Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
IMCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsChristiane Wendehorst
And so you have those five types of components, and then on top of that are still the co-generated data, the user-generated content which comes on top. Why is that problematic? Well, look at those five types of components. Do you have the owner- no, that was fine, you can go to the next slide, please. Do you have the typical rights associated with ownership with regard to those five, five plus one components, I should say.
And I'm not going to walk you through that table, actually we don't have the time to do that, but all that is required is that you see what is written in red. And there you see time and again, it depends on a license. It depends on a contract. It's not really what you have, what you used to have in the tangible world. So, you don't have ownership-like rights in most of the components.
Can we go to the next slide, please. Okay. So, what you have is mostly contractual rights. So, a license or a contract right away. So, that means we have to look at what contract law gives you as a consumer.
And the most important piece of legislation here is the digital content and services directive. So what kind of remedies do you have if what you bought no longer works after some time? During the warranty period, which is in most jurisdictions two years, even though member states are allowed to go beyond it, you are pretty much protected as a consumer. However, after the warranty period has lapsed, so usually after two years, you're in a very weak position because the DCD provides for a right to receive updates, but already when it comes to remote digital environments, the directive is not so clear and arguably it doesn't have a very clear right actually to have those remote digital environments and related digital services for a longer period. So when you look at the contract law scenario, it's already not so clear.
Next slide, please. And you have a very similar situation when it comes to tangible goods that are connected, like a connected vehicle. So a vehicle which you bought in the past was something made of metal and wood and plastic and you name it, and you owned it, you could resell it, you could rent it out. Now today it comes with all sorts of digital services, with all sorts of digital content, with user accounts, everything. So it's pretty much the same situation.
You have embedded software, you have related software on your smartphone, you have updates, you have those services like navigation services. And the situation is very similar and just that courts are probably more likely to strike down clauses that would prohibit resale in the case of a car, but otherwise situation is pretty similar. Next slide, please. So why is this all a problem? Well, the problem is that your product which you bought only works if all those components are in place.
And a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So you may have ownership in the traditional sense in the hardware, fine, but that's not the important thing, right? The important thing is do you have everything you need to have your consumer goods really work for you? And where the weakest link is a mere contractual claim, that's actually what you have. So next slide, please.
So why is this a problem? Well, obviously it's a problem because you pay in advance. You pay a one-off lump sum for the product and the long-term provision of updates and digital services, and yet you don't know for how long you will get them. You are confronted with different entities. Now I said five types of components.
It's types of components. It may be more components. You may be confronted with like ten different entities. So that's a problem. You depend on others for repair, resale, and similar very mundane activities, and you cannot prevent unilateral intrusive action such as changing your product by way of updates or otherwise, or maybe put it out of service.
Next slide, please. So is this worse than the situation we've had all the time? We've been complaining about obsolescence for a long time. Well, you could say in a way situation is similar, but I think it's worse because the power asymmetry is simply worse and you cannot mitigate risks by way of proper inspection, careful handling, and similar measures. Next slide, please.
So how to move forward?
I believe that there are three requirements which we need to ensure. We cannot turn the wheel of time back, you know, we cannot go back and say no, let's not have digital elements anymore, but we can ensure three requirements. And those are: providing necessary updates and related services for as long as the consumer can reasonably expect. Now, for updates that is pretty much in the directives, but for digital services it's not so clear. Ensure repair, resale, similar activities that are normally associated with ownership, and refrain from significant unilateral modifications and similar measures.
Next slide, please. Now how what should we do moving forward? Well, I think we should make sure we strictly enforce the law we have. The UCPD and the UCTD in particular can really help mitigating the problem. So anyway, when you describe something as sale, as buying something, then this should be misleading where the requirements are not ensured to a significant extent and contractual terms likely to undermine should be considered unfair.
Then we need appropriate interpretation of the directives together with national contract law, there are several ways of solving the problems, but of course it would be nice to have additional consumer rights. I'm not saying we need to have them, but it would be good if the directives are revised, then we should make sure the consumer has additional rights against the manufacturer and with that I thank you for your attention.
Thank you so much for your excellent presentation. I have already several questions in my mind, but first we go to Professor Dr. Alberto De Franceschi, Professor of Private Law, Digital Law and Environmental Sustainability and International Trade Law. Wow, that's a lot of disciplines at the University of Ferrara and you also have ten minutes. Welcome.
Alberto De Franceschi
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views with you. And indeed, I build upon the excellent presentation by colleague Christiane Wendehorst and focus on how to fight premature obsolescence. And indeed, on whether the existing instruments and especially the Digital Content Directive, the Sale of Goods Directive, but also further directives, previous directives like the Consumer Rights Directive, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive are fit for purpose for countering the challenge of premature obsolescence.
For this purpose, next slide, please, we will look into transparency, so whether the rules on information duties are fit for purpose, then on unilateral modification or interruption of supply of digital content or digital services, and then a focus on the merit of this Stop Destroying Videogames initiative with some issues and responses. And then we will focus on enforcement and see whether there is enough synergy between substantive rights and enforcement and whether enforcement is able to counteract some abusive behaviors. Next slide, please. So as already mentioned, updates are key for ensuring durability. So we know that increasingly more traders and producers make statements about durability in terms of commercial guarantee.
So if they are able to make precise statements, five years, seven years, even regarding smart goods, regarding durability, it should not be considered too burdensome on them to impose a duty to inform on the expected durability of a product. Because what are the legitimate expectations of a consumer in the digital world? After the two years?
What are the expectations regarding a mobile phone, a car, an elevator? Very different, but no concretization in that regard. So in order to give more flavor to the frame of supply of updates, the empowering consumers in the green transition intervene, we know, on the consumer rights directive in terms of imposing new information duties regarding the minimum period during which the producer or provider provides software update. But this duty is currently provided only for the case in which the producer or provider makes the information available to the trader. So it's not a duty in all cases, but only if the trader was beneficiary of the information regarding those updates.
So in my opinion, we should impose the duty to make available those information regarding software updates in all cases. Secondly, these are key information, and we know that too much information is no information. And the question is how functional is the current set of information duties we have in place? So in order to avoid this no information which comes from too much information, we have a very functional rule, Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Consumer Rights Directive, which was conceived in order to avoid internet cost traps and which imposes on the trader immediately before the consumer places his order to highlight the key elements of the contract: the price, the subject, the key elements regarding termination. So four letters from Article 6(1) CRD: A, E, O, P.
But I wonder whether in the moment immediately before the conclusion of the contracts, the consumer should be made aware also of the time, of the length of the supply of updates and of rules, of aspects regarding termination of the contract and especially restitutions. Next slide, please. So information about durability is key for understanding how long may we rely on the goods, the smart goods or digital content, digital element we have in hand. And the question is whether we may consider to extend liability period and presumption for non-conformity for some goods, for specific categories of goods. I know this is very controversial, but as we mentioned, we have very different expectations regarding very different types of goods.
So for digital content and digital services, as the consumer has the right to be informed about the period of time by reference to a date during which the producer or provider provides software updates, the liability period may be extended accordingly. Next slide, please. And now I come back to one very good idea, one of the very good ideas which were put on the table by colleague Van der Horst regarding possible additional remedies against the producer or importers or online platforms. Because both regarding the supply of smart goods and the supply of digital content, digital services, it is the producer who often has control over hardware and software. And so therefore a direct consumer claim against the producer, the importer or the online platform should be considered.
And if we look at the implementation in several member states of DCD and Sale of Goods Directive, we see for instance that Hungary added an additional extra-contractual statutory and mandatory remedy for repair and replacement against the producer. As this matter is not regulated directly by the directive, I think this is not in breach with full harmonization. Then Spain, in Spain the case law, the Supreme Court admitted a claim, a direct claim for contractual damages from the manufacturer.
In Portugal, the legislator introduced a direct liability of the online marketplace provider in case of predominant influence on the contract, relying very much on the European Law Institute model rules. And in Germany, of course, there is discussion about so-called Gewährleistungsähnliche Herstellerhaftung. Then next slide please. Of course, a key issue is the unilateral modification of the contract terms. And therefore it's key to rely on an effective implementation of the unfair commercial unfair contract trade terms directive and in particular of the provisions contained in the annex.
But there is a big loophole in the digital content directive, in the sale of goods directive, which is the lack of a provision similar to article 19 of the digital content and digital service directive. Because article 19 DCD regulates the unilateral modification of digital content and digital services. And there is no twin provision in that regard in the sale of goods directive. And of course this is a door, a gate through which a very dangerous Trojan horse may enter and endanger the effectiveness of consumer rights, the unilateral modification of digital content and digital services. But systematically said, in any case consumers can often not exactly judge such modifications.
So the question is whether it may be more reasonable to allow changes once per year accompanied by training and information with an exception just for security issues. Next time, next slide please. No, sorry, previous slide please, it is the right one. Another very, very complicated aspect, sorry, next slide please. Both directives, the sale of goods directive and the digital content digital services directive contain two rules, article 8 paragraph 3 and 7 paragraph 4, which make possible for the trader to notify updates and to inform the consumer about the circumstance that if the consumer does not execute those updates, the good will be no longer working.
And there the liability will be excluded. So same as above, this is the risk of abuse is very high. So here we need to check the effectiveness of the enforcement of the unfair commercial practices directive in order to counteract abusive behavior. If we come to the stop destroying video games initiative very briefly. If we talk about selling a video game, as it was said, probably we're not able to speak about sales contract, it is more a license contract.
If the customer is not told about when the game will stop working at the time of purchase, it is a breach of the consumer rights directive but also of the unfair commercial practices directive. Next slide please. So according to copyright law, it's not possible to foresee mandatory licensing imposed on video games. It's not possible to provide exemptions that cover end of life over copyright products. And the article 8 of DSM directive allows for the possibility of licensing such works to collective management organization and cultural heritage institutions.
And coming very briefly to the enforcement side, next slide please. If we look at the functionality of the, next slide again please. If we look at the functionality of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, we have a big issue. Article 13 of the Directive foresees that sanctions, penalties shall be deterrent, proportionate and dissuasive. But the problem is proportionality.
Currently, according to Article 13, paragraph 3, only for cross-border infringements according to the CPC Regulation is possible to have a proportionate sanction linked to the 4% of the annual turnover of the trader. For purely national infringement, this is not possible. So, I think we should follow the example of France and Belgium that while implementing the CCD, Digital Content Directive and Sale of Goods Directive, extended that solution, the link to the annual turnover of the trader, also to purely national infringements. And I conclude, only through a synergy between an effective implementation of the UCPD, proportionate sanctions and improvement of existing instruments, I think we can adequately protect consumer rights in the digital world. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much to you as well for the excellent input. And now we have the time to ask questions or come in, so the colleagues can just let me know. If not, I start. Probably I start because, I mean, you mentioned the video games initiative. Of course, we had a big hearing here in this committee together with JURI and the PETI committee.
And I mean, I think all of us supported the citizens' initiative because we think, okay, it's not right that computer games or video games at some point just run out or the license runs out, whatever. But could you explain a little bit what could be the solutions to this very concrete problem? Because it's just in a lot of citizens' minds, that's why I think it's a great example to make sure that they can still use video games in the future without, of course, breaching any contractual rights or copyrights or whatever from the producers. Like, do you have a concrete solution for that concrete example? Because it was discussed so much in this house right now.
So, and I think everyone was a little bit disappointed with the Commission response. So probably you can reply to that. Is there any other questions? Pablo.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Thank you very much, Chair. Voy a hablar en español. Bueno, la verdad es que no es un asunto fácil. Y la verdad es que, bueno, pues gente como yo que estamos acostumbrados a poder, que es lo que hemos hecho hasta ahora, a poder comprar cosas físicas y después decidir venderlas o decidir quedárnoslas o decidir lo que queramos, pues está muy bien. Claro, ahora de repente entramos con esta cuestión de la de lo digital.
Y lo digital pues depende de muchas cosas, entre ellos pues lo decían los dos oradores, por ejemplo las actualizaciones. Bien, claro, hay que actualizar esas cosas porque si no no funcionan bien. Pero claro, también hemos introducido cuestiones muy curiosas como por ejemplo ahora los vehículos tienen una parte que es la de siempre, es la parte del hardware que podríamos decir, tiene volante, que es obligatorio, claro, si no no podemos girar, tiene ruedas, tiene, pero también tiene un software. Y ¿por qué? Porque hemos decidido que tiene que estar conectado. Pero es que ahora todos los coches en Europa tienen que venir con ese software obligatoriamente.
Y a lo mejor es una cosa que tendría que haber decidido el consumidor si quiere un coche que tenga esa preinstalación para el software o no. Y lo que vemos ahora que cuando compramos un coche pues todos los coches ya vienen por defecto con esa obligatoriedad de tener que actualizarse cada equis tiempo para que todo funcione correctamente. Yo no sé si esto es una buena decisión, si no lo es. Lo que está claro es que ahí entra una parte que a mí se me escapa y por tanto como no soy un experto pues sí que me gustaría ver qué opciones tenemos o qué derechos tenemos con respecto a esto. Porque lo que necesitamos son suscripciones, ¿no?
Y la suscripción puede ser mensual, puede ser anual, puede ser ilimitada. Yo me he comprado un coche ahora y entonces me ofrecen servicios que no había pedido pero que están preinstalados porque son digitales. Los puedo hacer de manera remota, los puedo pedir y luego me dicen que esa instalación puede ser una suscripción mensual, primero de prueba, me la ofrecen de prueba. Una vez que ya me he enganchado, entonces puede ser anual o mensual o con una oferta mejor anual o en algunos casos que vienen ya de inicio ilimitada, ilimitada. ¿Qué quiere decir ilimitada?
Esto va de suscripciones.
Porque claro, ilimitada es para siempre. Ilimitada es como los datos, que tengo datos ilimitados, o sea, puedo usar todos los datos que quiera durante el mes de vigencia del contrato. O sea, no entiendo ese concepto de ilimitado. Y por tanto, pues hay cosas que creo que son, no sé si lagunas, pero sí o existe una falta de transparencia o una falta de información o es simplemente porque yo soy muy analógico y necesito tener unas una educación más digital para poder entenderlo. Pero lo que está claro es que aquí el consumidor que no está siquiera metido en materia, pues si para mí es difícil entenderlo, que estoy intentando entenderlo, pues para un consumidor se me antoja imposible.
Y luego también se explica, y es verdad, que aquí debería de haber en esos contratos en los que viene demasiada información, pues es imposible porque esa información se convierte en desinformación. Son tan amplios que es imposible entender nada. Y lo que deberíamos tender es a simplificar esa información y a buscar cuáles son los elementos importantes, ¿no? En los informes de empresa que son muy tozudos y muy gruesos, tenemos lo que se llama, por ejemplo, pues ese resumen ejecutivo. O sea, no yo no veo el resumen ejecutivo en esos contratos que firmamos o en esos acuerdos o en esas suscripciones que firmamos o que aceptamos para poder utilizar esto, ¿no?
Bueno, yo tengo aquí esa serie de dudas. Insisto en que no soy un experto y que todo esto me suena, no les diré a chino porque ya poco a poco nos vamos familiarizando con que al final la parte débil de todo esto es el consumidor de esos productos digitales y que las empresas pues nos tienen digamos que controlados o dominados porque siempre hay un periodo en el que existe una vida útil de ese producto digital que hemos comprado. Pero lo que está claro es que todos los productos digitales llega un momento en que dejan de funcionar sin saber muy bien el porqué y que bueno, pues como en esa iniciativa ciudadana que mencionaba la presidenta Cavazzini, pues efectivamente después lo que hay es un quebranto para el consumidor final en el que deberíamos de al menos poder informar previamente una vez que se compra la licencia de uso. Esto es: esto a usted le va a durar cinco, diez, veinte años, lo que sea. Y mientras que pues tengamos esa información, pues a mí la transparencia me parece que sería un elemento importante a introducir.
No sé si ustedes piensan lo mismo. Gracias.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much. Maria Grapini.
Ok, voi vorbi în limba română. Voi continua cu ce a spus colegul meu. Dacă nouă ne este greu să înțelegem, să ne punem în situația cumpărătorului simplu, care evident are mai puțină pregătire în digital. A rezultat și de aici foarte multe întrebări din prezentările dumneavoastră. Poate că n-am înțeles eu bine.
La un moment dat unul din speakeri ați spus că se poate modifica contractul unilateral. Eu n-am mai auzit așa ceva. Adică cum să se modifice unilateral un contract? Apoi, în contracte sunt folosiți termeni care inteligibili, neinteligibili, neuzuali, nu sunt înțeleși de cumpărător și nu este sigur că prevederile din contract chiar îl acoperă de riscul de a avea eu știu un produs defect sau un produs care nu respectă ceea ce a crezut el atunci când îl cumpără.
După aia sancțiunea. Și ați spus aici că sigur că statele membre pot să pună sancțiuni, este o fragmentare a pieței, fiecare pune ce sancțiune vrea, procent din profit și dacă respectivul nu are profit, are zero, el rămâne fără nicio sancțiune, nu, că e procent din zero, ceea ce înseamnă nimic. Mi se pare că încă este așa o nebuloasă în aceste metodologii juridice care să asigure până la urmă garanția consumatorului că ceea ce cumpără din domeniul digital corespunde a ceea ce vrea. Până la urmă noi aici am spus în comisia noastră că ar trebui să avem aceleași condiții și când cumpărăm offline și când cumpărăm online și la indiferent că-i produs digital sau îi produs fizic, haină, eu știu, mașină, trebuie să avem garanții. Nu știu dacă vi se întâmplă, dar eu tot ce am cumpărat cu garanții de doi ani, fix la doi ani n-a mai funcționat.
Adică avem acum și dreptul la reparare, avem această posibilitate, dar încă o dată, poate îmi clarificați cum e asta cu modificarea contractului unilateral. Eu sincer nu înțeleg cum poate să unilateral cineva să modifice contract. Mulțumesc.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much. Katrin, you want to come in or not? Because Maria Grapini mentioned the right to repair, but we can add one question because if I'm not completely stupid, but it's also some years ago, the software updates requirements were also in the right to repair, so that we kind of put longer software update availability in the right to repair. And could this also be a solution for the future and for other products, but we can talk about this. So with that, I give you the floor back for answering our questions and for coming in again.
I start with Professor van der Horst.
Christiane Wendehorst
Oh, thank you so much for the excellent questions. Now, I share a lot of that concern. And I think for the average consumer, it's simply too much and it's overwhelming. And this is why I believe that we need more than just information duties. Because when you have information duties, transparency, we again shift the burden onto the consumer to read all that stuff and to understand all that stuff.
And honestly, even though I'm a legal expert, I don't read the small print because it's usually hardly intelligible. So we need hard and fast binding law that protects the consumer. This is why we need legal instruments such as the UCPD, so the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, or the Digital Content Directive, or the Sale of Goods Directive, that do provide for binding rights of the consumer. So I think this is really the way forward. And we need to interpret those laws the way that helps the consumer without shifting all the burden onto the consumer.
Now, specifically coming to the question of unilateral modification, I know it's really difficult to understand why this can be fair. Well, but actually this Parliament seven years ago passed a directive that in its Article 19 provides for the possibility under limited circumstances of a provider to unilaterally modify the service. And that can be a problem, in particular when that service is a related service to something else for which you paid a high purchase price.
Now, and and and in my written briefing I explain how that could be solved, but I'm not going to go into the details because we probably don't have the time. If I may, I would like to say a couple of words with regard to the first question, that about the video games. And I think there is one really important statement to make, and that is in what respect do we want to protect the consumer? Now what I try to set out with the UCPD, the UCTD and so on, that is protecting the consumer against economic harm, right? So what I did was try to show how we can help the consumer in order that the consumer gets their money back, gets damages for any harm they suffered, things like that.
So that's the economic perspective. When we're talking about the video games, it's not the economic perspective. It's it's affection. You have kind of, you know, you love that game. You have spent hundreds of hours and building this nice stuff inside the game.
I'm not a gamer, but I have kids who are. And and and so you really love this thing, right? And and you cannot really solve that problem with money. And I think the citizens' initiative is pointing at solutions that are not money. Because however, there I I have to share the Commission's skepticism because it's incredibly difficult to solve.
There are so many copyright and related rights issues involved here that it would be very, very hard to solve that other aspect, that aspect of affection. But I'm happy to to to discuss it in more depth if we had time. By the way, how much time do I have?
Christiane Wendehorst
Good. And then then then maybe I I I go on and make one further point. And there was, so we had the economic aspect, the affection aspect, and I think we heard about a third very, very important aspect, and that is the autonomy aspect. Do I as a consumer have to accept that the only vehicles I can buy come with those related services, come with all sorts of digital stuff inside? And I would agree.
The problem is that this is not, you know, within the realm of consumer contract law or whatever. This is the type approval regulation. This is other parts of the law that say vehicles have to come with all these features and gadgets nowadays. And personally, I am at the moment doing a lot in the realm of European digital sovereignty and cybersecurity and so on. And I think it's really a risk also for Europe if all its vehicles, if all its electricity stuff and so on are all connected.
So I think at some point probably we need to talk about whether we really want to have all these features mandatory or whether the consumer should have a choice, not only in the interest of the consumer, but also in the interest of resilience and European digital sovereignty to have non-connected products.
Excellent idea. Thank you so much. So with that I give the floor back to Mr. De Franceschi.
Alberto De Franceschi
Thank you very much. So starting from the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, it was the first question. Indeed, we need to focus on transparency, on enforcement of consumer rights according to the Digital Content and Digital Services Directive and also on the Sale of Goods Directive if it is enshrined in a physical good. And of course, I am aware that information does not solve the problem many times because we have too much information. But we need to go back to a lower amount of information immediately before the contract is concluded.
So it's key to put the consumer in the condition to have a clear idea of the pillars on which the contract is built. And there we have a very good instrument in Article 8 of the Consumer Rights Directive, which was conceived in order to avoid internet cost traps. I may recall that I guess for only one time in history, Member States implemented that sole article of that directive one year before implementing all the other articles. It was Germany in 2012 before implementing the rest of the directive in 2013. Because it's key in order to counteract internet cost traps.
And here we are in front of many internet cost traps. So I wonder whether to the list of the pillars which are now contained in Article 8, paragraph 1, which are regarding the price, the subject, the criteria for termination, we may introduce clear information on functionality, interoperability, the length of the supply of updates. And then I agree that we cannot shift everything on the shoulders of the consumer. But that same Article 8 contains a very sharp consequence for non-compliance with another duty, informing about the duty to pay arising from the contract. And that consequence is the non-bindingness of the contract.
So the consumer may not check what are the key features of that contract, but if the trader does not disclose, does not comply with those transparency duties, we may provide that also regarding updates and lack of information regarding updates, the contract may be not binding. An additional aspect in this regard, the Empowering Consumers in the Green Transition Directive introduced into the blacklist of misleading practices, practices regarding planned obsolescence. Okay. Why don't we think at contractual consequences for breach with the rules of the blacklist? We are talking of highly misleading practices.
We have a tradition in Europe regarding the consequences for error, for fraud in the framework of the conclusion of a contract. There we have a very fraudulent behavior which is sanctioned, which is enshrined in a list of fraudulent and aggressive, particularly fraudulent and aggressive behaviors, blacklist of the UCPD. Why don't we link in a harmonized way, not only in a more courageous way than the way which the Modernization Directive did, a consequence of the non-compliance with the blacklist from a contractual perspective? And then of course, we need to create a synergy with an effective enforcement of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive because the one-to-one legal relationship, single consumer, Volkswagen, single consumer, Apple, single consumer, Nintendo, there is very much contractual power imbalance.
And therefore we need more proportionality of sanctions in terms of percentage of the annual turnover linked with a more effectiveness of consequences at the one-to-one, at the contract law level. And then I come back, and this is, this would be a way in order to increase transparency, reducing information overload and not shifting all the burdens on the shoulders of the consumer. Then I come back to the unilateral modification. This is a huge problem. So the circumstance I was personally, I was discussing as a delegate of Italy in the EU Council both directives, and I was disappointed that for instance that specific Article 19 DCD, something like that, was not discussed in the framework or adopted in the framework of the sale of goods directive.
But the two, the two rules, Article 8, paragraph 3 of the digital content directive, Article 7, paragraph 4 of sale of goods directive, which make possible for the trader to supply updates and to state if you don't execute those updates, your good or your digital content, digital service will be no longer working and I will not have liability at all. This is, this is a very dangerous, I mean, if we are sure that we are able to link those provisions with an effective enforcement of the UCPD and hopefully also with more public enforcement, we may counteract the risk of fraud throughout that gate. Otherwise, this may be very problematic. And I conclude by saying unilateral modification, of course it's very dangerous. And Article 19 of digital content directive states that if the consumer is not happy with the proposed modification, he may step down from the contract.
But is the consumer in the condition to understand what's the implication of those updates? Is it not probably more reasonable to shift the burden on the shoulders of those who have the knowledge, the producer, the platform, the manufacturer, and to put on them the, the responsibility, the liability for that. And then I close by saying for the stop destroying video games initiative, we need more transparency, perhaps improving the rules on transparency and lowering the overload of information duties, and then more enforcement of the remedies provisions, Article 13 DCD and 14 sale of goods directive regarding distinguishing between contracts of fixed or indeterminate duration. And the last point about something which is very at heart for the gamers, which are the ancillary contracts. So the additional money they paid for additional features, which is key, and there it shall be very clear that those restitutions we are talking about in, as a consequence of termination, should regard also those money paid according to the ancillary contracts.
And this is, in my opinion, key, probably fine-tuning the DCD, the digital content directive, also regarding end-of-life termination duties, clarifying very, very clearly what, what are the consequences of termination in these cases. Thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for all of your answers to both of you. That brings us to the second panel, making consumer rights work, tools for digital markets. And here we have Professor Dr. Marco Loos, professor of private law at the Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law, and from the Commission, Mr. Martins Prieditis, deputy head of unit in DG JUST from consumer law, from the consumer law unit.
So we start with Professor Loos. Welcome and looking forward.
Marco B. M. Loos
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to talk to you about abandonware, and that is closely related to the stop killing video games initiative. Actually, abandonware is a is a more broader notion. It pertains to the fact that goods, digital content, and digital services may simply stop working if the network or the services to which they are related stop functioning. Next slide, please.
So what are we actually talking about? If goods, digital content, or digital services are connected with other services or with a network, basically the functioning of the goods, the digital content, or the digital service are dependent upon the functioning of that network connection. The question then is, are consumers actually sufficiently protected if the network or if the services stop working, if they are changed or simply terminated? And I will discuss these elements on the basis of the five legal instruments that that are listed and that will come in the next slides as well. Next slide, please.
So what do we have at the moment? Of course, we have the Sale of Goods Directive and the Digital Content Directive, which have been developed simultaneously and more or less copy similar elements, although some elements are missing. Article 19 of the DCD was already discussed, and a contrary development takes place with regard to the commercial guarantee, which is regulated in the Sale of Goods Directive, but not in the Digital Content Directive. Both directives, however, deal with conformity. The idea, of course, is that goods, digital content, and digital services need to function according to the reasonable expectations of the consumer.
So what may a consumer actually expect if the use of the goods, of the digital content, or the digital service is dependent on the interaction with another good, another service, or another network? Neither the Sale of Goods Directive nor the Digital Content Directives are actually clear on that. One must rely on the general notion of reasonable expectations instead of a more clear rule similar to functionality or compatibility. And that means that on the basis of a case-by-case analysis, it must be determined whether or not the consumer can actually expect that the network connection stays stable and cannot simply be terminated. Moreover, in many cases, the seller or the trader supplying the digital content is actually not the party that has developed the network connection.
And that means that if the if that third party stops performing the network, stops maintaining the network, the consumer is actually at a loss, and so is, for that matter, the trader or the service provider. Why are they stuck as well? Well, they cannot maintain the network connection themselves, and therefore, in order to repair the goods or to enable bringing the digital content or the digital service into conformity, they actually need to rely on that third party who has already told them that they are no longer willing to sustain the network connection. So there are problems there with the conformity legislation.
A possibility actually is raised by the Sale of Goods Directive on the basis of the commercial guarantee of durability, where for instance the producer indicates to the consumer, you can use my goods for say seven years. And if that is the case, the consumer may rely on the promise made by the guarantor, the producer, and they can invoke the same remedies against the producer which they would have otherwise against the seller. So that would actually help if we have that, if we can import that also in the case of abandonware. Is that feasible? Yes, of course it is feasible with regard to the Sale of Goods Directive, that is simply a different interpretation of the directive.
With regard to the Digital Content Directive, of course it needs legislation in that area. Let's move on to the next slide, please. And that brings us to the EDR, the Ecodesign Regulation, which can of course set requirements or developed by the European Commission to make products more sustainable. By introducing such rules, by introducing requirements, we can actually demand from traders durability and reliability of the goods and the services. However, there is a problem here.
The EDR can only apply to physical goods, and that means that it may apply to goods with digital elements, but not to digital content and to digital services. Moreover, it is only there useful in those cases where the trader that offers the access to the network or to their services is actually also involved in the production chain of the digital content and or the goods with digital elements. So if it is really an outsider to the commercial chain, the EDR cannot work. And thirdly, another problem is that the EDR does not recognize private law remedies. And that means that you have to fall back on the remedies under the Sale of Goods Directive or those under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
Next slide, please. Of course we can also rely on the legislation that we have had in force since 1993, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive from 2005. Whereas the latter directive does contain a blacklist, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive unfortunately still does not. And that means that for unfair terms, it is always a case-by-case analysis whether a term is fair or unfair. With regard to the UCPD, there is a blacklist.
However, elements such as abandonware are not listed there. There is something now, as Professor De Franceschi already indicated, with regard to planned obsolescence, but not regarding to abandonware. And there too, that means that we have to fall back on the general clauses of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and therefore case-by-case analysis. Next slide, please. That means basically that abandonware cannot be tackled properly under the existing legislation.
Next slide, please. So what should we do? Well, of course we can simply say, well, leave this to member state law, and to some extent that is possible.
The Unfair Contract Terms Directive is a minimum harmonization directive, and that means that indeed member states may offer additional protection. However, the other legal instruments that I have mentioned are based on full harmonization, basically meaning that member states may not do more than is already there in the directive or the regulation. Next slide, please. So what is necessary, I think, is amendments to both the Sale of Goods Directive and the Digital Content Directive. First, introduce a specific requirement regarding conformity as to abandonware.
It should be placed on the same level in that sense as the right to updates, as Professor De Franceschi has already discussed. Second, the commercial guarantee rules should be extended to also cover the possibility of the right to have the network in place for a particular period of time as indicated by the guarantor, and we should have a rule introducing that for the DCD. Next slide, please. Apart from that, we should of course develop ecodesign requirements for at least certain types of goods with digital elements. And the example of cars, of course, is a very clear one.
You would indeed not want the car to stop during a drive on the highway. As already mentioned, it is not possible to apply the EDR to digital content, and it is also difficult to imagine how the EDR could be amended in that sense. And still private law remedies will remain to be necessary under the Sale of Goods Directive because the EDR is simply not fit for that. Next slide, please. Of course, we also need to amend the UCTD and the UCPD.
So the annex to the Unfair Contract Terms Directive should be turned into a blacklist. But when it comes to introducing abandonware as a prohibited commercial practice, one needs to think again whether or not that is actually feasible. And in that respect, one also should take into account that there may be actually very fair business reasons why the use or the upholding of a network or a service is simply not feasible anymore. So blacklisting that is probably not the best idea. Next slide, please.
And that brings me to my concluding remarks. So not all problems actually can be solved, at least not in the short run, but a combination of the measures that I have suggested now might bring us a long way. So it is simply fairly simple to improve the Sale of Goods Directive and the Digital Content Directive. It is probably also feasible to amend or to develop ecodesign requirements. It is not very likely that the Unfair Contract Terms Directive will be amended as the European Commission does not list that in its 2030 agenda.
And blacklisting abandonware as per se unfair commercial practice is probably not the best way forward. Thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you for the excellent overview, and I think even for me, you know, as a policymaker, I was not there in the 90s when all these laws were made, so it's a very good overview to learn again what is in them, some of them of course ecodesign, that is more recent. Thanks for the great overview and also the very concrete suggestions. We now have the Commission, I announced him already, Mr. Martins Prieditis, welcome.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the floor and for inviting us to this very interesting workshop. Well, as several distinguished speakers already mentioned, the consumer goods have become very smart these days.
Martins Prieditis
So common consumer products like smartphones, smart TVs, smartwatches, they all require... Next slide, please. Yes, we can move on. Sorry. Yes.
Yeah, so many common consumer goods have become smart in these days because they rely and they're dependent on the software. And so any problem with the software of these goods also affects the functioning of these goods and the consumer experience. So consumers are suffering problems not only due to mechanical failures, but also due to reduced functionality of their products which are caused, for example, by missing or defective software updates or the discontinuation of the associated digital services which are required for properly running and using these goods. Several EU consumer protection instruments are quite relevant in this area. So they have all been mentioned, I think, already by the previous speakers.
So there are rules on transparency, there are rules which prohibit unfair standard contract terms, unfair commercial practices, advertising, etc. All of these rules can be applied in situations when they are appropriate and when they can address the problem. But today I would like to focus on the regulatory framework which is still relatively new. It was adopted in 2019 and became applicable from the beginning of year 2022, which deals with the consumer rights in case where their smart goods or digital content and digital services are not performing as was provided in the contract or as they could reasonably expect. So this is the framework that provides the consumer rights towards the sellers or providers of these products.
So first we have an updated Sale of Goods Directive, which replaced the former directive from 1999. So it applies to all sales of goods, including in particular also goods with incorporated digital elements, the ones we are referring to normally as smart goods. And we have a completely new Digital Content and Services Directive, which applies to digital products. So it distinguishes between digital content, for example, purchases of audio or video titles and albums, and digital service, for example, the provision of music or video streaming subscriptions. So both these directives now specifically recognize that conformity is no longer just about physical, mechanical defects of the products, but it's also about functionality, compatibility, interoperability, and security of these products, which really depends on the software that is behind them, that ensures their proper functioning.
Next slide, please. In this context, it's very important to speak about the period during which the provider or the seller is liable to the consumer for any problems. So under the previous framework, until these two directives were adopted, we only had rules regarding the sale of physical, tangible goods, and there was a two-year standard legal guarantee period that was quite known to everyone. Well, there were some member states which had longer periods, but those are more minority.
Under this new framework, the situation with the period of liability for the trader is more nuanced. Specifically as regards the provision of digital content and services, the liability period of the trader is two years from the moment of supply, but it corresponds to the duration of continuous supply of digital content and service. So it can be it can be longer depending on the terms of the contract. Under the revised Sales of Goods Directive, we have kept a fixed period of liability which is which remains two years across the Europe unless the member state has decided to go beyond. We distinguish between between goods which involve a single supply of digital content or service that is incorporated in these goods and those goods for which there is a continuous supply of the underlying digital content or service.
In the case of goods involving single supply, the liability is two years, but in case of goods involving a continuous supply of digital content and services, the liability period can extend throughout the entire contractually agreed supply period. So this liability period can be longer. Of course, all these obligations fall on the on the seller of the good. So they do not fall directly on the manufacturer or other third parties. But but if there is a lack of conformity that results from an act or omission of another actor in the supply chain, such as the manufacturer or the supplier of the software, the seller has a right of redress against the responsible party and such redress actions are governed by national law.
Next slide, please. What is very important is the new update obligation that has been introduced in both directives. So under both the Digital Content Directive and Sales of Goods Directive, consumers must receive updates which are necessary to keep these products in conformity. This includes also security updates. So consumers will not be left without protection just because the problem originates in the software embedded in the physical product.
So for goods incorporating digital content and service that is supplied under the contract just once, updates must be provided for the period that consumers may reasonably expect, considering the type and purpose of the product. When the digital content and service associated with the good is supplied continuously, the update period is two years, but it can be longer when the contract specifically provides for the provision of digital content or service for more than two years. Next slide, please. This has been already mentioned. We need to put these horizontal EU consumer protection rules in the broader context, which also involves very important rules and developments regarding specific product categories in the context of EU ecodesign process.
So conformity obligations under the SGD, Sales of Goods Directive, are increasingly complemented by EU product legislation that applies directly to product manufacturers.
So we already have new ecodesign requirements, for example, for smartphones and tablets, which recognize that product durability depends not only on hardware, but also on continuous software support. So manufacturers must provide operating system updates for a specific period and to ensure greater repairability of these devices. So the logic there is the same as in the case of consumer law frameworks, so digital products should remain secure, functional, and usable throughout their expected lifetime. So this is a complementary framework that functions in parallel to EU consumer protection rules and they provide rights which are complementary and benefit the consumers. Next slide, please.
Well, this workshop takes place at a very good time because we are actually working on a report on the application and implementation of these two still relatively new directives. The report will be published in autumn 2026, so no exact date yet, but it will soon need to be decided. It will cover the transposition of these instruments in Member States' national law and also its application. So we have analyzed a sample of Member States also in terms of application of these rules and a number of activities to collect data on the application have been carried out, interviews, stakeholder interviews, but also direct surveys of more than 1,000 consumers and 900 businesses across nine Member States. So this data collection has already taken place.
We are currently processing the different data and working on the report. Next slide, please. Some preliminary findings of this forthcoming report as regards smart goods. So consumer organizations and national authorities report problems with missing and defective updates, which result in reduced product functionality. Consumers in their feedback say that they are often uncertain whether the lack of updates constitutes a lack of conformity and whether liability is involved, particularly in situations where the duration, scope, and conditions of updates are not clearly communicated.
So there are many practical problems that have been reported when digital functionality depends on external services or software support. For example, connected household devices lose key functionalities because cloud services are no longer available and even though devices remain physically operational, they may become significantly less useful once operating system support reaches end of life. So we can say that although these two directives allow for adaptation to different technologies and product life cycles, there are also problems with understanding and communicating, especially as regards the update obligation. And next slide, please, the final one. To conclude, it is likely that the report will find that the rules on conformity and the new software update provisions in these directives have increased consumer rights as regards smart products and digital content and services and that they also contribute to longer-lasting and more sustainable products.
In addition, clearly the ecodesign framework is very important and is becoming increasingly relevant, especially in addressing software update obligations for certain product categories. And finally, I would like to mention that in terms of transparency, we have new rules coming into application already at the end of September, so under the amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive, which were introduced by the so-called Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive. So first, it improves, strengthens transparency requirements as regards manufacturers' extended commercial guarantees of durability, so voluntary commitments, and also it will strengthen transparency regarding minimum guaranteed periods of software updates for smart goods and digital content and services.
Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, because that was now a long, long time over the time. Thanks so much for your two inputs. Let's see now again with the members if they have questions. I can start, no, Pablo, yes.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish again. Bueno, pues una vez más muchas gracias. A mí me está pareciendo muy interesante. La verdad es que es una pena que no tengamos más compañeros hoy aquí en la sala escuchando.
Seguramente lo estén escuchando algunos asistentes. Pero creo que es una llamada de atención porque al final creo que es un tema importante que hay que debatir y además hay que abordar. Pero bueno, yendo un poco a los a las dos personas que nos han trasladado su conocimiento con respecto a estos temas, ¿no? El señor Los, bueno, yo me gustaría que me que me explicasen, también lo ha comentado el señor Prieditis, perdón, sobre el ecodiseño, si nos pueden abundar un poco más en qué consiste esto del ecodiseño porque yo me aquí me van a perdonar pero me he perdido. La segunda cuestión que ha comentado el señor Los que yo me he quedado es sobre el abandonware y la mención en perdón, la no mención en todo lo que se ha hablado hasta ahora sobre la Digital Fairness Act.
Bueno, ¿qué cree que debería de mencionar la Digital Fairness Act sobre el abandonware? ¿Dónde podríamos trabajar en esta dirección? Y bueno, pues que nos ilumine un poco más sobre esto porque la verdad es que yo de verdad es que no se me no se me había ocurrido, pero seguro que tiene sentido y que y que sería bueno escuchar algo más sobre esto. Y luego sobre el señor Prieditis, y perdón que no lo pronuncio bien con casi total seguridad, yo vuelvo a los a las cuestiones de lo que hemos comprado hasta ahora que es son productos tangibles y lo que compramos ahora que son productos que no podemos tocar, que vienen a través de ese software y esa necesidad de actualizar. Pero claro, también vienen de la mano de una capacidad computacional.
Y por tanto cuando de repente combinamos esa parte de hardware y software, o sea volvemos por ejemplo al ejemplo de los coches, no solo, ¿eh? Ahora iré a otro. El coche tiene una vida útil de media 200.000, 300.000 kilómetros, 15, 20 años. Sin embargo, un producto digital, ya lo estamos viendo con el tema de los videojuegos, no llega ni a la mitad. Entonces, ¿qué hacemos con un coche cuando tenemos un sistema obligado de software introducido en el vehículo en el que dentro de quizá 7, 8 años esté obsoleto por capacidad computacional, puesto que eso tiene un sistema de hardware introducido en el coche?
O por si nos pueden dar esto pasa también con productos más pequeños, electrodomésticos, una nevera, una lavadora. O sea, una nevera pues puede durar 10, 15, espero que 20 porque la mía tiene 11, con lo cual espero que sean más 20 años que que 10 o 15. Pero volvemos al tema, si es una un electrodoméstico que está conectado y tiene una capacidad computacional X que es la de hoy porque el producto lo compro hoy, si esto va a estar obsoleto y voy a perder la capacidad de actualizar ese software, pues no sé qué podemos hacer con esto, qué información le vamos a dar al consumidor. El consumidor está vendido, la industria tiene que actualizar ese no no sé cómo intentar hacerme esa esa ese cuadro y esa escena no sé cómo dibujarla y me gustaría si tienen algo que nos puedan aportar pues sería seguro que muy útil. Muchas gracias.
Okay. Desigur foarte, foarte interesant.
Maria Grapini
Eu personal mulțumesc foarte mult. Și eu mă gândesc ca și colegul meu ce am putea noi să facem să clarificăm cele două acte legislative despre care ați vorbit și care sunt mai noi și pentru care faceți un raport acum Comisia privind aplicarea sau rezultatul aplicării. Ați spus că ați luat în calcul răspunsuri de la 1215 consumatori din 12 state membre și de la circa 900 de firme. Credeți că este relevant să aveți răspunsuri de la 1200 de consumatori dintr-o piață internă cu milioane de consumatori, sute de milioane de consumatori și care ar fi cele 12 state? Eu mereu am avut să zic așa dubii legat de rezultatul relevant a unor studii pe care Comisia ni le-a tot prezentat dar tot așa cu număr mic de răspunsuri și cu câteva state membre.
Ori piața internă e formată din 27 de state. Nu vă propuneți să faceți eșantioane din fiecare stat membru și din consumatori și companii evident cum ați spus și aici dar mult mai mult ca să fie relevant? Pentru mine vă spun sincer și eu am făcut statistică nu cred că e relevant să avem doar din 12 state aș fi și curioasă care sunt acele 12 state cum le alegeți pentru că e foarte important să să nu facem formal o interogare ci chiar să vrem să aflăm rezultatele implementării unor acte legislative atât de importante pentru protecția consumatorului. Mulțumesc.
Thank you so much. And very quickly from my side because I think it was an interesting also combination of your two interventions. So probably to the Commission the question Mr. Loos or Professor Loos identified some gaps or had some concrete proposals on how to update the laws but in your presentation it didn't look like you were thinking about updating the laws. Probably you can just come in on that. Thank you so much.
So first we start with Professor Loos.
Marco B. M. Loos
Thank you very much for your interesting questions. I think most of them actually relate back to a decision that was made by first of all the European Commission and later on the Parliament and the Council when they adopted the Sale of Goods Directive and the Digital Content Directive in 2019. And that basically pertains to the problem that liability especially under the Sale of Goods Directive is more or less restricted to two years after delivery. And that means that apart from any updates if the goods simply stop functioning after two years it's just bad luck. And that even applies to big purchases such as the purchase of a car.
So you have been driving your car for two and a half years it breaks down you have zero rights in most of the member states. Let let that sink in. You have zero rights after two and a half years after two years in most countries. That is the choice that we made in Europe. I think that's the wrong choice and luckily some of the member states at least go a little bit further some go for five years some go for six and in my country it is actually the expected lifespan of the goods.
That is makes much more sense for these durable goods. But if that is the case if two years is indeed the limit then indeed you must expect that after seven years there will be no longer any updates available for your satellite navigation within the car but also actually for any other element digital element within your car if it stops working indeed your car stops working as well. If we don't want that we can go two ways. Either introduce as Professor Wendehorst indicated an opt-out possibility for consumers to simply say I don't want any digital element in my car to be applicable I just want to drive my car.
You can do that, of course. We can introduce that. Alternatively, we can say the two years period is simply too short and we need to extend that at least for goods that are under normal circumstances intended to function for at least say five or ten years. And of course that can be combined with the legislation on the basis of the ecodesign regulation where durability and time elements are already in place there. But as I said earlier, this only functions with regard to goods and not to digital content or digital services.
Thank you.
Martins Prieditis
Yeah, thank you. There was a question about the ecodesign rules and process. So these are the Commission project which addresses product-specific requirements per product category. So we already have ecodesign requirements for different types of household appliances, refrigerators, washing machines, etc. The most recent and very important addition were the new rules regarding smartphones and tablets.
And this process is continuing. The preparation of new instruments is underway, for example as regards computers and some other important consumer devices. It's not DG Justice that is leading on this work. So this is done by colleagues in specialized DGs that are responsible for developing these product-specific requirements. But of course they are very important for consumers and very complementary with the horizontal rules that we, DG Justice, are responsible for.
There was a question about what happens when the software becomes obsolete, causing the product to stop working. In this respect, I would like to refer to what I presented about the new obligation in the new directives on sale of goods and digital content to provide software updates. That is the one most important new requirement that has been introduced in these still relatively fresh directives and which also requires the software updates to be provided also beyond the legal guarantee period, so namely as long as the consumers may reasonably expect. Of course this boils down to an assessment what is reasonable in each specific case. So and here we have to rely on the traditional existing means of dispute resolution, public enforcement and eventually court proceedings.
So the rules are there, they need to be enforced. One of the purposes of this new report that we are working on on the application and transposition will be also to identify what case law already exists and to present our conclusions. You, Madam Chair, you asked what's our take and position on the proposed updates and amendments. Well, it's too early for me definitely to say anything in this respect.
We will need to consider it carefully when we when we prepare our report. So it will have to be based on our findings. The threshold for presenting new legislation in terms of evidence, justification, rationale is quite high, especially in the in the current term of the Commission College. We have to be very careful as regards all aspects of competitiveness and and burdens for also for the market players. Regarding the methodology of the of the study and the reference to the to the numbers of consumers and businesses interviewed, we would very much like to cover always all 27 Member States.
But for for practical and financial reasons that doesn't always work out. So increasingly our studies, at least in the DG Justice, they tend to be applied to to a sample of Member States. So because in terms of in terms of budget and proportionality, we cannot always cover all 27 Member States regarding all aspects that we are interested in. So when we have to make this selection, of course we want to we want to it to be representative. So we are selecting countries from east, west, north, south.
Also in this in this case it was important to to select countries which have more peculiar systems in in these areas, more peculiar national rules. And also we we would pick large and and and smaller and medium Member States so to to have this sample of of countries as representative as possible. Speaking about the numbers of interviews, again this is a matter of cost and also sometimes of time. So we we try to do as we try to to have these tools to be as representative as possible. Of course there are objective constraints on how many interviews can be can be done, so how much it costs at the end of the day.
Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Okay, thank you so much. I mean like Pablo said, I mean we will also probably can discuss how to follow up on the topic because it's indeed an important consumer-related topic. So thanks so much to all the experts. The time is running up now for this workshop. You have all the like presentations sent and they are available on the website, I think that's great.
And I was informed that you also are writing or have written, the three academics, some paper, each of you, that we can also have and study and that will also be published, right? So we can also look at again at the different papers and then make up our mind how we want to follow up as IMCO Committee. But thanks so much for this valuable input, it was very, very helpful. And yeah, with that I conclude the agenda item 13, our digital ownership in the context of consumer rights workshop. And I thank again of course also the policy department for organizing.
And now we come to another academic work. So our afternoon is very much enriched with facts, I think that's great. We had tasked a study on different legal methodologies of enforcement of key EU digital law structures. And we also have the authors here. I welcome Professor Dr. Hans Schulte-Nölke and Professor Dr. Mary Rose McGuire, both from the University of Osnabrück.
So we are very much looking forward to your findings and then of course afterwards we also have the opportunity to ask questions and discuss with you. So please, the floor is yours.
Hans Schulte-Nölke
Thank you, Madam Chair, esteemed members. In our study, we proposed a toolbox for the enforcement of the digital rulebook. Can we see the first slide, or the second slide, please, next in any case. I would like to share with you the key findings in five main points. Point one, our study looked at the European Union's, how it's called now, very impressive digital rulebook.
It comprises as major elements of the GDPR, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, the AI Act, and dozens, many dozens of further important regulations and directives, you will see some in a minute. Point two, our study did not look into the substantive rules of the digital rulebook. Instead, the study analyzed the rules on administrative and private law enforcement. We found that since there are so many individual EU acts, that the same conduct of a business may be governed by several of these acts and thereby trigger several and, and that's part of the problem, different sets of sanctions. We have also found that it is the current regulatory approach that causes a downside.
This is because quite naturally the provisions on enforcement are not set out in a cross-cutting manner, but instead are only dealt with in the many individual acts, very often at the end, and differ. The result are gaps, overlaps, inconsistencies regarding enforcement. Point three, this is not merely an abstract problem, but a practical burden on companies that seek to comply with their duties. We all hope that most of the companies actually really wish to do. And at the same time, it is of course a problem that due to the cracks even blatant breaches may remain unpunished.
We will give you examples. Point four, after having identified the problem, we did not admire simply the mess, we started seeking a solution. We believe that other EU law, areas of EU law provide very useful models for that solution. Of these, in particular, the IP Enforcement Directive and the CPC Consumer Protection Regulation stand out. They prove that horizontal, cross-legislatory rules on enforcement are feasible and may be efficient.
Such models could be adapted to the digital rulebook. Point five, we propose to adopt a horizontal measure to enhance the enforcement of the digital rulebook, drawing on these models. This proposal is most likely new and hopefully convincing.
Mary Rose McGuire
Next slide please. Okay. So let me now take you through how we arrived at these findings in five steps on five slides. First, we understood the term digital rulebook broadly. It includes cornerstone instruments such as the GDPR and the Data Act, but it also reaches out into cybersecurity and emerging sectors.
This reflects the reality of digital markets: data flows, platforms, and connected devices. Under this framework, each legislation confers rights and imposes duties. Accordingly, legal obligations may arise simultaneously from different legal acts. While this fragmentation is necessary regarding substantive rules, it appears as a structural weakness of enforcement. The example on the next slide may serve as an example.
For instance, a smart pacemaker. Such a device may use publicly available weather data, it may process personal data, it generates machine data, and it even may yield secondary health data. Now different data categories fall under totally different regimes, such as the GDPR, the Data Governance Act, the Data Act, and the European Health Data Space. Now imagine a third-party recipient unlawfully recombines that data and uses it to develop a competing product. Now how will enforcement turn out?
Public enforcement involves several sets of sanctions under different regulations. Private enforcement likewise depends on a patchwork of injunctions and damage claims whose availability is uncertain. This example shows that a single misconduct can produce both overlaps and gaps, and no enforcement path may be straightforward. Next slide please. This fragmentation has a real impact.
Companies face overlapping liabilities and the possibility of parallel intervention by several public authorities. They may even face the risk that a privilege in one instrument is undermined by remedies which are available under another. In other words, the most careful actors may bear disproportionate compliance costs. Yet, enforcement may be paradoxically weak. Where the applicable remedies are unclear, private actors may hesitate to bring actions at all.
Where competences overlap, authorities and courts may face duplication and institutional strain. As a result, the parties most willing to exploit legal ambiguity may benefit. Our study therefore found that this fragmentation is not a mere technicality, it actually impairs the credibility of the EU digital regulation. Next slide please. So what are possible solutions?
At first glance, this seems inevitable in the light of rapidly changing technology. But maybe not. Let me just for a minute take you back 20 years to convince you that the problem is not so new. In the early 2000s, streaming digital content over the internet was the next big thing. Maybe some of you remember that Netflix advanced from a DVD rental service into a streaming service.
Now imagine back then someone would upload a film, say a James Bond movie, without authorization and offer it across the European Union. This single conduct, this upload, would infringe the copyright of the author, the composer, the producer, and each of these copyrights in each member state. Add national trademarks and community trademarks to the picture. So one single conduct could easily infringe a multitude of rights. No surprise, effective enforcement proved impossible.
Whether injunctions and damages were available would differ from member state to member state, so would the requirements of fault, the calculation of damages, and the limitation periods.
How has the EU back then responded to this shortcoming? In 2004, the IP Enforcement Directive was enacted. It is a uniform enforcement regime which applies to all existing and future IP rights, whether they are granted under EU law or under national law. It fully respects the differences between patents, trademarks, and copyright, yet it makes enforcement super effective. One conduct will trigger the same remedies across all IP rights in all member states.
As the example shows, the problems IP law faced back in 2004 much resembles the problems the digital rulebook faces today. We believe that also the solution could by and large be similar. However, of course, we did not limit ourselves to the IPRD because it lacks public law sanctions, and in this respect, of course, the Consumer Protection Coordination Regulation and the DSA are the more obvious models. Next slide. Together, these examples demonstrate the practicality of horizontal enforcement rules.
They could apply across the digital rulebook rather than leaving each new legislative act to reinvent remedies and sanctions in isolation. The proposed toolbox is structured around four main pillars: general principles, private law remedies, public law sanctions, and coordination of multiple proceedings. I won't go into details here. I just want to show you: the first pillar would define the subject matter and the scope of the instrument and enshrine a general principle of effective, proportionate, and dissuasive enforcement. The second pillar concerns private law remedies.
It closely follows the IP Enforcement Directive, but it updated it, especially when it comes to avoid disproportionate effects. The third pillar concerns public law sanctions. It closely follows the CPCR and the DSA, but it adds safeguards against double sanctioning. And the fourth pillar addresses coordination. It envisages rules for parallel proceedings before two courts or dispute resolution bodies or administrative authorities.
To flesh out the rules, of course, we would need more work, but we hope that our outline shows that it is perfectly feasible. The overall conclusions of our study are the following. The effectiveness of the digital rulebook could be enhanced and the burden of compliance could be reduced by a reliable enforcement framework. Such framework should be, must be, a horizontal measure. This cannot be regulated in the dozens of EU individual acts of the rulebook.
There are too many. We believe that for such a horizontal measure, it is possible, as said, to learn from successful models in existing EU law, in particular the Enforcement Directive, the CPC Regulation, and the administrative enforcement provisions in the DSA, which are anyway similar, which already shows that the legislator is learning in that way. Such toolbox would serve several functions at once. It would help improving the enforcement provisions, drafting enforcement provisions in ongoing legislation. It would provide a kind of checklist for reports, Commission reports, including for recasting older legislation, and of course offers a model for future digital overarching legislation.
This could be, in the long term, a horizontal measure, a directive and/or regulation. This would create a clear, coordinated, and credible system for enforcing the digital rulebook. Both businesses and those who are protected would profit, and the EU as well.
Thank you so much for the presentation and for the study. I think it's very important. I mean, the groups had asked for this study to be conducted because there was a clear demand of understanding how the enforcement works and if there's an, yeah, a need for a more horizontal measure. So thanks so much for your findings. I just want to see if the members want to come in.
Or if everything is clear. Pablo.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Thank you very much, chair. Again, I'm going to speak in my tongue language, in Spanish. Bueno, pues una vez más muchas gracias. Yo estoy de acuerdo en que es una un tema más que interesante, es una importante el que el tema que se ha tratado y creo que hay que afrontarlo. Bueno, vamos a ver la figura del reglamento.
Vamos a hablamos de fragmentación, que es uno de los temas que yo creo que hemos hablado tantas veces en esta comisión de de ya no solamente en este en este ámbito, eh, pero pero de la fragmentación del mercado que ya no sabemos cómo abordarla casi, ¿no? O sí sabemos, pero cuando la abordamos pues nos encontramos con con dique de contención. En en la figura del reglamento frente a la potencial fragmentación que puede acarrear una directiva y las transposiciones que la acompaña, a pesar del formato más rígido que tiene un reglamento a nivel de implementación y aplicación, ¿es siempre más efectivo un reglamento a una directiva? Esa es la primera pregunta. Sobre disuasión.
Hemos visto en diferentes actos legislativos que falta disuasión. La falta de disuasión es un aliciente a los actores para incumplir nuestras normas, entendiendo que les compensa pagar por incumplir y que las medidas de último recurso no nunca son realmente aplicables. ¿Mayor disuasión de las medidas implica siempre una mejor aplicación? Y por último, en cuanto a los recursos económicos que supone una mayor implementación de las normas, muchas veces se ha observado en el caso, por ejemplo, de la red CPC, una infrafinanciación. Si es así, ¿qué solución creen ustedes que podríamos tener?
Muchas gracias.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. I want to know, I mean, the Parliament had asked for, if I remember well, in the DSA negotiations, or it was just an amendment by the Greens, I don't remember that, sorry, that we have a more independent enforcement agency. So it's not only a unit or a directorate in the Commission, but a more like independent enforcement authority. Have you looked at this idea and what is your opinion on that? Any more questions?
If not, I give the floor back to our experts and our guests, please.
Mary Rose McGuire
Thank you, chair. I first would like to cover the issue of regulation directives. We looked at the digital rulebook in its entirety and it is made up of a huge number of regulations and directives. But what they have in common is that when it comes to enforcement, they leave most of it to the member states. We looked at the Data Act, the Data Governance Act.
They are regulations, but they don't really harmonize enforcement. They just say the member states should make sure that there are penalties and sanctions in place. So no matter whether we look at regulations or the directives, most of it is left to the member states. The GDPR, maybe Article 82 of the GDPR is a rare exception. So we understand if we would have a toolbox which would in the long run be a directive and harmonize on the level of the member states, no matter whether the duty comes from a regulation or from a directive, it would always feed into national law.
And if this would be harmonized, this would make it so much easier because we then could be sure if there's a breach, whether it's a Data Act or a directive, the damage, the rules on damages, on injunctions, cease and desist orders, limitation periods, everything would be streamlined on a national level. And this would make it easier to feed it into national private law. So probably for this toolbox which we propose, we would like to respect that the legislator has chosen regulations and directives and all together make up the digital rulebook and just look into the enforcement provisions. And I think this would not conflict with the rules we have because as we put out in a study, most of it really is a gap. And that's across regulations and directives.
Hans Schulte-Nölke
Thank you for the question. I will try to answer the question whether a more independent authority would be reasonable, in particular for the DSA. If you look on the overall picture of the DSA enforcement structure, we have a rather strong public law enforcement. It's decentralized by national digital services coordinators, but at least it is pretty strong. We have a pretty weak private law enforcement.
There is in theory a claim for damages given in the DSA, but here and there a private party must come and it's pretty unclear whether courts will actually grant damages. Therefore, this could be fleshed out much more strongly. First of all, it is always important to see that it must be a mix, a smart mix, everyone says, of instruments which more or less interact. Independent authorities, of course the idea stems from data protection, have been designed at least for the purpose or in cases where also the states make the problem themselves, because states at least sometimes commit data protection breaches and therefore you need independent authorities which are not in a line of command from ministers or so. For the DSA, I'm not so sure whether the states themselves will actually breach the DSA because they usually don't run such platforms.
And therefore it could be just indirectly influenced politically some states which are very close to Big Tech, for example. All in all, I'm not so sure whether for the DSA and the overall digital rulebook a more independent authorities is the right way, but better tools to make the authorities work. For example, an individual right of citizens and businesses more or less to sue authorities to make them work could help. And of course, that's core of our proposal, much better coordination between the different responsible authorities, in particular also when it's an international case and several authorities from different countries are on the same project.
Thank you so much. So if there's not any follow-up question, Pablo.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
No, eh, yo creo que no han contestado a las preguntas que he hecho. O sea, sí a la de la reglamento directiva, pero por ejemplo no a la de la disuasión y tampoco a la cuestión de la infrafinanciación de la CPC. No sé si es que a lo mejor no la tienen o pero me gustaría conocer algo, sobre todo sobre la disuasión. O sea, si no disuadimos a plataformas, por ejemplo, o a otras empresas de cumplir la norma, pues y les compensa pagar por no cumplir, ¿cómo cómo podemos resolver esto? O sea, la disuasión para mí es fundamental en cualquier norma.
Si no disuade a alguien de cometer o de no cumplirla, pues difícilmente podremos hacer las cosas bien.
Simplemente por saber si nos podían contestar a la pregunta. Mayor disuasión de las medidas implica siempre mejor aplicación o más dureza a la hora de hacer la norma.
Anna Cavazzini
I understood it with higher and more unified penalties, but probably you can reply yourselves, probably I got you wrong.
Mary Rose McGuire
Well, our original idea was that we have very good sanctions or we have very good incentives to comply because we have private law remedies and public law sanctions. However, if it's not entirely clear that you will succeed, then people will not make use of it. For instance, when we look at data breaches, we all know that the person, the object, the data subject would have a claim, but if you're not entirely sure where to go, which court is in charge, how high are the costs, what are your likelihood and will you succeed, you probably might not make the effort to actually go there. So we believe that even by making it easier, this would enhance on the, without having stricter sanctions, it would enhance the likelihood that people would make use of it and thereby it would be more attractive to comply, or the pressure to comply would be higher. So instead of inserting new remedies, I think we should build on the ones we have, but make sure that both the public authorities and private parties are willing to actually enforce the rights which the digital rulebook confers on them.
Hans Schulte-Nölke
I might try to answer the question on the underfinancing of authorities. Sorry, I should have answered it a few minutes ago. We conducted an interview exercise and we asked also people, high-ranking officials from authorities, but also from consumer organizations, and we heard several times, you can see it in our study, that also underfinancing of authorities is reported as a problem. Since these authorities are usually member state authorities, it's of course the member states that underfinance. And so the European Union is pretty good in at least finding ways to, yeah, force member states to set up proper authorities.
That is in particular can be by close monitoring and the idea I already brought in a few minutes ago. If in certain context EU law would grant citizens, including businesses, a right against authorities that they have to act, this would of course force member states very much to, yeah, fund their authorities in a way that they can fulfill that function, otherwise they would be in breach of EU law with the consequences. But member states must be made financing their authorities.
Mary Rose McGuire
I would just like to add that if you have very clear rules and coordination of authorities, this could also lessen the problem of underfinancing. Because for instance, we recently had a case where a competition authority would enforce data protection, but of course the data protection authority also had to care of it. So several different authorities across different member states looked into exactly the same case and looked at the same evidence and tried to find out whether it is a data breach and whether it was lawful or not. If there would be very clear coordination rules that whoever comes first, the other ones wait and don't have double work, this would take a lot of strain off the authorities and of course it also would relieve the pressure, financial pressure from them.
Anna Cavazzini
Okay, thank you so much. So that concludes our session on your study, but I think it was great insight and I think all of us will of course also look at it. Is it already online? Yeah, it's already online. Perfect.
So you can also have a look. Thanks so much for being here and for drafting this study. This concludes agenda item 14 and we come to agenda item 15, establishing the Single Market and Customs Programme for the period 2028 to 2034, where our rapporteur is Mr. Debrani. Today we have the chance to talk about the compromise amendments. So 209 amendments were tabled and four draft compromise amendments have been formulated and the vote in IMCO is scheduled for the 13th, 14th of July.
And as we all know, this is of course the main and the big contribution of IMCO to the MFF and the MFF discussion. So we start with the rapporteur and Christel Schaldemose is replacing him.
Christel Schaldemose
Thank you very much, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues. Firstly, as you said, I will stand in today for the rapporteur, Adnan Debrani, who unfortunately is unable to join us here today because he's on a mission to Sweden. He sends his sincere apologies for his absence and I will read the statement on his behalf. So today we will exchange views on the compromise amendments for the Single Market and Customs Programme. As you know, this is the only IMCO programme in the MFF package.
So it is a key file for our committee and a concrete vehicle to strengthen the single market in a crucial time. As we enter a new financial cycle, the single market is under pressure and facing multiple challenges, from intensified global competition and a massive influx of counterfeited and illegal goods to a rise in fraud and illegal activities. In addition, we also have long-standing challenges such as unjustified internal barriers and fragmentation that needs serious attention. The Single Market and Customs Programme will not solve all of these issues, but it will be a crucial tool to deliver. On this, I think all of us across political groups agree.
And this shared conviction has been a good starting point for our work. Then of course we have had some different views on how to get there. But managing different views and marrying it together is the reality of the political craft and it makes for a better outcome in the end. And with that I would like to thank all the shadows for their strong engagement and constructive contributions to this file. We still have a little bit to go before we reach the final agreement, but we have made very good progress in these past weeks.
If we continue in the same spirit, I'm optimistic and we will reach a good compromise well in time for the next committee session. In addition, I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs in BUDG and ECON committees for good cooperation and valuable contributions to the work. Turning to the content, I would just say a few words on where we stand today and the key elements of the compromise amendments so far. As you know, the SMCP programme consolidates four existing programmes for the single market, customs, taxation cooperation and the fight against fraud under one consolidated framework. With this, the Commission proposal introduces extensive flexibility and simplification to the current structure.
Generally, we welcome a more integrated programme. To some extent, a more flexible approach can improve EU's speed and resilience.
terms of predictability and accountability. Hence, striking the right balance between a fair degree of flexibility and an adequate governance structure has been one of our key priorities. To improve this balance and the governance of the program, we have put a significant emphasis on clarifying the objectives. We also propose introducing a budget breakdown with a clear and transparent link between priorities and budget allocations. We propose distributing the funds in this breakdown, including the global increase in the Parliament MFF position in proportion to the Commission financial estimates.
And we will suggest to bind this allocation by chapters in the budget nomenclature, which will safeguard the core element of the program. To further ensure a proper level of democratic governance, we also introduce delegated acts for the work programs. Furthermore, for many of us in this committee, a successful transition to the new Customs Union in the years ahead is a key priority. This program will play a key role in the effort and hence we have focused on ensuring that SMCP adequately supports this transition and its key components, such as the new EU custom data hub. In addition, we are strengthening the program in several key areas, including consumers, market surveillance, taxation, and the protection of the Union's financial interest.
Lastly, as protection of our Union's digital and data security is equally important, we have also made substantial efforts to strengthen these elements in the legal act. So to sum up, the SMCP is a key tool to strengthen the internal market and the integrity of our Union in the years ahead. Getting it right is critical. Again, I'm thank you, thankful for the strong engagement, good cooperation, and constructive inputs from all the colleagues. I look forward to continue our work together and delivering a strong compromise agreement that really makes a difference on the ground.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, thank you so much. And now we start with the round of shadows. I give the floor to the EPP, Dirk Gotink, and we are reminded again to speak a little bit slower for the interpreters.
Dirk Gotink
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Christel, for reading out Adnan's contribution. I agree with Adnan that we're making a lot of progress. It's going quite well. We're not the only ones dealing with the consequences of the Commission's centralization drive and also needing to focus on somehow getting the balance right between the original four elements and priorities.
We have also put on the table some simplification and administrative burden stuff, but we generally share a lot of sort of priorities together. You know I'm slightly biased in this whole discussion because I want to protect our border for good, just like you, by the way. And the scanning equipment, the data hub, the authority, the customs authority, these will all cost quite some money. And we want the Commission to really be aware of this and also to anticipate this in a proactive, in a proactive way. Of course, we should also simply help push the idea that we should have everyone benefit from the single market, from investors to consumers and businesses that simply also work in the direction of removing barriers.
Because if anything, we can blame the entire world for our lack of competitiveness. If we don't start at home, we will, we will never get anywhere. So good work up until now. I want to thank also the, all the advisers and the assistants that are working on this on a technical level. I'm quite confident we will, we will get, keep to the schedule, Madam Chair, so that we don't mess up the planning.
Thank you.
Yeah, great, thank you. PPE is not here. ECR is not here. Renew is not here. Katrin Langensiepen for the Greens.
Katrin Langensiepen
Yes, I'm here. Thanks, Madam Chair, dear rapporteur, dear colleagues. So, for a lot of progress have been made as you have said as on technical level, that's good. And first of all, I would like to thank all our advisors and APAs as well as colleagues from the secretariat for having made such effort to minimize critical political issue. I think we can all see that the idea to bring the different programs related to the single market under, so to say, one roof creates not only opportunities but also some challenges, of course.
So, I have a focus, or let me focus on one challenge that seems to be yet not solved on technical level. Here I believe we should be using common sense and look at what we has already functioned well and no rollback. More core call today is on asking and demanding to ensure that we keep responsible co-financing rates in the program reflecting on the different needs for different program objectives. Be, be it support for customs, consumer protection, digitization or funding for the work of the European stakeholder organization and to their role in representing the public interest in different areas. We need to ensure to continue making it possible up to keep co-financing up to 95%.
So thank you again for all your work and I hope we will find a constructive solution to ensure that the funding structure in the interest of European citizens, consumers and EU single market is kept.
Thank you very much. I don't see the Left or ID and that means I give the floor to the Commission. I welcome Olivier Petre, Head of Unit Budget and Finance from DG GROW.
Olivier Pêtre
Honorable Chair, honorable rapporteur, honorable members. The Commission would like to thank the rapporteur and his representative present here today, the shadow rapporteurs and all members involved for this considerable work carried out on the SMCP proposal. We welcome today's exchange as an important milestone in the legislative process for the adoption of the SMCP and look forward to continue the ongoing discussion. As you know, this proposal was developed by the Commission with several clear objectives: to reinforce the functioning of the single market, to reinforce the customs unions, to tackle fraud and to support tax cooperation. The SMCP is built on the common approach for funding EU programs under the next MFF to ensure that the Union is equipped to address future challenge in an agile way.
The Commission firmly believe that a well-functioning single market remains one of Europe's greatest assets. It's a key driver of economic growth, innovation, resilience and prosperity, especially in this time of uncertainty. In addition, a strong customs union is an enabler of the single market and contributes to the Union's economic security. The SMCP will enable the continuation of essential activities financed under the current EU program: the single market program, the customs and fiscalis program, the Union anti-fraud program, now consolidated in one single program to ensure coherence and produce greater EU added value than in standalone predecessors.
We appreciate the strong engagement demonstrated by members, and in particular their proposal to reinforce the proposed SMCP budget. The Commission is particularly attentive to measures that can further improve implementation, facilitate collaboration between national authorities as well as EU authorities, reduce burdens for stakeholders, and maximize the EU added value. As always, the Commission remains committed to work constructively with both co-legislators through the legislative process, with the common objective to reach an ambitious, balanced, and workable outcome. Allow me to thank once again the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs, and all the members for their efforts and commitments made for the SMCP. We look forward to continuing our cooperation as this file progress.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you so much for being here and for also commenting. I think that's very helpful. I don't know if you want, as a replacement rapporteur, want to have some concluding remarks.
I just want to thank the colleagues for their comments and make sure that Adnan will know what you have said, and I'm pretty sure that you will end up with a great result. Thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Great, thank you so much. So this concludes agenda item 15. Because we are a little bit early now, because this point was faster than foreseen, I have the feeling the MEPs for the next point, and especially also the rapporteur and also the Commission, I don't know, are not yet here. So I suggest for our next agenda item 16, where we talk about the opinion of the digital omnibus, of the like data omnibus, we do a short break and reconvene in 15 minutes. I hope then everyone is here.
So we do a short break, and the next agenda item 16 is due in 15 minutes. Thank you so much.
Dear Mrs. Yon-Courtin, if you can hear me, you can press on your mic and cam button and we'll just quickly test your sound.
Yes, hi.
Fine, and you?
Speaker 22
Good, good. I'm just going to mute myself for a second and assess your sound if you can talk about your day.
Speaker 21
Yeah. Well, it's very hot in here. I think it's the same in your place. Apart from that, everything is fine, sunny day, huh.
Speaker 26
Perfect, yeah, thank you so much. It's good, it's audible. If you can just show me the microphone that you received, the Razer.
Speaker 23
Okay, perfect. We'll quickly move you to the breakout room, okay? So sorry about that.
No worries.
Anna Cavazzini
Okay, dear colleagues, let's continue. I have the feeling now the relevant stakeholders that we need are in the room. So, agenda item 16, the Digital Omnibus Data, where we as IMCO are doing an opinion. Our rapporteur of the opinion is Alex Saliba. The ITRE and LIBE are the lead committees, and the Commission proposal was presented on the 19th of November in order to simplify and streamline the EU's digital data acquis.
The deadline for amendments is on the 8th of July, and today we are actually have the opportunity to present, get the draft opinion presented. Sorry, I was running.
Alex Agius Saliba
Dear Anna, dear Chair, thanks for giving us the opportunity to present the draft IMCO opinion for the Data Omnibus. As you know, the leading committees on this file are LIBE and ITRE, but there are certain elements that used to be exclusive IMCO competence where we should leave our mark on this very important exercise that we are doing right now. It is my intention to maximize the influence of our committee, especially when it comes to the consumer protection elements in the data economy and also the position of small and medium-sized businesses towards digital platforms. While I support the simplification effort of the Commission proposal, my draft opinion shows great reservations when it comes to deregulation or undermining the European digital acquis. To name just one example, the draft opinion welcomes the simplification and bringing the Data Governance Act and the Open Data Directive under one overarching European Data Act.
It is less clear for the deregulatory elements of the proposal, like for example, the repeal of the Platform-to-Business Regulation or the changes made to GDPR and ePrivacy Directive. I do not see the benefit consumers or the functioning of the internal market will get from this kind of deregulation. For this reason, the draft IMCO opinion contains several amendments to bring more balance between simplification and consumer protection. However, the proposed amendments are limited to what ultimately is the competence of this committee. Parts not amended, especially when it comes to the GDPR, should not be understood as being supported by myself.
On the Data Act, the draft opinion aims to clarify the definition of data access and strengthening the definition of data intermediation services. Also, we add the concept of data expert representative as a specific kind of regulated data intermediation service that can negotiate under a fiduciary duty on behalf of consumers to attain better terms for their data use. With this draft opinion, we strengthen the safeguards on what kind of organizations are allowed to register as data intermediation service. An annual transparency report is required for data altruism organizations to bring accountability. Competent authorities can also monitor compliance on request of individuals or legal persons, and the draft opinion includes also a complaint handling mechanism.
Concerning the cloud switching rules, the draft opinion seeks to restore the current text under the Data Act to foster more competition, avoid lock-in effects that could favor incumbents and allow companies to find ways to circumvent the switching requirements by claiming to have custom-made services. On smart contracts, the draft opinion does not take on board the proposed deletion by the Commission.
Finally, on platform-to-business regulation, P2B, the rapporteur considers there would be gaps by repealing this regulation, even if we do so in two stages. The P2B adds value to SMEs on top of what is in the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, which have a totally different scope. P2B should therefore not be repealed without a proper impact assessment on the effects on SMEs and other European businesses. As you rightly pointed out, Chair, when it comes to timelines, we foresee the deadline for tabling of amendments for the 8th of July at noon, and we hope to vote this opinion in IMCO in November of this year to be on time to influence the LIBE report on the Data Omnibus. I am looking forward for comments from other shadows and other members of this committee, and I hope that we can work constructively together on this very important piece of data legislation.
Thanks a lot.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. And now we start the round of shadows. We start with the EPP, Sophia Kiecher.
Sophia Kircher
Thank you so much, Chair. Dear colleagues, so first of all, many thanks, Alex, for your hard work and also for the draft report. I believe it contains many important elements that will benefit both businesses and also the consumers. And in this regard, I also welcome the deletion of the proposal to repeal the P2B regulation, as you also just mentioned. This is crucial in my view, as we need to protect our European SMEs from unfair practice and also ensure transparency when it comes to rankings and platform fees.
At the same time, I think it's very essential that the GDPR is simplified, not at the expense of the existing level of protection, but by reducing unnecessary costs and administrative burdens. This is crucial when it comes to clear definitions and also greater harmonization across legislation. We need a European data market, and legal uncertainty is problematic not only for businesses but also for many individuals. This makes a stronger case for codifying the relevant case law because different interpretations, for example, of what constitutes personal data can result in different levels of protection across Member States. It is also important for me to address data sharing for AI.
AI development requires access to data, and while we clearly need to protect carefully, competitiveness must also be a key consideration. Cookie fatigue is equally important, but we also need to carefully assess what any solution would mean in practice for businesses and consumers. We also must avoid unintended consequences. I'm very much looking forward on a discussion ahead and also on working on this important file together and finding a good compromise.
Thank you so much. If I'm not blind, none of the other shadows is in the room. Dirk, you want to come in? No. It's okay.
Wasn't that just Nonas Gribat? She also left. Okay, but then I give the floor to the Commission, and I welcome Malte Beyer-Katzenberger and Laure Wagner from DG CONNECT. Welcome.
Malte Beyer-Katzenberger
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and thank you for the draft opinion. This brings very interesting points back from a journey that we had. Many of the elements that we recognize also from our own thinking from the Data Governance Act, from the Data Act discussion. Commission has undergone a certain learning path.
We heard that data intermediation services are really hard economically to be viable. So we, for this reason, we maintain our idea that this should be voluntary, and we have to be much more flexible in terms of the services.
Same goes on the side of the trade secrets protection that is also in your report in the draft opinion where we believe European industry's interests have to be also protected against know-how. On the GDPR part, I think that's especially the part when we are not talking deregulation but simplification. And as has already been said, the codification of case law would settle a long-standing debate on the notion of anonymity under the GDPR. It's I think for us extremely important that this very foundational notion of the GDPR is better clarified in the legal text. And also we propose that the Commission could bring all its brainpower together to help implementing this on the technical level.
And that we have been waiting also a bit too long, I would say, for practical guidance from the Data Protection Board for to give the real clarity on these foundational notions of the of this very essential regime for the European data economy. On the cookies, indeed, we want to bring concrete relief. Everyone hates the cookie banners. And with our proposal, I think we would rather significantly reduce these banners. So we welcome that the opinion on this regard rather strengthens actually our proposal and we will will be very happy to interact also with any of your offices on this.
And with this, I pass on to Laure.
Laure Wagner
Thank you very much, Chair, honorable members. On the P2B regulation, platform-to-business regulation, you'll know this is the pioneer of the platform regulation. It dates from 2019 and it was indeed, as you've mentioned, meant to address and to impose transparency on online platforms in their relationships vis-à-vis business users, which are indeed very often small and medium-sized businesses. So think about an online marketplace where sellers are trying to to sell their their products using the platform. We have noticed that there's very often a very strong dependency and asymmetrical relationship in in these in these dynamics and found that there are a number of limits of the P2B regulation in this regard where online platforms are obliged to say what they do, but we don't impose on them what they can or cannot do.
This is where the new instruments, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, have come into application since a few years. And we consider that with both instruments, the DSA and the DMA, we have a lot of overlap. We would not go as far and say it's a 100% overlap. But in, for instance, the prohibitions in the Digital Markets Act, the DMA, are stronger than mere transparency. And yes, they are limited to gatekeeping platforms, i.e. very large online platforms.
But this is where we consider that SMEs need the most and the strongest protections and where transparency is not sufficient. The DMA contains clear do's and don'ts, also for instance in respect of ranking. And the DSA applies to online platforms of all sizes as well. So the scope is even broader than P2B. Last point, the enforcement of these two instruments is a lot more robust than the enforcement of P2B rules.
And we consider that there's a bigger benefit for SMEs if their rights are effectively protected on the ground and in practice rather than just on on paper. So we remain at your disposal and support your work in any further steps if you so require. Thank you.
Alex Agius Saliba
No, just a few comments also from my end. As I said, it's really important for us to try to find the right balance between simplification, which is also important, especially when it comes to data. Data is the backbone for all the digital ecosystem. So it's really important to continue to work in that direction, especially for the very basic scope of this exercise to create one overarching piece of data legislation.
So there, I think the majority of all political groups we are in line. I'm also happy that EPP are also in line with us when it comes to P2B. This is also a very important point and I think that we as an internal market committee we should stay strong on this point and ultimately the most important thing is to find the right balance between simplification and consumer protection and I hope that we can continue to work together to find and to have a strong opinion from this committee on this very important piece of data legislation. Thanks a lot.
Anna Cavazzini
Great. Thank you so much and a lot of success with this file. Then we come to number 17, which is the last agenda item for today, the Digital Networks Act, where we are doing an opinion. Our rapporteur is Ms Stéphanie Yon-Courtin and ITRE is the lead committee on this file. The proposal by the Commission was presented on the 21st of January.
You have probably all seen it. The deadline for amendments is the 30th of June. So I think Ms Yon-Courtin is connected online, so I would give her the floor to present her draft opinion.
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
I am indeed, dear Chair, good afternoon. I will speak in French if it's fine, if we still have the translators, if they're not too hot. Okay. Donc Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je suis heureuse de vous présenter mon projet d'avis sur le Digital Networks Act. C'est OK ?
Vous avez bien la traduction ?
Anna Cavazzini
I think people are nodding in the room, so I think it works because you have also a very professional microphone, I see. That's great.
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
Yeah, okay. Donc à l'heure où les dépendances technologiques de l'Europe nous obligent à prendre notre destin en main, le DNA doit être un outil de plus dans la construction de notre souveraineté numérique et technologique européenne. Et pour ça, nous savons que le marché européen des télécommunications doit subir une mise à jour parce que nos technologies ont évolué, parce que nous sommes entrés dans l'ère de la 5G et bientôt de la 6G, parce que nos opérateurs et nos réseaux doivent cohabiter avec les plateformes et les géants de la tech. Les rapports Letta et Draghi ont déjà sonné l'alerte et le renforcement du marché des télécoms est devenu indispensable pour déployer la fibre et le très haut débit partout en Europe, pour garantir la compétitivité du secteur, pour assurer la sécurité de nos infrastructures de communication. Et c'est d'autant plus nécessaire dans le contexte stratégique de la consolidation du marché européen, comme on le voit en France avec le rachat de SFR et les futures lignes directrices sur les concentrations qui doivent favoriser l'émergence de vrais champions européens des télécoms.
Avec le DNA, nous voulons répondre à toutes ces préoccupations, mais la proposition de la Commission européenne est loin des ambitions affichées. La Commission propose une révision trop lourde, trop complexe. En fait, elle ne satisfait presque personne et en réalité, au lieu de simplifier, cette proposition va davantage complexifier le cadre réglementaire et alourdir la charge administrative sans apporter de grande plus-value ni pour les entreprises ni pour les consommateurs. Avec notre rôle ici au Parlement européen qui est désormais de clarifier et de renforcer le DNA, et il est important que notre commission IMCO se saisisse pleinement de ce texte compte tenu de l'impact qu'il aura sur le fonctionnement du marché unique et des services et sur la protection des consommateurs. En tant que rapporteure, je souhaite que notre avis se concentre sur cinq priorités.
La première priorité : simplifier la procédure de passeport unique pour clarifier, réduire les charges administratives pour les opérateurs et dans le régime d'autorisation générale, l'exécution et les sanctions doivent rester du ressort des États membres où les services et réseaux sont fournis et nous devons renforcer la coopération entre les autorités nationales.
Deuxième priorité : remettre la concurrence au cœur du DNA. La concurrence effective dans le secteur des télécoms doit être réintroduite comme un objectif à part entière du DNA. On doit veiller à ce que la régulation soit efficace, adaptée aux réalités concurrentielles des marchés nationaux, et il faut rééquilibrer la proposition de la Commission, notamment sur la hiérarchisation des remèdes et l'extension des pouvoirs de veto de la Commission. Troisième priorité : préserver les règles de l'internet ouvert. La neutralité du net est essentielle pour garantir un accès non discriminatoire et un traitement équitable du trafic internet et de tous les utilisateurs.
Elle ne doit pas être remise en question, et en même temps, il faut permettre certaines flexibilités comme le network slicing dans des conditions techniques très spécifiques et fondées sur les orientations du BEREC. Quatrième priorité : il faut protéger les droits des consommateurs et des utilisateurs finaux. La Commission veut pousser le curseur de l'harmonisation, mais on doit préserver les avancées pour les droits des consommateurs, notamment sur tout ce qui est contrats, droit à l'information, voies de recours, accès à des outils de comparaison des offres. C'est indispensable dans un marché où la consolidation des opérateurs ne doit jamais se faire au détriment des consommateurs, et de même, l'obligation du service universel doit être préservée et l'accès au numéro d'urgence européen unique 112 doit être garanti partout en Europe. Et enfin, la cinquième priorité, c'est de transformer le dispositif de conciliation volontaire en un mécanisme contraignant.
On sait que l'idée du fair share est abandonnée. La Commission nous propose désormais un mécanisme de conciliation purement volontaire, mais ce mécanisme, il sera inutile et sans effet s'il n'est pas rendu obligatoire. Et l'idée, c'est d'obliger les opérateurs télécoms, les plateformes, les entreprises de l'écosystème numérique à discuter et à trouver un accord en cas de litige. Si la conciliation ne fonctionne pas, alors il faudrait autoriser des décisions contraignantes pour régler les litiges. Ce mécanisme obligatoire ne vise pas à ressusciter le fair share ou à introduire une redevance de réseau.
L'objectif est de garantir des conditions plus équitables entre tous les acteurs de l'écosystème et d'éviter les distorsions dans notre marché des télécommunications. Chers collègues, je sais que certains d'entre vous veulent étendre le périmètre de notre avis, que ce soit sur le spectre, la transition vers la fibre ou la gouvernance, mais je vous propose que notre avis se focalise vraiment sur les articles les plus pertinents pour notre commission pour favoriser l'efficacité de nos travaux et nous assurer que notre avis pèsera dans le texte final. Je vous informe également que je compte me coordonner étroitement avec le rapporteur ITRE, Michal Kobosko, pour défendre au mieux nos priorités. J'espère pouvoir compter sur vous, votre soutien dans cette approche, et je suis impatiente de travailler avec vous sur ce dossier. Je vous remercie.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much, and at least I could understand you very well, so that worked great. Now for the EPP, the shadow is Ms. Walsmann, but Dirk will take over.
Dirk Gotink
Thank you, Chair. Bonjour, Madame Joncourtin. I'll read a statement for Ms. Walsmann. Before discussing a more coherent and investment-friendly internal market, we should recognize that Europe still lacks a genuine single market for connectivity. Key conditions continue to differ across Member States, including authorization procedures, spectrum allocation, license conditions, fees, infrastructure access, permitting rules, security requirements, and governance frameworks.
You could ask is there actually a Europe on connectivity. This fragmentation, that's my addition. This fragmentation increases compliance costs, creates legal uncertainty, slows deployment and makes cross-border operations more difficult. As the Commission itself notes in the DNA proposal, divergent national governments discourage investment and delay the rollout of new technologies. Greater harmonization is therefore essential and much needed.
The DNA should also accelerate the shift from nominal 5G coverage to real 5G performance through 5G standalone, SA. While EU 5G coverage reached 94.3% of households by the end of 2024, deployment of 5G remains uneven. Seven Member States have not yet launched 5G SA, while several others had only limited deployment. This is significant because 5G SA enables low latency, network slicing, industrial networks and mission-critical services. It should therefore be treated as a competitiveness priority rather than simply a technical upgrade.
A similar gap exists in fiber deployment. The DNA can help address these challenges through several priorities: greater coherence in spectrum allocation, including more predictable license conditions, harmonized authorization rules with a practical single passport regime that generally reduces national differences, streamlined permitting and deployment procedures to accelerate fiber, mobile, satellite, clear but realistic incentives and targets for gigabit connectivity focusing on quality and future-proof infrastructure rather than nominal coverage alone, genuine simplification, limited reliance on delegated and implementing acts, alignment of telecom regulation, a level playing field across the digital ecosystem. So, connectivity is now the foundation for cloud, AI, industry, public services, defense and crisis management. The DNA should therefore strengthen Europe's ability to deploy strategic digital infrastructure at scale while reducing fragmentation and regulatory complexity.
Alex Agius Saliba
Thanks a lot, Chair. Again, when it comes to Digital Networks Act proposal, I think that we should appreciate the sheer size and the topics that are being covered here, many of them falling exclusively under IMCO remit. And this is why I have been very vocal and in favor of shared competence for our committee on this file. But unfortunately, this did not materialize itself. Therefore, it makes me call on the rapporteur of this opinion to make the most out of her role in influencing the work of our ITRE colleagues, especially when it comes to the effect that the DNA will be directly having on our consumers.
I will not cover all the elements in the face of the limited time that we have, but let me pick up some of my priorities. One of the most pressing issues that I see with the Commission proposal is the limitation that could result for national authorities to act and safeguard the competition in their national markets. We should be extremely, extremely cautious to give more power to the Commission in overruling the national telecom authorities because we have seen in the past that this held back authorities that wanted to act in the interest of consumers and also businesses. Already now, I am coming from a small Member State where we have three telecom operators competing against each other, competing for better pricing, competing for better infrastructure.
Still, I receive a lot of complaints from my constituents on uncompetitive behavior of the current players on the market. Imagine, just imagine if we end up with several large European telcos that operate on a new scale. That would mean that for consumers, for example in Malta, that can end up with fewer choices, higher prices and worse service. Imagine if from three operators we end up with one big pan-European telecom operator. It is true that we need to invest in networks that make our digital economies run, but not over the back of consumers that in the end will have to foot the bill.
Overall, the EU consumer is getting a better deal, better value for money than, for example, the American telecoms customer. Let us keep that this way. Let's keep the internal market competitive at both European and also member state level. Therefore, we need the telecom regulators that can enforce measures without a Commission veto. Then let me quickly mention other issues that concern me and my group.
When it comes to fiber networks and copper switch-off, we need to make sure that we do not leave anyone behind. If we are talking about 5% of consumers that might not have an offer, we are talking about 20 million consumers in Europe. Some of them vulnerable, the majority of them in very remote areas. That is hard to accept and we will need solutions. When it comes to net neutrality, we would like to keep the current safeguards in place and are very and we are very cautious with moving the provisions from the regulation on open internet access.
This is an essential part of the EU's digital acquis that we want to safeguard here. Let me end with noting that the universal access provisions and on the emergency telephone numbers will also have a special attention from me and my group. I am looking forward to work with the rapporteur and I am counting on our committee to put the interest of consumers and the functioning of the internal market central when it comes to the discussions on the DNA.
Yeah, thank you very much. Now the next shadow that I see in the room is Alexandra Geese for the Greens.
Alexandra Geese
Thank you very much, Chair. And first of all, I would like to welcome the rapporteur's work on on this file, in particular the additional language on technological sovereignty, which is an interest that we share. Strengthening Europe's digital resilience, reducing strategic dependency and supporting secure and competitive digital infrastructure are important objectives that deserve our whole support. At the same time, as we examine the draft report, we would we should ensure that these objectives do not come at the expense of the principles that have made the European digital framework successful, which are an open internet, strong consumer protection, effective governance and a competitive digital ecosystem. So first of all, we welcome the fact that the Commission has largely carried over the core provisions of the Open Internet Regulation into the Digital Networks Act.
But however, the devil is in the detail and as Barek has pointed out, a number of important recitals from the Open Internet Regulation are missing from the proposal. This risks creating legal uncertainty and weakening a framework that has functioned well for nearly a decade. We are also concerned about provisions that would broaden that could broaden exemptions for so-called specialized services. As then something we should be particularly concerned about here at the IMCO Committee are consumer and end-users' rights. So we have a particular responsibility to ensure that the Digital Networks Act strengthens rather than weakens protections for consumers and end-users.
And this includes in particular clear and meaningful contract summaries, comparison tools. This is really an important tool. There's studies that show that in Germany, for example, 88% of German consumers use product information sheets or consider important that these are made available to them to compare tariffs. And let's remind all of us that in Europe, these contracts, especially for mobile service, are a lot less expensive than, for example, in the US where these instruments are not mandatory. I have a point on governments, on governance.
Until now, BEREC and national regulatory authorities provided an established and effective framework for regulatory coordination across the Union. This proposal would significantly expand the Commission's enforcement role while also creating a new office for digital networks. And we know that particularly the network fees, but also the DNA, have already been a subject of the recent US trade and of strong foreign interference. So giving even more power from a well-functioning system to the Commission, we think that that is very dangerous and we should be very careful around this. And my last point around voluntary conciliation and dispute resolution, we think it provides a solution to a problem that has not been really identified on the basis of evidence.
BEREC's most recent reports and guidance have not identified market failures or distortion that would justify such intervention. Secondly, there are competition concerns and it is very unclear what the impact would be on SMEs in particular, smaller application providers, content providers, innovative European digital businesses might find themselves in a very much weaker position. And thirdly, there's no guarantees that any payments would actually be invested in network infrastructure. They would result in more profits for the telecoms, but we have no guarantee that those profits would actually translate into innovative digital or telecoms infrastructure that we need. Thank you very much.
Great, that's the round of shadows. I don't know, Kateřina, you want to come in also? Yeah.
Kateřina Konečná
Děkuju. Děkuju, paní předsedkyně, a děkuju i paní zpravodajce, snad nás ještě slyší, za vypracování návrhu stanoviska. Ale musím se zeptat, zda akt o digitálních službách, o digitálních sítích skutečně slouží svému účelu. To, že se sloučí víc předpisů do jednoho aktu, přece neznamená žádnou simplifikaci a naopak zavádění nových pravidel do sektoru, který funguje dle ekonomických ukazatelů dobře, může vést k úplně opačnému výsledku. A to zvlášť ve chvíli, kdy si Komise chce připsat ohromný počet nových pravomocí s tím, kolik prováděcích aktů její návrh obsahuje.
Zde si myslím, bude potřeba dojít ke značnému omezení. Navíc se zdá, že nová opatření jsou psána ve prospěch velkých hráčů a neberou příliš velký ohled na spotřebitele. Víme například, jaký dopad na finální ceny pro spotřebitele a na dostupnost a kvalitu digitálních produktů a služeb může mít režim takzvaného spravedlivého podílu? Aby bylo mé vyjádření krátké, dovolím si vyjádřit ještě jedno podivení nad tím, co návrh Komise obsahuje a co si nemyslím, že návrh paní zpravodajky dostatečně adresuje. A to je tvrzení, že výstavbu optických sítí podpoří vypnutí sítí na bázi mědi.
Proč by zrovna toto opatření mělo být tím významným faktorem, který zrychlí výstavbu optických sítí? Vždyť sítě na bázi mědi doslouží okolo roku 2039 a pokud jsou optické sítě lepší, pochopitelně o ně bude i větší zájem.
Proč tedy musíme ty na bázi mědi předčasně vypnout a nenechat to na jejich majitelích? Já nevidím důvod, proč by zákaz měl být motivací k výstavbě lepší technologie. Pokud je tato technologie lepší, je to samo o sobě hlavní motivací pro její výstavbu, tedy vypnutí mědi nedává žádný smysl, jen narušuje dobře fungující trh a občanům opět může zdražit život. Děkuji.
Thank you very much. So that was also a lot of questions to the Commission, that fits very well because now I welcome the Commission, Kamila Kloc, Director of Digital Decade and Connectivity from DG Connect. Welcome.
Kamila Kloc
Thank you very much. Thank you also for inviting us to provide our views on the IMCO opinion. First, I would like to very much thank the rapporteur on very important focus on the single market in the opinion. We very much share the ambition of strengthening the single market objective that we provided in the proposal. For us, it is one of the main principles that we've been working on when we were preparing the proposal, to bring more single market, more harmonization, lower the barriers for the functioning of telecom operators and for the end users, because these are those that will benefit from bringing more single market into the system.
We also note the call for adding objective for digital sovereignty. This is important. For us, it had been reflected in the objectives of DNA related to resilience and competitiveness, which are very important, in particular the resilience chapter is something that we would like very much underline from the perspective of sovereignty. Now moving to the specific elements of the proposal, of the opinion, I think what needs to be said is that the Commission specifically decided to propose voluntary conciliation mechanism, not mandatory one. It was very much coming back from the feedback of various consultations that we had carried in the past years.
We noticed relatively low support for mandatory solution here, and also to clarify to the Member of Parliament who had been mentioning that Commission brought the fair use, the fair share into the proposal, we have not done it. We proposed voluntary conciliation mechanism and we are not proposing any obligatory mechanism in this regard. It is also related to the fact that in our analysis there are no specific market failure, systematic market failures that could be addressed by regulatory intervention. And we also noted that court proceedings for commercial disputes had been successfully addressing it, and the voluntary conciliation mechanism will not prevent, quite to the contrary, the judiciary action if it's necessary. So that on why we have proposed voluntary conciliation mechanism, but we of course note the opinion where you would like to move further with mandatory provisions.
On the consumer-related measures, I heard quite a lot that we have been lowering the consumer protection. I don't think so. What we are trying to carefully balance here is the interest of the single market and consumer protection. The DNA proposal aims to harmonize with directly applicable rules, regulation in the areas covered by DNA, while maintaining a high level of consumer protection.
On the specific issues mentioned, on the end users, on mandatory comparison tools, we decided not to mandate them at the EU level, but it doesn't mean that they cannot continue at the national level. It's simply not the aspect that is regulated at the EU level, but the member states and competent authorities are not deprived of the possibility to continue with mandatory comparison tools if they find them useful. Finally, the Article 99 and the scope of users benefiting from consumer-type protection, what we proposed is indeed certain reduction of protection and reduction of rules concerning business-to-business relationships. So we basically what we proposed that for the enterprises in some aspects of protection might not be necessary and we they might also benefit from negotiated contracts with the telecom operators also because the business models are changing. Finally, as regards open internet, we identified in our proposal as a main issue of introduction of innovative services based on quality, but I believe we keep the right balance because we keep the protection and the net neutrality rules that had been in the core of our legislation since 2016, while allowing for the further clarity how the operators could provide specialized services under the rules.
And for that we propose in first place BEREC guidelines, but we also leave the possibility because the BEREC guidelines and BEREC cannot issue any binding decision, so the guidelines will remind as a basically guidance from from BEREC, but they are they don't bring any any binding rules. We propose that in necessary cases we might come with the implementing act to to make these rules legally binding basically. Last but not least, I heard some concerns from the members of Parliament concerning competition and the Commission powers in that regard. We kept competition as a very important objective of the proposal. We believe in competition, the access regime that we designed and the possibilities for the Commission to intervene is also to protect competition in the market.
And the Commission veto powers are very much related to the single market provisions that we believe are necessary. On the switch-off of copper and the issue of fiber, we have provided extensive analysis including in last week publication of the Digital Decade report when we provided new data which are showing that business as usual and the current provisions of the current regulatory framework would not lead to fiber deployment in the EU that is necessary. And by we will have to wait our citizens would have to wait until 2051 to get the fiber to their homes if we don't do something. And one of the main reasons why the fiber is not deployed is persistence of copper networks which were publicly fund many many years ago and they cannot provide the connectivity that is needed in the future for our economy and society. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. And with that I give the floor back to our rapporteur for concluding.
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
Merci. Merci Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, merci pour vos contributions et vos points d'alerte. Merci également à la Commission. Les interventions de mes collègues confirment que la proposition de la Commission est loin de répondre à nos attentes et que nous avons beaucoup de travail devant nous. Il est clair que le DNA recouvre beaucoup d'enjeux stratégiques, que ce soit sur la politique industrielle et technologique, la régulation des marchés et des services, la politique de concurrence également ou la protection des consommateurs.
Et en tant que rapporteur, je suis convaincu que nous réussirons à trouver le bon équilibre entre la nécessaire simplification du DNA et son renforcement pour permettre un marché des télécoms compétitif, plus intégré et tourné vers l'avenir. Je prends bonne note de vos priorités et j'attends vos propositions d'amendements. Et je suis certain que forcément nos travaux aboutiront à une position forte de notre commission sur ce dossier très important. À la demande de plusieurs de mes collègues shadow, notamment PPE et S&D, je vous propose de repousser le délai d'amendement d'une semaine supplémentaire. Et donc j'attends vos propositions d'amendement pour le 7 juillet.
Et je vous remercie infiniment.
Merci beaucoup and a lot of success for this file. So on the original agenda you had seen now another item, the common charger implementation report by the Commission, but this is postponed. So that means our meeting for today ends here and we meet again tomorrow at 9 o'clock. So have a very good afternoon and thanks for everyone.