Activities of Marisa MATIAS related to 2020/0374(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital Markets Act (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act)
Amendments (134)
Amendment 89 #
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 also bring new challenges to democratic societies.
Amendment 106 #
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 109 #
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 116 #
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 more years should be considered as strengthening the presumption that the provider of core platform services has a significant impact on the internal market.
Amendment 121 #
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 ion at least three Member Statesthe internal market to a very high number of business users and end users during at least three years.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Such thresholds can be impacted by market and technical developments. The Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify the methodology for determining whether the quantitative thresholds are met, and to regularly adjust it to market and technological developments and a more qualitative approach where necessary. This is particularly relevant in relation to the threshold referring to market capitalisation, which should be indexed in appropriate intervals.
Amendment 124 #
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 In its quantitative and quantlitative 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 thresholds where the provider significantly obstructs the investigation by failing to comply with the investigative measures taken by the Commission.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Designated gatekeepers 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 138 #
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 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 competition law, especially on mergers and acquisitions.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users, and ultimately possibly on democracy and fundamental rights too. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, following an in-depth investigation, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations.
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are necessary to address identified public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result, having regard to need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial or manipulative practices.
Amendment 150 #
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 less personalised alternative, by default and as first option, a not personalised model. These 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 154 #
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. 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. 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 158 #
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, end users and civil organisations to raise concerns about unfair behaviour by gatekeepers with any relevant administrative or other public authorities. For example, business users, end users and civil 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 166 #
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 172 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) A gatekeeper may in certain circumstances 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, a 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 180 #
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 with which they have entered into particular cooperation agreements or which they prefer due to other reasons unrelated to their service’s actual relevance, 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 armay be considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine. Such preferential or embedded display of a separate online intermediation service should constitute a favouring irrespective of whether the information or results within the favoured groups of specialised results may also be provided by competing services and are as such ranked in a non-discriminatory way. Other instances are those of software applications which are distributed through 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 to which users are directed following a voice request by an end user to a digital voice 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 185 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) In such situations of a conflict of interest, the gatekeeper should not partly or entirely embed such distinct product or service in online search engines results or groups of results. However, it can rank its products or services, provided that it does 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 either 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 or cooperates with or prefers for any other reason. In particular, where a gatekeeper’s online search engine results page includes the ranking of separate products or services, third parties should be afforded equal opportunity to rank their product or service in the same format and on the same terms and conditions. Should this take place in exchange for remuneration, to avoid any conflict of interest, the gatekeeper’s separate product or service should be treated as a separate commercial entity and should be commercially viable as a stand-alone service, offered outside of the gatekeeper’s core platform service. To ensure that this obligation is effective, it should also be ensured that the conditions that apply to such ranking are also generally fair and the gatekeeper's own products or services do not have more access to information about the ranking or any other competition-relevant aspects than products or services of third parties. 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. Such an equivalent effect can for instance be achieved by ad formats that are used by users in a similar manner to the gatekeeper's or third parties' online intermediation services, or that benefit the gatekeeper in a similar manner to the preferential treatment in ranking itself (e.g. in terms of financial gains, user access/traffic or data access). 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 188 #
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 190 #
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 194 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) Gatekeepers may also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device may restrict access to some of the functionalities in this device, such as near-field-communication technology and the software used to operate that technology, which may be required for the effective provision of an ancillary service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third party provider of such an ancillary service. Such access may equally be required by software applications related to the relevant ancillary services in order to effectively provide similar functionalities as those offered by gatekeepers. If such a dual role is used in a manner that prevents alternative providers of ancillary services or of software applications to have access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services, this could significantly undermine innovation by providers of such ancillary services as well as choice for end users of such ancillary services. The gatekeepers should therefore be obliged to ensure access under equal conditions to, and interoperability and portability with, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of any ancillary services by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) Gatekeepers may also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device may restrict access to some of the functionalities in this device, such as near-field-communication technology and the software used to operate that technology, which may be required for the effective provision of an ancillary service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third party provider of such an ancillary service. Such access may equally be required by software applications related to the relevant ancillary services in order to effectively provide similar functionalities as those offered by gatekeepers. If such a dual role is used in a manner that prevents alternative providers of ancillary services or of software applications to have access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services, this could significantly undermine innovation by providers of such ancillary services as well as choice for end users of such ancillary services. The gatekeepers should therefore be obliged to ensure access under equal conditions to, and interoperability with, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of any ancillary services by the gatekeeper.
Amendment 211 #
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 and in no way be used to water down obligations and measures for gatekeepers.
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality,interest, such as public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability.
Amendment 225 #
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 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 227 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) Following a market investigation, an undertaking providing a core platform service could be found to fulfil all of the overarching qualitative criteria for being identified as a gatekeeper. It should then, in principle, comply with all of the relevant obligations laid down by this Regulation. However, for gatekeepers that have been designated by the Commission as likely to enjoy an entrenched and durable position in the near future, the Commission should only impose those obligations that are necessary and appropriate to prevent that the gatekeeper concerned achieves an entrenched and durable position in its operations. With respect to such emerging gatekeepers, the Commission should take into account that this status is in principle of a temporary nature, and it should therefore be decided at a given momenttemporary, and that a decision should be taken as soon as possible, according to Article 33, whether such a provider of core platform services should be subjected to the full set of gatekeeper obligations because it has acquired an entrenched and durable position, or conditions for designation are ultimately not met and therefore all previously imposed obligations should be waived.
Amendment 228 #
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 proportionalityHaving due regard to the principle of proportionality, the Commission can impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural. 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 230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
(65) The services and practices in core platform services and markets in which these intervene can change quickly and to a significant extent. To ensure that this Regulation remains up to date and constitutes an effective and holistic regulatory response to the problems posed by gatekeepers, it is important to provide for a regular review of the lists of core platform services as well as of the obligations provided for in this Regulation. This is particularly important to ensure that behaviour that may limit the contestability of core platform services or is unfair is identified. While it is important to conduct a review on a regular basis, given the dynamically changing nature of the digital sector, in order to ensure legal certainty as to the regulatory conditions, any reviews should be conducted within a reasonable and appropriate time-frame, at least every two years, in line with Article 4. Market investigations should also ensure that the Commission has a solid evidentiary basis on which it can assess whether it should propose to amend this Regulation in order to expand, or further detail, the lists of core platform services. They should equally ensure that the Commission has a solid evidentiary basis on which it can assess whether it should propose to amend the obligations laid down in this Regulation or whether it should adopt a delegated act updating such obligations.
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
(67) Where, in the course of a proceeding into non-compliance or an investigation into systemic non- compliance, a gatekeeper offers commitments to the Commission, the latter should be able to adopt a decision making these commitments binding on the gatekeeper concerned, where it finds that the commitments ensure effective compliance with the obligations of this Regulation. This decision should also find that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission.
Amendment 242 #
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 could be embedded within the gatekeeper to ensure the monitoring process.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Recital 75
(75) In the context of proceedings carried out under this Regulation, the undertakings concerned should be accorded the right to be heard by the Commission and the decisions taken should be widely publicised. While ensuring the rights to good administration and the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned, in particular, the right of access to the file and the right to be heard, it is essential that confidential information, be protected, while having due respect to the whistleblower directive. The undertaking should demonstrate a legitimate interest in what it claims as confidential information. It should be up to the Commission to decide ultimately. Furthermore, while respecting the confidentiality of the information, the Commission should ensure that any information relied on for the purpose of the decision is disclosed to an extent that allows the addressee of the decision to understand the facts and considerations that led up to the decision. Finally, under certain conditions certain business records, such as communication between lawyers and their clients, may be considered confidential if the relevant conditions are met.
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) The Commission should periodically evaluate this Regulation and closely monitor its effects on the contestability and fairness of commercial relationships in the online platform economy, in particular with a view to determining the need for amendments in light of relevant technological or commercial developments and according to Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This evaluation should include the regular review of the list of core platform services and the obligations addressed to gatekeepers as well as enforcement of these, in view of ensuring that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair. In order to obtain a broad view of developments in the sector, the evaluation should take into account the experiences of Member States and relevant stakeholders. The Commission may in this regard also consider the opinions and reports presented to it by the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy that was first established by Commission Decision C(2018)2393 of 26 April 2018 or from any consumers’ right and fundamental right organisation. Following the evaluation, the Commission should take appropriate measures. The Commission should to maintain a high level of protection and respect for the common EU rights and values, particularly equality and non- discrimination, as an objective when conducting the assessments and reviews of the practices and obligations provided in this Regulation.
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 – introductory part
Recital 79 – introductory part
(79) The objective of this Regulation is to ensure a contestable and fair digital sector in general and core platform services in particular, avoid lock-in effects, with a view to promoting innovation, high quality of digital products and services, fair and competitive prices, as well as data protection, transparency, user informed and free choice and interoperability in order to guarantee a level playing field and consumer welfare, a high quality and transparent choice for end users in the digital sector. This cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can only, by reason of the business model and operations of the gatekeepers and the scale and effects of their operations, be fully achieved at Union level. The Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 a (new)
Recital 79 a (new)
(79 a) 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.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79 b (new)
Recital 79 b (new)
(79 b) Obligations for gatekeepers and enforcement measures under this regulation should contribute to the development of ambitious global norms and policies.
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down harmonised rules ensuring a level playing field and contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present.
Amendment 270 #
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 277 #
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 280 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(a) online intermediation services, including online retail services;
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
(b) online search engines and browsers;
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
(g) cloud computing services, including business to business cloud;
Amendment 294 #
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 296 #
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 300 #
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) embedded digital services in vehicles;
Amendment 306 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6 a) ‘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;
Amendment 324 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘Ancillary service’ means services provided in the context of or together with core platform services, including retailing activities, payment services as defined in point 3 of Article 4 and technical services which support the provision of payment services as defined in Article 3(j) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, fulfilment, identification or advertising services;
Amendment 328 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18 a) ‘Search result’ is any information in any format, including texts, graphics, voice or other output, returned 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 335 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
(23 a) ‘algorithm main parameter’ means any general criteria, processes, specific signals incorporated into algorithms or other adjustment or demotion mechanisms used in connection with the ranking;
Amendment 336 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 b (new)
(23 b) ‘interoperability’ means the ability of the digital content or digital service, legally acquired, within a given ecosystem, to function with hardware or software ecosystems different from the one in which the digital content or digital service was originally provided, including the ability to access the digital content or digital service without having to use an application software or other technologies for conversion;
Amendment 338 #
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 339 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market, including in facilitating public debate;
Amendment 341 #
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 or for other end users to reach end users; and
Amendment 346 #
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 650 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
Amendment 350 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 422.5 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union andor more than 105 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;
Amendment 353 #
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 357 #
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 month30 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 364 #
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 368 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Where the gatekeeper presents such sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that it does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1, the Commission shall apply paragraph 6 to assess whether the criteria in paragraph 1 are met nonetheless.
Amendment 374 #
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 377 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of the provider of core platform services taking into account any intended concentration notified in line with Article 12(1);
Amendment 379 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the number of business users or other end users depending on the core platform service to reach end users and the number of end users;
Amendment 380 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) the employment of data- intelligence to coordinate, organize and control the entire set of activities and actors involved, often described as digital ecosystems;
Amendment 384 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point f
(f) other structural market characteristics, other relevant business or service characteristics, such as a conglomerate corporate structure or vertical integration of the undertaking providing core platform services, for instance allowing cross subsidisation or combination of data from different sources.
Amendment 391 #
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 396 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 7
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. For each gatekeeper identified pursuant to paragraph 4 or paragraph 6, the Commission shall identify the relevant undertaking to which it belongs and list the relevant core platform services that are provided within that same undertaking and which individually serve as an important gateway for business users or for other end users to reach end users as referred to in paragraph 1(b).
Amendment 401 #
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 sixthree months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TBased on substantiated argumentation made public, the Commission may upon request or its own initiative reconsider, amend or repeal at any moment a decision adopted pursuant to Article 3 for one of the following reasons:
Amendment 406 #
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 which shall be made public.
Amendment 411 #
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 421 #
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 by any other means, including through third party online intermediation services and through the business users’ own direct online sales channels at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
Amendment 435 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from preventing or restricting business users, end users or supplier to the gatekeeper’s ancillary service from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers;
Amendment 444 #
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 450 #
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 concerningfree of charge, high-quality, granular, effective, continuous and real-time access, equivalent to that conferred upon the gatekeeper itself, to information on the visibility and availability of advertisement portfolio as well as pricing conditions concerning the bids placed by advertisers and advertising intermediaries, the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount orand 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 455 #
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 458 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(g b) allow 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 464 #
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 467 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g d (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g d (new)
(g d) provide business users with the algorithm’s main parameters of aggregation, selection and presentation of products and services offered by the gatekeeper and/or third party and gatekeeper’s recommendation system, including information on the functioning of the algorithm used;
Amendment 468 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g e (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g e (new)
(g e) refrain from embedding or treating differently or more favourably in ranking display, installation, activation, or default settings services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party compared to similar services or products of third parties and apply fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking, display, installation, activation and default settings;
Amendment 471 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g f (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g f (new)
(g f) refrain from displaying, in its online search engine, online social networking service or online intermediation service, in response to an end user query, advertising (including paid-for search results) or own services of the gatekeeper if the space occupied by such advertising or own services exceeds in total 25% of the initial result screen visible on the end user’s terminal(mobile, tablet, desktop or other);
Amendment 474 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g g (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g g (new)
(g g) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, granular, continuous and real-time access and use of non-aggregated data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; for personal data, provide access and use only where directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 while ensuring no data advantage is conferred upon the gatekeeper’s own core platform services as a result, including where necessary by placing restrictions on its own access to such data ;
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 488 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain from technicallyin any form from restricting the ability of 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 511 #
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 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 513 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(f a) allow end users of technologically protected digital content or digital service, legally acquired through third party services, access to and interoperability with the hardware or software features that are used by that gatekeeper when providing a similar technologically protected digital content or digital service; and allow end users of technologically protected digital content or digital service acquired through that gatekeeper access to and interoperability with the hardware or software features that are used by third party when providing a similar technologically protected digital content or digital service. Gatekeepers’ suppliers, as well as third-party hardware providers shall have the possibility to require gatekeepers to provide the necessary interoperability information to comply with the purpose of this Regulation.
Amendment 527 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 542 #
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 545 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k b (new)
(k b) ensure their services, including user interfaces, are accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Article 13 of Directive (EU) 2019/882. They shall also ensure that business users which rely on their core platform services to reach consumers for offering services and products in the scope of that Directive, comply with the requirements of that Directive;
Amendment 547 #
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 548 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k d (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k d (new)
(k d) refrain from tying and bundling any distinct products or services, or where distinct products or services are bundled, ensure the products are also offered separately to business users on reasonable terms and a non-discriminatory basis;
Amendment 549 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1 data that is not publicly available shall include any aggregated and non-aggregated data generated by business users or generated by goods and services provided by a supplier to the gatekeeper’s ancillary services notably distribution, that can be inferred from, or collected through, the commercial activities of business users or their customers on the core platform, distribution or other ancillary service of the gatekeeper.
Amendment 553 #
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 inthat the measures to comply with Articles 5 and 6 shall bare effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation. The gatekeeper shall ensure that these measures arely 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 561 #
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 and publish such a decision within sixthree months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.
Amendment 574 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
7. A gatekeeper may request the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 for the Commission to determine whether the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented under Article 6 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. A gatekeeper may, with its request, provide a reasoned submission to explain in particular why the measures that it intends to implement or has implemented are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances.
Amendment 576 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 585 #
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 ita gatekeeper, in whole or in part, for a limited period of time, 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 requestwithin 3 months.
Amendment 587 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. An exemption pursuant to paragraph 1 may only be granted on grounds of: public interest, public health or public security.
Amendment 588 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 589 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 590 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 593 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
In assessing the request, the Commission shall take into account, in particular, the impact of the compliance with the specific obligation on the grounds in paragraph 2 as well as the effects on the gatekeeper concerned and on third parties. The suspension, limited in time, may be made subject to conditions and obligations to be defined by the Commission in order to ensure a fair balance between the goals pursued by the grounds in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Regulation. Such a request may be made and granted at any time pending the assessment of the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 596 #
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 607 #
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. A 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 exercising those rights or specific choices.
Amendment 618 #
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 mergers and acquisitions of which it has been informed by gatekeepers.
Amendment 619 #
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 626 #
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 shall consider the advice of consumer organisations, and shall adopt a decision opening a market investigation.
Amendment 628 #
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 631 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. In the course of a market investigation pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall endeavour to communicate its preliminary findings to the provider of core platform services concerned within sixthree months from the opening of the investigation. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain whether it considers, on a provisional basis, that the provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3(6).
Amendment 634 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 639 #
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, hence preventing 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 645 #
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, including separation or divestiture of a business if appropriate, according to competition law, which are proportionate to the infringement committed andor necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The Commission shall conclude its investigation by adopting a decision within twelvesix months from the opening of the market investigation.
Amendment 647 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 650 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. A gatekeeper shall be deemed to have engaged in a systematic non- compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, where the Commission has issued at least three non-compliance or fining decisions pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 respectively against a gatekeeper in relation to any of its core platform services within a period of five years prior to the adoption of the decision opening a market investigation in view of the possible adoption of a decision pursuant to this Article. This circumstance shall be considered as an aggravating factor when setting fines and penalties.
Amendment 654 #
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, its importance as a gateway for business users to reach end users has further increased, especially in new segments of the market, or the gatekeeper enjoys a further entrenched and durable position in its operations.
Amendment 658 #
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 sixthree months. The Commission may consider commitments pursuant to Article 23 and make them binding in its decision, without prejudice to compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.
Amendment 659 #
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 663 #
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 Commission.
Amendment 669 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. On-site inspections may alsoust be carried out with the assistance of auditors or experts appointed by the Commission pursuant to Article 24(2)., with at least one expert in the field of consumers' rights. The Member States may recommend experts from their national authorities
Amendment 682 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. The actions pursuant to paragraph 1 mayust include the appointment of independent external experts and auditors including from competent independent national authorities, according to Article 32, or consumers' right organisations, to be granted full access within the gatekeeper and to assist the Commission to monitor the obligations and measures and to provide specific expertise or knowledge to the Commission. Such actions may include, inter alia, access to algorithms, in order to ensure compliance with Articles 5 and 6.
Amendment 694 #
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 deadlinesix months and to provide explanations on how it plans to comply with the decision.
Amendment 701 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 707 #
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 709 #
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 as well as third parties affected by the conduct of the gatekeeper the opportunity of being heard on:
Amendment 715 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Gatekeepers, undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned as well as third parties affected by the conduct of the gatekeeper may submit their observations to the Commission’s preliminary findings within a time limit which shall be fixed by the Commission in its preliminary findings and which may not be less than 14 days.
Amendment 722 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy shall not be interpreted beyond the scope of existing legislation on confidential information and shall in no way hamper the whistleblower directive. The undertaking needs to demonstrate a legitimate interest in what it claims as confidential information. It is ultimately up to the Commission to decide on the extent of confidentiality needed. Auditors and experts appointed by the Commission as well as representatives and experts of Member States may request a reasoned opinion on the Commission’s decision.
Amendment 724 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 a (new)
Article 31 a (new)
Amendment 730 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. WThere the opinion of the committee is to be obtained by written procedure, that chair of the committee shall endeavour to find solutions which command the widest possible support within the committee. The chair shall inform the committee of the manner in which the discussions and suggestions for amendments have been taken into account, in particular as regards those suggestions which have been largely supported within the committee. In duly justified cases, the chair may obtain the committee’s opinion by written procedure, in which case, this exceptional procedure shall be terminated without result when, within the time-limit for delivery of the opinion, the chair of the committee so decides or a simple majority of committee members so request.
Amendment 738 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When threone or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 15, 16 or 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 744 #
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 this directive 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 748 #
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 761 #
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.