This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Digital Services Act / Digital Markets Act'.

From:                                 Berfin Eken
Sent:                                  Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:02:51 +0200
To:                                      I Registrator
Subject:                             VB: DSA
Attachments:                   DSA Amendments - Art. 2, 9, 17, 18, 21 and Recital 13.pdf
Categories:                       LWi
Från: Sara Ovreby <> 
Skickat: den 21 september 2021 08:40
Till: Berfin Eken <xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Ämne: Fwd: DSA
Hej Berfin,
trevligt att e-träffas igen. Hoppas du mår bra. Fick veta att du ersatt Linn som har slutat - 
spännande. Du får säga till om det är något särskilt jag kan hjälpa dig med nu när du tagit över 
ansvaret. Går direkt in på detaljer nedan rörande slovenernas kompromisstext men om du vill 
kan vi ta ett möte och prata om vår mer övergripande syn och prioriteringar
Nedan har vi sammanfattat vilka positiva förändringar vi ser med den nya texten men också de 
områden som vi fortsatt finner utmannade för att nå målet om ett internet som både är 
ansvarsfullt och innovativt! Se nedan - låt mig veta om vi ska boka ett möte för att gå igenom de 
olika delarna mer i detalj. Har Linn delat material vi har skickat tidigare? Om inte säg till så 
skickar jag om det.
Hör av dig om du har några frågor!
We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussions on the DSA, as we strongly 
support  the  Commission’s  goal  of  promoting  a  responsible  internet.  We  welcome  the 
Slovenian Presidency’s efforts to further clarify some provisions, while keeping a balanced 
approach and building on the Commission’s proposal and on the Portuguese Presidency 
compromise text. Among other things, we believe that the following clarifications made 
by the Slovenian Presidency are positive:
 Recitals 22 and 28 - The clarification that “specific” monitoring for identical or equivalent 
content cannot require services to carry out an independent assessment of content. 
Similarly, the clarification that the fact that an operator automatically indexes content 
uploaded to its service, or has a search function, or recommends content on the basis of 
the profiles or preferences of users, are not sufficient grounds for the conclusion that that 
operator has ‘specific’ knowledge of illegal information. The new language is in line with 
recent jurisprudence by the Court of Justice of the EU, and the broader principle of no 
general monitoring obligations. 

 Article 18 - The introduction of additional safeguards to the out-of-court dispute 
settlement mechanism, such as the requirement for bad faith actors to contribute to fees 
associated to use of the mechanism, the possibility for both parties to appeal decisions of 
out-of-court dispute settlement bodies before courts, and the right to refuse to participate 
in out-of-court dispute settlement where the “same content” has already been addressed 
or is under review by a different out-of-court dispute settlement body. We consider those 
safeguards to go the right direction in addressing some of the concerns the out-of-court 
dispute settlement mechanism, as proposed by the Commission, raises. 
 Recital 46 - The clarification that industry associations representing members’ interests 
(and not individual members) should apply for trusted flagger status, in order to limit the 
number of regulator-designated trusted flaggers. This will help ensure that priority 
treatment can indeed be awarded to trusted flagger notices as a practical matter, and 
also address concerns that individual companies could use their trusted flagger status to 
strike out against competitors. 
At the same time, the compromise text includes some amendments that raise concerns 
which we kindly ask you to carefully examine: 
 Recital 42 and Articles 15, 17 and 18 - “Restrictions of visibility” as content 
moderation decisions to which statements of reasons, internal appeals and out-of-
court dispute settlement obligations apply
: The new text takes an expansive view of 
the kinds of content moderation decisions that should be subject to transparency and 
user redress requirements. These are not limited to content removals and disabling of 
access, but also include “any restrictions” of visibility of content. While undoubtedly well-
intentioned, this provision could lead to users being unnecessarily bombarded with an 
untold number of notifications, and to intermediary services being unable to manage the 
scale of transparency and user redress requirements in practice. For example, think of a 
scenario where the removal of invalid user reviews may lead to the lower ranking of a 
product or service in search results. Would a notification and redress rights be awarded 
not only to the person who wrote the review, but also to the trader or business owner 
whose product or service may be demoted due to the review being removed? The basic 
operation of many modern online services involves constant updating of content and 
features optimised for users -- which is part of services’ fundamental freedom to conduct 
a business. We want the DSA to be able to succeed at scale and, to do so, would 
recommend removing ‘restrictions of visibility’ from the list of actions for which notification 
and user redress is widely available.  
 Recital 13 - Ancillary features of services: The new text considers that, while 
comments in an online newspaper may be considered ancillary features, “the hosting of 
comments in a social network should be considered an online platform service, where it 
is clear that it is a major feature of the service offered, even if ancillary.
” It is unclear why 
the text discriminates in this way between different intermediary services. In the same 
way that hosting of comments in an online newspaper may be an ancillary feature of the 
main service offered, comments in a social network may also be ancillary. Additionally, 
the proposed text causes legal uncertainty: if comments are a major feature of the main 
social network service offered, they should just not be considered ancillary. The 
determination of whether or not a service feature is ancillary should not favor 
certain  intermediary services, but should be rather grounded in a fair examination of the 
specifics of that service. This flexible approach would be future-proof without 
undermining innovation.