Detta är en HTML-version av en bilaga till begäran om allmän handling 'Digital Services Act / Digital Markets Act'.

From:                                 Berfin Eken
Sent:                                  Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:25:44 +0200
To:                                      I Registrator
Subject:                             VB: Follow-up DSA discussion with Marita - Snapchat
Attachments:                   Suggested Amendments DSA_111021.pdf, Snap position on the DSA.pdf
Categories:                       LF
 
 
Från: Laura Seritti <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx> 
Skickat: den 21 oktober 2021 19:15
Till: Berfin Eken <xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>; Helene Engellau 
<xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Kopia: Jean Gonie <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx>
Ämne: Re: Follow-up DSA discussion with Marita - Snapchat
 
Dear Berfin and Helene, 
Many thanks again for the good discussion yesterday. 
 
As promised, I enclose our ideas about how this could be achieved with a few targeted 
language suggestions
 on art. 25, as well as a few other suggestions aimed at (i) better 
balancing the GDPR and the DSA requirements (art. 17 and 28) and (ii) better protecting 
challenger's vulnerable business models from risks associated with data access requirements 
(art. 31). 
 
I also would like to flag the interesting paper that has been recently published by the think-tank 
CERRE. By exploring the notion and source of public harm, the paper illustrates why systemic 
risk of harm is not necessarily or exclusively a function of size
, thus offering food for 
thought on additional criteria that might be relevant for the VLOP definition (besides the number 
of users). 
 
Regarding your question about privacy and safety at Snap, as mentioned yesterday we have put 
safety-by-design and privacy-by-design programs and philosophy at the core of everything we 
do. This means that our product design development processes consider the privacy and safety 
implications of a new feature at the front end of the process - and don’t launch it if it doesn’t pass 
our intensive reviews. Should you want to learn more about our approach and practices, you can 
have a look also at our privacy centre and safety centre on our website where we provide 
additional information and details. 
 
We remain of course available to answer any additional questions you might have. 
We thank you once again for your consideration and look forward to the next opportunity to 
discuss with you. 
 
Best regards, 
Laura 
 
-- 



 
Dear Berfin,
Many thanks for your kind reply.
Those days unfortunately don't work for me - May I propose the 20th (between 13h-17h) or the 
21st  (12h-16h)?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Laura
 
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 5:13 AM Berfin Eken <xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx> wrote: 
Hi Laura,
 
Thank you for your e-mail and for your papers. Next week is a bit difficult for us – but would you 
be available for a meeting the 18th or 19th of October?. 
 
Kind regards,
 
Berfin Eken
Ministry of Infrastructure
Mobile. +46 73-625 15 94 
xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx 
www.regeringen.se 
 
Från: Laura Seritti <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx> 
Skickat: den 7 oktober 2021 11:19
Till: Berfin Eken <xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Kopia: Marita Ljunggren <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xx>; Jean Gonie <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx>
Ämne: Follow-up DSA discussion with Marita - Snapchat
 
Dear Berfin,
My name is Laura and I recently joined Snapchat to look after EU policy and regulatory 
matters in Brussels.
 
Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting Marita and having a good exchange about the 
DSA. At the end of our discussion, she kindly referred me to you as she thought our 
ideas would be of interest. 
 
In a nutshell, we believe that the DSA should take a more proportionate and risk-
based approach
 to identify VLOPs (art. 25). Stringent VLOP obligations exist to address 
systemic risks for society and consumers. However, the DSA currently identifies VLOPs 
solely on the basis of a single and arbitrary (eg. no explanation in the IA) quantitative 
criterion,
 ie. the 45 ml users. Such a low threshold is easily met by a large number of 
medium sized platforms
, from Europe and elsewhere, that don’t cause any wide scale 
harm. User numbers alone do not imply systemic risk. By assuming that beyond a certain 
number of users all platforms generate the same type and scale of harm, the current 
approach is likely to create disproportionate unnecessary burdens on many non-
problematic platforms
 and possibly jeopardise their future ability to compete, grow and 
innovate in the EU digital single market
 


We therefore propose an approach whereby platforms meeting the user threshold would 
qualify as VLOPs only if they can create systemic risk. This could be assessed by 
the DSC, as part of the VLOP designation procedure, based on a number of additional 
qualitative criteria. I enclose our ideas about how this could be achieved with a few 
targeted language suggestions
 on art. 25.
 
Please let us know whether you could be available for a follow-up discussion in the incoming 
weeks. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to share with you in more detail our 
ideas and challenger's perspective on the file, as well as to hear your thoughts on this. 
 
We thank you in advance for your kind consideration and look forward to hearing from 
you.
 
Best regards
Laura
-- 
Laura SERITTI
Head of Public Policy, Brussels
mobile: + 32 485 89 19 25
Snapchat: laura_seri21
email: xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx