keyboard_tab Digital Service Act 2022/2065 EN
BG CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR GA HR HU IT LV LT MT NL PL PT RO SK SL SV print pdf
- 1 Art. 15 Transparency reporting obligations for providers of intermediary services
- 1 Art. 17 Statement of reasons
- 4 Art. 20 Internal complaint-handling system
- 1 Art. 21 Out-of-court dispute settlement
- 1 Art. 22 Trusted flaggers
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER II
LIABILITY OF PROVIDERS OF INTERMEDIARY SERVICES
CHAPTER III
DUE DILIGENCE OBLIGATIONS FOR A TRANSPARENT AND SAFE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
SECTION 1
Provisions applicable to all providers of intermediary services
SECTION 2
Additional provisions applicable to providers of hosting services, including online platforms
SECTION 3
Additional provisions applicable to providers of online platforms
SECTION 4
Additional provisions applicable to providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders
SECTION 5
Additional obligations for providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines to manage systemic risks
SECTION 6
Other provisions concerning due diligence obligations
CHAPTER IV
IMPLEMENTATION, COOPERATION, PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 1
Competent authorities and national Digital Services Coordinators
SECTION 2
Competences, coordinated investigation and consistency mechanisms
SECTION 3
European Board for Digital Services
SECTION 4
Supervision, investigation, enforcement and monitoring in respect of providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines
SECTION 5
Common provisions on enforcement
SECTION 6
Delegated and implementing acts
CHAPTER V
FINAL PROVISIONS
- information society service
- recipient of the service
- consumer
- to offer services in the Union
- substantial connection to the Union
- trader
- intermediary service
- mere conduit
- caching
- hosting
- illegal content
- online platform
- online search engine
- dissemination to the public
- distance contract
- online interface
- Digital Services Coordinator of establishment
- Digital Services Coordinator of destination
- active recipient of an online platform
- active recipient of an online search engine
- advertisement
- recommender system
- content moderation
- terms and conditions
- persons with disabilities
- commercial communication
- turnover
- Mere conduit
- Caching
- shall 61
- dispute 42
- information 40
- settlement 37
- out-of-court 29
- services 23
- including 22
- online_platforms 20
- paragraph 20
- body 20
- referred 19
- accordance 18
- provider 17
- providers 16
- decision 15
- digital 15
- taken 14
- decisions 13
- bodies 12
- service 12
- coordinator 12
- trusted 12
- submitted 12
- have 12
- certified 12
- number 11
- notices 11
- which 10
- recipient_of_the_service 10
- illegal_content 10
- the 9
- provided 9
- recipients 9
- easily 9
- status 9
- period 9
- they 9
- following 9
- complaints 8
- flagger 8
- least 8
- online_platform 8
- disputes 8
- providers 8
- whether 8
- entity 8
- through 8
- internal 8
- complaint-handling 8
- means 7
Article 15
Transparency reporting obligations for providers of intermediary_services
1. Providers of intermediary_services shall make publicly available, in a machine-readable format and in an easily accessible manner, at least once a year, clear, easily comprehensible reports on any content_moderation that they engaged in during the relevant period. Those reports shall include, in particular, information on the following, as applicable:
| (a) | for providers of intermediary_services, the number of orders received from Member States’ authorities including orders issued in accordance with Articles 9 and 10, categorised by the type of illegal_content concerned, the Member State issuing the order, and the median time needed to inform the authority issuing the order, or any other authority specified in the order, of its receipt, and to give effect to the order; |
| (b) | for providers of hosting services, the number of notices submitted in accordance with Article 16, categorised by the type of alleged illegal_content concerned, the number of notices submitted by trusted flaggers, any action taken pursuant to the notices by differentiating whether the action was taken on the basis of the law or the terms_and_conditions of the provider, the number of notices processed by using automated means and the median time needed for taking the action; |
| (c) | for providers of intermediary_services, meaningful and comprehensible information about the content_moderation engaged in at the providers’ own initiative, including the use of automated tools, the measures taken to provide training and assistance to persons in charge of content_moderation, the number and type of measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of information provided by the recipients of the service and the recipients’ ability to provide information through the service, and other related restrictions of the service; the information reported shall be categorised by the type of illegal_content or violation of the terms_and_conditions of the service provider, by the detection method and by the type of restriction applied; |
| (d) | for providers of intermediary_services, the number of complaints received through the internal complaint-handling systems in accordance with the provider’s terms_and_conditions and additionally, for providers of online_platforms, in accordance with Article 20, the basis for those complaints, decisions taken in respect of those complaints, the median time needed for taking those decisions and the number of instances where those decisions were reversed; |
| (e) | any use made of automated means for the purpose of content_moderation, including a qualitative description, a specification of the precise purposes, indicators of the accuracy and the possible rate of error of the automated means used in fulfilling those purposes, and any safeguards applied. |
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to providers of intermediary_services that qualify as micro or small enterprises as defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC and which are not very large online_platforms within the meaning of Article 33 of this Regulation.
3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts to lay down templates concerning the form, content and other details of reports pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, including harmonised reporting periods. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 88.
SECTION 2
Additional provisions applicable to providers of hosting services, including online_platforms
Article 17
Statement of reasons
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.
Article 20
Internal complaint-handling system
1. Providers of online_platforms shall provide recipients of the service, including individuals or entities that have submitted a notice, for a period of at least six months following the decision referred to in this paragraph, with access to an effective internal complaint-handling system that enables them to lodge complaints, electronically and free of charge, against the decision taken by the provider of the online_platform upon the receipt of a notice or against the following decisions taken by the provider of the online_platform on the grounds that the information provided by the recipients constitutes illegal_content or is incompatible with its terms_and_conditions:
| (a) | decisions whether or not to remove or disable access to or restrict visibility of the information; |
| (b) | decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the provision of the service, in whole or in part, to the recipients; |
| (c) | decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the recipients’ account; |
| (d) | decisions whether or not to suspend, terminate or otherwise restrict the ability to monetise information provided by the recipients. |
2. The period of at least six months referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall start on the day on which the recipient_of_the_service is informed about the decision in accordance with Article 16(5) or Article 17.
3. Providers of online_platforms shall ensure that their internal complaint-handling systems are easy to access, user-friendly and enable and facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated complaints.
4. Providers of online_platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, non-discriminatory, diligent and non-arbitrary manner. Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the provider of the online_platform to consider that its decision not to act upon the notice is unfounded or that the information to which the complaint relates is not illegal and is not incompatible with its terms_and_conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the measure taken, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.
5. Providers of online_platforms shall inform complainants without undue delay of their reasoned decision in respect of the information to which the complaint relates and of the possibility of out-of-court dispute settlement provided for in Article 21 and other available possibilities for redress.
6. Providers of online_platforms shall ensure that the decisions, referred to in paragraph 5, are taken under the supervision of appropriately qualified staff, and not solely on the basis of automated means.
Article 21
Out-of-court dispute settlement
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.
Article 22
Trusted flaggers
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.
whereas