68 Amendments of Aurore LALUCQ related to 2020/0374(COD)
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by providing new business opportunities in the Union and facilitating cross-border trading. They serve as essential facilities for the digital economy by providing access to critical infrastructures. Furthermore, they could play an important role in safeguarding the freedom and pluralism of the media, including by disseminating news and by facilitating public debate.
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) A small number of large providers of core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services which, in turn, allows them to leverage their advantages, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of their activity to new ones. Some of these providers exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient these may be. Contestability is particularly reduced due to the existence of very high barriers to entry or exit, including high investment costs, which cannot, or not easily, be recuperated in case of exit, and absence of (or reduced access to) some key inputs in the digital economy, such as data. As a result, the likelihood increases that the underlying markets do not function well – or will soon fail to function well. In addition, there are unjustified advantages for digital platforms in the form of circumvention constructions in the payment of profit taxes and in the employment conditions of platform workers, which further distort competition.
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The combination of those features of gatekeepers is likely to lead in many cases to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users as well as end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, privacy, security standards, funding of traditional publishers, choice and innovation therein.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) A fragmentation of the internal market can only be effectively averted if Member States are prevented from applying national rules which are specific to the types of undertakings and services covered by this Regulation. At the same time, since this Regulation aims at complementing the enforcement of competition law, it should be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to the corresponding national competition rules and to other national competition rules regarding unilateral behaviour that are based on an individualised assessment of market positions and behaviour, including its likely effects and the precise scope of the prohibited behaviour, and which provide for the possibility of undertakings to make efficiency and objective justification arguments for the behaviour in question. However, the application of the latter rules should not affect the obligations and prohibitions imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation and their uniform and effective application in the internal market.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, operating systems, online social networking, video sharing platform services, number- independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services and online advertisingocial networking, number-independent interpersonal communication services, online search engines, operating systems, web browsers, online advertising services, cloud computing services, mobile payment services, digital voice assistants, platforms using integrated voice assistant technologies, video sharing platform services and online on-demand audiovisual media services and audio media services all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes. _________________ 32Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The fact that a digital service qualifies as a core platform service in light of its widespread and common use and its importance for connecting business users and end users does not as such give rise to sufficiently serious concerns of contestability and unfair practices. It is only when a core platform service constitutes an important gateway and is operated by a provider with a significant impact in the internal market and an entrenched and durable position, or by a provider that will foreseeably have such a position in the near future, that such concerns arise. Accordingly, the targeted set of harmonised rules laid down in this Regulation should apply only to undertakings designated on the basis ofthat fulfill these three objective criteria or are designated on the basis of those, and they should only apply to those of their core platform services that individually constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation to providers of core platform services which are most likely to satisfy these objective requirements, and where unfair conduct weakening contestability is most prevalent and impactful, the Commission should be able to directly designate as gatekeepers those providers of core platform services which meet certain quantitative thresholds. Such undertakings should in any event be subject to a fast designation process which should be automatically deemed to be gatekeepers. Since the quantitative threshould start upon the entry into force of this Regulations are objective requirements, no further designation by the Commission is necessary.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) A very significant turnover in the Union and the provision of a core platform service in at least threone Member States constitutes compelling indications that the provider of a core platform service has a significant impact on the internal market. This is equally true where a provider of a core platform service in at least threone Member States has a very significant market capitalisation or equivalent fair market value. Therefore, a provider of a core platform service should be presudeemed to have a significant impact on the internal market where it provides a core platform service in at least threone Member States and where either its group turnover realised in the EEA is equal to or exceeds a specific, high threshold or the market capitalisation of the group is equal to or exceeds a certain high absolute value. For providers of core platform services that belong to undertakings that are not publicly listed, the equivalent fair market value above a certain high absolute value should be referred to. The Commission should use its power to adopt delegated acts to develop an objective methodology to calculate that value. A high EEA group turnover in conjunction with the threshold of users in the Union of core platform services reflects a relatively strong ability to monetise these users. A high market capitalisation relative to the same threshold number of users in the Union reflects a relatively significant potential to monetise these users in the near future. This monetisation potential in turn reflects in principle the gateway position of the undertakings concerned. Both indicators are in addition reflective of their financial capacity, including their ability to leverage their access to financial markets to reinforce their position. This may for example happen where this superior access is used to acquire other undertakings, which ability has in turn been shown to have potential negative effects on innovation. Market capitalisation can also be reflective of the expected future position and effect on the internal market of the providers concerned, notwithstanding a potentially relatively low current turnover. The market capitalisation value can be based on a level that reflects the average market capitalisation of the largest publicly listed undertakings in the Union over an appropriate period.
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Provision should also be made for the assessment of the gatekeeper role of providers of core platform services which do not satisfy all of the quantitative thresholds, in light of the overall objective requirements that they have a significant impact on the internal market, act as an important gateway for business users to reach end users and benefit from a durable and entrenched position in their operations or it is foreseeable that it will do so in the near future as well as in light of their actual or potential market share or market dominance in the relevant market.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Designated gGatekeepers should comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation in respect of each of the core platform services listed in the relevant designation decision. The mandatory rules should apply taking into account the conglomerate position of gatekeepers, where applicable. Furthermore, implementing measures that the Commission may by decision impose on the gatekeeper following a regulatory dialogue should be designed in an effective manner, having regard to the features of core platform services as well as possible circumvention risks and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the fundamental rights of the undertakings concerned as well as those of third parties.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) The very rapidly changing and complex technological nature of core platform services requires a regular review of the status of gatekeepers, including those that are foreseen to enjoy a durable and entrenched position in their operations in the near future. To provide all of the market participants, including the gatekeepers, with the required certainty as to the applicable legal obligations, a time limit for such regular reviews is necessary. It is also important to conduct such reviews on a regular basis and at least every two yearfour years for designated gatekeepers to assess whether they continue to satisfy the requirements, and at least every year to assess whether new providers of core platform services satisfy those requirements.
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) To ensure the effectiveness of the review of gatekeeper status as well as the possibility to adjust the list of core platform services provided by a gatekeeper, the gatekeepers should inform the Commission of all of their intended and concluded acquisitions of other providers of core platform services or any other services provided within the digital sconcentrations within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or any agreement or series of agreements having a substantially similar effector. Such information should not only serve the review process mentioned above, regarding the status of individual gatekeepers, but will also provide information that is crucial to monitoring broader contestability trends in the digital sector and can therefore be a useful factor for consideration in the context of the market investigations foreseen by this Regulation. To safeguard the fairness and contestability of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, any concentration by undertakings that have been considered as gatekeepers for more than two years should be forbidden by default, unless the specific concentration is indisputably not impeding contestable and fair markets in the digital sector. The burden of proof for this lies on the gatekeeper.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) To safeguard the fairness and contestability of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, it is necessary to provide in a clear and unambiguous manner for a set of harmonised obligations with regard to those services. Such rules are needed to address the risk of harmful effects of unfair practices imposed by gatekeepers, to the benefit of the business environment in the services concerned, to the benefit of users and ultimately to the benefit of society as a whole. Given the fast-moving and dynamic nature of digital markets, and the substantial economic power of gatekeepers, it is important that these obligations are effectively applied without being circumvented. To that end, the obligations in question should apply to any practices by a gatekeeper, irrespective of its form, including through the use of dark patterns or manipulative choice architectures, and irrespective of whether it is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, insofar as a practice corresponds to the type of practice that is the subject of one of the obligations of this Regulation.
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The conduct of combining end user data from different sources or signing in users to different services of gatekeepers gives them potential advantages in terms of accumulation of data, thereby raising barriers to entry. To ensure that gatekeepers do not unfairly undermine the contestability of core platform services, they should enable their end usand in orders to freely choose to opt-in to such business practices by offering a less personalised alternative. The possibility should cover all possible sources of personal data, including own services of the gatekeeper as well as third party websites, and should be proactively presented to the end user in an explicit, clear and straightforward mannerimpede business models that are based on the collection of users’ personal data, combining personal data should be prohibited.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation service or availability, through other distribution channels. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation servicedistribution channels, limiting inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediadistribution channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepbe prohibited that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price or availability. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or, de-listing or less favourable ranking of the offers of business users.
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To safeguard a fair commercial environment and protect the contestability of the digital sector it is important to safeguard the right of business users to raise concerns about unfair behaviour by gatekeepers with any relevant administrative, judicial or other public authorities. For example, business users may want to complain about different types of unfair practices, such as discriminatory access conditions, unjustified closing of business user accounts or unclear grounds for product de-listings. Any practice that would in any way inhibit such a possibility of raising concerns or seeking available redress, for instance by means of confidentiality clauses in agreements or other written terms, should therefore be prohibited. This should be without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use including the use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms, including any use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or of the jurisdiction of specific courts in compliance with respective Union and national law This should therefore also be without prejudice to the role gatekeepers play in the fight against illegal content online.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) Gatekeepers should not restrict the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services or through product design. Gatekeepers should therefore ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and should not raise artificial technical barriers so as to make switching impossible or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to end users, including by means of pre- installation, as well the improvement of end user offering, such as better prices or increased quality, would not in itself constitute a barrier to switching.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) The advertising revenues for many online advertising services, such as traditional publishers, have significantly declined, whereas the advertising revenues for gatekeepers have steadily increased1a. The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are very often non- transparent and opaque. This opacity is plartgely linked to the practices of a few platforms, but is also due to the sheer complexity of modern day programmatic advertising. The online advertising sector is considered to have become more non- transparent after the introduction of new privacy legislation, and is expected to become even more opaque with the announced removal of third-party cookies. This often leads to a lack of trustworthy information and knowledge for advertisers and publishers about the conditions of the advertising services they purchased and undermines their ability to switch to alternative providers of online advertising services or build their own service. Furthermore, the costs of online advertising are likely to besignificantly higher than they would be in a fairer, more transparent and contestable platform environment. These higher costs are likely to be reflected in the prices that end users pay for many daily products and services relying on the use of online advertising. Transparency obligations should therefore require gatekeepers to provide advertisers and publishers to whom they supply online advertising services, when requested and to the extent possible,In addition, a few dominant platforms have gathered significant sets of data and data points, which erodes the exclusive trademarks of publishers and advertisers and extracts their client's data, creating unfair competition. Transparency obligations should therefore require gatekeepers to provide advertisers and publishers to whom they supply online advertising services continuous, real-time and free of charge access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and provide for entire disclosure and transparency of the parameters and data used for with information that allows both sides to understand the price paid for each of the different advertising services provided as part of the relevant advertising value chain. A gatekeeper should further provide, free of charge, reliable, non-aggregated, granular and complete data necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent high-quality and real-time evaluation of intermediation services, including verification of the ad inventory. Moreover, a prohibition on combining data sets should prevent tracking of end users and thereby level the playing field for providers of online advertising services, strengthening funding of public media and restoring privacy of end users. _________________ 1ahttps://trackingfreeads.eu/the-costs-of- tracking-ads/
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or, software application stores or ancillary services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users from un- -installing any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications, without prejudice to applications essential for the integrity of the service, operating system or the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third parties.
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The rules that the gatekeepers set for the distribution of software applications may in certain circumstances restrict the ability of end users to install and effectively use third party software applications or software application stores on operating systems or hardware of the relevant gatekeeper and restrict the ability of end users to access these software applications or software application stores outside the core platform services of that gatekeeper. Such restrictions may limit the ability of developers of software applications to use alternative distribution channels and the ability of end users to choose between different software applications from different distribution channels and should be prohibited as unfair and liable to weaken the contestability of core platform services. The end user should be required to decide which software application or software application store should become the default. In order to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper the gatekeeper concerned may implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system.
Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) Gatekeepers are often vertically integrated and offer certain products or services to end users through their own core platform services, or through a business user over which they exercise control or cooperate with which frequently leads to conflicts of interest. This can include the situation whereby a gatekeeper offers its own online intermediation services through an online search engine. When offering those products or services on the core platform service, gatekeepers can reserve a better position to their own offering, in terms of ranking, as opposed to the products of third parties also operating on that core platform service. This can occur for instance with products or services, including other core platform services, which are ranked in the results communicated by online search engines, or which are partly or entirely embedded in online search engines results, groups of results specialised in a certain topic, displayed along with the results of an online search engine, which are considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine. Other instances are those of software applications which are distributed throughSuch preferential or embedded display should constitute an inadmissible preference, irrespective of whether the information or results may also be provided by competing services and are as such ranked in a non-discriminatory way. Inadmissible preferencing can also take place in other instances, such as software application stores, or products or services that are given prominence and display in the newsfeed of a social network, or products or services ranked in search results or displayed on an online marketplace, or products or services listed in core platform service settings, or the results provided by a virtual assistant. In those circumstances, the gatekeeper is in a dual-role position as intermediary for third party providers and as direct provider of products or services of the gatekeeper. Consequently, these gatekeepers have the ability to undermine directly the contestability for those products or services on these core platform services, to the detriment of business users which are not controlled by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 220 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) Gatekeepers can hamper the ability of end users to access online content and services including software applications. Therefore, rules should be established to ensure that the rights of end users to access an open internet are not compromised by the conduct of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can also technically limit the ability of end users to effectively switch between different Internet access service providers, in particular through their control over operating systems or hardware. This distorts the level playing field for Internet access services and ultimately harms end users. It should therefore be ensured that gatekeepers do not unduly restrict end users in choosing their Internet access service provider.
Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51 a (new)
Recital 51 a (new)
(51 a) Interoperability can have a direct positive impact on contestability, fairness on the market and consumer welfare. Thus, interoperability which requires platforms to use open protocols, such as Application Programming Interface, lowers significantly the barriers to entry for potential competitors on the market, as it would grant competitors access to existing networks and allow them to participate therein. This would as well allow competing platforms to offer their internal systems to users whose data lives elsewhere thereby enabling them to chose an equivalent consumer friendly alternative and at the same time enhance contestability.
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non- transparent and opaque. This often leads to a lack of information for advertisers and publishers about the effect of a given ad. To further enhance fairness, transparency and contestability of online advertising services designated under this Regulation as well as those that are fully integrated with other core platform services of the same provider, the designated gatekeepers should therefore provide advertisers and publishers, when requested, with a continuous, real-time and free of charge access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessaryprovide for entire disclosure and transparency of the parameters and data used for decision making, execution and measurement of the intermediation services for advertisers, advertising agencies acting on behalf of a company placing advertising, as well as for publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the provision of the relevant online advertising services. A gatekeeper should further provide, free of charge, reliable, non-aggregated, granular and complete data necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent high-quality and real-time evaluation of intermediation services, including verification of the ad inventory. This should include data relating to all parameters used by gatekeepers or services belonging to the same undertaking in the context of an advertising intermediation services in order to determine the outcome of such intermediation and corresponding prices for advertisements or charges for any intermediation service provided either on the buy-side or the sell-side.
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
Recital 55
(55) Business users that use large core platform services provided by gatekeepers and end users of such business users provide and generate a vast amount of data, including data inferred from such use. In order to ensure that business users have access to the relevant data thus generated, the gatekeeper should, upon their request, allow unhindered access, free of charge, to such data. Such access should also be given to third parties contracted by the business user, who are acting as processors of this data for the business user. Data provided or generated by the same business users and the same end users of these business users in the context of other services provided by the same gatekeeper may be concerned where this is inextricably linked to the relevant request. To this end, a gatekeeper should not use any contractual or other restrictions to prevent business users from accessing relevant data and should enable business users to obtain consent of their end users for such data access and retrieval, where such consent is required under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. Gatekeepers should also facilitate access to these data in real time by means of appropriate technical measures, such as for example putting in place high quality application programming interfaces.
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) The value of online search engines to their respective business users and end users increases as the total number of such users increases. Providers of online search engines collect and store aggregated and anonymised datasets containing information about what users searched for, and how they interacted with, the results that they were served. Providers of online search engine services collect these data from searches undertaken on their own online search engine service and, where applicable, searches undertaken on the platforms of their downstream commercial partners. Access by gatekeepers to such ranking, query, click and view data constitutes an important barrier to entry and expansion, which undermines the contestability of online search engine services. Gatekeepers should therefore be obliged to provide access and technical cooperation, on fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory terms, to these ranking, query, click and view data in relation to free and paid search generated by consumers on online search engine services to other providers of such services, so that these third-party providers can optimise their services and contest the relevant core platform services. Such access should also be given to third parties contracted by a search engine provider, who are acting as processors of this data for that search engine. When providing access to its search data, a gatekeeper should ensure the protection of the personal data of end users by appropriate means, without substantially degrading the quality or usefulness of the data. Furthermore, gatekeepers should ensure organic search results are given an equal ranking as sponsored and paid- for results.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) The data protection and privacy interests of end users are relevant to any assessment of potential negative effects of the observed practice of gatekeepers to collect and accumulate large amounts of data from end users. EIn order to ensuringe an adequate level of transparency of profiling practices employed by gatekeepers facilitates contestability of core platform services, by puttingdata and consumer protection, external pressure should be put on gatekeepers to prevent making deep consumer profiling the industry standard, in particular given that potential entrants or start-up providers cannot access data to the same extent and depth, and at a similar scale. Enhanced transparency should allow other providers of core platform services to differentiate themselves better through the use of superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. To ensure a minimum level of effectiveness of this transparency obligation, gProviders of core platform services should commit to superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. Business models that are based on the commercial tracking and profiling of consumers should be proscribed. To that end the mixing of data from different services should be prohibited. Gatekeepers should at least provide a description of the basis upon which profiling is performed, including whether personal data and data derived from user activity is relied on, the processing applied, the purpose for which the profile is prepared and eventually used, the impact of such profiling on the gatekeeper’s services, and the steps taken to enable end users to be aware of the relevant use of such profiling, as well as to seek their consent. Such information should be shared with other relevant enforcement authorities, in particular Data Protection Authorities.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) In the event that gatekeepers engage in behaviour that is unfair or that limits the contestability of the core platform services that are already designated under this Regulation but without these behaviours being explicitly covered by the obligations, the Commission should be able to update this Regulation through delegated acts. Such updates by way of delegated act should be subject to the same investigatory standard and therefore following a market investigation. The Commission should also apply a predefined standard in identifying such behaviours. This legal standard should ensure that the type of obligations that gatekeepers may at any time face under this Regulation are sufficiently predictable.
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) In order to ensure effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation, the Commission, supported by the Member States authorities, should have strong investigative and enforcement powers, to allow it to investigate, enforce and monitor the rules laid down in this Regulation, while at the same time ensuring the respect for the fundamental right to be heard and to have access to the file in the context of the enforcement proceedings. The Commission should dispose of these investigative powers also for the purpose of carrying out market investigations for the purpose of updating and reviewing this Regulation.
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71 a (new)
Recital 71 a (new)
(71 a) The Commission should be empowered to request the assistance of Member State authorities. The relevant national authorities may include competition authorities, consumer protection authorities and data protection authorities and other relevant national regulators.
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 74 a (new)
Recital 74 a (new)
(74 a) Consumers should be entitled to enforce their rights in relation to the obligations imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation through collective redress actions in accordance with Directive (EU) 2020/1818.
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down harmonised rules ensuring contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and plurality of media across the Union where gatekeepers are present.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 6
Article 1 – paragraph 6
6. This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It is also without prejudice to the application of: national rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices and abuses of dominant positions; national competition rules prohibiting other forms of unilateral conduct insofar as they are applied to undertakings other than gatekeepers or amount to imposing additional obligations on gatekeepers; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200438 and national rules concerning merger control; Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Regulation (EU) …./.. of the European Parliament and of the Council39 . It is as well without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150; Regulation (EU) 2016/679; Directive 2002/58/EC and Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 93/13/EEC. _________________ 38Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1). 39Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) web browsers;
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) online on-demand audiovisual media services;
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c b (new)
(c b) online on-demand audio media services;
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d a (new)
(d a) voice assistants;
Amendment 306 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d b (new)
(d b) mobile payment services;
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
(g) software as a service including cloud computing services;
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h
(h) advertising services, including any advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, provided by any undertaking of the provider of any of the core platform services listed in points (a) to (g);
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Amendment 327 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
(7 a) "Online on-demand audiovisual media service" means a service as defined in point (g) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2010/13;
Amendment 328 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new)
(7 b) "Online on-demand audio media service" (i.e. a non-linear audio media service) means an audio media service provided by a media service provider for the listening of programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service provider;
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
(8 a) "Voice assistants" means software that responds to oral or written commands and performs tasks such as executing search queries, accessing and interacting with other digital services on behalf of the end user;
Amendment 330 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 b (new)
(8 b) "Mobile payment service" means a payment service performed from or via a mobile device;
Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
(10 a) "Software as a service" means a method of software delivery in which software is accessed online via a subscription;
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18
(18) ‘Ranking’ means the relative prominence given to goods or services offered or provided through online intermediation services or, online social networking services, video-sharing platform services, operating systems, web browsers, or the relevance given to search results by online search engines, as presented, organised or communicated by the providers of online intermediation services or of online social networking services or by providers of online search enginsuch services, respectively, whatever the technological means used for such presentation, organisation or communication;
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18 a) ’Search results’ means any information in any format, including texts, graphics, voice or other output, returned by core platform services provider in response and related to a written or oral search query, irrespective of whether the information is an organic result, a paid result, a direct answer or any product, service or information offered in connection with, or displayed along with, or partly or entirely embedded in, the organic results;
Amendment 357 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – title
Article 3 – title
3 DesignQualification ofas gatekeepers
Amendment 359 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A provider of core platform services ishall be designated as gatekeeper if:
Amendment 360 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users or end users to reach other end users or business users; and
Amendment 363 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. A provider of core platform services shall be presudeemed to satisfy:
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least threone Member States;
Amendment 374 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last threewo financial years.
Amendment 377 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where a provider of core platform services meets all the thresholds in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission thereof within three months after those thresholds are satisfied and provide it with the relevant information identified in paragraph 2.. That notification shall include the relevant information identified in paragraph 2 for each of the core platform services of the provider that meets the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). The notification shall be updated whenevbe considered as a gatekeeper and shall comply with all its obligations under other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b)urrent Regulation.
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 426 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission shall regularly, and at least every 24 years, review whether the in line with Article 3 (6) designated gatekeepers continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 3(1), and at least every year or whether new providers of core platform services satisfy those requirements. The regular review shall also examine whether the list of affected core platform services of the gatekeeper needs to be adjusted. The review shall not have any suspending effect on the obligations.
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall publish and update the list of gatekeepers and the list of the core platform services for which they need to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 on an on-going basis. The Commission shall publish an annual report setting out the findings of its monitoring activities and present it to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
Amendment 436 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) refrain fromnot combininge personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from other core platform services, any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and fromnot sign ing in business users and end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and provided consent in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ;
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services or through its own online services or distribution channels at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
Amendment 454 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain fromnot directly or indirectly preventing or restricting business users and end users from raising issues with any relevant public authority or judicial authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers;
Amendment 458 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain fromnot requiringe business users nor end users to use, offer or interoperate with any ancillary or identification service of the gatekeeper itself, or third parties belonging to the same undertaking, in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;
Amendment 465 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) refrain fromnot requiringe business users or end users to use, subscribe to or register with any other core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3 or which meets the thresholds in Article 3(2)(b) as a condition to access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Articleservice of the gatekeeper as a condition to access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services nor achieve the same result through product design, nor automatically sign users of a core platform service into any such services owned or controlled by the gatekeeper;
Amendment 467 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(f a) not require the acceptance of supplementary conditions that have by their nature or according to commercial usage, no connection with and are not necessary for the provision of the platform or services to its business users;
Amendment 473 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) provide advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, with information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, on a continuous and real-time basis, with complete information concerning the price- setting mechanisms and schemes for the calculation of the fees as well as the price and fees paid by the advertiser and publisher, including any deductions and surcharges as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper.;
Amendment 477 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) allow business users to opt out of new, modified or updated terms and conditions requested by the core platform service provider if such modifications to the terms and conditions are not the result of an existing or new legal requirement, and ensure that business users remain listed on the core platform service without experiencing a reduced or downgraded level of service;
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(g b) not use any data that has been generated in the relationship between business users and end users which is not also available to the business user itself;
Amendment 489 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
(g c) not pre-install any software applications on its core platform services, unless those applications are essential for the integrity of the service, operating system or the device and cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third-parties;