103 Amendments of José GUSMÃO related to 2020/0374(COD)
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) By approximating diverging national laws, obstacles to the freedom to provide and receive services, including retail services, within the internal market should be eliminated. A targeted set of harmonised mandatory rules should therefore be established at Union level to ensure contestable, sustainable and fair digital markets featuring the presence of gatekeepers within the internal market.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, online browser, operating systems, online social networking, video sharing platform services, streaming services, number- independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services, voice- controlled virtual assistants and online advertising 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 143 #
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 of two of these three objective criteria, 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 151 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) A sustained market capitalisation of the provider of core platform services at or above the threshold level over three or morewo years should be considered as strengthening the presumption that the provider of core platform services has a significant impact on the internal market.
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) An entrenched and durable position in its operations or the foreseeability of achieving such a position future occurs notably where the contestability of the position of the provider of the core platform service is limited. This is likely to be the case where that provider has provided a core platform service in at least three Member States to a very high number of business users and end users during at least threewo years.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Providers of core platform services which meet the quantitative thresholds but are able to present sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, in the circumstances in which the relevant core platform service operates, they do not fulfil the objective requirements for a gatekeeper, should not be designated directly, but only subject to a further investigation. The burden of adducing evidence that the presumption deriving from the fulfilment of quantitative thresholds should not apply to a specific provider should be borne by that provider In its assessment, the Commission should take into account only the elements which directly relate to the requirements for constituting a gatekeeper, namely whether it is an important gateway which is operated by a provider with a significant impact in the internal market with an entrenched and durable position, either actual or foreseeable. Any justification on economic grounds seeking to demonstrate efficiencies deriving from a specific type of behaviour by the provider of core platform services should be discarded, as it is not relevant to the designation as a gatekeeper. The Commission should be able to take a decision by relying on the quantitative thresholdsdesignate the gatekeeper where the provider significantly obstructs the investigation by failing to comply with the investigative measures taken by the Commission.
Amendment 175 #
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 business acquisitions of other providers of core platform services or any other services provided within the digital sector. 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 and under merger control law.
Amendment 185 #
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 users to freely choose to opt-in to such business practices by offering a lessnot personalised alternative. The options should be presented in an equally appealing way to the end user. 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 manner.
Amendment 189 #
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 services or through the business users own direct online sales 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 accepted 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, de- ranking or de-listing of the offers of business users.
Amendment 193 #
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 or other public authorities. For example, business users, end users or civil society organisations 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 199 #
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. 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 206 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) A gatekeeper may in certain circumstancesshould not have a dual role as a provider of core platform services whereby it provides a core platform service to its business users, while also competing with those same business users in the provision of the same or similar services or products to the same end users. In these circumstances, aThe gatekeeper mayshould not take advantage of its dual role to use data, generated from transactions by its business users on the core platform, for the purpose of its own services that offer similar services to that of its business users. This may be the case, for instance, where a gatekeeper provides an online marketplace or app store to business users, and at the same time offer services as an online retailer or provider of application software against those business users. To prevent gatekeepers from unfairly benefitting from their dual role, it should be ensured that they refrain from using any aggregated or non-aggregated data, which may include anonymised and personal data that is not publicly available to offer similar services to those of their business users. This obligation should apply to the gatekeeper as a whole, including but not limited to its business unit that competes with the business users of a core platform service.
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) In such situations, the gatekeeper should not engage in any form of differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking on the core platform service, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, in favour of products or services it offers itself or through a business user which it controls. To ensure that this obligation is effective, it should also be ensured that the conditions that apply to such ranking are also generally fair. Ranking should in this context cover all forms of relative prominence, including display, rating, linking or voice results. To ensure that this obligation is effective and cannot be circumvented it should also apply to any measure that may have an equivalent effect to the differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking. The guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 should also facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this obligation.34 _________________ 34Commission Notice: Guidelines on ranking transparency pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 424, 8.12.2020, p. 1).
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Gatekeepers should not restrict or prevent the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services. This would allow more providers to offer their services, thereby ultimately providing greater choice to the end user. Gatekeepers should 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 shall not raise artificial technical barriers so as to make switching impossible or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to consumers, including by means of pre-installation, as well as the improvement of the offering to end users, such as price reductions or increased quality, should not be construed as constituting a prohibited barrier to switching.
Amendment 221 #
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 241 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) In particular gatekeepers which provide access to software application stores 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 stores, those, gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access 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 conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store 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 store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store 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 stores to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in Regulation [Digital Services Act].
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) To ensure the effectiveness of the obligations laid down by this Regulation, while also making certain that these obligations are limited to what is necessary to ensure contestability and tackling the harmful effects of the unfair behaviour by gatekeepers, it is important to clearly define and circumscribe them so as to allow the gatekeeper to immediately comply with them, in full respect of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, consumer protection, cyber security and product safety. The gatekeepers should ensure the compliance with this Regulation by design. The necessary measures should therefore be as much as possible and where relevant integrated into the technological design used by the gatekeepers. However, it may in certain cases be appropriate for the Commission, following a dialogue with the gatekeeper concerned, to further specify some of the measures that the gatekeeper concerned should adopt in order to effectively comply with those obligations that are susceptible of being further specified. This possibility of a regulatory dialogue should facilitate compliance by gatekeepers and expedite the correct implementation of the Regulation.
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) In order to ensure the full and lasting achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should be able to assess whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper without meeting the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation; whether systematic non- compliance by a gatekeeper warrants imposing additional remedies; and whether the list of obligations addressing unfair practices by gatekeepers should be reviewed and additional practices that are similarly unfair and limiting the contestability of digital markets should be identified. Such assessment should be based on market investigations to be run in an appropriate timeframe, by using clear procedures and legally binding deadlines, in order to support the ex ante effect of this Regulation on contestability and fairness in the digital sector, and to provide the requisite degree of legal certainty.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remediesstructural remedies or equally effective behavioural are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematic non- compliance with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, which has further strengthened its gatekeeper position. This would be the case if the gatekeeper’s size in the internal market has further increased, economic dependency of business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services has further strengthened as their number has further increased and the gatekeeper benefits from increased entrenchment of its position. The Commission should therefore in such cases have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. Structural remedies, such as legal, functional or structural separation, including the divestiture of a business, or parts of it, should only be imposed either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the undertaking concerned than the structural remedy. Changes to the structure of an undertaking as it existed before the systematic non-compliance was established would only be proportionate where there is a substantial risk that this systematic non-compliance results from the very structure of the undertaking concerned.
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
Recital 72
(72) The Commission should be able to take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with the obligations laid down in this Regulation. Such actions should include the ability of the Commission to appoint independent external experts, such as and auditors to assist the Commission in this process, including where applicable from competent independent authorities, such as data or consumer protection authorities. The experts may be embedded within the gatekeeper to ensure the monitoring process.
Amendment 279 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Recital 75
Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 a (new)
Recital 79 a (new)
(79 a) A small number of companies developed a market dominance by acquiring an unprecedented level about people’s lives and replaced services of a diverse and decentralised system with open standards by “walled gardens” with locked-in users; therefore, this Regulation should introduce additional obligations regarding data protection, transparency, user choice and interoperability in order to guarantee a level playing field and consumer welfare.
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 b (new)
Recital 79 b (new)
(79 b) In order to guarantee proper enforcement of this regulation, the Commission should be equipped with sufficient staff to guarantee harmonised enforcement, proper monitoring of compliance by gatekeepers and qualitative market investigations across the EU. Therefore, the estimated budget for the number of staff should be raised in order to sufficiently prepare the Commission to face all the task attributed by this regulation.
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 c (new)
Recital 79 c (new)
(79 c) The proposal for an ‘empowered and strategic’ High Level Multi stakeholder Body for Digital Cooperation in the UN´s "Roadmap for Digital Cooperation" runs counter and calls for stronger regulation of digital companies. While international cooperation is of highly importance, a genuinely democratic approach for global digital governance should be upheld. To that end, obligations for gatekeepers and enforcement measurers of this Regulation should contribute to the development of appropriate global norms and polices.
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down harmonised rules ensuring contestable, sustainable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers apre presentvent with their monopolistic ecosystems a level playing field.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Article 1 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall not impose on gatekeepers further obligations by way of laws, regulations or administrative action for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to rules pursuing other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. In particular, nNothing in this Regulation precludes Member States from imposing obligations, which are compatible with Union law, on undertakings, including providers of core platform services where these obligations are unrelated to the relevant undertakings having a status of gatekeeper within the meaning of this Regulation in order to protect consumers or to fight against acts of unfair competition.
Amendment 300 #
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 imposcluding 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 . _________________ 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 321 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h a (new)
(h a) streaming services
Amendment 322 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h b (new)
(h b) voice-controlled virtual assistants;
Amendment 324 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h c (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h c (new)
(h c) online browsers;
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if two of the following criteria apply:
Amendment 375 #
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 381 #
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 month10 days 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 whenever other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b).
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. The Commission shall, without undue delay and at the latest 630 days after receiving the complete information referred to in paragraph 3, designate the provider of core platform services that meets all the thresholds of paragraph 2 as a gatekeeper, unless that provider, with its notification, presents sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, in the circumstances in which the relevant core platform service operates, and taking into account the elements listed in paragraph 6, the provider does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1.
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. The Commission may identify as a gatekeeper, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15, any provider of core platform services that meets each of the requirements of paragraph 1, but does not satisfy each of the thresholds of paragraph 2, or has presented sufficiently substantiated arguments in accordance with paragraph 4.
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point f a (new)
(f a) the employment of data- intelligence to coordinate, organise and control the entire set of activities and actors involved, often described as digital ecosystems.
Amendment 410 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 413 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 4
Where the provider of a core platform service that does not satisfy the quantitative thresholds of paragraph 2 fails to comply with the investigative measures ordered by the Commission in a significant manner and the failure persists after the provider has been invited to comply within a reasonable time-limit and to submit observations, the Commission shall be entitled to designate that provider as a gatekeeper based on facts available.
Amendment 424 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8
Article 3 – paragraph 8
8. The gatekeeper shall comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 within sixtwo months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.
Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the Commission, on the basis of that review pursuant to the first subparagraph, finds that the facts on which the designation of the providers of core platform services as gatekeepers was based, have changed, it shall adopt a corresponding decision and shall be made public.
Amendment 434 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) refrain from combining and, or cross-using personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and from signing in 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. The specific choice shall not subvert or impair consumers’ autonomy, decision-making, or choice via the structure, function or manner of operation of their online interface or any part thereof;
Amendment 445 #
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 and through own direct online sales channels of the business user at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
Amendment 456 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from preventing or restricting business or end users from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers;
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an identificationancillary service of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;
Amendment 475 #
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 all non-price criteria in the auction process, the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, 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 480 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) not avail themselves of consent by way of derogation from Regulation (EU) 2016/679, as a legal ground for processing of personal data in order to target natural persons for purposes of digital advertising;
Amendment 483 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(g b) allow users to un-install any pre- installed software applications or change default settings on its core platform service, without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to restrict such un- installation in relation to software applications that are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third parties;
Amendment 487 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
(g c) refrain from using, in competition with business users, any data not publicly available, which is generated through activities by those business users, including by the end users of these business users, of its core platform services or provided by those business users of its core platform services or by the end users of these business users.
Amendment 492 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 498 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 525 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain from technically restricting the ability of and non- technical tactics to restrict end users to switch between and subscribe to different software applications and services to be accessed using the operating system of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access provider for end users;
Amendment 535 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) allow business users, end users and providers of ancillary or core services access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary or core services;
Amendment 571 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k b (new)
(k b) ensure that its services, including user interfaces, are accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Article 13 of Directive (EU) 2019/882. It shall also ensure that business users which rely on its core platform services to reach consumers for offering services and products in the scope of Directive(EU) 2019/882, comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2019/882;
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(k a) refrain from practices that obstruct the option to unsubscribe from a core platform service, whereas the subscription is easily facilitated. In practice, both processes shall be equally demanding for business and end users;
Amendment 577 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k c (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k c (new)
(k c) refrain from having a dual role as a provider of core platform services whereby it provides a core platform service to its business users, while also competing with those same business users in the provision of the same or similar services or products to the same end users;
Amendment 582 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k d (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k d (new)
(k d) refrain from any act of concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, unless the gatekeeper can demonstrate that the act of concentration promotes competition and consumer welfare significantly.
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The measures implemented by the gatekeeper toshall ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 shall be effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation. The gatekeeper shall ensure that these measuresthat the measures implemented to comply with Article 5 and 6 are implemented in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, and with legislation on cyber security, consumer protection and product safety.
Amendment 598 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. The Commission shall adopt such a decision within sixthree months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 and make that decision public.
Amendment 611 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. In specifying the measures under paragraph 2, the Commission shall ensure that the measures are effective in achieving the objectives of the relevant obligation and proportionate in the specific circumstances of the gatekeeper and the relevant service.
Amendment 613 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Amendment 621 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 630 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), exempt it, in whole or in part, from a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 in relation to an individual core platform service identified pursuant to Article 3(7), where such exemption is justified on the grounds set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Commission shall adopt the exemption decision at the latest 3 months after receiving a complete reasoned request.
Amendment 634 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 636 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 34 to update the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 where, for reasons of public interest or based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified the need for new obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.
Amendment 638 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 642 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) there is an imbalance of rights and obligations on end users or business users and the gatekeeper is obtaining an advantage from business users that is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users; or
Amendment 654 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. A gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5 and 6, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult. The gatekeeper shall not subvert or impair consumers’ autonomy, decision-making, or choice via the structure, function or manner of operation of their online interface or any part thereof while those consumers are exercising those rights or specific choices.
Amendment 662 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A gatekeeper shall inform the Commission of any intended concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving another provider of core platform services or of any other services provided in the digital sector irrespective of whether it is notifiable to a Union competition authority under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or to a competent national competition authority under national merger rules.
Amendment 670 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The notification pursuant to paragraph 1 shall at least describe for the merger or acquisition targets their EEA and worldwide annual turnover, for any relevant core platform services their respective EEA annual turnover, their number of yearly active business users and the number of monthly active end users, as well as the rationale of the intended concentration. The rationale shall demonstrate that the intended concentration will not stifle but promote competition and consumer welfare. The Commission shall publish the notification.
Amendment 676 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. The Commission shall publish annually the list of acquisitions of which it has been informed by gatekeepers.
Amendment 681 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Within six months after its designation pursuant to Article 3, a gatekeeper shall submit to the Commission an independently audited description of any techniques for profiling of consumersemployment of data-intelligence to coordinate, organize and control the entire set of activities and actors involved including techniques for profiling of consumers, especially in view of pricing, offers and ranking that the gatekeeper applies to or across its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3. This description shall be updated at least annually.
Amendment 683 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. When the Commission intends to carry out a market investigation in view of the possible adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 15, 16 and 17, it may consider the advice of end users and civil society organisations, and shall adopt a decision opening a market investigation.
Amendment 685 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission may conduct a market investigation for the purpose of examining whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(6), or in order to identify core platform services for a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(7). It shall endeavour to conclude its investigation by adopting a decision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) within twelvesix months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 688 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Amendment 691 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 695 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. When the Commission pursuant to Article 3(6) designates as a gatekeeper a provider of core platform services that does not yet enjoy an entrenched and durable position in its operations, but it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future, it shall declare applicable to that gatekeeper only obligations laid down in Article 5(b) and Article 6(1) points (e), (f), (h) and (i) as specified in the designation decision. The Commission shall only declare applicable those obligations that are appropriate and necessary to prevent that the gatekeeper concerned achieves by unfair means an entrenched and durable position in its operations. The Commission shall review such a designation in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4.
Amendment 700 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – title
Article 16 – title
Market investigation into systematic non- compliance
Amendment 701 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Where the market investigation shows that a gatekeeper has systematically infringed the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and has further strengthened or extended its gatekeeper position in relation to the characteristics under Article 3(1), the Commission may by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) impose on such gatekeeper any behavioural or structural remedies which are proportionate to the infringement committed and necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulationstructural or equally effective behavioural remedies. The Commission shall conclude its investigation by adopting a decision within twelvesix months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 705 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 707 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Amendment 713 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
Article 16 – paragraph 4
4. A gatekeeper shall be deemed to have further strengthened or extended its gatekeeper position in relation to the characteristics under Article 3(1), where its impact on the internal market has further increased, especially in new segments of the market, its importance as a gateway for business users to reach end users has further increased or the gatekeeper enjoys a further entrenched and durable position in its operations.
Amendment 715 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 6
Article 16 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission may at any time during the market investigation extend its duration where the extension is justified on objective grounds and proportionate. The extension may apply to the deadline by which the Commission has to issue its objections, or to the deadline for adoption of the final decision. The total duration of any extension or extensions pursuant to this paragraph shall not exceed six months.The Commission may consider commitments pursuant to Article 23 and make them binding in its decisionthree months.
Amendment 718 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The Commission may conduct a market investigation with the purpose of examining whether one or more services within the digital sector should be added to the list of core platform services or to detect types of practices that may limit the contestability of core platform services or may be unfair and which are not effectively addressed by this Regulation. It shall issue a public report at the latest within 124 months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 725 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When the Commission adopts a decision opening a proceeding, all relevant findings and information shall be gathered in a report, which is to be presented to the European Parliament and the Member States and be made accessible publicly on the official website of the European Commission.
Amendment 735 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23
Article 23
Amendment 743 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. The actions pursuant to paragraph 1 may include the appointment of independent external experts and auditors to be embedded within the gatekeeper and to assist the Commission to monitor the obligations and measures and to provide specific expertise or knowledge to the Commission.
Amendment 747 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall, within six month from opening a proceeding according to Article 18, adopt a non- compliance decision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4) where it finds that a gatekeeper does not comply with one or more of the following:
Amendment 748 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 754 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. In the non-compliance decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall order the gatekeeper to cease and desist with the non-compliance within an appropriate deadlinetwo month and to provide explanations on how it plans to comply with the decision.
Amendment 757 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – title
Article 26 – title
Fines and remedies
Amendment 758 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In the decision pursuant to Article 25, the Commission may impose on a gatekeeper fines not exceeding 10% of its total turnover in the preceding financial year or structural and equally effective behavioural remedies where it finds that the gatekeeper, intentionally or negligently, fails to comply with:
Amendment 765 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 771 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The powers conferred on the Commission by Articles 26 and 27 shall be subject to a threfive year limitation period.
Amendment 775 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Before adopting a decision pursuant to Article 7, Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Articles 15, 16, 22, 23, 25 and 26 and Article 27(2), the Commission shall give the gatekeeper or undertaking or association of undertakings concerned, including third parties affected by the conduct of the gatekeeper concerned, the opportunity of being heard on:
Amendment 788 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 a (new)
Article 32 a (new)
Article 32 a Users Panel Each designated gatekeeper shall have a dedicated users panel compo-sed of an equal number of randomly selected representatives of business users and end users. a) The process of selection of the user representatives in the user panel shall be based on online, voluntary application submission mechanisms followed by methods of sortition, as a random sample from a larger pool of voluntary candidates. b) The user panel shall inform the Commission about unfair behaviour of the gatekeeper or potential non- compliance with Articles 5 and 6. c) The user panel has the right to be informed before the Commission adopts relevant decisions concerning Articles 5 and 6.
Amendment 795 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When three or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 15, 16 and 17 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper, does not comply with this regulation or its new services and practices need to be examined, the Commission shall within four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation.
Amendment 800 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. For the effective enforcement of this Regulation, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law shall apply. To this end, persons pursuant to Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 shall be encouraged to report breaches of Union law to a competent national authority, which shall transmit it to the Commission and the Digital Markets Advisory Committee. The reported transgression shall be assessed and enforced within three months of transmission to the Commission and the Digital Market Advisory Committee.
Amendment 806 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 34 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Meetings between representatives of gatekeepers and members of the Digital Market Advisory Committee and the Commission shall be registered and published monthly in line with the EU transparency register. To this end, the registration in the EU transparency register shall be mandatory for gatekeepers, undertakings and associations of undertakings pursuant to Article 3(1) of this Regulation.
Amendment 807 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) further specification of accessibility requirements of point (m - new) of Article 6;
Amendment 819 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 39 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. This Regulation shall apply from sixthree months after its entry into force.