Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) discussed amendments to the Digital Markets Act (DMA) (see EUROPE 12780/2) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) (see EUROPE 12790/3) on Monday 27 September.
On the DMA, even if the different political groups agree on the substance, opinions “remain very divergent” on a number of points, said German MEP Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D).
“All groups must be willing to shift their positions to find a compromise”, concluded rapporteur Andreas Schwab (EPP, Germany), who expects a “complicated” debate, but still hopes that a compromise can be found before November.
On the S&D side, it is the approach to platforms that seems to be the problem. “Focusing on four or five big US players and leaving out some of the other platforms, I don’t think that’s a good thing”, commented Mrs Gebhardt. On this point, the visions of the Socialists and the Greens are similar.
While the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) recognise the work that has been done for small and medium-sized enterprises, the work is not yet complete regarding abusive practices by gatekeepers.
“Regarding the list of abusive practices, we are not in favour of a speculative list. We have to build on what we know”, said Kosma Złotowski (ECR, Poland).
Still on the subject of abusive practices, the Identity and Democracy (ID) Group wants to give Member States more room for manoeuvre, including the possibility to impose additional obligations on gatekeepers.
“We propose that national authorities should have a central role in the High Level Group of Digital Regulators. This will help guide the Commission and set priorities “, said French MEP Virgine Joron (ID).
An equally complicated debate on the DSA
In the wake of the DMA, MEPs in the IMCO committee tackled the 2,297 amendments proposed for the Digital Services Act.
“Advertising, product safety, regulation of algorithms and the balance for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the four hottest issues. It will be difficult to find a solution with which everyone will agree. We have taken a step towards the other groups, and they will have to do the same”, said rapporteur Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Denmark).
On the issue of advertising, opinions differ among the Parliament’s political groups, especially on the degree of supervision to be put in place to strike a balance.
“This is the hot potato. If we want to suppress or restrict targeted advertising, we will not increase transparency, but destroy it. Above all, we want to make sure that consumers understand why they receive certain advertisements“, explained Arba Kokalari (EPP, Sweden).
Still on the subject of online advertising, some parliamentarians also recalled that it is a crucial tool for SMEs.
“We need to have methods for advertising, otherwise European SMEs, which do not have the same amount of data as the big platforms like Google or Facebook, will not be able to compete in the market”, said Alexandra Geese (Greens/EFA, Germany).
The MEPs also focused their attention on the removal of illegal content online. “The aim is not to punish companies, but to find ways to improve the system”, stressed Dita Charanzova (Renew Europe, Czech Republic), who advocates that the time limits for removing content should depend on the type of content in question.
Finally, MEPs also reiterated the need for more effective tools to combat hate speech and disinformation and the need for more frequent audits of major players in the sector. Again, it is likely to be a question of finding a balance. (Original version in French by Thomas Mangin)