On Thursday 26 January, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee held an initial exchange of views on the draft report it shares with the Legal Affairs Committee on the issue of unfair geo-blocking. Just like the Council has been in the past, MEPs are mainly divided on the issue of scope and what law should be applicable.
It should be pointed out that the legislative proposal on geo-blocking presented on 25 May 2016 (see EUROPE 11558), makes it incumbent on traders to ensure that the goods and services proposed online are accessible irrespective of nationality, place of residency or where the consumer is officially established. The proposal only covers goods and services listed in the “services” directive (2006/123/EC) and excludes social, transport and audio-visual services. Neither does it compel traders to deliver their products to countries other than the one in which they themselves are established.
In her explanatory statement (see EUROPE 11696), Roza Thun’s (EPP, Poland) report points out that, “The Commission’s proposal is a step in the right direction and this needs to be welcomed. Nonetheless, it fails to respond to important questions: legal security for consumers and professionals, scope of application and additional clarification”. Addressing her colleagues, the Polish MEP explained that she believed the law and jurisdiction applicable should be decided by the kind of sales undertaken: if the vendor openly sells their goods and services in another country and they have clearly indicated this on their website, it must apply to the law of the consumer that applies. In other cases, rather than refusing sales, the law of their country should continue to apply. This amendment was supported by Anneleen Van Bossuyt (ECR, Belgium) and Andreas Schwab (EPP, Germany) but was widely criticised by Virginie Rozière MEP (S&D, France).
Another significant change involves the rapporteur’s suggestion to include certain goods protected by copyright in the draft regulation’s scope of application “on the condition that the vendor has the rights required for the territories concerned”. Ms Thun, however, considers that this inclusion should not apply to audio-visual content, which, similarly to financial services, electronic communications, transport and healthcare, should be the subject of a detailed analysis two years after entry into force of the regulation. Many MEPs were opposed to this proposal: Virginie Rozière (S&D, France) and Dennis De Jong (GUE, Netherlands), who said that copyright should not be included. Julia Reda (Greens/DFA, Germany), however, gave it her support, while Dita Charanzova (ALDE Czech Republic) thought that it should have gone further and included audio-visual services and transport.
Rosa Thun has indicated that her proposed report seeks to restrict the scope applicable to relations between businesses and consumers (and to exclude inter-firm relations – B2B), as well as remove the obligation of demanding the explicit consent of consumers before redirecting them to another interface. Her report also modifies the formulation regarding temporary localisation and “unfair” geo-blocking.
The draft report can be consulted at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML +COMPARL+PE-595.745+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN] (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)