keyboard_tab Digital Service Act 2022/2065 EN

1.   Providers of hosting services shall provide a clear and specific statement of reasons to any affected recipients of the service for any of the following restrictions imposed on the ground that the information provided by the recipient_of_the_service is illegal_content or incompatible with their terms_and_conditions:

(a)	any restrictions of the visibility of specific items of information provided by the recipient_of_the_service, including removal of content, disabling access to content, or demoting content;

(b)	suspension, termination or other restriction of monetary payments;

(c)	suspension or termination of the provision of the service in whole or in part;

(d)	suspension or termination of the recipient_of_the_service's account.

2.   Paragraph 1 shall only apply where the relevant electronic contact details are known to the provider. It shall apply at the latest from the date that the restriction is imposed, regardless of why or how it was imposed.

Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the information is deceptive high-volume commercial content.

3.   The statement of reasons referred to in paragraph 1 shall at least contain the following information:

(a)

information on whether the decision entails either the removal of, the disabling of access to, the demotion of or the restriction of the visibility of the information, or the suspension or termination of monetary payments related to that information, or imposes other measures referred to in paragraph 1 with regard to the information, and, where relevant, the territorial scope of the decision and its duration;

(b)

the facts and circumstances relied on in taking the decision, including, where relevant, information on whether the decision was taken pursuant to a notice submitted in accordance with Article 16 or based on voluntary own-initiative investigations and, where strictly necessary, the identity of the notifier;

(c)	where applicable, information on the use made of automated means in taking the decision, including information on whether the decision was taken in respect of content detected or identified using automated means;

(d)	where the decision concerns allegedly illegal_content, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be illegal_content on that ground;

(e)	where the decision is based on the alleged incompatibility of the information with the terms_and_conditions of the provider of hosting services, a reference to the contractual ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be incompatible with that ground;

(f)	clear and user-friendly information on the possibilities for redress available to the recipient_of_the_service in respect of the decision, in particular, where applicable through internal complaint-handling mechanisms, out-of-court dispute settlement and judicial redress.

4.   The information provided by the providers of hosting services in accordance with this Article shall be clear and easily comprehensible and as precise and specific as reasonably possible under the given circumstances. The information shall, in particular, be such as to reasonably allow the recipient_of_the_service concerned to effectively exercise the possibilities for redress referred to in of paragraph 3, point (f).

5.   This Article shall not apply to any orders referred to in Article 9.

1.   Recipients of the service, including individuals or entities that have submitted notices, addressed by the decisions referred to in Article 20(1) shall be entitled to select any out-of-court dispute settlement body that has been certified in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article in order to resolve disputes relating to those decisions, including complaints that have not been resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in that Article.

Providers of online_platforms shall ensure that information about the possibility for recipients of the service to have access to an out-of-court dispute settlement, as referred to in the first subparagraph, is easily accessible on their online_interface, clear and user-friendly.

The first subparagraph is without prejudice to the right of the recipient_of_the_service concerned to initiate, at any stage, proceedings to contest those decisions by the providers of online_platforms before a court in accordance with the applicable law.

2.   Both parties shall engage, in good faith, with the selected certified out-of-court dispute settlement body with a view to resolving the dispute.

Providers of online_platforms may refuse to engage with such out-of-court dispute settlement body if a dispute has already been resolved concerning the same information and the same grounds of alleged illegality or incompatibility of content.

The certified out-of-court dispute settlement body shall not have the power to impose a binding settlement of the dispute on the parties.

3.   The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the out-of-court dispute settlement body is established shall, for a maximum period of five years, which may be renewed, certify the body, at its request, where the body has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

(a)	it is impartial and independent, including financially independent, of providers of online_platforms and of recipients of the service provided by providers of online_platforms, including of individuals or entities that have submitted notices;

(b)

it has the necessary expertise in relation to the issues arising in one or more particular areas of illegal_content, or in relation to the application and enforcement of terms_and_conditions of one or more types of online_platform, allowing the body to contribute effectively to the settlement of a dispute;

(c)	its members are remunerated in a way that is not linked to the outcome of the procedure;

(d)	the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers is easily accessible, through electronic communications technology and provides for the possibility to initiate the dispute settlement and to submit the requisite supporting documents online;

(e)	it is capable of settling disputes in a swift, efficient and cost-effective manner and in at least one of the official languages of the institutions of the Union;

(f)	the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers takes place in accordance with clear and fair rules of procedure that are easily and publicly accessible, and that comply with applicable law, including this Article.

The Digital Services Coordinator shall, where applicable, specify in the certificate:

(a)	the particular issues to which the body’s expertise relates, as referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph; and

(b)	the official language or languages of the institutions of the Union in which the body is capable of settling disputes, as referred to in point (e) of the first subparagraph.

4.   Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall report to the Digital Services Coordinator that certified them, on an annual basis, on their functioning, specifying at least the number of disputes they received, the information about the outcomes of those disputes, the average time taken to resolve them and any shortcomings or difficulties encountered. They shall provide additional information at the request of that Digital Services Coordinator.

Digital Services Coordinators shall, every two years, draw up a report on the functioning of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they certified. That report shall in particular:

(a)	list the number of disputes that each certified out-of-court dispute settlement body has received annually;

(b)	indicate the outcomes of the procedures brought before those bodies and the average time taken to resolve the disputes;

(c)	identify and explain any systematic or sectoral shortcomings or difficulties encountered in relation to the functioning of those bodies;

(d)	identify best practices concerning that functioning;

(e)	make recommendations as to how to improve that functioning, where appropriate.

Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall make their decisions available to the parties within a reasonable period of time and no later than 90 calendar days after the receipt of the complaint. In the case of highly complex disputes, the certified out-of-court dispute settlement body may, at its own discretion, extend the 90 calendar day period for an additional period that shall not exceed 90 days, resulting in a maximum total duration of 180 days.

5.   If the out-of-court dispute settlement body decides the dispute in favour of the recipient_of_the_service, including the individual or entity that has submitted a notice, the provider of the online_platform shall bear all the fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement body, and shall reimburse that recipient, including the individual or entity, for any other reasonable expenses that it has paid in relation to the dispute settlement. If the out-of-court dispute settlement body decides the dispute in favour of the provider of the online_platform, the recipient_of_the_service, including the individual or entity, shall not be required to reimburse any fees or other expenses that the provider of the online_platform paid or is to pay in relation to the dispute settlement, unless the out-of-court dispute settlement body finds that that recipient manifestly acted in bad faith.

The fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement body to the providers of online_platforms for the dispute settlement shall be reasonable and shall in any event not exceed the costs incurred by the body. For recipients of the service, the dispute settlement shall be available free of charge or at a nominal fee.

Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall make the fees, or the mechanisms used to determine the fees, known to the recipient_of_the_service, including to the individuals or entities that have submitted a notice, and to the provider of the online_platform concerned, before engaging in the dispute settlement.

6.   Member States may establish out-of-court dispute settlement bodies for the purposes of paragraph 1 or support the activities of some or all out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 3.

Member States shall ensure that any of their activities undertaken under the first subparagraph do not affect the ability of their Digital Services Coordinators to certify the bodies concerned in accordance with paragraph 3.

7.   A Digital Services Coordinator that has certified an out-of-court dispute settlement body shall revoke that certification if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis of the information received by third parties, that the out-of-court dispute settlement body no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 3. Before revoking that certification, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford that body an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the out-of-court dispute settlement body’s certification.

8.   Digital Services Coordinators shall notify to the Commission the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 3, including where applicable the specifications referred to in the second subparagraph of that paragraph, as well as the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies the certification of which they have revoked. The Commission shall publish a list of those bodies, including those specifications, on a dedicated website that is easily accessible, and keep it up to date.

9.   This Article is without prejudice to Directive 2013/11/EU and alternative dispute resolution procedures and entities for consumers established under that Directive.

1.   Providers of online_platforms shall take the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers, acting within their designated area of expertise, through the mechanisms referred to in Article 16, are given priority and are processed and decided upon without undue delay.

2.   The status of ‘trusted flagger’ under this Regulation shall be awarded, upon application by any entity, by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the applicant is established, to an applicant that has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

(a)	it has particular expertise and competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal_content;

(b)	it is independent from any provider of online_platforms;

(c)	it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices diligently, accurately and objectively.

3.   Trusted flaggers shall publish, at least once a year easily comprehensible and detailed reports on notices submitted in accordance with Article 16 during the relevant period. The report shall list at least the number of notices categorised by:

(a)	the identity of the provider of hosting services,

(b)	the type of allegedly illegal_content notified,

(c)	the action taken by the provider.

Those reports shall include an explanation of the procedures in place to ensure that the trusted flagger retains its independence.

Trusted flaggers shall send those reports to the awarding Digital Services Coordinator, and shall make them publicly available. The information in those reports shall not contain personal data.

4.   Digital Services Coordinators shall communicate to the Commission and the Board the names, addresses and email addresses of the entities to which they have awarded the status of the trusted flagger in accordance with paragraph 2 or whose trusted flagger status they have suspended in accordance with paragraph 6 or revoked in accordance with paragraph 7.

5.   The Commission shall publish the information referred to in paragraph 4 in a publicly available database, in an easily accessible and machine-readable format, and shall keep the database up to date.

6.   Where a provider of online_platforms has information indicating that a trusted flagger has submitted a significant number of insufficiently precise, inaccurate or inadequately substantiated notices through the mechanisms referred to in Article 16, including information gathered in connection to the processing of complaints through the internal complaint-handling systems referred to in Article 20(4), it shall communicate that information to the Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to the entity concerned, providing the necessary explanations and supporting documents. Upon receiving the information from the provider of online_platforms, and if the Digital Services Coordinator considers that there are legitimate reasons to open an investigation, the status of trusted flagger shall be suspended during the period of the investigation. That investigation shall be carried out without undue delay.

7.   The Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to an entity shall revoke that status if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis information received from third parties, including the information provided by a provider of online_platforms pursuant to paragraph 6, that the entity no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Before revoking that status, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford the entity an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the entity’s status as trusted flagger.

8.   The Commission, after consulting the Board, shall, where necessary, issue guidelines to assist providers of online_platforms and Digital Services Coordinators in the application of paragraphs 2, 6 and 7.

1.   Providers of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines that present advertisements on their online_interfaces shall compile and make publicly available in a specific section of their online_interface, through a searchable and reliable tool that allows multicriteria queries and through application programming interfaces, a repository containing the information referred to in paragraph 2, for the entire period during which they present an advertisement and until one year after the advertisement was presented for the last time on their online_interfaces. They shall ensure that the repository does not contain any personal data of the recipients of the service to whom the advertisement was or could have been presented, and shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the information is accurate and complete.

2.   The repository shall include at least all of the following information:

(a)	the content of the advertisement, including the name of the product, service or brand and the subject matter of the advertisement;

(b)	the natural or legal person on whose behalf the advertisement is presented;

(c)	the natural or legal person who paid for the advertisement, if that person is different from the person referred to in point (b);

(d)	the period during which the advertisement was presented;

(e)	whether the advertisement was intended to be presented specifically to one or more particular groups of recipients of the service and if so, the main parameters used for that purpose including where applicable the main parameters used to exclude one or more of such particular groups;

(f)	the commercial_communications published on the very large online_platforms and identified pursuant to Article 26(2);

(g)	the total number of recipients of the service reached and, where applicable, aggregate numbers broken down by Member State for the group or groups of recipients that the advertisement specifically targeted.

3.   As regards paragraph 2, points (a), (b) and (c), where a provider of very large online_platform or of very large online_search_engine has removed or disabled access to a specific advertisement based on alleged illegality or incompatibility with its terms_and_conditions, the repository shall not include the information referred to in those points. In such case, the repository shall include, for the specific advertisement concerned, the information referred to in Article 17(3), points (a) to (e), or Article 9(2), point (a)(i), as applicable.

The Commission may, after consultation of the Board, the relevant vetted researchers referred to in Article 40 and the public, issue guidelines on the structure, organisation and functionalities of the repositories referred to in this Article.

1.   Unless the Commission has initiated an investigation for the same alleged infringement, where a Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_destination has reason to suspect that a provider of an intermediary_service has infringed this Regulation in a manner negatively affecting the recipients of the service in the Member State of that Digital Services Coordinator, it may request the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment to assess the matter and to take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

2.   Unless the Commission has initiated an investigation for the same alleged infringement, and at the request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators of destination that have reason to suspect that a specific provider of intermediary_services infringed this Regulation in a manner negatively affecting recipients of the service in their Member States, the Board may request the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment to assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

3.   A request pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 shall be duly reasoned, and shall at least indicate:

(a)	the point of contact of the provider of the intermediary_services concerned as provided for in Article 11;

(b)

a description of the relevant facts, the provisions of this Regulation concerned and the reasons why the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, suspects that the provider infringed this Regulation, including the description of the negative effects of the alleged infringement;

(c)	any other information that the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, considers relevant, including, where appropriate, information gathered on its own initiative or suggestions for specific investigatory or enforcement measures to be taken, including interim measures.

4.   The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall take utmost account of the request pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article. Where it considers that it has insufficient information to act upon the request and has reasons to consider that the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, could provide additional information, the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment may either request such information in accordance with Article 57 or, alternatively, may launch a joint investigation pursuant to Article 60(1) involving at least the requesting Digital Services Coordinator. The period laid down in paragraph 5 of this Article shall be suspended until that additional information is provided or until the invitation to participate in the joint investigation is refused.

5.   The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall, without undue delay and in any event not later than two months following receipt of the request pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2, communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, and the Board, the assessment of the suspected infringement and an explanation of any investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged in relation thereto to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

1.   The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment may launch and lead joint investigations with the participation of one or more other Digital Services Coordinators concerned:

(a)	at its own initiative, to investigate an alleged infringement of this Regulation by a given provider of intermediary_services in several Member States; or

(b)	upon recommendation of the Board, acting on the request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators alleging, based on a reasonable suspicion, an infringement by a given provider of intermediary_services affecting recipients of the service in their Member States.

2.   Any Digital Services Coordinator that proves that it has a legitimate interest in participating in a joint investigation pursuant to paragraph 1 may request to do so. The joint investigation shall be concluded within three months from its launch, unless otherwise agreed amongst the participants.

The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall communicate its preliminary position on the alleged infringement no later than one month after the end of the deadline referred to in the first subparagraph to all Digital Services Coordinators, the Commission and the Board. The preliminary position shall take into account the views of all other Digital Services Coordinators participating in the joint investigation. Where applicable, this preliminary position shall also set out the enforcement measures envisaged.

3.   The Board may refer the matter to the Commission pursuant to Article 59, where:

(a)	the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment failed to communicate its preliminary position within the deadline set out in paragraph 2;

(b)	the Board substantially disagrees with the preliminary position communicated by the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment; or

(c)	the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment failed to initiate the joint investigation promptly following the recommendation by the Board pursuant to paragraph 1, point (b).

4.   In carrying out the joint investigation, the participating Digital Services Coordinators shall cooperate in good faith, taking into account, where applicable, the indications of the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment and the Board’s recommendation. The Digital Services Coordinators of destination participating in the joint investigation shall be entitled, at the request of or after having consulted the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment, to exercise their investigative powers referred to in Article 51(1) in respect of the providers of intermediary_services concerned by the alleged infringement, with regard to information and premises located within their territory.