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. 21 Out-of-court dispute settlement
- 1 Art. 34 Risk assessment
- 1 Art. 37 Independent audit
- 1 Art. 82 Requests for access restrictions and cooperation with national courts
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 52
- dispute 40
- settlement 35
- very 28
- large 28
- out-of-court 27
- audit 24
- body 20
- have 18
- including 17
- services 16
- online_platforms 15
- referred 14
- provider 14
- they 12
- bodies 12
- certified 12
- pursuant 11
- commission 11
- report 11
- in article 11
- audits 10
- online_platform 10
- which 9
- period 9
- information 9
- digital 9
- online_search_engines 9
- paragraph 9
- disputes 8
- article 8
- them 8
- necessary 8
- providers 8
- coordinator 7
- subparagraph 7
- service 7
- request 7
- concerned 7
- enshrined 7
- risk 7
- from 7
- particular 7
- parties 7
- accordance 7
- relation 6
- providers 6
- take 6
- fees 6
- specific 6
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 34
Risk assessment
1. Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall diligently identify, analyse and assess any systemic risks in the Union stemming from the design or functioning of their service and its related systems, including algorithmic systems, or from the use made of their services.
They shall carry out the risk assessments by the date of application referred to in Article 33(6), second subparagraph, and at least once every year thereafter, and in any event prior to deploying functionalities that are likely to have a critical impact on the risks identified pursuant to this Article. This risk assessment shall be specific to their services and proportionate to the systemic risks, taking into consideration their severity and probability, and shall include the following systemic risks:
| (a) | the dissemination of illegal_content through their services; |
| (b) | any actual or foreseeable negative effects for the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular the fundamental rights to human dignity enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter, to respect for private and family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter, to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter, to freedom of expression and information, including the freedom and pluralism of the media, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter, to non-discrimination enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter, to respect for the rights of the child enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter and to a high-level of consumer protection enshrined in Article 38 of the Charter; |
| (c) | any actual or foreseeable negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security; |
| (d) | any actual or foreseeable negative effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being. |
2. When conducting risk assessments, providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall take into account, in particular, whether and how the following factors influence any of the systemic risks referred to in paragraph 1:
| (a) | the design of their recommender_systems and any other relevant algorithmic system; |
| (b) | their content_moderation systems; |
| (c) | the applicable terms_and_conditions and their enforcement; |
| (d) | systems for selecting and presenting advertisements; |
| (e) | data related practices of the provider. |
The assessments shall also analyse whether and how the risks pursuant to paragraph 1 are influenced by intentional manipulation of their service, including by inauthentic use or automated exploitation of the service, as well as the amplification and potentially rapid and wide dissemination of illegal_content and of information that is incompatible with their terms_and_conditions.
The assessment shall take into account specific regional or linguistic aspects, including when specific to a Member State.
3. Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall preserve the supporting documents of the risk assessments for at least three years after the performance of risk assessments, and shall, upon request, communicate them to the Commission and to the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment.
Article 37
Independent audit
1. Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall be subject, at their own expense and at least once a year, to independent audits to assess compliance with the following:
| (a) | the obligations set out in Chapter III; |
| (b) | any commitments undertaken pursuant to the codes of conduct referred to in Articles 45 and 46 and the crisis protocols referred to in Article 48. |
2. Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall afford the organisations carrying out the audits pursuant to this Article the cooperation and assistance necessary to enable them to conduct those audits in an effective, efficient and timely manner, including by giving them access to all relevant data and premises and by answering oral or written questions. They shall refrain from hampering, unduly influencing or undermining the performance of the audit.
Such audits shall ensure an adequate level of confidentiality and professional secrecy in respect of the information obtained from the providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines and third parties in the context of the audits, including after the termination of the audits. However, complying with that requirement shall not adversely affect the performance of the audits and other provisions of this Regulation, in particular those on transparency, supervision and enforcement. Where necessary for the purpose of the transparency reporting pursuant to Article 42(4), the audit report and the audit implementation report referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article shall be accompanied with versions that do not contain any information that could reasonably be considered to be confidential.
3. Audits performed pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be performed by organisations which:
| (a) | are independent from, and do not have any conflicts of interest with, the provider of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines concerned and any legal person connected to that provider; in particular:
|
| (b) | have proven expertise in the area of risk management, technical competence and capabilities; |
| (c) | have proven objectivity and professional ethics, based in particular on adherence to codes of practice or appropriate standards. |
4. Providers of very large online_platforms and of very large online_search_engines shall ensure that the organisations that perform the audits establish an audit report for each audit. That report shall be substantiated, in writing, and shall include at least the following:
| (a) | the name, address and the point of contact of the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine subject to the audit and the period covered; |
| (b) | the name and address of the organisation or organisations performing the audit; |
| (c) | a declaration of interests; |
| (d) | a description of the specific elements audited, and the methodology applied; |
| (e) | a description and a summary of the main findings drawn from the audit; |
| (f) | a list of the third parties consulted as part of the audit; |
| (g) | an audit opinion on whether the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine subject to the audit complied with the obligations and with the commitments referred to in paragraph 1, namely ‘positive’, ‘positive with comments’ or ‘negative’; |
| (h) | where the audit opinion is not ‘positive’, operational recommendations on specific measures to achieve compliance and the recommended timeframe to achieve compliance. |
5. Where the organisation performing the audit was unable to audit certain specific elements or to express an audit opinion based on its investigations, the audit report shall include an explanation of the circumstances and the reasons why those elements could not be audited.
6. Providers of very large online_platforms or of very large online_search_engines receiving an audit report that is not ‘positive’ shall take due account of the operational recommendations addressed to them with a view to take the necessary measures to implement them. They shall, within one month from receiving those recommendations, adopt an audit implementation report setting out those measures. Where they do not implement the operational recommendations, they shall justify in the audit implementation report the reasons for not doing so and set out any alternative measures that they have taken to address any instances of non-compliance identified.
7. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 87 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary rules for the performance of the audits pursuant to this Article, in particular as regards the necessary rules on the procedural steps, auditing methodologies and reporting templates for the audits performed pursuant to this Article. Those delegated acts shall take into account any voluntary auditing standards referred to in Article 44(1), point (e).
Article 82
Requests for access restrictions and cooperation with national courts
1. Where all powers pursuant to this Section to bring about the cessation of an infringement of this Regulation have been exhausted, the infringement persists and causes serious harm which cannot be avoided through the exercise of other powers available under Union or national law, the Commission may request the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment of the provider of the very large online_platform or of the very large online_search_engine concerned to act pursuant to Article 51(3).
Prior to making such request to the Digital Services Coordinator, the Commission shall invite interested parties to submit written observations within a period that shall not be less than 14 working days, describing the measures it intends to request and identifying the intended addressee or addressees thereof.
2. Where the coherent application of this Regulation so requires, the Commission, acting on its own initiative, may submit written observations to the competent judicial authority referred to Article 51(3). With the permission of the judicial authority in question, it may also make oral observations.
For the purpose of the preparation of its observations only, the Commission may request that judicial authority to transmit or ensure the transmission to it of any documents necessary for the assessment of the case.
3. When a national court rules on a matter which is already the subject matter of a decision adopted by the Commission under this Regulation, that national court shall not take any decision which runs counter to that Commission decision. National courts shall also avoid taking decisions which could conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated under this Regulation. To that effect, a national court may assess whether it is necessary to stay its proceedings. This is without prejudice to Article 267 TFEU.
whereas