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



1. Assessing before regulating
In accordance with the EU ‘better regulation’ principles, we encourage the European Commission to consult stakeholders, 
conduct robust impact assessments, and then act based on clear evidence. The E-Commerce Directive should remain a 
cornerstone of Europe’s internet economy and key provisions must be kept intact to facilitate the functioning of the Single 
Market. Any revision that is not based on proper consultations with stakeholders and a thorough consideration of empirical 
evidence may inadvertently create harm, especially where broad horizontal measures are considered. Moreover, legislators 
should carefully assess any potential unintended consequences that regulating digital services might have on businesses 
operating in Europe, particularly SMEs. Obligations should be achievable, and proportionate to known risks. This should also 
reflect the need for sufficient protections for users’ rights of freedom to do business and freedom of speech, and to prevent 
over-blocking as the default response to obligations and any regulatory oversight.
The EU has already adopted frameworks5 to deal with problematic content, goods or conduct online. Before adding another 
layer, and potentially creating confusion, we would urge legislators to wait for the implementation of these frameworks. 
The Copyright Directive, goods package, VAT reforms, consumer omnibus Directive and changes at UPU-level to fees, as well 
as the Terrorist Content Regulation, are major changes that have not yet come into force. Their impact must be understood to 
assess any further gaps and proportionate responses, including within the existing voluntary frameworks6.
2. Guiding principles 
2.1  Harmonised EU Single Market 
While in 2018, the European Commission estimated that 7,000 online platforms7 operated in Europe, today there are around 
10,0008. This represents a rise of 43%. The digitisation of Europe’s economy has just started. 
CCIA advocates for an innovation-friendly framework helping digital service providers to develop, scale up and compete globally. 
A harmonised EU framework would support micro-businesses, SMEs, and digital service providers’ growth and prosperity. 
In an assessment of the ECD, CCIA would welcome clarifications and harmonisation of ‘notice-and-takedown’ procedures, 
and ensure they complement  the concepts of ‘actual knowledge’9, and ‘manifestly illegal content’.
A harmonised approach could help businesses operate more seamlessly across borders in the EU. These rules could also 
include important clarifications on issues such as what constitutes a valid notice and the rights of users to potentially file a 
counter-notice. Importantly, sufficient flexibility should be ensured to take account of the specific needs of different online 
services. 
5  The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019/790/EC), the revised Audio-Visual Media Services Directive (2018/1808), the Directive on the Enforcement of 
Intellectual Property Rights (2004/48/EC), the proposed Regulation on Preventing the Dissemination of Terrorist Content Online (COM/2018/640), the Code of Conduct on 
Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, the EU Internet Forum, the Directive on General Product Safety (2001/95/EC), the Regulation on Market Surveillance and Compliance of 
Products (2019/1020), the Product Safety Pledge, and the Directive on Combating the Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography (2011/93/EU).
6  For instance, the EU Internet Forum, the Product Safety Pledge or the EU MoU on Counterfeiting Online.
7  European Commission, Impact Assessment Annexes accompanying the proposal for a regulation on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online interme-
diation services, 26 April 2018, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/impact-assessment-proposal--promoting-fair ness-transparency-online-platforms
8  European Commission’s presentation, European Parliament IMCO workshop on “e-commerce rules, fit for the digital age”“, 19 February 2020, 17:35:33-17:36:25, available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20200218-1600 -COMMITTEE-IMCO
9  The type of evidence required to substantiate ‘actual knowledge’ varies among jurisdiction. While in some Member States (Austria) actual knowledge could only be triggered 
in the case of manifestly illegal content, others like Germany and the Netherlands require knowledge of the illegal activity. In Italy and Spain the national legislation requires 
a communication or declaration of illegality from a competent authority. Recent case law in Italy and Spain ruled that actual knowledge can be obtained by any means. 
This approach has also been followed by the Polish and United Kingdom courts. In Finland, actual knowledge is obtained by a court order, with the exception of copyright 
infringements (for which a typified notice is sufficient). In Austria, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain the courts have held that the hosting service provider is not obliged to 
remove the disputed content or disable access where there is no manifest illegality. In Portugal, actual knowledge is limited to manifestly illegal content. In Finland, the 
relevant legislation provides that certain extreme pornography or ethnic agitation is assumed to be recognised by the host, regardless of whether a separate notice is provided 
by the competent authorities. In Sweden, the hosting service provider must remove, without notice, all content referring to agitation against a national ethnic group, child 
pornography and unlawful depiction of violence. 
Rue de la Loi 227 • First Floor • B-1040 Brussels • Belgium • Ph: +32 2 661 2020 
www.ccianet.org 
2

2.2  One size does not fit all
We would welcome horizontal measures focusing on the processes and the principles underlying them. That has been the 
enduring success of the ECD. Specific measures concerning types of content, goods or collaborative economy services should 
be considered individually and across on- and off-line spaces in order to address root causes. 
Furthermore, it is essential to acknowledge and differentiate between the various types of intermediation services. These 
should properly be accounted for in the context of any amendments made to the currently applicable framework. For instance, 
a cloud or technical infrastructure provider does not provide the same services as a content hosting service, and the extent to 
which they can be said to have control over information may be very different. 
We would support a European problem-solving approach based on stakeholder consultation, evidence and thorough assess-
ment. To be effective in assessing providers’ responsibilities, a pragmatic and targeted approach should be favoured. 
2.3  Future-proof
The most innovative technological tools of today will likely be outdated in a few years. EU law should not mandate one technical 
solution above another as it would harm innovation and competition. The Digital Services Act should be technology-neutral by 
regulating outcomes instead of processes. We encourage policymakers to build smart pro-innovation policy frameworks that 
maximise the benefits of technology by encouraging attainable principles for all. 
2.4  Building a healthy ecosystem together
The evidence of the self-regulatory activities documented through several MoUs and Codes of Practices is that online interme-
diaries can and do play a role when it comes to tackling all kinds of problematic content, products or conduct. That, however, 
is only one piece of the puzzle. While online companies must play their part, unenforced laws simply create burdens on the 
compliant while leaving problems unaddressed elsewhere. There are also roles for law enforcement, rights owners or users. 
Successful policy will ultimately depend on finding the appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of all relevant 
stakeholders. 
3. Adopt a problem-solving approach 
While we believe that the ECD continues to serve Europe well, a potential review could be an opportunity for improvements.
3.1  Scope
CCIA supports the European Commission’s objective to treat all digital services equally, regardless of where they are established. 
We wouldn’t be opposed to creating specific categories for different platforms. However, we strongly oppose defining a 
category of services based on large or significant market power status. It is not clear what the benefit of a separate rulebook 
for bigger players would be given that the current, successful structure is based on solid principles regardless of company size. 
The risk of such an approach could be to incentivise successful European players to stay small to avoid regulation. Another 
unintended consequence would be the migration of illegal content, goods or conduct to smaller, less regulated platforms. 
Last but not least, it is in no one’s interest to make a potential review of the ECD focus only on a handful of companies when 
the critical issues, questions and impacts involve the entire ecosystem of companies handling online content.
3.2  Liability
Intermediaries stand ready to act as responsible players. However, they cannot be held directly liable for what their users do. 
A general monitoring obligation could lead to excessive takedowns or de-activations. It would also likely lead to a market entry 
barrier as companies would prioritise limiting their legal risk. A ‘no obligation to monitor’ rule is the necessary companion of 
the liability protection principle. The Digital Services Act should under no circumstances weaken these fundamental principles. 
Rue de la Loi 227 • First Floor • B-1040 Brussels • Belgium • Ph: +32 2 661 2020 
www.ccianet.org 
3

The tech industry has invested considerably to make sure that illegal materials or accounts are removed quickly and efficiently. 
However, some platforms might still be reluctant to be more proactive as they may face liability risks due to the assumption that 
they would then have ‘actual knowledge’ of any illegal activity on their platforms. CCIA would welcome the introduction of a 
“proactive measures” provision where relevant and technically feasible. Such a clause would create legal clarity and encourage 
such companies to take proactive measures tackling problematic content, products or conduct without being penalised for 
their good faith efforts.
3.3  Country of origin
The country of origin principle allows innovators to grow their businesses from wherever they are in the EU and provide 
their services across the Single Market. It is as such the cornerstone of a functioning Digital Single Market and is particularly 
important for companies, notably for startups. Without it, European companies might face increased challenges to scaling up in 
the EU Single Market. 
3.4  Content 
To the extent that the Digital Services Act will focus on content, we recommend that it differentiate between il egal and 
harmful but legal content. “Lawful but harmful” content cannot be treated as “il egal content” without risking infringement 
of important rights, such as freedom of expression and access to information. Harmful content is complicated to assess, 
as the definitions are vague and norms often vary considerably, even within EU Member States. It will by definition require 
nuanced and subjective line drawing. A targeted regulatory approach adapted to the type of content will be more effective 
and limit the risk of unintended consequences.
3.5  Goods
EU citizens buy ever increasing amounts of goods, services and content online and cross-border. In 2019, 35% of e-buyers made 
purchases from sellers in other EU countries, compared with 2% in 2014. Last year, 71% of EU internet users shopped online10. 
E-commerce services and online marketplaces work every day to ensure their users’ trust in their services. Addressing issues 
related to goods in the DSA should be based on careful identification of specific issues, to avoid confusing distinct challenges 
through broad terms like “counterfeit”. A detailed analysis of existing initiatives, including rules yet to come into force, should 
consider where interventions are needed and best made, regardless of whether they are sold online or offline, as they should 
address goods however sold. Given that over 90% of all goods in the EU are still sold offline11, this requires an approach that is 
channel-neutral and focuses on the full supply chain.
3.6  Collaborative economy services
Collaborative economy services are digital services providing digital and physical products. Through a horizontal approach, 
the DSA offers the perfect opportunity to bring some consistency between EU Member States and local initiatives, enabling 
companies to scale up and consumers to receive better services. 
3.7  Online advertising
The digital economy has improved the advertising experience for all stakeholders involved in it. Thanks to ad-supported 
business models, consumers enjoy goods and services for a lower price, oftentimes even for free. 
10  Eurostat, e-commerce statistics for individuals, consulted on 26 February 2020, available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/E-commerce_
statistics_for_individuals
11  European Commission Inception Impact Assessment Proposal on contract rules for online purchase of digital content and tangible goods, July 2015, available at: https://
ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_just_008_contract_rules_for_digital_purchases_en.pdf
Rue de la Loi 227 • First Floor • B-1040 Brussels • Belgium • Ph: +32 2 661 2020 
www.ccianet.org 
4