Digital Services Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065
European Union regulation
Text with EEA relevance
TitleRegulation on a Single Market For Digital Services
Made byEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union
Journal referenceOJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102
History
Date made19 October 2022
Preparative texts
Commission proposalCOM/2020/825 final
Current legislation

The Digital Services Act Regulation 2022 (EU) 2022/2065 ("DSA") is a regulation in EU law to update the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 regarding illegal content, transparent advertising, and disinformation.[1][2] It was submitted along with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on 15 December 2020.[3][4] The DSA was prepared by the Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age Margrethe Vestager and by the European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, as members of the Von der Leyen Commission.[5]

On 22 April 2022, European policymakers reached an agreement on the Digital Services Act.[6][7] The European Parliament approved the DSA along with the Digital Markets Act on 5 July 2022.[8] On 4 October 2022, the European Council gave its final approval to the Regulation on a Digital Services Act.[9] It was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 19 October 2022. Affected service providers had until 1 January 2024 to comply with its provisions. Popular online platforms and search engines need to comply with their obligations four months after they have been designated as such by the EU Commission.[8]

Objectives of the DSA[edit]

Ursula von der Leyen proposed a "new Digital Services Act", in her 2019 bid for the European Commission's presidency.[10]

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 at national level to address illegal content.[1] 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adoption of the Digital Services Act at European level, those national laws would be overwritten and would have to be repealed.[11]

In practice, this will mean new legislation regarding illegal content, transparent advertising and disinformation.[2]

New obligations on platform companies[edit]

The DSA is meant to "govern the content moderation practices of social media platforms" and address illegal content.[12] 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.[12] This so-called "conditional liability exemption" is fundamentally different[13][14] 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.[15]

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.[16]

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.[17]

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.[18]

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.[19]

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.[20] 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.[21]

Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs):

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.[22][23]

As of December 2023, 13 VLOPs have received a request for information (RFI),[19] the procedure necessary to verify compliance with the DSA, and one is being subjected to a formal proceedings.[24] 3 further platforms, all of them providing adult content, were added on 20 December 2023.[25]

Legislative history[edit]

The Digital Services Act builds in large parts on the non-binding Commission Recommendation 2018/314 of 1 March 2018[26] 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.[27][28][29] An impact assessment was published alongside the proposal on 15 December 2020 with the relevant evidence base.[30]

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.[31] In the wake of the Facebook Files revelations and a hearing by Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen in the European Parliament,[32] the European Parliament also strengthened the rules on fighting disinformation and harmful content, as well as tougher auditing requirements.[33]

The Council of the European Union adopted its position on 25 November 2021.[34] 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.[35]

The Data Governance Act (DGA) was formally approved by the European Parliament on 6 April 2022.[36] 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.[36][37]

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.[38] 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.[6][39][40] 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". The next stage before the bills become law, was the votes from the Parliament and policymakers from EU 27 nations. The law passed on October the 19th of 2022. This was considered to be a formality.[38]

ECtHR Influence[edit]

The DSA was passed alongside the Digital Market Act and the Democracy Action Plan[41]. 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[42]. 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[43].

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[44]. The court found that, given the serious nature of the hate speech, the Estonian courts' actions were justified to protect the rights of others[45]. 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[44].

On the other hand, the MTE and Index.hu v. Hungary case illustrated the nuanced limits of freedom of speech on digital platforms[46]. 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[47]. 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[46]​.

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[48].

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,[49] while whistleblower Frances Haugen stated that it could set a "gold standard" of regulation worldwide.[50] Tech journalist Casey Newton has argued that the DSA will shape US tech policy.[51] 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.[52]

Scholars have begun critically examining the Digital Services Act.[53][54] Some academics have expressed concerns that the Digital Services Act might be too rigid and prescribed,[55] excessively focused on individual content decisions or vague risk assessments.[56]

Civil Society organisations such as Electronic Frontier Foundation have called for stronger privacy protections.[57] Human Rights Watch has welcomed the transparency and user remedies but called for an end to abusive surveillance and profiling.[58] Amnesty International has welcomed many aspects of the proposal in terms of fundamental rights balance, but also asked for further restrictions on advertising.[59] Advocacy organisation Avaaz has compared the Digital Services Act to the Paris Agreement for climate change.[60]

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.[61]

Tech companies have repeatedly criticised the heavy burden of the rules and the alleged lack of clarity of the Digital Services Act,[62] and have been accused of lobbying to undermine some of the more far-reaching demands by law-makers, notably on bans for targeted advertising,[63] and a high-profile apology from Sundar Pichai to Breton on leaked plans by Google to lobby against the Digital Services Act.[64]

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."[65][66]

The DSA was mostly welcomed by the European media sector.[67] 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.[68]

Nevertheless, the DSA's later stage inter-institutional negotiations, or Trilogues, have been criticized as lacking transparency and equitable participation.[69] 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).[70]

Swedish MEP Jessica Stegrud argued that the DSA's focus on preventing the spread of disinformation and "harmful content" would undermine freedom of speech.[71]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Stolton, Samuel (18 August 2020). "Digital agenda: Autumn/Winter Policy Briefing". www.euractiv.com. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ "The Digital Services Act package". Directorate-General CONNECT of the European Commission. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ "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.
  6. ^ a b 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.
  7. ^ Bertuzzi, Luca (23 April 2022). "EU institutions reach agreement on Digital Services Act". www.euractiv.com. Archived from the original on 25 April 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2023.
  8. ^ 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.
  9. ^ "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.
  10. ^ 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).
  11. ^ "Primacy of EU law". EUR-Lex. Archived from the original on 10 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ "The Geographic Scope of the Digital Services Act". Mason Hayes Curran. Mason Hayes & Curran. Retrieved 4 December 2023.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ "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.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ a b "The enforcement framework under the Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe's digital future". digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ "DSA: Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines". European Commission - European Commission. Archived from the original on 25 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  22. ^ Tar, Julia (11 July 2023). "Amazon joins Zalando in challenging very large online platform designation". Euractiv. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
  23. ^ Rauer, Nils (13 July 2023). "Unpacking Amazon's legal challenge to its Digital Services Act designation". Pinsent Masons. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
  24. ^ "Press corner". European Commission - European Commission. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  25. ^ "Commission designates second set of Very Large Online Platforms under the Digital Services Act". digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
  26. ^ "Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334 of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online". EUR-Lex. 6 March 2018.
  27. ^ "The EU Digital Services Act". Mason Hayes & Curran. Retrieved 29 November 2023.
  28. ^ "Press corner". European Commission - European Commission. Archived from the original on 27 December 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  29. ^ "Europe asks for views on platform governance and competition tools". TechCrunch. 2 June 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  30. ^ "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.
  31. ^ "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.
  32. ^ "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.
  33. ^ "Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen speaks to EU parliament". TechCrunch. 9 November 2021. Retrieved 10 April 2022.[permanent dead link]
  34. ^ "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.
  35. ^ "Ireland's privacy watchdog sued over Google adtech inaction". TechCrunch. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.[permanent dead link]
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ 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.
  38. ^ 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.
  39. ^ "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.
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ 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 2024
  42. ^ "Freedom of Expression", Law, Democracy and the European Court of Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–119, 2 November 2020, retrieved 16 May 2024
  43. ^ Kuczerawy, Pieter-Jan Ombelet, Aleksandra (20 February 2016). "Delfi revisited: the MTE & Index.hu v. Hungary case". CiTiP blog. Retrieved 16 May 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. ^ a b "Delfi AS v. Estonia". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  45. ^ 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.
  46. ^ a b "Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  47. ^ "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  48. ^ "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.
  49. ^ "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.
  50. ^ "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.
  51. ^ "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.
  52. ^ Masnick, Mike (28 January 2022). "EU Parliament's 'More Thoughtful' Approach To Regulating The Internet Still A Complete Disaster". Techdirt. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  53. ^ "DSA Observatory – a hub of expertise on the DSA package". Archived from the original on 3 April 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
  54. ^ "DSA in Perspective Seminar Series". Brussels Privacy Hub. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
  55. ^ 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.
  56. ^ Douek, Evelyn (10 January 2022). "Content Moderation as Systems Thinking". Harvard Law Review. 136 (4). doi:10.2139/ssrn.4005326. SSRN 4005326.
  57. ^ 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.
  58. ^ "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.
  59. ^ "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.
  60. ^ 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.
  61. ^ Smalley, Suzanne (27 October 2023). "European Commission misfires in initial DSA enforcement, experts say". The Record. Recorded Future. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  62. ^ "Documents". Archived from the original on 19 May 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
  63. ^ "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.
  64. ^ 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.
  65. ^ "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.
  66. ^ "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.
  67. ^ 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.
  68. ^ Killeen, Molly (25 June 2021). "Media sector eyes opportunity to rebalance relations with online platforms". www.euractiv.com. Archived from the original on 26 June 2021. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
  69. ^ 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.
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ 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.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Services_Act&oldid=1224204232"