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Member States to encourage and support the establishment of specialisEU-certified review boards for AI products and services in the Member States to assess the potential benefits and potential harm stemming from high-risk, impactful AI- based projects;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls on the Commission to update the existing liability framework in order to address new challenges posed by emerging digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and urges the Commission to update inter alia the Product Liability Directive, in particular by redefining the terms ‘product’, ‘damage’ and ‘defect’ and reversing the concept of ‘burden of proof’, and calls on the Commission to introduce a liability regime that is based on the proportion of control the party holds over the risk of the operation taking into account the development and the deployment phase and ensure compensation for non-material damages caused by AI;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Notes that the development of AI technologies is expected to take diverse forms depending on the economic sector in question or the intended use; asks the Commission to consider the creation of a European Observatory of AI in order to monitor the different development of AI technologies at European and Member States’ level and better inform authorities and policy makers on emerging social, economic and legal issues to be addressed;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
33b. Considers that AI can, if developed and deployed adequately, be a formidable enabling technology but which can nonetheless pose serious challenges to the European environmental objectives set out in the Green Deal; highlights that studies have shown that training a single AI model can emit carbon dioxide in amounts comparable to that of five cars over their lifetimes; calls on the Commission to take into account the environmental footprint of AI technologies, including in their development phase, in order to ensure that the development of AI is in line with our European environmental objectives;