Digital Services Act

European Union regulation on digital services content

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065European Union regulation

Text with EEA relevance
Title| Regulation on a Single Market For Digital Services
Made by| European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Journal reference| OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102
History
Date made| 19 October 2022
Preparative texts
Commission proposal| COM/2020/825 final
Current legislation

The Digital Services Act[1] (DSA) is an EU regulation adopted in 2022 that addresses illegal content, transparent advertising and disinformation. It updates the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 in EU law,[2][3] and was proposed alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DSA applies to online platforms and intermediaries such as social networks, marketplaces and app stores.[4] Key requirements include disclosing to regulators how their algorithms work, providing users with explanations for content moderation decisions, and implementing stricter controls on targeted advertising. It also imposes specific rules on "very large" online platforms and search engines (those having more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU).[5]

## Objectives

[edit]

Ursula von der Leyen proposed a "new Digital Services Act" in her 2019 bid for the European Commission's presidency.[6]

The expressed purpose of the DSA is to update the European Union's legal framework for illegal content on intermediaries, in particular by modernising the e-Commerce Directive adopted in 2000. In doing so, the DSA aims to harmonise different national laws in the European Union that have emerged to address illegal content at national level.[2] Most prominent amongst these laws has been the German NetzDG, and similar laws in Austria ("Kommunikationsplattformen-Gesetz") and France ("Loi Avia"). With the adoption of the Digital Services Act at European level, those national laws would be overridden and would have to be amended.[7]

In practice, this will mean new legislation regarding illegal content, transparent advertising and disinformation.[3]

## New obligations on platform companies

[edit]

The DSA is meant to "govern the content moderation practices of social media platforms" and address illegal content.[8] It is organised in five chapters, with the most important chapters regulating the liability exemption of intermediaries (Chapter 2), the obligations on intermediaries (Chapter 3), and the cooperation and enforcement framework between the commission and national authorities (Chapter 4).

The DSA proposal maintains the current rule according to which companies that host others' data become liable when informed that this data is illegal.[8] This so-called "conditional liability exemption" is fundamentally different[9][10] from the broad immunities given to intermediaries under the equivalent rule ("Section 230 CDA") in the United States.

The DSA applies to intermediary service providers that offer their services to users based in the European Union, irrespective of whether the intermediary service provider is established in the European Union.[11]

In addition to the liability exemptions, the DSA would introduce a wide-ranging set of new obligations on platforms, including some that aim to disclose to regulators how their algorithms work, while other obligations would create transparency on how decisions to remove content are taken and on the way advertisers target users. The European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency was created to aid the enforcement of this.[12]

A December 2020 Time article said that while many of its provisions only apply to platforms which have more than 45 million users in the European Union, the Act could have repercussions beyond Europe. Platforms including Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and Google's subsidiary YouTube would meet that threshold and be subjected to the new obligations.[13]

A 16 November 2021 Internet Policy Review listed some of new obligations including mandatory "notice-and-action" requirements, for example, respect fundamental rights, mandatory redress for content removal decisions, and a comprehensive risk management and audit framework.[14]

Companies that do not comply with the new obligations risk fines of up to 6% on their global annual turnover. In addition, the Commission can apply periodic penalties up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover for each day of delay in complying with remedies, interim measures, and commitments. As a last resort measure, if the infringement persists and causes serious harm to users and entails criminal offences involving threat to persons' life or safety, the Commission can request the temporary suspension of the service.[15]

## Large online platforms

[edit]

On 23 April 2023, the European Commission named a first list of 19 online platforms that will be required to comply starting 25 August 2023.[16] They include the following very large online platforms (VLOPs) with more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU as of 17 February 2023.[17]

* Alibaba AliExpress
* Amazon Store
* Apple AppStore
* Booking.com
* Facebook
* Google Play
* Google Maps
* Google Shopping
* Instagram
* LinkedIn
* Pinterest
* PornHub (added 20 December 2023)
* Shein (added 26 April 2024)
* Snapchat
* Stripchat (added 20 December 2023)
* Temu (added 31 May 2024)
* TikTok
* Wikipedia
* X (formerly Twitter)
* XNXX (added 10 July 2024)
* XVideos (added 20 December 2023)
* YouTube
* Zalando

Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs):

* Bing
* Google Search

Amazon and Zalando both initiated proceedings in the General Court challenging the designations, claiming unequal treatment compared to other large retailers, and that their core business models are retail not distributing third party content/products. Zalando argued the criteria and methodology lack transparency, for instance in how it counts active users, while Amazon said VLOP rules are disproportionate for its business model and asked to be exempted from transparency around targeted ads.[18][19]

As of December 2023, 13 VLOPs have received a request for information (RFI),[15] the procedure necessary to verify compliance with the DSA, and one is being subjected to a formal proceedings.[20] 3 further platforms, all of them providing adult content, were added on 20 December 2023.[21]

## Legislative history

[edit]

The European Commission submitted the DSA alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to the European Parliament and the Council on 15 December 2020.[4][22] The DSA was prepared by von der Leyen Commission members Margrethe Vestager (Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age) and Thierry Breton (European Commissioner for Internal Market).[23]

The Digital Services Act builds in large parts on the non-binding Commission Recommendation 2018/314 of 1 March 2018[24] when it comes to illegal content on platforms. However, it goes further in addressing topics such as disinformation and other risks especially on very large online platforms. As part of the preparatory phase, the European Commission launched a public consultation on the package to gather evidence between July and September 2020.[25][26] An impact assessment was published alongside the proposal on 15 December 2020 with the relevant evidence base.[27]

The European Parliament appointed Danish Social Democrat Christel Schaldemose as rapporteur for the Digital Services Act. On 20 January 2022 the Parliament voted to introduce amendments in the DSA for tracking-free advertising and a ban on using a minor's data for targeted ads, as well as a new right for users to seek compensation for damages.[28] In the wake of the Facebook Files revelations and a hearing by Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen in the European Parliament,[29] the European Parliament also strengthened the rules on fighting disinformation and harmful content, as well as tougher auditing requirements.[30]

The Council of the European Union adopted its position on 25 November 2021.[31] The most significant changes introduced by the Member States are to entrust the European Commission with the enforcement of the new rules, in the wake of allegations and complaints that the Irish Data Protection Watchdog was not effectively policing the bloc's data protection rules against platform companies.[32]

The Data Governance Act (DGA) was formally approved by the European Parliament on 6 April 2022.[33] This sets up a legal framework for common data spaces in Europe which will increase data sharing in sectors such as finance, health, and the environment.[33][34]

With Russia using social media platforms to spread misinformation about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, European policymakers felt a greater sense of urgency to move the legislation forward to ensure that major tech platforms were transparent and properly regulated, according to The Washington Post.[35] On 22 April 2022, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament reached a deal on the Digital Services Act in Brussels following sixteen hours of negotiations.[36][37][38] According to The Washington Post, the agreement reached in Brussels solidifies the two-bill plan— the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, a law regulating competition. The latter is aimed at preventing abuse of power against smaller competitors by larger "gatekeepers".[35]

On 5 July 2022, the European Parliament approved both the DSA and the DMA.[39] Following this, on 4 October 2022, the European Council gave its final approval to the DSA.[40] The DSA was adopted on 19 October 2022 and was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 27 October 2022.[1] It came into force on 16 November 2022.[41] Most services were given 15 months to comply with its provisions (until 17 February 2024[42]). However, "very large" online platforms and search engines, after their designation as such, had only four months to comply (until 23 August 2023).[39]

### Influence of the European Court of Human Rights

[edit]

The DSA was passed alongside the Digital Markets Act and the Democracy Action Plan.[43] The latter of these is focused on addressing the nuanced legal interpretation of free speech on digital platforms, a fundamental right that has been extensively guided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights.[44] Accordingly, the Democracy Action Plan, and subsequently the DSA, were strongly influenced by the Delfi AS v. Estonia and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary ECtHR cases, which outlined a framework for assessing intermediary liability on digital platforms.[45]

In Delfi AS v. Estonia, the ECtHR applied proportionality analysis when considering whether the Estonian courts' decision to hold the online platform Delfi liable for hate speech posted by its users was a proportionate restriction on Delfi's right to freedom of expression.[46] The court found that, given the serious nature of the hate speech, the Estonian courts' actions were justified to protect the rights of others.[47] In other words, the ECtHR upheld the liability of online platforms for hate speech posted by their users, underlining that platforms could be expected to take proactive steps to control content when there is a clear risk of harm from unlawful comments. This case highlighted the responsibilities of platforms to prevent the spread of harmful content.[46]

On the other hand, the MTE and Index.hu v. Hungary case illustrated the nuanced limits of freedom of speech on digital platforms.[48] In its application of proportionality analysis, the ECtHR found that the Hungarian courts had failed to strike a fair balance between protecting reputation and ensuring freedom of expression.[49] The Hungarian courts imposed strict liability on the platforms for user comments that were offensive but did not constitute hate speech, constituting a disproportionate interference in the platforms' right to freedom of expression. The ECtHR ruled that imposing strict liability on platforms for user comments, without consideration of the nature of the comments or the context in which they were made, could infringe on freedom of expression. This judgment emphasized the need for a balance between protecting reputation and upholding free speech on digital platforms.[48]

These decisions by the ECtHR provided critical legal precedents that shaped the EU's decision-making process on the framework of the DSA. In particular, the DSA drew from the ECtHR's distinction between different types of illegal content, as well as its proportionality analysis in both cases, by incorporating nuanced rules on intermediary liability and ensuring that measures taken by platforms do not unreasonably restrict users' freedom of expression and information.[50]

## Reactions

[edit]

Media reactions to the Digital Services Act have been mixed. In January 2022, the editorial board of The Washington Post stated that the U.S. could learn from these rules,[51] while whistleblower Frances Haugen stated that it could set a "gold standard" of regulation worldwide.[52] Tech journalist Casey Newton has argued that the DSA will shape US tech policy.[53] Mike Masnick of Techdirt praised the DSA for ensuring the right to pay for digital services anonymously, but criticised the act for not including provisions that would have required a court order for the removal of illegal content.[54]

Scholars have begun critically examining the Digital Services Act.[55][56] Some academics have expressed concerns that the Digital Services Act might be too rigid and prescribed,[57] excessively focused on individual content decisions or vague risk assessments.[58]

Civil Society organisations such as Electronic Frontier Foundation have called for stronger privacy protections.[59] Human Rights Watch has welcomed the transparency and user remedies but called for an end to abusive surveillance and profiling.[60] Amnesty International has welcomed many aspects of the proposal in terms of fundamental rights balance, but also asked for further restrictions on advertising.[61] Advocacy organisation Avaaz has compared the Digital Services Act to the Paris Agreement for climate change.[62]

Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Thierry Breton wrote public letters to X, Meta Platforms, TikTok, and YouTube on how their platforms complied with the DSA regarding content related to the conflict and upcoming elections. The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab reported that Breton's letters did not follow DSA processes, and digital rights group Access Now criticised Breton's letters for drawing a "false equivalence" between illegal content and disinformation.[63]

Tech companies have repeatedly criticised the heavy burden of the rules and the alleged lack of clarity of the Digital Services Act,[64] and have been accused of lobbying to undermine some of the more far-reaching demands by law-makers, notably on bans for targeted advertising,[65] and a high-profile apology from Sundar Pichai to Breton on leaked plans by Google to lobby against the Digital Services Act.[66]

A bipartisan group of US senators have called the DSA and DMA discriminatory, claiming that the legislation would "focus on regulations on a handful of American companies while failing to regulate similar companies based in Europe, China, Russia and elsewhere."[67][68]

The DSA was mostly welcomed by the European media sector.[69] Due to the influence gatekeepers have in selecting and controlling the visibility of certain journalistic articles over others through their online platforms, the European Federation of Journalists encouraged EU legislators to further increase the transparency of platforms' recommendation systems via the DSA.[70]

Nevertheless, the DSA's later stage inter-institutional negotiations, or trilogues, have been criticized as lacking transparency and equitable participation.[71] These criticisms mirror past experiences with the drafting of the EU Regulation on Preventing the Dissemination of Terrorist Content Online as well as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).[72]

Swedish member of the European Parliament Jessica Stegrud argued that the DSA's focus on preventing the spread of disinformation and "harmful content" would undermine freedom of speech.[73]

On 9 January 2025, former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton admitted on French television that the EU applied the DSA during the 2024 Romanian presidential election, and that the EU is ready to do so again during the 2025 German federal election.[74]

## See also

[edit]

* Digital Markets Act
* Trade and Technology Council
* Big Tech
* Platform economy
* Online Streaming Act
* WeChat

## References

[edit]

1. ^ a b "Regulation - 2022/2065 - EN - DSA - EUR-Lex".
2. ^ a b Stolton, Samuel (18 August 2020). "Digital agenda: Autumn/Winter Policy Briefing". Euractiv. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
3. ^ a b Espinoza, Javier (28 October 2020). "Internal Google document reveals campaign against EU lawmakers". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2020.
4. ^ a b "The Digital Services Act package". Directorate-General CONNECT of the European Commission. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
5. ^ Roth, Emma (25 August 2023). "The EU's Digital Services Act goes into effect today: here's what that means". The Verge. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
6. ^ Candidate for President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, 'A Union that strives for more: My agenda for Europe' (2019) Archived 17 July 2019 at the Wayback Machine (PDF).
7. ^ "Primacy of EU law". EUR-Lex. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
8. ^ a b "The EU's attempt to regulate Big Tech: What it brings and what is missing". European Digital Rights (EDRi). 18 December 2020. Archived from the original on 16 April 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
9. ^ Wilman, Folkert (19 November 2020). The Responsibility of Online Intermediaries for Illegal User Content in the EU and the US. Edward Elgar. ISBN 978-1-83910-483-1.
10. ^ Johnson, Ashley; Castro, Daniel (22 February 2021). "How Other Countries Have Dealt With Intermediary Liability". Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
11. ^ "Questions and answers on the Digital Services Act*". European Commission. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
12. ^ Bertuzzi, Luca (19 April 2023). "EU launches research centre on algorithmic transparency". www.euractiv.com. Archived from the original on 20 April 2023. Retrieved 20 April 2023.
13. ^ Perrigo, Billy (15 December 2020). "How the E.U's Sweeping New Regulations Against Big Tech Could Have an Impact Beyond Europe". Time. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
14. ^ "The Digital Services Act: risk-based regulation of online platforms". Internet Policy Review. 16 November 2021. Archived from the original on 23 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
15. ^ a b "The enforcement framework under the Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe's digital future". digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
16. ^ Brodkin, Jon (25 April 2023). "EU names 19 large tech platforms that must follow Europe's new Internet rules". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 25 April 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2023.
17. ^ "DSA: Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines". European Commission - European Commission. Archived from the original on 25 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
18. ^ Tar, Julia (11 July 2023). "Amazon joins Zalando in challenging very large online platform designation". Euractiv. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
19. ^ Rauer, Nils (13 July 2023). "Unpacking Amazon's legal challenge to its Digital Services Act designation". Pinsent Masons. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
20. ^ "Press corner". European Commission - European Commission. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
21. ^ "Commission designates second set of Very Large Online Platforms under the Digital Services Act". digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
22. ^ Espinoza, Javier; Hindley, Scott (16 December 2019). "Brussels' plans to tackle digital 'gatekeepers' spark fevered debate". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
23. ^ "EU Digital Services Act set to bring in new rules for tech giants". BBC News. 15 December 2020. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
24. ^ "Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334 of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online". EUR-Lex. 6 March 2018.
25. ^ "Press corner". European Commission - European Commission. Archived from the original on 27 December 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
26. ^ "Europe asks for views on platform governance and competition tools". TechCrunch. 2 June 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
27. ^ "Impact assessment of the Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe's digital future". digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu. 15 December 2020. Archived from the original on 2 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
28. ^ "Digital Services Act: regulating platforms for a safer online space for users | News | European Parliament". www.europarl.europa.eu. 20 January 2022. Archived from the original on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
29. ^ "Frances Haugen to MEPs: EU digital rules can be a game changer for the world | News | European Parliament". www.europarl.europa.eu. 11 August 2021. Archived from the original on 29 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
30. ^ "Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen speaks to EU parliament". TechCrunch. 9 November 2021. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
31. ^ "What is illegal offline should be illegal online: Council agrees position on the Digital Services Act". www.consilium.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
32. ^ "Ireland's privacy watchdog sued over Google adtech inaction". TechCrunch. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
33. ^ a b "Data governance: Parliament approves new rules boosting intra-EU data sharing | News | European Parliament". 6 April 2022. Archived from the original on 29 April 2022. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
34. ^ Daly, Sidley Austin LLP-Ken; Zdzieborska, Monika; Shajko, Fiona (27 April 2022). "EU Data Governance Act - Edging Closer to a European Single Market for Data". Lexology. Archived from the original on 8 June 2022. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
35. ^ a b Zakrzewski, Cat (22 April 2022). "Europe to slap new regulations on Big Tech, beating U.S. to the punch". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
36. ^ Satariano, Adam (22 April 2022). "E.U. Takes Aim at Social Media's Harms With Landmark New Law". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 23 October 2022. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
37. ^ "Digital Services Act: Commission welcomes political agreement on rules ensuring a safe and accountable online environment" (Press release). Brussels: European Commission. 23 April 2022. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 23 April 2022.
38. ^ Foo Yun Chee (22 April 2022). "EU sets new online rules for Google, Meta to curb illegal content". Reuters. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 23 April 2022.
39. ^ a b "Digital Services: landmark rules adopted for a safer, open online environment". 5 July 2022. Archived from the original on 16 October 2022. Retrieved 5 July 2022.
40. ^ "The EU Digital Services Act - Europe's New Regime for Content Moderation". 4 October 2022. Archived from the original on 10 October 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2022.
41. ^ O'Donnell, Meghan (5 February 2024). "When Does the Digital Services Act (DSA) Come Into Effect?". Trolley. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
42. ^ "Digital Services Act starts applying to all online platforms in the EU". European Commission. 16 February 2024. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
43. ^ Heldt, Amélie P. (2022), "EU Digital Services Act: The White Hope of Intermediary Regulation", Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 69–84, ISBN 978-3-030-95219-8, retrieved 16 May 202469-84&rft.date=2022&rft.isbn=978-3-030-95219-8&rft.aulast=Heldt&rft.aufirst=Amélie+P.&rft_id=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95220-4_4&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Digital+Services+Act" class="Z3988">
44. ^ "Freedom of Expression", Law, Democracy and the European Court of Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–119, 2 November 2020, retrieved 16 May 202484-119&rft.date=2020-11-02&rft_id=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781139547246.007&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Digital+Services+Act" class="Z3988">
45. ^ Ombelet, Pieter-Jan; Kuczerawy, Aleksandra (20 February 2016). "Delfi revisited: the MTE & Index.hu v. Hungary case". CiTiP blog. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
46. ^ a b "Delfi AS v. Estonia". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
47. ^ Susi, Mart (April 2014). "Delfi AS v. Estonia". American Journal of International Law. 108 (2): 295–302\. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.2.0295. ISSN 0002-9300.295-302&rft.date=2014-04&rft_id=info:doi/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.2.0295&rft.issn=0002-9300&rft.aulast=Susi&rft.aufirst=Mart&rft_id=http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.2.0295&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Digital+Services+Act" class="Z3988">
48. ^ a b "Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
49. ^ "Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary (2016)". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
50. ^ "The Digital Services Act and the EU as the Global Regulator of the Internet | Chicago Journal of International Law". cjil.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
51. ^ "The U.S. could learn from Europe's online speech rules". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 31 January 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
52. ^ "EU could set 'gold standard' on big tech - Haugen". RTÉ.ie. 8 November 2021. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
53. ^ "European values are starting to define U.S. tech privacy, says journalist". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
54. ^ Masnick, Mike (28 January 2022). "EU Parliament's 'More Thoughtful' Approach To Regulating The Internet Still A Complete Disaster". Techdirt. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
55. ^ "DSA Observatory – a hub of expertise on the DSA package". Archived from the original on 3 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
56. ^ "DSA in Perspective Seminar Series". Brussels Privacy Hub. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
57. ^ Keller, Daphne (2022). "The DSA's Industrial Model for Content Moderation". Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional (in German). doi:10.17176/20220224-121133-0. Archived from the original on 9 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
58. ^ Douek, Evelyn (10 January 2022). "Content Moderation as Systems Thinking". Harvard Law Review. 136 (4). doi:10.2139/ssrn.4005326. SSRN 4005326.
59. ^ Schmon, Christoph (20 January 2022). "DSA: EU Parliament Vote Ensures a Free Internet, But a Final Regulation Must Add Stronger Privacy Protections". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
60. ^ "EU: Put Fundamental Rights at Top of Digital Regulation". Human Rights Watch. 7 January 2022. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
61. ^ "Amnesty International Position on the Proposals for a Digital Services Act and a Digital Markets Act". European Institutions Office. 30 March 2021. Archived from the original on 4 February 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
62. ^ Nicotra, Luca (24 February 2022). "Could the EU be on the cusp of a Paris Agreement For The Internet?". www.euractiv.com. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
63. ^ Smalley, Suzanne (27 October 2023). "European Commission misfires in initial DSA enforcement, experts say". The Record. Recorded Future. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
64. ^ "Documents". Archived from the original on 19 May 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
65. ^ "How corporate lobbying undermined the EU's push to ban surveillance ads | Corporate Europe Observatory". corporateeurope.org. Archived from the original on 4 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
66. ^ Espinoza, Javier (13 November 2020). "Google apologises to Thierry Breton over plan to target EU commissioner". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
67. ^ "Finance Committee Leaders Wyden and Crapo: Biden Administration Must Fight Back Against Discriminatory Digital Trade Policies | The United States Senate Committee on Finance". www.finance.senate.gov. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
68. ^ "Lawmakers Argue Pending European Tech Laws Disadvantage American Firms". Nextgov.com. 2 February 2022. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
69. ^ Bertuzzi, Luca (25 June 2021). "Digital Brief: Calls for biometrical ban, online marketplaces' threat, Germany's antitrust crusade". www.euractiv.com. Archived from the original on 27 June 2021. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
70. ^ Killeen, Molly (25 June 2021). "Media sector eyes opportunity to rebalance relations with online platforms". Euractiv. Archived from the original on 26 June 2021. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
71. ^ Allen, Asha (29 April 2022). "The EU's Opaque Policy-Making Has Never Been Clearer". WIRED. Archived from the original on 30 April 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
72. ^ Skiera, Bernd; Miller, Klaus; Jin, Yuxi; Kraft, Lennart; Laub, René; Schmitt, Julia (2022). Skiera, Bernd (ed.). The impact of the GDPR on the online advertising market. Frankfurt am Main: Skiera, Bernd. ISBN 978-3-9824173-0-1. OCLC 1303894344.
73. ^ Stegrud, Jessica (25 April 2022). "The EU's Digital Services Act is undermining free speech, Brussels Report". Brussels Report. Archived from the original on 11 October 2022. Retrieved 11 October 2022.
74. ^ RMC (9 January 2025). ""On l'a fait en Roumanie...": Thierry Breton réagit aux ingérences de Musk en Allemagne avec l'AFD". BFM RMC (in French). Retrieved 11 March 2025.

## External links

[edit]

* "The Digital Services Act". European Commission.
* "Infographics — Digital Services Act". 30 September 2022. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
* Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act)
* COM (2020) 825: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC
* "Procedure 2020/0361(COD)". ŒIL.

Authority control databases

International|

* VIAF

National|

* Germany

* v
* t
* e

Judiciary and law of the European Union

Judiciary|

* Court of Justice of the European Union
* European Court of Justice
* members
* Advocates General
* General Court
* Civil Service Tribunal
* European lawyer
* Relationship with ECHR
* Public Prosecutor
* European civil code

Treaties|

* Rome Treaty
* Merger Treaty
* Single European Act
* Maastricht Treaty
* Amsterdam Treaty
* Nice Treaty
* Lisbon Treaty
* Charter of Fundamental Rights
* Opt-outs

Acts|

* Acquis: Regulation
* Directive
* Framework Directive
* Decision
* Recommendation
* Digital Services Act

Procedures|

* Ordinary legislative procedure
* Consultation procedure
* Consent procedure
* Commission and Council acting alone
* Commission acting alone

Principles
and terms

* Acquis communautaire
* EUR-Lex
* Direct applicability
* Direct effect
* European labour law
* European Enforcement Order
* Gold-plating
* Four freedoms
* Home state regulation
* Indirect effect
* Incidental effect
* Minimum harmonisation
* Maximum harmonisation
* Preliminary ruling
* Precautionary principle
* Principle of legal certainty
* Recasting
* Principle of conferral
* Proportionality
* Staatenverbund
* State liability
* Subsidiarity
* Supremacy

Regulations|

* Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001
* Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000
* Customs Regulation 1383/2003
* Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
* EU-Eco-regulation
* Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94
* Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1170/2011
* Customs Regulation 3295/94
* Regulation on roaming charges
* Brussels Regime
* CLP Regulation
* Regulation on Community designs
* Societas Europaea
* European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances
* Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006
* REACH
* Rome II Regulation
* Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation

Directives|

* Good Clinical Practice Directive
* Data Protection Directive
* ATEX directive
* Battery Directive
* Best available technology
* Biocidal Products Directive
* Birds Directive
* Capital Requirements Directives
* Clinical Trials Directive
* Computer Programs Directive
* Conditional Access Directive
* Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC)
* Copyright Term Directive (2006/116/EC)
* Cosmetics Directive
* Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)
* Dangerous Preparations Directive
* Data Retention Directive
* Database Directive
* Database right
* Directive 2000/43/EC on Anti-discrimination
* Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
* Information Society Directive (first Copyright directive)
* Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications
* Directive on the Promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport
* Directive on the re-use of public sector information
* Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources
* End of Life Vehicles Directive
* CHP Directive
* Directive on the energy performance of buildings
* Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
* Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely
* Environmental liability directive
* European SEA Directive 2001/42/EC
* European units of measurement directives
* Habitats Directive
* Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
* Internal Market in Electricity Directive
* Landfill Directive
* Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions
* Directive on the legal protection of designs
* Markets in Financial Instruments Directive
* Measuring Instruments Directive
* Medical Devices Directive
* Posted Workers Directive
* Pressure Equipment Directive
* Rental Directive
* Resale Rights Directive
* Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive
* Satellite and Cable Directive
* Directive on services in the internal market
* Temporary and Agency Work Directive
* Trade Marks Directive
* European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products
* Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
* Universal Service Directive
* Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
* Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
* Waste Incineration Directive
* Waste framework directive
* Water Framework Directive
* Working Time Directive

Cases|

* ECJ Rulings (Caselex): Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College
* Apostolides v Orams
* Bosman
* Cassis de Dijon
* Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
* Chen
* Ciarán Tobin
* Coleman v Attridge Law
* Costa v ENEL
* Factortame
* Francovich
* Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd
* Kolpak
* Microsoft Corp. v. Commission
* Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA
* Metock
* Nordsee
* Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA
* Peter Paul and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
* Procureur du Roi v Dassonville
* Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt
* Tanja Kreil
* Van Duyn v Home Office
* Van Gend en Loos

Fraud|

* Court of Auditors
* European Anti-Fraud Office
* Accountability in the European Union

* European Union portal
* Law portal

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template