BETA

6 Amendments of Pascal ARIMONT related to 2020/0374(COD)

Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a regulation
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 services or their own websites or 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 services, limiting inter- platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation 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 acceppermitted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. 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.
2021/06/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
(42) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non- transparent, complex and opaque. This opacity is partly linked to the practices of a few platforms, but is also due to the sheer complexity of modern day programmatic advertising. The 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 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. Furthermore, the costs of online advertising are likely to be 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, withith free of charge, effective, high quality, continuous and real-time 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 and the availability and visibility of advertisement.
2021/06/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
(57) In particular gGatekeepers which provide access to software application storcore platform services serve as an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application storcore platform services, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, data usage conditions or conditions related to the licensing of rights held by the business user that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access or treatment conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access or treatment conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application storcore platform services; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application storecore platform services for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application storecore platform services for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application storecore platform services for the same service the gatekeeper offers to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right and it should be without prejudice to the ability of providers of software application storcore platform services to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in Regulation [Digital Services Act].
2021/06/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h a (new)
(ha) web browsers;
2021/06/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
(10a) ‘Web browsers’ are software used by users of client PCs, smart mobile devices and other devices to access and interact with web content hosted on servers that are connected to networks such as the Internet, including standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar;
2021/06/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access and treatment for business users to its software application storcore platform services, in particular to its software application store, online search engine and to its online social networking service designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.
2021/06/30
Committee: JURI