Procedure : 2020/0374(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A9-0332/2021

Texts tabled :

A9-0332/2021

Debates :

PV 14/12/2021 - 3
CRE 14/12/2021 - 3

Votes :

PV 14/12/2021 - 15
PV 15/12/2021 - 17

Texts adopted :

P9_TA(2021)0499

<Date>{30/11/2021}30.11.2021</Date>
<NoDocSe>A9-0332/2021</NoDocSe>
PDF 1548kWORD 675k

<TitreType>REPORT</TitreType>     <RefProcLect>***I</RefProcLect>

<Titre>on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act)</Titre>

<DocRef>(COM(2020)0842 – C9‑0419/2020 – 2020/0374(COD))</DocRef>


<Commission>{IMCO}Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection</Commission>

Rapporteur: <Depute>Andreas Schwab</Depute>

Rapporteurs for the opinion (*):

Stéphanie Yon‑Courtin, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

Carlos Zorrinho, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

(*) Associated committees – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS
 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY
 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM
 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION
 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS
 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
 PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
 FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act)

(COM(2020)0842 – C9‑0419/2020 – 2020/0374(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

 having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0842),

 having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0419/2020),

 having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

 having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 April 2021[1],

 having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 30 June 2021[2],

 having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

 having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

 having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A9-0332/2021),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

 

<RepeatBlock-Amend><Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>1</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by providing new business opportunities in the Union and facilitating cross-border trading.

(1) Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by providing business users with gateways to reach end users throughout the Union and beyond, by facilitating cross-border trade and by opening entirely new business opportunities to a large number of companies in the Union to the benefit of Union’s consumers.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>2</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Core platform services, at the same time, feature a number of characteristics that can be exploited by their providers. These characteristics of core platform services include among others extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other characteristics of core platform services are very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages. All these characteristics combined with unfair conduct by providers of these services can have the effect of substantially undermining the contestability of the core platform services, as well as impacting the fairness of the commercial relationship between providers of such services and their business users and end users, leading to rapid and potentially far-reaching decreases in business users’ and end users’ choice in practice, and therefore can confer to the provider of those services the position of a so-called gatekeeper.

(2) Core platform services, at the same time, feature a number of characteristics that can be exploited by their providers. These characteristics of core platform services include among others extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other characteristics of core platform services are very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages. All these characteristics combined with unfair conduct by providers of these services can have the effect of substantially undermining the contestability of the core platform services, as well as impacting the fairness of the commercial relationship between providers of such services and their business users and end users, leading to rapid and potentially far-reaching decreases in business users’ and end users’ choice in practice, and therefore can confer to the provider of those services the position of a so-called gatekeeper. At the same time, it should be recognised that services acting in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as collaborative projects should not be considered as core services for the purpose of this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>3</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 4</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) The combination of those features of gatekeepers is likely to lead in many cases to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users as well as end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, choice and innovation therein.

(4) The combination of those features of gatekeepers is likely to lead in many cases to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users as well as end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, privacy and security standards, fair competition, choice and innovation therein.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>4</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 6</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users, to reach end users, everywhere in the Union and on different markets. The adverse impact of unfair practices on the internal market and particularly weak contestability of core platform services, including their negative societal and economic implications, have led national legislators and sectoral regulators to act. A number of national regulatory solutions have already been adopted or proposed to address unfair practices and the contestability of digital services or at least with regard to some of them. This has created a risk of divergent regulatory solutions and thereby fragmentation of the internal market, thus raising the risk of increased compliance costs due to different sets of national regulatory requirements.

(6) Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users, to reach end users, everywhere in the Union and on different markets. The adverse impact of unfair practices on the internal market and particularly weak contestability of core platform services, including their negative societal and economic implications, have led national legislators and sectoral regulators to act. A number of regulatory solutions have already been adopted at national level or proposed to address unfair practices and the contestability of digital services or at least with regard to some of them. This has created a risk of divergent regulatory solutions and thereby fragmentation of the internal market, thus raising the risk of increased compliance costs due to different sets of national regulatory requirements.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>5</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 8</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) By approximating diverging national laws, obstacles to the freedom to provide and receive services, including retail services, within the internal market should be eliminated. A targeted set of harmonised mandatory rules should therefore be established at Union level to ensure contestable and fair digital markets featuring the presence of gatekeepers within the internal market.

(8) By approximating diverging national laws, obstacles to the freedom to provide and receive services, including retail services, within the internal market should be eliminated. A targeted set of harmonised legal obligations should therefore be established at Union level to ensure contestable and fair digital markets featuring the presence of gatekeepers within the internal market to the benefit of Union’s economy as whole and Union’s consumers in particular.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>6</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 9</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) A fragmentation of the internal market can only be effectively averted if Member States are prevented from applying national rules which are specific to the types of undertakings and services covered by this Regulation. At the same time, since this Regulation aims at complementing the enforcement of competition law, it should be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to the corresponding national competition rules and to other national competition rules regarding unilateral behaviour that are based on an individualised assessment of market positions and behaviour, including its likely effects and the precise scope of the prohibited behaviour, and which provide for the possibility of undertakings to make efficiency and objective justification arguments for the behaviour in question. However, the application of the latter rules should not affect the obligations imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation and their uniform and effective application in the internal market.

(9) A fragmentation of the internal market can only be effectively averted if Member States are prevented from applying on gatekeepers further rules or obligations for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to the ability of Member States to impose the same, stricter or different obligations on gatekeepers in order to pursue other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. Those legitimate public interests can be, among others, consumer protection, fight against acts of unfair competition and fostering media freedom and pluralism, freedom of expression, as well as diversity in culture or in languages. At the same time, since this Regulation aims at complementing the enforcement of competition law, it should be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to the corresponding national competition rules and to other national competition rules regarding unilateral behaviour that are based on an individualised assessment of market positions and behaviour, including its likely effects and the precise scope of the prohibited behaviour, and which provide for the possibility of undertakings to make efficiency and objective justification arguments for the behaviour in question. However, the application of the latter rules should not affect the obligations and prohibitions imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation and their uniform and effective application in the internal market.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>7</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 10</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the corresponding national competition rules concerning anticompetitive multilateral and unilateral conduct as well as merger control have as their objective the protection of undistorted competition on the market. This Regulation pursues an objective that is complementary to, but different from that of protecting undistorted competition on any given market, as defined in competition-law terms, which is to ensure that markets where gatekeepers are present are and remain contestable and fair, independently from the actual, likely or presumed effects of the conduct of a given gatekeeper covered by this Regulation on competition on a given market. This Regulation therefore aims at protecting a different legal interest from those rules and should be without prejudice to their application.

(10) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the corresponding national competition rules concerning anticompetitive multilateral and unilateral conduct as well as merger control have as their objective the protection of undistorted competition on the market. This Regulation pursues an objective that is complementary to, but different from that of protecting undistorted competition on any given market, as defined in competition-law terms, which is to ensure that markets where gatekeepers are present are and remain contestable and fair, and to protect the respective rights of business users and end users, independently from the actual, likely or presumed effects of the conduct of a given gatekeeper covered by this Regulation on competition on a given market. This Regulation therefore aims at protecting a different legal interest from those rules and should be without prejudice to their application.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>8</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 11</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) This Regulation should also complement, without prejudice to their application, the rules resulting from other acts of Union law regulating certain aspects of the provision of services covered by this Regulation, in particular Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council26 , Regulation (EU) xx/xx/EU [DSA] of the European Parliament and of the Council27 , Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council29 , Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council30 , and Directive (EU) 2010/13 of the European Parliament and of the Council31 , as well as national rules aimed at enforcing or, as the case may be, implementing that Union legislation.

(11) This Regulation should also complement, without prejudice to their application, the rules resulting from other acts of Union law regulating certain aspects of the provision of services covered by this Regulation, in particular Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council26. Regulation (EU) xx/xx/EU [DSA] of the European Parliament and of the Council27, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council28, Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council29, Directive 2002/58/EC, Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council30, Directive (EU) 2019/882, Directive(EU) 2018/1808 and Directive (EU) 2010/13 of the European Parliament and of the Council31, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 93/13/EEC as well as rules at national level adopted in accordance with Union legislation. Concerning specifically rules on consent to the processing of personal data set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, this Regulation applies these rules without affecting them.

__________________

__________________

26 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57).

26 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57).

27 Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.

27 Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.

28 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

28 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

29 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/ (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92.).

29 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/ (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92.).

30 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC ( OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

30 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC ( OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

31 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).

31 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>9</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) Weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced for certain digital services than for others. This is the case in particular for widespread and commonly used digital services that mostly directly intermediate between business users and end users and where features such as extreme scale economies, very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing or vertical integration are the most prevalent. Often, there is only one or very few large providers of those digital services. These providers of core platform services have emerged most frequently as gatekeepers for business users and end users with far-reaching impacts, gaining the ability to easily set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner for their business users and end users. Accordingly, it is necessary to focus only on those digital services that are most broadly used by business users and end users and where, based on current market conditions, concerns about weak contestability and unfair practices by gatekeepers are more apparent and pressing from an internal market perspective.

(12) Weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced for certain digital services than for others. This is the case in particular for widespread and commonly used digital services that mostly directly intermediate between business users and end users and where features such as extreme scale economies, very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing or vertical integration are the most prevalent. Often, there is only one or very few large providers of those digital services. These providers of core platform services have emerged most frequently as gatekeepers for business users and end users with far-reaching impacts, gaining the ability to easily set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner for their business users and end users. Accordingly, it is necessary to focus only on those digital services that are most broadly used by business users and end users and where concerns about weak contestability and unfair practices by gatekeepers are more apparent and pressing from an internal market perspective.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>10</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, operating systems, online social networking, video sharing platform services, number-independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services and online advertising services all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes.

(13) In particular, online intermediation services, online search engines, operating systems such as on smart devises, internet of things or embedded digital services in vehicles, online social networking, video sharing platform services, number-independent interpersonal communication services, cloud computing services, virtual assistant services, web browsers, connected TV and online advertising services all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council32. In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes.

__________________

__________________

32 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1.

32 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>11</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 14</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) A number of other ancillary services, such as identification or payment services and technical services which support the provision of payment services, may be provided by gatekeepers together with their core platform services. As gatekeepers frequently provide the portfolio of their services as part of an integrated ecosystem to which third-party providers of such ancillary services do not have access, at least not subject to equal conditions, and can link the access to the core platform service to take-up of one or more ancillary services, the gatekeepers are likely to have an increased ability and incentive to leverage their gatekeeper power from their core platform services to these ancillary services, to the detriment of choice and contestability of these services.

(14) A number of other ancillary services, such as identification services, payment services, technical services which support the provision of payment services or in-app payment systems, may be provided by gatekeepers together with their core platform services. As gatekeepers frequently provide the portfolio of their services as part of an integrated ecosystem to which third-party providers of such ancillary services do not have access, at least not subject to equal conditions, and can link the access to the core platform service to take-up of one or more ancillary services, the gatekeepers are likely to have an increased ability and incentive to leverage their gatekeeper power from their core platform services to these ancillary services, to the detriment of choice and contestability of these services.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>12</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 20</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) A very high number of business users that depend on a core platform service to reach a very high number of monthly active end users allow the provider of that service to influence the operations of a substantial part of business users to its advantage and indicate in principle that the provider serves as an important gateway. The respective relevant levels for those numbers should be set representing a substantive percentage of the entire population of the Union when it comes to end users and of the entire population of businesses using platforms to determine the threshold for business users.

(20) A very high number of business users that depend on a core platform service to reach a very high number of monthly end users allow the provider of that service to influence the operations of a substantial part of business users to its advantage and indicate in principle that the provider serves as an important gateway. The respective relevant levels for those numbers should be set representing a substantive percentage of the entire population of the Union when it comes to end users and of the entire population of businesses using platforms to determine the threshold for business users.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>13</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 21</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) An entrenched and durable position in its operations or the foreseeability of achieving such a position future occurs notably where the contestability of the position of the provider of the core platform service is limited. This is likely to be the case where that provider has provided a core platform service in at least three Member States to a very high number of business users and end users during at least three years.

(21) An entrenched and durable position in its operations or the foreseeability of achieving such a position future occurs notably where the contestability of the position of the provider of the core platform service is limited. This is likely to be the case where that provider has provided a core platform service in at least three Member States to a very high number of business users and end users during at least three years. A list of indicators to be used by the providers of core platforms services when measuring monthly end users and yearly business users should be provided in an Annex to this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>14</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 22</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) Such thresholds can be impacted by market and technical developments. The Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify the methodology for determining whether the quantitative thresholds are met, and to regularly adjust it to market and technological developments where necessary. This is particularly relevant in relation to the threshold referring to market capitalisation, which should be indexed in appropriate intervals.

(22) Such thresholds can be impacted by market and technical developments. The Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify the methodology for determining whether the quantitative thresholds are met and update the list of indicators set out in the Annex to this Regulation, and to regularly adjust it to market and technological developments where necessary. This is particularly relevant in relation to the threshold referring to market capitalisation, which should be indexed in appropriate intervals.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>15</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 23</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) Providers of core platform services which meet the quantitative thresholds but are able to present sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, in the circumstances in which the relevant core platform service operates, they do not fulfil the objective requirements for a gatekeeper, should not be designated directly, but only subject to a further investigation. The burden of adducing evidence that the presumption deriving from the fulfilment of quantitative thresholds should not apply to a specific provider should be borne by that provider In its assessment, the Commission should take into account only the elements which directly relate to the requirements for constituting a gatekeeper, namely whether it is an important gateway which is operated by a provider with a significant impact in the internal market with an entrenched and durable position, either actual or foreseeable. Any justification on economic grounds seeking to demonstrate efficiencies deriving from a specific type of behaviour by the provider of core platform services should be discarded, as it is not relevant to the designation as a gatekeeper. The Commission should be able to take a decision by relying on the quantitative thresholds where the provider significantly obstructs the investigation by failing to comply with the investigative measures taken by the Commission.

(23) Providers of core platform services should be able to demonstrate that, despite meeting the quantitative thresholds, due to the exceptional circumstances in which the relevant core platform service operates, they do not fulfil the objective requirements to qualify as a gatekeeper only if they are able to present sufficiently compelling arguments to demonstrate this. The burden of adducing compelling evidence that the presumption deriving from the fulfilment of quantitative thresholds should not apply to a specific provider should be borne by that provider. The Commission should be able to take a decision by relying on the quantitative thresholds and facts available where the provider significantly obstructs the investigation by failing to comply with the investigative measures taken by the Commission. In view of improving market transparency, the Commission may require that information provided regarding business and end users is verified by third party audience measurement providers qualified to provide such services in accordance with market standards and codes of conduct applicable in the Union.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>16</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 29</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) Designated gatekeepers should comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation in respect of each of the core platform services listed in the relevant designation decision. The mandatory rules should apply taking into account the conglomerate position of gatekeepers, where applicable. Furthermore, implementing measures that the Commission may by decision impose on the gatekeeper following a regulatory dialogue should be designed in an effective manner, having regard to the features of core platform services as well as possible circumvention risks and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the fundamental rights of the undertakings concerned as well as those of third parties.

(29) Designated gatekeepers should comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation in respect of each of the core platform services listed in the relevant designation decision. The mandatory rules should apply taking into account the conglomerate position of gatekeepers, where applicable. Furthermore, implementing measures that the Commission may by decision impose on the gatekeeper should be designed in an effective manner, having regard to the features of core platform services as well as possible circumvention risks and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and the fundamental rights of the undertakings concerned as well as those of third parties.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>17</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 30</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) The very rapidly changing and complex technological nature of core platform services requires a regular review of the status of gatekeepers, including those that are foreseen to enjoy a durable and entrenched position in their operations in the near future. To provide all of the market participants, including the gatekeepers, with the required certainty as to the applicable legal obligations, a time limit for such regular reviews is necessary. It is also important to conduct such reviews on a regular basis and at least every two years.

(30) The very rapidly changing and complex technological nature of core platform services requires a regular review of the status of gatekeepers, including those that are foreseen to enjoy a durable and entrenched position in their operations in the near future. To provide all of the market participants, including the gatekeepers, with the required certainty as to the applicable legal obligations, a time limit for such regular reviews is necessary. It is also important to conduct such reviews on a regular basis and at least every year.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>18</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 31</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) To ensure the effectiveness of the review of gatekeeper status as well as the possibility to adjust the list of core platform services provided by a gatekeeper, the gatekeepers should inform the Commission of all of their intended and concluded acquisitions of other providers of core platform services or any other services provided within the digital sector. Such information should not only serve the review process mentioned above, regarding the status of individual gatekeepers, but will also provide information that is crucial to monitoring broader contestability trends in the digital sector and can therefore be a useful factor for consideration in the context of the market investigations foreseen by this Regulation.

(31) To ensure the effectiveness of the review of gatekeeper status as well as the possibility to adjust the list of core platform services provided by a gatekeeper, the gatekeepers should inform the Commission of all of their intended and concluded acquisitions of other providers of core platform services or any other services provided within the digital sector. Such information should not only serve the review process mentioned above, regarding the status of individual gatekeepers, but will also provide information that is crucial to monitoring broader contestability trends in the digital sector and can therefore be a useful factor for consideration in the context of the market investigations foreseen by this Regulation. The Commission should inform competent national authorities of such notifications. The information gathered may be used to trigger the referral system set out in Article 22 of the Regulation (EC) no. 139/2004.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>19</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 32</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) To safeguard the fairness and contestability of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, it is necessary to provide in a clear and unambiguous manner for a set of harmonised obligations with regard to those services. Such rules are needed to address the risk of harmful effects of unfair practices imposed by gatekeepers, to the benefit of the business environment in the services concerned, to the benefit of users and ultimately to the benefit of society as a whole. Given the fast-moving and dynamic nature of digital markets, and the substantial economic power of gatekeepers, it is important that these obligations are effectively applied without being circumvented. To that end, the obligations in question should apply to any practices by a gatekeeper, irrespective of its form and irrespective of whether it is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, insofar as a practice corresponds to the type of practice that is the subject of one of the obligations of this Regulation.

(32) To safeguard the fairness and contestability of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, it is necessary to provide in a clear and unambiguous manner for a set of harmonised obligations with regard to those services. Such rules are needed to address the risk of harmful effects of unfair practices imposed by gatekeepers, to the benefit of the business environment in the services concerned, to the benefit of users and ultimately to the benefit of society as a whole. Given the fast-moving and dynamic nature of digital markets, and the substantial economic power of gatekeepers, it is important that these obligations are effectively applied without being circumvented. To that end, the obligations in question should apply to any behaviour by a gatekeeper, irrespective of its form and irrespective of whether it is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, insofar as it could, in practice, have an equivalent object or effect to the practices that are prohibited under this Regulation. Such behaviour includes the design used by the gatekeeper, the presentation of end-user choices in a non-neutral manner, or using the structure, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof to subvert or impair user autonomy, decision-making, or choice.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>20</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 33</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, following an in-depth investigation, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations.

(33) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are limited to what is necessary and justified to address the unfairness of the identified practices by gatekeepers and to ensure contestability in relation to core platform services provided by gatekeepers. Therefore, the obligations should correspond to those practices that are considered unfair by taking into account the features of the digital sector and where experience gained, for example in the enforcement of the EU competition rules, shows that they have a particularly negative direct impact on the business users and end users. The obligations laid down in the Regulation should take into account the nature of the core platform services provided and the presence of different business models. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality. The obligations should only be updated after a thorough investigation on the nature and impact of specific practices that may be newly identified, as unfair or limiting contestability in the same manner as the unfair practices laid down in this Regulation while potentially escaping the scope of the current set of obligations.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>21</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 36</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) The conduct of combining end user data from different sources or signing in users to different services of gatekeepers gives them potential advantages in terms of accumulation of data, thereby raising barriers to entry. To ensure that gatekeepers do not unfairly undermine the contestability of core platform services, they should enable their end users to freely choose to opt-in to such business practices by offering a less personalised alternative. The possibility should cover all possible sources of personal data, including own services of the gatekeeper as well as third party websites, and should be proactively presented to the end user in an explicit, clear and straightforward manner.

(36) The conduct of combining end user data from different sources or signing in users to different services of gatekeepers gives them potential advantages in terms of accumulation of data, thereby raising barriers to entry. To ensure that gatekeepers do not unfairly undermine the contestability of core platform services, they should enable their end users to freely choose to opt-in to such business practices by offering a less personalised but equivalent alternative. The less personalized alternative should not be different or of degraded quality compared to the service offered to the end users who provide consent to the combining of their personal data. The possibility should cover all possible sources of personal data, including own services of the gatekeeper as well as third party websites, and should be proactively presented to the end user in an explicit, clear and straightforward manner.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>22</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 36 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(36a) Minors merit specific protection with regard to their personal data, in particular as regards the use for the purposes of marketing or creating personality or user profiles and the collection of personal data. Therefore, personal data of minors collected or otherwise generated by gatekeepers should not be processed for commercial purposes, such as direct marketing, profiling and behaviourally targeted advertising.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>23</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 36 b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(36b) In order to safeguard a fair end user choice, refusing consent should not be more difficult than giving consent. In addition, to safeguard the end users rights and freedoms, the processing of personal data for advertising purposes should be in line with the requirements of data minimisation under Article 5 (1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Furthermore, the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, as well as the data concerning health or a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation should be strictly limited and subject to the appropriate safeguards as outlined in Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>24</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 37</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation services, limiting inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users.

(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases, through the imposition of contractual terms and conditions, restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or through direct business channels. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation services or direct distribution channels, limiting inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services or other direct distribution channels and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>25</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 38</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38) To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, the business users of these gatekeepers should be free in promoting and choosing the distribution channel they consider most appropriate to interact with any end users that these business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect distribution channel such business user may use. This should apply to the promotion of offers and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. Moreover, the ability of end users to freely acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, it should be avoided that gatekeepers restrict end users from access to and use of such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application download or purchased from a software application store should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the gatekeeper’s core platform service simply because it was purchased outside such software application or software application store.

(38) To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, the business users of these gatekeepers should be free in promoting and choosing the distribution channel they consider most appropriate to interact with any end users that these business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper or through other channels. An acquired end user is an end user who has already entered into a contractual relationship with the business user. Such contractual relationships may be on either a paid or a free basis (e.g., free trials, free service tiers) and may have been entered into either on the gatekeeper’s core platform service or through any other channel. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect distribution channel such business user may use. This should apply to the promotion of offers, communication and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. Moreover, the ability of end users to freely acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, it should be avoided that gatekeepers restrict end users from access to and use of such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application download or purchased from a software application store should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the gatekeeper’s core platform service simply because it was purchased outside such software application or software application store.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>26</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 39</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) To safeguard a fair commercial environment and protect the contestability of the digital sector it is important to safeguard the right of business users to raise concerns about unfair behaviour by gatekeepers with any relevant administrative or other public authorities. For example, business users may want to complain about different types of unfair practices, such as discriminatory access conditions, unjustified closing of business user accounts or unclear grounds for product de-listings. Any practice that would in any way inhibit such a possibility of raising concerns or seeking available redress, for instance by means of confidentiality clauses in agreements or other written terms, should therefore be prohibited. This should be without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use including the use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms, including any use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or of the jurisdiction of specific courts in compliance with respective Union and national law This should therefore also be without prejudice to the role gatekeepers play in the fight against illegal content online.

(39) To safeguard a fair commercial environment and protect the contestability of the digital sector it is important to safeguard the right of business users and end users, including whistleblowers to raise concerns about unfair behaviour by gatekeepers with any relevant administrative or other public authorities. For example, business users or end users may want to complain about different types of unfair practices, such as discriminatory access conditions, unjustified closing of business user accounts or unclear grounds for product de-listings. Any practice that would in any way inhibit or hinder such a possibility of raising concerns or seeking available redress, for instance by means of confidentiality clauses in agreements or other written terms, should therefore be prohibited. This should be without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use including the use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms, including any use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or of the jurisdiction of specific courts in compliance with respective Union and national law This should therefore also be without prejudice to the role gatekeepers play in the fight against illegal content online.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>27</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 40</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(40) Identification services are crucial for business users to conduct their business, as these can allow them not only to optimise services, to the extent allowed under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council33 , but also to inject trust in online transactions, in compliance with Union or national law. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position as provider of core platform services to require their dependent business users to include any identification services provided by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by these business users to their end users, where other identification services are available to such business users.

(40) Gatekeepers offer a range of ancillary services. To ensure contestability, it is crucial that business users are free to choose such ancillary services without having to fear any detrimental effects for the provision of the core platform service and to conduct their business, as these can allow them not only to optimise services, to the extent allowed under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council33, but also to inject trust in online transactions, in compliance with Union or national law. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position as provider of core platform services to require their dependent business users to use, offer or include any ancillary service provided by the gatekeeper or a particular third party, where other ancillary services are available to such business users. Gatekeepers should eventually not use their position as provider of core platform services to require their dependent business users to include any identification services provided by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by these business users to their end users, where other identification services are available to such business users.

__________________

__________________

33 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

33 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>28</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 41</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(41) Gatekeepers should not restrict the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services. Gatekeepers should therefore ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and should not raise artificial technical barriers so as to make switching impossible or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to end users, including by means of pre-installation, as well the improvement of end user offering, such as better prices or increased quality, would not in itself constitute a barrier to switching.

(41) Gatekeepers should not restrict the free choice of end users by technically preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services. Gatekeepers should therefore ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and should not raise artificial technical barriers so as to make switching more difficult or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to end users, including by means of pre-installation, as well the improvement of end user offering, such as better prices or increased quality, would not in itself constitute a barrier to switching.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>29</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 42</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(42) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non-transparent and opaque. This opacity is partly linked to the practices of a few platforms, but is also due to the sheer complexity of modern day programmatic advertising. The sector is considered to have become more non-transparent after the introduction of new privacy legislation, and is expected to become even more opaque with the announced removal of third-party cookies. This often leads to a lack of information and knowledge for advertisers and publishers about the conditions of the advertising services they purchased and undermines their ability to switch to alternative providers of online advertising services. Furthermore, the costs of online advertising are likely to be higher than they would be in a fairer, more transparent and contestable platform environment. These higher costs are likely to be reflected in the prices that end users pay for many daily products and services relying on the use of online advertising. Transparency obligations should therefore require gatekeepers to provide advertisers and publishers to whom they supply online advertising services, when requested and to the extent possible, with information that allows both sides to understand the price paid for each of the different advertising services provided as part of the relevant advertising value chain.

(42) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non-transparent and opaque. This opacity is partly linked to the practices of a few platforms, but is also due to the sheer complexity of modern day programmatic advertising. The sector is considered to have become more non-transparent after the introduction of new privacy legislation, and is expected to become even more opaque with the announced removal of third-party cookies. This often leads to a lack of information and knowledge for advertisers and publishers about the conditions of the advertising services they purchased and undermines their ability to switch to alternative providers of online advertising services. Furthermore, the costs of online advertising are likely to be higher than they would be in a fairer, more transparent and contestable platform environment. These higher costs are likely to be reflected in the prices that end users pay for many daily products and services relying on the use of online advertising. Transparency obligations should therefore require gatekeepers to provide advertisers and publishers to whom they supply online advertising services, with free of charge, effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time when requested and to the extent possible, with information that allows both sides to understand the price paid for each of the different advertising services provided as part of the relevant advertising value chain and the availability and visibility of advertisement.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>30</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 44</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(44) Business users may also purchase advertising services from a provider of core platform services for the purpose of providing goods and services to end users. In this case, it may occur that the data are not generated on the core platform service, but are provided to the core platform service by the business user or are generated based on its operations through the core platform service concerned. In certain instances, that core platform service providing advertising may have a dual role, as intermediary and as provider of advertising services. Accordingly, the obligation prohibiting a dual role gatekeeper from using data of business users should apply also with respect to the data that a core platform service has received from businesses for the purpose of providing advertising services related to that core platform service.

(44) Business users may also purchase advertising services from a provider of core platform services for the purpose of providing goods and services to end users. In this case, it may occur that the data are not generated on the core platform service, but are provided to the core platform service by the business user or are generated based on its operations through the core platform service concerned. In certain instances, that core platform service providing advertising may have a dual role, as intermediary and as provider of advertising services. Accordingly, the obligation prohibiting a dual role gatekeeper from using data of business users should apply also with respect to the data that a core platform service has received from businesses for the purpose of providing advertising services related to that core platform service. Moreover the gatekeeper should refrain from disclosing any commercially sensitive information obtained in connection with one of its advertising services to any third party belonging to the same undertaking and from using such commercially sensitive information for any purposes other than the provision of the specific advertising service unless this is necessary for carrying out a business transaction.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>31</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 46</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users from un-installing any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications.

(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users from un-installing any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications. The gatekeeper may restrict such un-installation when such applications are essential to the functioning of the operating system or the device.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>32</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 47</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) The rules that the gatekeepers set for the distribution of software applications may in certain circumstances restrict the ability of end users to install and effectively use third party software applications or software application stores on operating systems or hardware of the relevant gatekeeper and restrict the ability of end users to access these software applications or software application stores outside the core platform services of that gatekeeper. Such restrictions may limit the ability of developers of software applications to use alternative distribution channels and the ability of end users to choose between different software applications from different distribution channels and should be prohibited as unfair and liable to weaken the contestability of core platform services. In order to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper the gatekeeper concerned may implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system.

(47) The rules that the gatekeepers set for the distribution of software applications may in certain circumstances restrict the ability of end users to install and effectively use third party software applications or software application stores on operating systems or hardware of the relevant gatekeeper and restrict the ability of end users to access these software applications or software application stores outside the core platform services of that gatekeeper. Such restrictions may limit the ability of developers of software applications to use alternative distribution channels and the ability of end users to choose between different software applications from different distribution channels and should be prohibited as unfair and liable to weaken the contestability of core platform services. To ensure contestability, the gatekeeper should prompt where relevant the end user to decide whether the downloaded application or app store should become the default. In order to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper the gatekeeper concerned may implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>33</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 48</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(48) Gatekeepers are often vertically integrated and offer certain products or services to end users through their own core platform services, or through a business user over which they exercise control which frequently leads to conflicts of interest. This can include the situation whereby a gatekeeper offers its own online intermediation services through an online search engine. When offering those products or services on the core platform service, gatekeepers can reserve a better position to their own offering, in terms of ranking, as opposed to the products of third parties also operating on that core platform service. This can occur for instance with products or services, including other core platform services, which are ranked in the results communicated by online search engines, or which are partly or entirely embedded in online search engines results, groups of results specialised in a certain topic, displayed along with the results of an online search engine, which are considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine. Other instances are those of software applications which are distributed through software application stores, or products or services that are given prominence and display in the newsfeed of a social network, or products or services ranked in search results or displayed on an online marketplace. In those circumstances, the gatekeeper is in a dual-role position as intermediary for third party providers and as direct provider of products or services of the gatekeeper. Consequently, these gatekeepers have the ability to undermine directly the contestability for those products or services on these core platform services, to the detriment of business users which are not controlled by the gatekeeper.

(48) Gatekeepers are often vertically integrated and offer certain products or services to end users through their own core platform services, or through a business user over which they exercise control which frequently leads to conflicts of interest. This can include the situation whereby a gatekeeper offers its own online intermediation services through an online search engine. When offering those products or services on the core platform service, gatekeepers can reserve a better position to their own offering, in terms of ranking, as opposed to the products of third parties also operating on that core platform service. This can occur for instance with products or services, including other core platform services, which are ranked in the results communicated by online search engines, or which are partly or entirely embedded in online search engines results, groups of results specialised in a certain topic, displayed along with the results of an online search engine, which are considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine. Such preferential or embedded display of a separate online intermediation service should constitute a favouring irrespective of whether the information or results within the favoured groups of specialised results may also be provided by competing services and are as such ranked in a non-discriminatory way. Other instances are those of software applications which are distributed through software application stores, or products or services that are given prominence and display in the newsfeed of a social network, or products or services ranked in search results or displayed on an online marketplace. In those circumstances, the gatekeeper is in a dual-role position as intermediary for third party providers and as direct provider of products or services of the gatekeeper leading to conflicts of interest. Consequently, these gatekeepers have the ability to undermine directly the contestability for those products or services on these core platform services, to the detriment of business users which are not controlled by the gatekeeper.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>34</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 49</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) In such situations, the gatekeeper should not engage in any form of differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking on the core platform service, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, in favour of products or services it offers itself or through a business user which it controls. To ensure that this obligation is effective, it should also be ensured that the conditions that apply to such ranking are also generally fair. Ranking should in this context cover all forms of relative prominence, including display, rating, linking or voice results. To ensure that this obligation is effective and cannot be circumvented it should also apply to any measure that may have an equivalent effect to the differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking. The guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 should also facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this obligation.34

(49) In such situations, the gatekeeper should not engage in any form of differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking on the core platform service, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, in favour of products or services it offers itself or through a business user which it controls. To ensure that this obligation is effective, it should also be ensured that the conditions that apply to such ranking are also generally fair. Ranking should in this context cover all forms of relative prominence, including display, rating, linking or voice results. To ensure that this obligation is effective and cannot be circumvented it should also apply to any measure that may have an equivalent effect to the differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking. In addition, to avoid any conflicts of interest, gatekeepers should be required to treat its own product or services, as a separate commercial entity that is commercially viable as a stand-alone service. The guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 should also facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this obligation.34

__________________

__________________

34 Commission Notice: Guidelines on ranking transparency pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 424, 8.12.2020, p. 1).

34 Commission Notice: Guidelines on ranking transparency pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 424, 8.12.2020, p. 1).

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>35</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 52 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(52a) The lack of interconnection features among the gatekeeper services may substantially affect users choice and ability to switch due to the incapacity for end user to reconstruct social connections and networks provided by the gatekeeper even if multi-homing is possible. Therefore, it should be allowed for any providers of equivalent core platform services to interconnect with the gatekeepers number independent interpersonal communication services or social network services upon their request and free of charge. Interconnection should be provided under the conditions and quality that are available or used by the gatekeeper, while ensuring a high level of security and personal data protection. In the particular case of number-dependant intercommunication services, interconnection requirements should mean giving the possibility for third-party providers to request access and interconnection for features such as text, video, voice and picture, while it should provide access and interconnection on basic features such as posts, likes and comments for social networking services. Interconnection measures of number-independent interpersonal communication services should be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Electronic Communications Code and particularly the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 61 thereof. It should nevertheless presume that the providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services that has been designated as a gatekeeper, reaches the conditions required to trigger the procedures, namely they reach a significant level of coverage and user uptake, and should therefore provide for minimum applicable interoperability requirements.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>36</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 53</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(53) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non-transparent and opaque. This often leads to a lack of information for advertisers and publishers about the effect of a given ad. To further enhance fairness, transparency and contestability of online advertising services designated under this Regulation as well as those that are fully integrated with other core platform services of the same provider, the designated gatekeepers should therefore provide advertisers and publishers, when requested, with free of charge access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers, advertising agencies acting on behalf of a company placing advertising, as well as for publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the provision of the relevant online advertising services.

(53) The conditions under which gatekeepers provide online advertising services to business users including both advertisers and publishers are often non-transparent and opaque. This often leads to a lack of information for advertisers and publishers about the effect of a given ad. To further enhance fairness, transparency and contestability of online advertising services designated under this Regulation as well as those that are fully integrated with other core platform services of the same provider, the designated gatekeepers should therefore provide advertisers and publishers for entire disclosure and transparency of the parameters and data used for decision making, execution and measurement of the intermediation services. A gatekeeper should further provide when requested, with free of charge access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers, advertising agencies acting on behalf of a company placing advertising, as well as for publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the provision of the relevant online advertising services.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>37</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 57</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(57) In particular gatekeepers which provide access to software application stores serve as an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper offers to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right and it should be without prejudice to the ability of providers of software application stores to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in Regulation [Digital Services Act].

(57) In particular gatekeepers which provide access to core platform services serve as an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their core platform services, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of core platform services; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper offers to itself. This obligation should not establish an access right and it should be without prejudice to the ability of providers of core platform services to take the required responsibility in the fight against illegal and unwanted content as set out in Regulation [Digital Services Act].

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>38</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 57 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(57a) The implementation of gatekeepers’ obligations related to access, installation, portability or interoperability could be facilitated by the use of technical standards. In this respect the Commission should identify appropriate, widely-used ICT technical standards from standards organisations as provided for under Article 13 of Regulation 1025/12 or where appropriate ask/ request European standardisation bodies to develop them.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>39</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 58</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(58) To ensure the effectiveness of the obligations laid down by this Regulation, while also making certain that these obligations are limited to what is necessary to ensure contestability and tackling the harmful effects of the unfair behaviour by gatekeepers, it is important to clearly define and circumscribe them so as to allow the gatekeeper to immediately comply with them, in full respect of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, consumer protection, cyber security and product safety. The gatekeepers should ensure the compliance with this Regulation by design. The necessary measures should therefore be as much as possible and where relevant integrated into the technological design used by the gatekeepers. However, it may in certain cases be appropriate for the Commission, following a dialogue with the gatekeeper concerned, to further specify some of the measures that the gatekeeper concerned should adopt in order to effectively comply with those obligations that are susceptible of being further specified. This possibility of a regulatory dialogue should facilitate compliance by gatekeepers and expedite the correct implementation of the Regulation.

(58) This aim of this Regulation is to ensure that the digital economy remains fair and contestable in order to promote innovation, high quality of digital products and services, fair and competitive prices and a high quality and choice for end users in the digital sector. To ensure the effectiveness of the obligations laid down by this Regulation, while also making certain that these obligations are limited to what is necessary to ensure contestability and tackling the harmful effects of the unfair behaviour by gatekeepers, it is important to clearly define and circumscribe them so as to allow the gatekeeper to immediately comply with them, in full respect of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, consumer protection, cyber security and product safety as well as with accessibility requiremenst for the persons with disabilities in accordance with the Directive 2019/882. The gatekeepers should ensure the compliance with this Regulation by design. The necessary measures should therefore be as much as possible and where relevant integrated into the technological design used by the gatekeepers. However, it may in certain cases be appropriate for the Commission, following a dialogue with the gatekeeper concerned, and, where appropriate, a consultation of interested third parties, to further specify in a decision some of the measures that the gatekeeper concerned should adopt in order to effectively comply with those obligations that are susceptible of being further specified. This possibility of a regulatory dialogue should facilitate compliance by gatekeepers and expedite the correct implementation of the Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>40</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 59</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(59) As an additional element to ensure proportionality, gatekeepers should be given an opportunity to request the suspension, to the extent necessary, of a specific obligation in exceptional circumstances that lie beyond the control of the gatekeeper, such as for example an unforeseen external shock that has temporarily eliminated a significant part of end user demand for the relevant core platform service, where compliance with a specific obligation is shown by the gatekeeper to endanger the economic viability of the Union operations of the gatekeeper concerned.

(59) As an additional element to ensure proportionality, gatekeepers should be given an opportunity to request the suspension, to the extent necessary, of a specific obligation in exceptional circumstances that lie beyond the control of the gatekeeper, such as for example an unforeseen external shock that has temporarily eliminated a significant part of end user demand for the relevant core platform service, where compliance with a specific obligation is shown by the gatekeeper to endanger the economic viability of the Union operations of the gatekeeper concerned. The Commission should state in its decision the reasons for granting the suspension and review it on a regular basis to assess whether the conditions for granting it are still viable or not.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>41</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 60</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(60) In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability.

(60) In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited and duly justified suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability. Where such an exemption is granted, the Commission should review its decision every year.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>42</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 61</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(61) The data protection and privacy interests of end users are relevant to any assessment of potential negative effects of the observed practice of gatekeepers to collect and accumulate large amounts of data from end users. Ensuring an adequate level of transparency of profiling practices employed by gatekeepers facilitates contestability of core platform services, by putting external pressure on gatekeepers to prevent making deep consumer profiling the industry standard, given that potential entrants or start-up providers cannot access data to the same extent and depth, and at a similar scale. Enhanced transparency should allow other providers of core platform services to differentiate themselves better through the use of superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. To ensure a minimum level of effectiveness of this transparency obligation, gatekeepers should at least provide a description of the basis upon which profiling is performed, including whether personal data and data derived from user activity is relied on, the processing applied, the purpose for which the profile is prepared and eventually used, the impact of such profiling on the gatekeeper’s services, and the steps taken to enable end users to be aware of the relevant use of such profiling, as well as to seek their consent.

(61) The data protection and privacy interests of end users are relevant to any assessment of potential negative effects of the observed practice of gatekeepers to collect and accumulate large amounts of data from end users. Ensuring an adequate level of transparency of profiling practices employed by gatekeepers facilitates contestability of core platform services, by putting external pressure on gatekeepers to prevent making deep consumer profiling the industry standard, given that potential entrants or start-up providers cannot access data to the same extent and depth, and at a similar scale. Enhanced transparency should allow other providers of core platform services to differentiate themselves better through the use of superior privacy guaranteeing facilities. To ensure a minimum level of effectiveness of this transparency obligation, gatekeepers should at least provide a description of the basis upon which profiling is performed, including whether personal data and data derived from user activity is relied on, the processing applied, the purpose for which the profile is prepared and eventually used, the impact of such profiling on the gatekeeper’s services, and the steps taken to enable end users to be aware of the relevant use of such profiling, as well as to seek their consent. The expertise of consumer protection authorities', as members of the High Level Group of Digital Regulators, should be especially taken into consideration for assessing consumer profiling techniques. The Commission should develop, in consultation with the EU Data Protection Supervisor, the European Data Protection Board, civil society and experts, the standards and process of the audit.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>43</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 62</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(62) In order to ensure the full and lasting achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should be able to assess whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper without meeting the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation; whether systematic non-compliance by a gatekeeper warrants imposing additional remedies; and whether the list of obligations addressing unfair practices by gatekeepers should be reviewed and additional practices that are similarly unfair and limiting the contestability of digital markets should be identified. Such assessment should be based on market investigations to be run in an appropriate timeframe, by using clear procedures and deadlines, in order to support the ex ante effect of this Regulation on contestability and fairness in the digital sector, and to provide the requisite degree of legal certainty.

(62) In order to ensure the full and lasting achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, the Commission should be able to assess whether a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper without meeting the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation; whether systematic non-compliance by a gatekeeper warrants imposing additional remedies; whether the list of obligations addressing unfair practices by gatekeepers should be reviewed; and whether additional practices that are similarly unfair and limiting the contestability of digital markets need to be investigated. Such assessment should be based on market investigations to be carried out in an appropriate timeframe, by using clear procedures and binding deadlines, in order to support the ex ante effect of this Regulation on contestability and fairness in the digital sector, and to provide the requisite degree of legal certainty.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>44</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 64</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(64) The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematic non-compliance with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, which has further strengthened its gatekeeper position. This would be the case if the gatekeeper’s size in the internal market has further increased, economic dependency of business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services has further strengthened as their number has further increased and the gatekeeper benefits from increased entrenchment of its position. The Commission should therefore in such cases have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. Structural remedies, such as legal, functional or structural separation, including the divestiture of a business, or parts of it, should only be imposed either where there is no equally effective behavioural remedy or where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the undertaking concerned than the structural remedy. Changes to the structure of an undertaking as it existed before the systematic non-compliance was established would only be proportionate where there is a substantial risk that this systematic non-compliance results from the very structure of the undertaking concerned.

(64) The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematically failing to comply with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation. The Commission should therefore in such cases of systematic non-compliance have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural that is necessary to ensure effective compliance with this Regulation. The Commission might prohibit gatekeepers from engaging on acquisitions (including “killer-acquisitions”) in the areas relevant to this regulation such as digital or to the use of data related sectors e.g. gaming, research institutes, consumer goods, fitness devices, health tracking financial services, and for a limited period of time where this is necessary and proportionate to undue the damage caused by repeated infringements or to prevent further damage to the contestability and fairness of the internal market. In doing so, the Commission might take into account different elements, such as likely network effects, data consolidation, and possible long-term effects or whether and when the acquisition of targets with specific data resources can significantly put in danger the contestability and the competitiveness of the markets through horizontal, vertical or conglomerate effects.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>45</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 65 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(65a) Interim measures can be an important tool to ensure that, while an investigation is ongoing, the infringement being investigated does not lead to serious and immediate damage for business users or end users of gatekeepers. In case of urgency, where a risk of serious and immediate damage for business users or end-users of gatekeepers could result from new practices that may undermine contestability of core platform services, the Commission should be empowered to impose interim measures by temporarily imposing obligations to the gatekeeper concerned. These interim measures should be limited to what is necessary and justified. They should apply pending the conclusion of the market investigation and the corresponding final decision of the Commission pursuant to Article 17.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>46</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 67</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(67) Where, in the course of a proceeding into non-compliance or an investigation into systemic non-compliance, a gatekeeper offers commitments to the Commission, the latter should be able to adopt a decision making these commitments binding on the gatekeeper concerned, where it finds that the commitments ensure effective compliance with the obligations of this Regulation. This decision should also find that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission.

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>47</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 70</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(70) The Commission should be able to directly request that undertakings or association of undertakings provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. When complying with a decision of the Commission, undertakings are obliged to answer factual questions and to provide documents.

(70) The Commission should be able to directly request that undertakings or association of undertakings provide any relevant evidence, data and information. The time limits fixed by the Commission for the request of information should respect the size and capabilities of an undertaking or association of undertakings. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. When complying with a decision of the Commission, undertakings are obliged to answer factual questions and to provide documents.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>48</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 75</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75) In the context of proceedings carried out under this Regulation, the undertakings concerned should be accorded the right to be heard by the Commission and the decisions taken should be widely publicised. While ensuring the rights to good administration and the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned, in particular, the right of access to the file and the right to be heard, it is essential that confidential information be protected. Furthermore, while respecting the confidentiality of the information, the Commission should ensure that any information relied on for the purpose of the decision is disclosed to an extent that allows the addressee of the decision to understand the facts and considerations that led up to the decision. Finally, under certain conditions certain business records, such as communication between lawyers and their clients, may be considered confidential if the relevant conditions are met.

(75) In the context of proceedings carried out under this Regulation, the undertakings concerned should be accorded the right to be heard by the Commission and the decisions taken should be widely publicised. While ensuring the rights to good administration and the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned, in particular, the right of access to the file and the right to be heard, it is essential that confidential and sensitive commercial information, which could affect the privacy of trade secrets, be protected. Furthermore, while respecting the confidentiality of the information, the Commission should ensure that any information relied on for the purpose of the decision is disclosed to an extent that allows the addressee of the decision to understand the facts and considerations that led up to the decision. Finally, under certain conditions certain business records, such as communication between lawyers and their clients, may be considered confidential if the relevant conditions are met.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>49</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 75 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(75a) In order to facilitate cooperation and coordination between the Commission and Member States in their enforcement actions, a high-level group of regulators with responsibilities in the digital sector should be established with the power to advise the Commission. Establishing that group of regulators should enable the exchange of information and best practices among the Members States, and enhance better monitoring and thus strengthen the implementation of this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>50</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 75 b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(75b) The Commission should apply the provisions of this Regulation in close cooperation with the competent national authorities, to ensure effective enforceability as well as coherent implementation of this Regulation and to facilitate the cooperation with national authorities.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>51</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 76</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(76) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Articles 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 30, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182//2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council35 .

(76) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 30, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182//2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council35.

__________________

__________________

35 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

35 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>52</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 77</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(77) The advisory committee established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182//2011 should also deliver opinions on certain individual decisions of the Commission issued under this Regulation. In order to ensure contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation. In particular, delegated acts should be adopted in respect of the methodology for determining the quantitative thresholds for designation of gatekeepers under this Regulation and in respect of the update of the obligations laid down in this Regulation where, based on a market investigation the Commission has identified the need for updating the obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201636 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(77) The advisory committee established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182//2011 should also deliver opinions on certain individual decisions of the Commission issued under this Regulation. In order to ensure contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation. In particular, delegated acts should be adopted in respect of the methodology for determining the quantitative thresholds for designation of gatekeepers under this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201636. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

__________________

__________________

36 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making (OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p.1).

36 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making (OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p.1).

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>53</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 77 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(77a) National courts will have an important role in applying this Regulation and should be allowed to ask the Commission to send them information or opinions on questions concerning the application of this Regulation. At the same time, the Commission should be able to submit oral or written observations to courts of the Member States.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>54</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 77 b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(77b) Whistleblowers can bring new information to the attention of competent authorities which helps them in detecting infringements of this Regulation and imposing penalties. This Regulation should therefore ensure that adequate arrangements are in place to enable whistleblowers to alert competent authorities to actual or potential infringements of this Regulation and to protect them from retaliation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>55</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 77 c (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(77c) End users should be entitled to enforce their rights in relation to the obligations imposed on gatekeepers under this Regulation through representative actions in accordance with Directive (EU) 2020/1818.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>56</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 78</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(78) The Commission should periodically evaluate this Regulation and closely monitor its effects on the contestability and fairness of commercial relationships in the online platform economy, in particular with a view to determining the need for amendments in light of relevant technological or commercial developments. This evaluation should include the regular review of the list of core platform services and the obligations addressed to gatekeepers as well as enforcement of these, in view of ensuring that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair. In order to obtain a broad view of developments in the sector, the evaluation should take into account the experiences of Member States and relevant stakeholders. The Commission may in this regard also consider the opinions and reports presented to it by the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy that was first established by Commission Decision C(2018)2393 of 26 April 2018. Following the evaluation, the Commission should take appropriate measures. The Commission should to maintain a high level of protection and respect for the common EU rights and values, particularly equality and non-discrimination, as an objective when conducting the assessments and reviews of the practices and obligations provided in this Regulation.

(78) The Commission should periodically evaluate this Regulation and closely monitor its effects on the contestability and fairness of commercial relationships in the online platform economy, in particular with a view to determining the need for amendments in light of relevant technological or commercial developments. This evaluation should include the regular review of the list of core platform services as well as enforcement of these, in view of ensuring that digital markets across the Union are contestable and fair. In order to obtain a broad view of developments in the sector, the evaluation should take into account the experiences of Member States and relevant stakeholders. The Commission may in this regard also consider the opinions and reports presented to it by the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy that was first established by Commission Decision C(2018)2393 of 26 April 2018. Following the evaluation, the Commission should take appropriate measures. The Commission should maintain a high level of protection and respect for the common EU rights and values, particularly equality and non-discrimination, as an objective when conducting the assessments and reviews of the practices and obligations provided in this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>57</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 79 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(79a) Without prejudice to the budgetary procedure and through existing financial instruments, adequate human, financial and technical resources should be allocated to the Commission to ensure that it can effectively perform its duties and exercise its powers in respect of the enforcement of this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>58</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Recital 79 – point 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 16, 47 and 50 thereof. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied with respect to those rights and principles.

(79b) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 16, 47 and 50 thereof. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied with respect to those rights and principles.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>59</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 1 – paragraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Regulation lays down harmonised rules ensuring contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present.

1. The purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by laying down harmonised rules ensuring contestable and fair markets for all businesses to the benefit of both business users and end users in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present so as to foster innovation and increase consumer welfare.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>60</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) related to electronic communications services as defined in point (4) of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 other than those related to interpersonal communication services as defined in point (4)(b) of Article 2 of that Directive.

(b) related to electronic communications services as defined in point (4) of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 other than those related to number-independent interpersonal communication services as defined in point (7) of Article 2 of that Directive.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>61</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 1 – paragraph 5</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Member States shall not impose on gatekeepers further obligations by way of laws, regulations or administrative action for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to rules pursuing other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. In particular, nothing in this Regulation precludes Member States from imposing obligations, which are compatible with Union law, on undertakings, including providers of core platform services where these obligations are unrelated to the relevant undertakings having a status of gatekeeper within the meaning of this Regulation in order to protect consumers or to fight against acts of unfair competition.

5. In order to avoid the fragmentation of the internal market, Member States shall not impose on gatekeepers within the meaning of this Regulation further obligations by way of laws, regulations or administrative action for the purpose of ensuring contestable and fair markets. This is without prejudice to rules pursuing other legitimate public interests, in compliance with Union law. In particular, nothing in this Regulation precludes Member States from imposing obligations, which are compatible with Union law, on undertakings, including providers of core platform services where these obligations are unrelated to the relevant undertakings having a status of gatekeeper within the meaning of this Regulation in order to protect consumers, to fight against acts of unfair competition or to pursue other legitimate public interests.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>62</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 1 – paragraph 6</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It is also without prejudice to the application of: national rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices and abuses of dominant positions; national competition rules prohibiting other forms of unilateral conduct insofar as they are applied to undertakings other than gatekeepers or amount to imposing additional obligations on gatekeepers; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200438 and national rules concerning merger control; Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Regulation (EU) …./.. of the European Parliament and of the Council39 .

6. This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. It is also without prejudice to the application of: national rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices and abuses of dominant positions; national competition rules prohibiting other forms of unilateral conduct insofar as these rules are applied to undertakings other than gatekeepers within the meaning of this Regulation or amount to imposing additional obligations on gatekeepers; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200438 and national rules concerning merger control and Regulation (EU) 2019/1150.

__________________

__________________

38 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

38 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

39 Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council – proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.

 

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>63</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 1 – paragraph 7</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. National authorities shall not take decisions which would run counter to a decision adopted by the Commission under this Regulation. The Commission and Member States shall work in close cooperation and coordination in their enforcement actions.

7. National authorities shall not take decisions which would run counter to a decision adopted by the Commission under this Regulation. The Commission and Member States shall work in close cooperation and coordination in their enforcement actions on the basis of the principles established in Article 31d.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>64</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point f a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fa) web browsers;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>65</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point f b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fb) virtual assistants;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>66</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point f c (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fc) connected TV;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>67</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point h</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(h) advertising services, including any advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, provided by a provider of any of the core platform services listed in points (a) to (g);

(h) online advertising services, including any advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, provided by a provider where the undertaking to which it belongs is also a provider of any of the core platform services listed in points (a) to (g);

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>68</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) ‘Online search engine’ means a digital service as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150;

(6) ‘Online search engine’ means a digital service as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 thus excluding the search functions on other online intermediation services;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>69</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(10a) Web browser’ means software application that enables users to access and interact with web content hosted on servers that are connected to networks such as the Internet, including standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>70</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(10b) ‘Virtual assistants’ means software that is incorporated or inter-connected with a good, within the meaning of Directive 2019/771, that can process demands, tasks or questions based on audio, imaging or other cognitive-computing technologies, including augmented reality services, and based on those demands, tasks or questions access their own and third party services or control their own and third party devices.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>71</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10 c (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(10c) ”connected TV” means a system software or software application that controls a television set connected to the internet that enables software applications to run on it including for the provision of music and video streaming, or viewing of pictures;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>72</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) ‘Ancillary service’ means services provided in the context of or together with core platform services, including payment services as defined in point 3 of Article 4 and technical services which support the provision of payment services as defined in Article 3(j) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, fulfilment, identification or advertising services;

(14) ‘Ancillary service’ means services provided in the context of or together with core platform services, including payment services as defined in point 3 of Article 4, technical services which support the provision of payment services as defined in Article 3(j) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, in-app payment systems, fulfilment, including parcel delivery as defined in Article 2 paragraph 2 of Regulation (EU) 2018/644, freight transport, identification or advertising services;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>73</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(14a) In-app payment system’ means an application, service or user interface to process the payments from users of an app.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>74</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) ‘Ranking’ means the relative prominence given to goods or services offered through online intermediation services or online social networking services, or the relevance given to search results by online search engines, as presented, organised or communicated by the providers of online intermediation services or of online social networking services or by providers of online search engines, respectively, whatever the technological means used for such presentation, organisation or communication;

(18) ‘Ranking’ means the relative prominence given to goods or services offered through core platform services, or the relevance given to search results by online search engines, as presented, organised or communicated by the core platform service providers, irrespectively of the technological means used for such presentation, organisation or communication;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>75</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(18a) ‘Search results’ means any information in any format, including texts, graphics, voice or other output, returned in response and related to a written or oral search query, irrespective of whether the information is an organic result, a paid result, a direct answer or any product, service or information offered in connection with, or displayed along with, or partly or entirely embedded in, the organic results;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>76</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(23a) ‘Interoperability’ means the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged so that all elements of hardware or software relevant for a given service and used by its provider effectively work with hardware or software relevant for a given services provided by third party providers different from the elements through which the information concerned is originally provided. This shall include the ability to access such information without having to use an application software or other technologies for conversion.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>77</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. A provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:

1. An undertaking shall be designated as gatekeeper if:

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>78</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users and end users to reach other end users; and

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>79</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. A provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:

2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy:

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>80</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;

(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where it achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 8 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking amounted to at least EUR 80 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>81</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – subparagraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;

(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides one or more core platform services each of which has more than 45 million monthly end users established or located in the EEA and more than 10 000 yearly business users established in the EEA in the last financial year.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>82</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – subparagraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>83</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.

(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last two financial years.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>84</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

For the purpose of point (b),

 

(i) monthly end users and yearly business users shall be measured taking into account the indicators set out in the Annex to this Regulation; and

 

(ii) monthly end users shall refer to the average number of monthly end users during a period of at least six months within the last financial year;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>85</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 3</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where a provider of core platform services meets all the thresholds in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission thereof within three months after those thresholds are satisfied and provide it with the relevant information identified in paragraph 2.. That notification shall include the relevant information identified in paragraph 2 for each of the core platform services of the provider that meets the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). The notification shall be updated whenever other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b).

3. Where an undertaking providing core platform services meets all the thresholds in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission thereof without delay and in any case within two months after those thresholds are satisfied and provide it with the relevant information identified in paragraph 2. That notification shall include the relevant information identified in paragraph 2 for each of the core platform services of the undertaking that meets the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). The notification shall be updated whenever other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b).

A failure by a relevant provider of core platform service to notify the required information pursuant to this paragraph shall not prevent the Commission from designating these providers as gatekeepers pursuant to paragraph 4 at any time.

A failure by a relevant undertaking providing core platform service to notify the required information pursuant to this paragraph shall not prevent the Commission from designating these undertakings as gatekeepers pursuant to paragraph 4 at any time.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>86</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall, without undue delay and at the latest 60 days after receiving the complete information referred to in paragraph 3, designate the provider of core platform services that meets all the thresholds of paragraph 2 as a gatekeeper, unless that provider, with its notification, presents sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, in the circumstances in which the relevant core platform service operates, and taking into account the elements listed in paragraph 6, the provider does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1.

The Commission shall, without undue delay and at the latest 60 days after receiving the complete information referred to in paragraph 3, designate the undertaking providing core platform services that meets all the thresholds of paragraph 2 as a gatekeeper. The undertaking may present, with its notification, compelling arguments to demonstrate that, in the circumstances in which the relevant core platform service operates, the undertaking does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>87</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the gatekeeper presents such sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that it does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1, the Commission shall apply paragraph 6 to assess whether the criteria in paragraph 1 are met.

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>88</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. Where the undertaking providing the core platform service fails to notify the Commission, to provide the information required in paragraph 3 or to provide within the deadline set by the Commission all the relevant information that is required to assess its designation as gatekeeper pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (6), the Commission shall be entitled to designate that undertaking as a gatekeeper at any time based on information available to the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>89</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 5</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to specify the methodology for determining whether the quantitative thresholds laid down in paragraph 2 are met, and to regularly adjust it to market and technological developments where necessary, in particular as regards the threshold in paragraph 2, point (a).

5. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to specify the methodology for determining whether the quantitative thresholds laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article are met, and to regularly adjust the methodology to market and technological developments where necessary. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to update the list of indicators set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>90</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The Commission may identify as a gatekeeper, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15, any provider of core platform services that meets each of the requirements of paragraph 1, but does not satisfy each of the thresholds of paragraph 2, or has presented sufficiently substantiated arguments in accordance with paragraph 4.

6. The Commission shall identify as a gatekeeper, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15, any undertaking providing core platform services, excluding Medium-sized, Small or Micro enterprises as defined in the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, that meets each of the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article, but does not satisfy each of the thresholds of paragraph 2 of this Article.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>91</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point a</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of the provider of core platform services;

(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of the undertaking providing core platform services;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>92</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point c</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) entry barriers derived from network effects and data driven advantages, in particular in relation to the provider’s access to and collection of personal and non-personal data or analytics capabilities;

(c) entry barriers derived from network effects and data driven advantages, in particular in relation to the undertaking’s access to and collection of personal and non-personal data or analytics capabilities;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>93</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point d</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) scale and scope effects the provider benefits from, including with regard to data;

(d) scale and scope effects the undertaking benefits from, including with regard to data;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>94</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point e a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ea) the degree of multi-homing among business;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>95</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point e b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(eb) the ability of the undertaking to implement conglomerate strategies, in particular through its vertical integration or its significant leverage in related markets;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>96</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In conducting its assessment, the Commission shall take into account foreseeable developments of these elements.

In conducting its assessment, the Commission shall take into account foreseeable developments of these elements including any planned concentrations involving another provider of core platform services or of any other services provided in the digital sector.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>97</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 4</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the provider of a core platform service that satisfies the quantitative thresholds of paragraph 2 fails to comply with the investigative measures ordered by the Commission in a significant manner and the failure persists after the provider has been invited to comply within a reasonable time-limit and to submit observations, the Commission shall be entitled to designate that provider as a gatekeeper.

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>98</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 5</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the provider of a core platform service that does not satisfy the quantitative thresholds of paragraph 2 fails to comply with the investigative measures ordered by the Commission in a significant manner and the failure persists after the provider has been invited to comply within a reasonable time-limit and to submit observations, the Commission shall be entitled to designate that provider as a gatekeeper based on facts available.

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>99</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 7</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. For each gatekeeper identified pursuant to paragraph 4 or paragraph 6, the Commission shall identify the relevant undertaking to which it belongs and list the relevant core platform services that are provided within that same undertaking and which individually serve as an important gateway for business users to reach end users as referred to in paragraph 1(b).

7. For each undertaking designated as gatekeeper pursuant to paragraph 4 or paragraph 6, the Commission shall identify within the deadline set under paragraph 4 the relevant core platform services that are provided within that same undertaking and which individually serve as an important gateway for business users to reach end users as referred to in paragraph 1(b).

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>100</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 3 – paragraph 8</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. The gatekeeper shall comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 within six months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.

8. The gatekeeper shall comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 as soon as possible, and in any case no later than four months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>101</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission shall regularly, and at least every 2 years, review whether the designated gatekeepers continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 3(1), or whether new providers of core platform services satisfy those requirements. The regular review shall also examine whether the list of affected core platform services of the gatekeeper needs to be adjusted.

2. The Commission shall regularly, and at least every three years, review whether the designated gatekeepers continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 3(1), and at least every year whether new core platform services satisfy those requirements. The regular review shall also examine whether the list of affected core platform services of the gatekeeper needs to be adjusted. The review shall have no suspending effect on the gatekeeper’s obligations.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>102</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the Commission, on the basis of that review pursuant to the first subparagraph, finds that the facts on which the designation of the providers of core platform services as gatekeepers was based, have changed, it shall adopt a corresponding decision.

Where the Commission, on the basis of that review pursuant to the first subparagraph, finds that the facts on which the designation of the undertakings providing core platform services as gatekeepers was based, have changed, it shall adopt a corresponding decision.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>103</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 4 – paragraph 3</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission shall publish and update the list of gatekeepers and the list of the core platform services for which they need to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 on an on-going basis.

3. The Commission shall publish and update the list of undertakings designated as gatekeepers and the list of the core platform services for which they need to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 on an on-going basis. The Commission shall publish an annual report setting out the findings of its monitoring activities including the impact on business-users especially small and medium-sized enterprises and end-users and present it to the European Parliament and the Council.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>104</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) refrain from combining personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and from signing in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and provided consent in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ;

(a) refrain from combining and cross-using personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and from signing in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice in a explicit and clear manner, and has provided consent in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>105</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;

(b) refrain from applying contractual obligations that prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>106</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;

(c) allow business users to communicate and promote offers including under different purchasing conditions to end users acquired via the core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with these end users or receive payments for services provided regardless of whether they use for that purpose the core platform services of the gatekeeper;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>107</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca) allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, including where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper, unless the gatekeeper can demonstrate that such access undermines end users data protection or cybersecurity;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>108</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) refrain from preventing or restricting business users from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers;

(d) refrain from directly or indirectly preventing or restricting business users or end users from raising issues with any relevant public authority, including national courts, relating to any practice of gatekeepers;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>109</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an identification service of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;

(e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an identification service or any other ancillary service of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>110</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) refrain from requiring business users or end users to subscribe to or register with any other core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3 or which meets the thresholds in Article 3(2)(b) as a condition to access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Article;

(f) not require business users or end users to subscribe to or register with any other core platform services as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Article;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>111</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(g) provide advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, with information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper.

(g) provide advertisers and publishers or third parties authorised by the advertisers or publishers, to which it supplies digital advertising services, with free of charge, high-quality, effective, continuous and real-time access to full information on the visibility and availability of advertisement portfolio, including:

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>112</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g – point i (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

i) the pricing conditions concerning the bids placed by advertisers and advertising intermediaries;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>113</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g – point ii (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

ii) the price-setting mechanisms and schemes for the calculation of the fees including the non-price criteria in the auction process;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>114</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g – point iii (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

iii) the price and fees paid by the advertiser and publisher, including any deductions and surcharges;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>115</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g – point iv (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

iv) the amount and remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given advertisement; and

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>116</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

v) the amount and remuneration paid to the publisher for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>117</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ga) refrain from using, in competition with business users, any data not publicly available, which is generated through or in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services or ancillary services by those business users including by the end users of these business users of its core platform services or ancillary services or provided by those business users of its core platform services or ancillary services or by the end users of these business users;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>118</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(gb) allow and technically enable end users to un-install any pre-installed software applications on an operating system that the gatekeeper provides or effectively controls as easily as any software application installed by end users at any stage, and to change default settings on an operating system that direct or steer end users to services or products offered by the gatekeeper, without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to restrict such un-installation in relation to software applications that are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third-parties;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>119</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) refrain from using, in competition with business users, any data not publicly available, which is generated through activities by those business users, including by the end users of these business users, of its core platform services or provided by those business users of its core platform services or by the end users of these business users;

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>120</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa) for its own commercial purposes, and the placement of third-party advertising in its own services, refrain from combining personal data for the purpose of delivering targeted or micro-targeted advertising, except if a clear, explicit, renewed, informed consent has been given to the gatekeeper in line with the procedure laid down in the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by an end-user that is not a minor.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>121</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) allow end users to un-install any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to restrict such un-installation in relation to software applications that are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third-parties;

deleted

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>122</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;

(c) allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where relevant, ask the end users to decide whether they want to make the downloaded application or application store their default setting. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking measures that are both necessary and proportionate to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper or undermine end-user data protection or cyber security provided that such necessary and proportionate measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>123</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) refrain from treating more favourably in ranking services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking;

(d) not treat more favourably in ranking or other settings, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such third party services or products;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>124</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) refrain from technically restricting the ability of end users to switch between and subscribe to different software applications and services to be accessed using the operating system of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access provider for end users;

(e) not restrict technically or otherwise the ability of end users to switch between and subscribe to different software applications and services, including as regards the choice of Internet access provider for end users;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>125</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ea) refrain from practices that obstruct the possibility for the end-user to unsubscribe from a core platform service;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>126</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) allow business users and providers of ancillary services access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services;

(f) allow business users, providers of services and providers of hardware free of charge access to and interoperability with the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via an operating system, provided that the operating system is identified pursuant to Article 3(7), that are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Providers of ancillary services shall further be allowed access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those software features are part of an operating system, that are available to ancillary services provided by a gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking indispensable measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper or undermine end-user data protection or cyber security provided that such indispensable measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>127</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fa) allow any providers of number independent interpersonal communication services upon their request and free of charge to interconnect with the gatekeepers number independent interpersonal communication services identified pursuant to Article 3(7). Interconnection shall be provided under objectively the same conditions and quality that are available or used by the gatekeeper, its subsidiaries or its partners, thus allowing for a functional interaction with these services, while guaranteeing a high level of security and personal data protection;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>128</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fb) allow any providers of social network services upon their request and free of charge to interconnect with the gatekeepers social network services identified pursuant to Article 3(7). Interconnection shall be provided under objectively the same conditions and quality that are available or used by the gatekeeper, its subsidiaries or its partners, thus allowing for a functional interaction with these services, while guaranteeing a high level of security and personal data protection. The implementation of this obligation is subjected to the Commission's specification under Article 10 (2) b;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>129</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(g) provide advertisers and publishers, upon their request and free of charge, with access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the ad inventory;

(g) provide advertisers and publishers, and third parties authorised by advertisers and publishers upon their request and free of charge, with access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the ad inventory including aggregated and non-aggregated data and performance data in a manner that would allow advertisers and publishers to run their own verification and measurement tools to assess performance of the core services provided for by the gatekeepers;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>130</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(h) provide effective portability of data generated through the activity of a business user or end user and shall, in particular, provide tools for end users to facilitate the exercise of data portability, in line with Regulation EU 2016/679, including by the provision of continuous and real-time access ;

(h) provide end users or third parties authorised by an end user, upon their request and free of charge, with effective portability of data provided by the end user or generated through their activity in the context of the use on the relevant core platform service including by providing free of charge tools to facilitate the effective exercise of such data portability, in line with Regulation EU 2016/679, and including by the provision of continuous and real-time access;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>131</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(i) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access and use of aggregated or non-aggregated data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; for personal data, provide access and use only where directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679;

(i) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, upon their request, free of charge, with continuous and real-time access and use of aggregated and non-aggregated data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services or ancillary services offered by the gatekeeper by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; this shall include, at the request of the business user, the possibility and necessary tools to access and analyse data “in-situ” without a transfer from the gatekeeper; for personal data, provide access and use only where directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679;

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>132</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.

(k) apply transparent, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory general conditions of access and conditions that are not less favourable than the conditions applied to its own service for business users to its core platform services designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>133</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 6 – paragraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 6 – paragraph 2

Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1 data that is not publicly available shall include any aggregated and non-aggregated data generated by business users that can be inferred from, or collected through, the commercial activities of business users or their customers on the core platform service of the gatekeeper.

2. For the purposes of  point (g a) of paragraph 1 data that is not publicly available shall include any aggregated and non-aggregated data generated by business users that can be inferred from, or collected through, the commercial activities of business users or their customers on the core platform service or ancillary services of the gatekeeper.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>134</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 7 – paragraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The measures implemented by the gatekeeper to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 shall be effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation. The gatekeeper shall ensure that these measures are implemented in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, and with legislation on cyber security, consumer protection and product safety.

1. The gatekeeper shall implement effective measures to ensure its compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, and shall demonstrate that compliance, when called upon to do so. The gatekeeper shall ensure that the measures that it implements comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Directive 2002/58/EC, and with legislation on cyber security, consumer protection and product safety as well as with accessibility requirements for the persons with disabilities in accordance with Directive 2019/882.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>135</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. Within six months after its designation and in application of paragraph 8 of Article 3, the gatekeeper shall provide the Commission with a report describing in a detailed and transparent manner the measures implemented to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6. This report shall be updated at least annually.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>136</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 7 – paragraph 1 b (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b. Along with the report mentioned in paragraph 1a and within the same timeframe, the gatekeeper shall provide the Commission with a non-confidential summary of its report that will be published by the Commission without delay. The non-confidential summary shall be updated at least annually according to the detailed report.

 

In order to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 6 and where the gatekeeper holds reasonable doubt as to the appropriate method or methods of compliance, the gatekeeper may request that the Commission engage in a process to receive and address requests for clarification and thereafter further specify relevant measures that the gatekeeper shall adopt in order to comply in an effective and proportionate manner with those obligations. Further specification of obligations laid down in Article 6 shall be limited to issues relating to ensuring effective and proportionate compliance with the obligations. When doing so, the Commission may decide to consult third parties whose views it considers necessary in relation to the measures that the gatekeeper is expected to implement. The duration of the process shall not extend beyond the period set out in Article 3(8), with the possibility for an extension of two months, at the discretion of the Commission, should the dialogue process have not been concluded prior to the expiry of the said period.

 

The Commission shall retain discretion in deciding whether to engage in such a process, with due regard to principles of equal treatment, proportionality and due process. Where the Commission decides not to engage in such a process, it shall provide a written justification to the relevant gatekeeper. At the end of this process, the Commission may also by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned is to implement arising from the conclusion of this process set out in paragraph 1b.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>137</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 7 – paragraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. The Commission shall adopt such a decision within six months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.

2. Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned is to implement. The Commission shall adopt such a decision as soon as possible and in any event no later than four months after the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>138</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 7 – paragraph 4</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. In view of adopting the decision under paragraph 2, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings within three months from the opening of the proceedings. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain the measures it considers to take or it considers that the provider of core platform services concerned should take in order to effectively address the preliminary findings.

4. With a view to adopting the decision under paragraph 2, the Commission shall communicate its preliminary findings and publish a concise summary as soon as possible and, in any event no later than two months from the opening of the proceedings. In the preliminary findings, the Commission shall explain the measures that it is considering taking or that it considers that the provider of core platform services concerned should take in order to effectively address the preliminary findings. The Commission may decide to invite interested third parties to submit their observations within a time limit, which is fixed by the Commission in its publication. When publishing, due regard shall be given by the Commission to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>139</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 7 – paragraph 7</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. A gatekeeper may request the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 for the Commission to determine whether the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented under Article 6 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. A gatekeeper may, with its request, provide a reasoned submission to explain in particular why the measures that it intends to implement or has implemented are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances.

7. A gatekeeper may request within the implementation deadline of Article 3 (8) the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 for the Commission to determine whether the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented under Article 6 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. In its request, the gatekeeper shall provide a reasoned submission to explain in particular why the measures that it intends to implement or has implemented are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. The Commission shall adopt its decision within six months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>140</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 8 – paragraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Commission may, on a reasoned request by the gatekeeper, exceptionally suspend, in whole or in part, a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 for a core platform service by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), where the gatekeeper demonstrates that compliance with that specific obligation would endanger, due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the gatekeeper, the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union, and only to the extent necessary to address such threat to its viability. The Commission shall aim to adopt the suspension decision without delay and at the latest 3 months following receipt of a complete reasoned request.

1. The Commission may, on a reasoned request by the gatekeeper, suspend, on an exceptional basis, in whole or in part, a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 for a core platform serviceby decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), where the gatekeeper demonstrates that compliance with that specific obligation would endanger, due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the gatekeeper, the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union, and only to the extent necessary to address such threat to its viability. The Commission shall aim to adopt the suspension decision without delay and at the latest within three months after receipt of a complete reasoned request. The suspension decision shall be accompanied by a reasoned statement explaining the grounds for the suspension.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>141</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 8 – paragraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where the suspension is granted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its suspension decision every year. Following such a review the Commission shall either lift the suspension or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.

2. Where suspension is granted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its suspension decision every year. Following such a review the Commission shall either wholly or partly lift the suspension or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>142</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper, provisionally suspend the application of the relevant obligation to one or more individual core platform services already prior to the decision pursuant to paragraph 1.

3. In cases of urgency, the Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper, provisionally suspend the application of the relevant obligation to one or more individual core platform services already prior to the decision pursuant to paragraph 1.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>143</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In assessing the request, the Commission shall take into account, in particular, the impact of the compliance with the specific obligation on the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union as well as on third parties. The suspension may be made subject to conditions and obligations to be defined by the Commission in order to ensure a fair balance between these interests and the objectives of this Regulation. Such a request may be made and granted at any time pending the assessment of the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1.

In assessing the request, the Commission shall take into account, in particular, the impact of the compliance with the specific obligation on the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union as well as on third parties, in particular smaller business users and consumers. The suspension may be made subject to conditions and obligations to be defined by the Commission in order to ensure a fair balance between these interests and the objectives of this Regulation. Such a request may be made and granted at any time pending the assessment of the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>144</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 9 – title</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Exemption for overriding reasons of public interest

Exemption on grounds of public morality, public health or public security

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>145</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 9 – paragraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), exempt it, in whole or in part, from a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 in relation to an individual core platform service identified pursuant to Article 3(7), where such exemption is justified on the grounds set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Commission shall adopt the exemption decision at the latest 3 months after receiving a complete reasoned request.

1. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), exempt it, in whole or in part, from a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 in relation to an individual core platform service identified pursuant to Article 3(7), where such exemption is justified on the grounds set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Commission shall adopt the exemption decision at the latest three months after receiving a complete reasoned request. Such decision shall be accompanied by a reasoned statement explaining the grounds for the exemption.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>146</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. Where the exemption is granted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its exemption decision every year. Following such a review the Commission shall either wholly or partially lift the exemption or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>147</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, provisionally suspend the application of the relevant obligation to one or more individual core platform services already prior to the decision pursuant to paragraph 1.

3. In cases of urgency, the Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, provisionally suspend the application of the relevant obligation to one or more individual core platform services already prior to the decision pursuant to paragraph 1.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>148</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 10 – paragraph 1</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 34 to update the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 where, based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified the need for new obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.

1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 amending Articles 5 and 6 by adding obligations where, based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified that this is needed in order to address practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6. Those delegated acts may only add new obligations to those listed under Articles 5 and 6.

</Amend>

<Amend>Amendment  <NumAm>149</NumAm>

 

<DocAmend>Proposal for a regulation</DocAmend>

<Article>Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)</Article>

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.