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 online_platforms shall suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the provision of their services to recipients of the service that frequently provide manifestly illegal_content.

2.   Providers of online_platforms shall suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the processing of notices and complaints submitted through the notice and action mechanisms and internal complaints-handling systems referred to in Articles 16 and 20, respectively, by individuals or entities or by complainants that frequently submit notices or complaints that are manifestly unfounded.

3.   When deciding on suspension, providers of online_platforms shall assess, on a case-by-case basis and in a timely, diligent and objective manner, whether the recipient_of_the_service, the individual, the entity or the complainant engages in the misuse referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances apparent from the information available to the provider of online_platforms. Those circumstances shall include at least the following:

(a)	the absolute numbers of items of manifestly illegal_content or manifestly unfounded notices or complaints, submitted within a given time frame;

(b)	the relative proportion thereof in relation to the total number of items of information provided or notices submitted within a given time frame;

(c)	the gravity of the misuses, including the nature of illegal_content, and of its consequences;

(d)	where it is possible to identify it, the intention of the recipient_of_the_service, the individual, the entity or the complainant.

4.   Providers of online_platforms shall set out, in a clear and detailed manner, in their terms_and_conditions their policy in respect of the misuse referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, and shall give examples of the facts and circumstances that they take into account when assessing whether certain behaviour constitutes misuse and the duration of the suspension.

1.   Where a provider of an online_platform allowing consumers to conclude distance_contracts with traders becomes aware, irrespective of the means used, that an illegal product or service has been offered by a trader to consumers located in the Union through its services, that provider shall inform, insofar as it has their contact details, consumers who purchased the illegal product or service through its services of the following:

(a)	the fact that the product or service is illegal;

(b)	the identity of the trader; and

(c)	any relevant means of redress.

The obligation laid down in the first subparagraph shall be limited to purchases of illegal products or services made within the six months preceding the moment that the provider became aware of the illegality.

2.   Where, in the situation referred to in paragraph 1, the provider of the online_platform allowing consumers to conclude distance_contracts with traders does not have the contact details of all consumers concerned, that provider shall make publicly available and easily accessible on its online_interface the information concerning the illegal product or service, the identity of the trader and any relevant means of redress.

1.   When adopting a decision pursuant to Article 73 in relation to an infringement by a provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine of any of the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter III, the Commission shall make use of the enhanced supervision system laid down in this Article. When doing so, it shall take utmost account of any opinion of the Board pursuant to this Article.

2.   In the decision referred to in Article 73, the Commission shall require the provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine concerned to draw up and communicate, within a reasonable period specified in the decision, to the Digital Services Coordinators, the Commission and the Board an action plan setting out the necessary measures which are sufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement. Those measures shall include a commitment to perform an independent audit in accordance with Article 37(3) and (4) on the implementation of the other measures, and shall specify the identity of the auditors, as well as the methodology, timing and follow-up of the audit. The measures may also include, where appropriate, a commitment to participate in a relevant code of conduct, as provided for in Article 45.

3.   Within one month following receipt of the action plan, the Board shall communicate its opinion on the action plan to the Commission. Within one month following receipt of that opinion, the Commission shall decide whether the measures set out in the action plan are sufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement, and shall set a reasonable period for its implementation. The possible commitment to adhere to relevant codes of conduct shall be taken into account in that decision. The Commission shall subsequently monitor the implementation of the action plan. To that end, the provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine concerned shall communicate the audit report to the Commission without undue delay after it becomes available, and shall keep the Commission up to date on steps taken to implement the action plan. The Commission may, where necessary for such monitoring, require the provider of a very large online_platform or of a very large online_search_engine concerned to provide additional information within a reasonable period set by the Commission.

The Commission shall keep the Board and the Digital Services Coordinators informed about the implementation of the action plan, and about its monitoring thereof.

4.   The Commission may take necessary measures in accordance with this Regulation, in particular Article 76(1), point (e), and Article 82(1), where:

(a)	the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine concerned fails to provide any action plan, the audit report, the necessary updates or any additional information required, within the applicable period;

(b)	the Commission rejects the proposed action plan because it considers that the measures set out therein are insufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement; or

(c)	the Commission considers, on the basis of the audit report, any updates or additional information provided or any other relevant information available to it, that the implementation of the action plan is insufficient to terminate or remedy the infringement.