Work on internet reform is beginning to take shape in the European Parliament, although the committees are still fighting over the direction of it. On Tuesday 23 February, the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, Margrethe Vestager, addressed the Committees on Internal Market (IMCO) and Economic Affairs (ECON) to defend the gradual approach of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) (see EUROPE 12623/1).
The Vice President welcomed the fact that the Parliament is taking up these two proposals presented just over two months ago, namely “the DSA, which addresses the societal risks posed by systemic platforms, and the DMA, which targets the major platforms that serve as gateways to customers”.
A fan of metaphors, Margrethe Vestager stressed that the Covid-19 pandemic highlights the urgency to act. “It’s like a wake up call with no snooze function”, declared, in front of the two committees, the person who compared this internet reform to the introduction, at the time, of traffic lights to regulate road transport.
A conflict of competences in the European Parliament
The Parliament is certainly in a hurry to act, but, as is often the case, it is struggling to organise itself in the face of these sprawling proposals, which have only one thing in common: they are all about tackling online platforms. In the Committee on Internal Market, the two main political groups seem to have agreed to divide up the dossiers, appointing Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Denmark) as rapporteur for the DSA and Andreas Schwab (EPP, Germany) as rapporteur for the DMA.
But other parliamentary committees are demanding their share of the pie, such as the Committee on Economic Affairs, which wants to have a hand (or at least co-leadership) on the DMA. The committees concerned have until 9 March to make known their grievances, after which it will be up to the Conference of Committee Chairs or, if necessary, the political group chairs to take a decision in April.
IMCO committee rapporteurs want more ambitious measures
Despite these organisational problems, the rapporteurs for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection have already told journalists at a press briefing that they are in favour of more ambitious measures.
On the DMA, Andreas Schwab clearly expressed his preference for total harmonisation, while indicating that only very large companies should be targeted. On the DSA, Christel Schaldemose regretted the weakness of the proposals on the market places, considering that the introduction of the “Know Your Business Customer” principle was a good thing, but did not go far enough.
The Danish MEP even tried to outline a work schedule: the ideal, in her view, would be to have a vote in the parliamentary committee in November and a vote in plenary in December so as to be able to start trilogue negotiations with the Council of the EU in 2022, under the French Presidency. For his part, Andreas Schwab suggested organising a hearing with as many representatives of the platforms as possible, and not only those of GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft).
Commission supports online anonymity
In front of the members of the IMCO Committee, the Vice-President justified her reform point by point.
At Ms Schaldemose’s suggestion to create an “importer responsibility” for the market places in the DSA, Margrethe Vestager replied that this would not make sense, as it would make the platforms disappear by turning them into commercial operators. To her criticism of the emergence of a country of destination principle competing with the sacrosanct country of origin principle of the e-commerce directive (2000/31/EC), she responded by highlighting the current “frustration and lack of trust between Member States between the country of origin and the country where the service is provided”.
According to her, the country of origin principle is strengthened, as the DSA creates “a robust system with the necessary backstops to incentivise the country of origin to provide the resources and the force to make sure all the provisions come true”.
On the lack of a ban on personalised advertising, which MEPs had called for in the Parliament’s own-initiative report, the Vice-President told the ECON Committee: “I share many of the same concerns about targeted advertising. This is why we talk about it” in the proposals, she explained, addressing Paul Tang (S&D, Netherlands), who criticised her for wanting to “take sides with Facebook in the conflict between Google and Facebook”.
The problem is not personalised advertising as such, but rather the fact that the consumer “cannot refuse such advertising”, explained Ms Vestager, pointing out that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does, however, offer a series of safeguards for internet users.
Ms Vestager also expressed support for maintaining anonymity online, understanding that there are calls for the opposite, but that this would hamper freedom of expression.
The need to adapt competition rules to platforms
Ms Vestager also defended her Digital Markets Act, arguing that “competition law on a case-by-case basis cannot address all the systemic issues raised by the digital platform”.
In the IMCO committee, Dutch Green MEP Kim van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA, Netherlands) deplored the fact that “gatekeepers” only have to inform the European Commission of their intention to make new acquisitions “in the digital sector”. The Vice-President replied that national competition authorities already had an obligation under the European Merger Regulation to alert the Commission to cases that require a follow-up. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean, with Lionel Changeur)