Going big, one problem at a time: Europe’s regulation of digital services and markets gathers pace

Remy Chavannes, Anke Strijbos and Dorien Verhulst[1]

While European courts are still working to interpret digital laws from the early years of the century, the EU legislative machine is rapidly churning out new regulations and directives designed to protect online consumers and competitors from the perceived abuses and vast carelessness of the global tech platforms. The dominant narrative is that, after two decades of under-regulation benefiting mainly non-European companies, it is time for regulatory catch-up, with rules which are much more closely targeted at the digital services and problems of today. In the process, the contours of a European “law of the internet”[2] are fast coming into focus. Coupled with major new initiatives in the sphere of data, data governance and artificial intelligence, all signs point to the emergence of an overarching EU regime for tech regulation – albeit one still struggling for coherence and consistency.

This overview of recent developments in EU digital regulation will be published in “Legal Frontiers in Digital Media,” MLRC Bulletin (June 2021).

Continue reading “Going big, one problem at a time: Europe’s regulation of digital services and markets gathers pace”

Kroniek Technologie & recht 2021

Remy Chavannes, Anke Strijbos en Dorien Verhulst[1]De auteurs zijn advocaat bij Brinkhof in Amsterdam. Zij danken hun kantoorgenoten Sophie ten Bosch, Hanneke Kooijman, Leonie van Sloten en Bart Tromp voor hun waardevolle bijdragen aan de totstandkoming van deze kroniek. De kroniek bestrijkt de periode maart 2019 – maart 2021.

Terwijl in Nederland en Europa nog volop wordt geprocedeerd over de toepassing van richtlijnen uit de beginjaren van deze eeuw op nieuwe technische situaties, verschijnt de ene na de andere EU-richtlijn en -verordening die de online consument en concurrent moet beschermen tegen de veronderstelde almacht of onverschilligheid van de (helaas nog steeds vooral Amerikaanse) platforms. Na twee decennia van onder-regulering van online diensten waarvan vooral niet-Europese bedrijven hebben geprofiteerd – zo is de dominante gedachte – is het tijd voor een stevige inhaalslag, met regels die veel specifieker zijn afgestemd op de digitale diensten, dreigingen en dilemma’s van nu. Zo doemen misschien alsnog de contouren op van een Europees “internetrecht”.[2]Over het bestaan(srecht) en de reikwijdte van zoiets als “internetrecht” of “technologierecht”, zie onze eerdere kronieken (NJB 2012/2022NJB 2014/1836NJB 2016/1822NJB 2019/835); A.P. Engelfriet, ‘Naar een definitie van het begrip ‘internetrecht’, Tijdschrift voor Internetrecht 2019 nr. 3/4; en R. Leenes, ‘Of Horses and Other Animals of Cyberspace’. Technology and Regulation, 2019, 1-9. En als de EU in het huidige tempo door bouwt aan een overkoepelend regelgevend raamwerk voor “data”, “data governance” en artificiële intelligentie, kan bijna twintig jaar na de eerste NJB-kroniek technologie en recht[3]Ch.A. Alberdingk Thijm, ‘Kroniek van technologie en recht’, NJB 2007, 691. De kroniek van B.J. Koops en C. Stuurman in NJB 2004, nr. 10 (2004) droeg nog de naam ‘Kroniek van het ICT-recht’ maar bestreek grotendeels dezelfde terreinen. zelfs zoiets gaan ontstaan als “technologierecht”.

Gepubliceerd in NJB 2021/16 [PDF].

Continue reading “Kroniek Technologie & recht 2021”

NFT’s – performatief pronken voor de 21e eeuw

Uit de “Kroniek technologie en recht” die binnenkort verschijnt in het Nederlands Juristenblad.

Blockchaintechnologie was al jaren booming als onderwerp voor afstudeerscripties en juridische congressen, maar begint de hype waar te maken. De groeiende populariteit van bitcoin en andere cryptovaluta heeft de afgelopen kroniekperiode geleid tot rechtspraak en publicaties, over klassieke onderwerpen zoals juridische kwalificatie[1]Tycho de Graaf, ‘De kwalificatie van bitcoins’, NJB 2019/2; M.A.R. Nannings, ‘Kwalificatie van crypto-assets als effect’, Tijdschrift voor Financieel Recht 2019 nr. 12. en (dus) beslaglegging[2]Tycho de Graaf, ‘Verhaalsbeslag op bitcoins’, TCR 2019, p. 88-94. en over meer specifieke aspecten als witwassen[3]A.G. Silonero, ‘Heimelijke transacties met cryptocurrencies: een grijs gebied tussen witwaspraktijken en verstandige praktijken’, Computerrecht 2021/3; A.B. Schoonbeek en J.M. van Poelgeest, ‘Nadere beschouwing over witwasrisico’s bij gebruik van cryptovaluta en de impact van regulering’, Tijdschrift voor compliance 2020 nr. 2. Zie ook: Rb. Rotterdam 23 oktober 2020, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:10073, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:10078, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:10075 en ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:10077; Rb. Overijssel 9 juni 2020, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2020:1960. en grondrechten.[4]Christian Rueckert, ‘Cryptocurrencies and fundamental rights’, Journal of Cybersecurity 2019 (Vol. 5, Issue 1). Grote technologie- en fintechbedrijven hebben inmiddels voor miljarden aan bitcoin op de balans staan,[5]Bitcoin Welcomes Tesla, Mastercard, BNY Mellon, Venmo To The Cryptocurrency Party’, Forbes 12 februari 2021. waarmee de technologie inmiddels definitief (?) de mainstream heeft bereikt.

Een blockchain-toepassing die nog wat vroeger op de hype cycle zit is de zogenoemde non-fungible token (NFT). Daarmee wordt één exemplaar van een verder eindeloos reproduceerbaar digitaal bestand voorzien van een een digitaal, op een blockchain geregistreerd en dus traceerbaar, zelfstandig verhandelbaar ‘echtheidscertificaat’. Een NFT maakt het mogelijk om enig eigenaar te zijn van een digitaal bestand. Kunstenaar Beeple verkocht de ‘originele’ versie van een digitaal kunstwerk (een grote maar overigens doodgewone jpeg) voor $ 69 miljoen aan anonieme NFT-pionier Metakovan.[6]The $69 Million JPEG’, NPR 12 maart 2021; ‘Here’s what the buyer of Beeple’s NFT digital art actually gets for $69 million’, CNBC 11 maart 2021; ‘$69 million for digital art? The NFT craze, explained’, Los Angeles Times 11 maart 2021. Zie ook: ‘Non-Fungible Tokens 101: A Primer On NFTs For Brands And Business Professionals’, Forbes 28 februari 2021. Twitter-oprichter Jack Dorsey veilde zijn eerste tweet (“just setting up my twttr”) voor het goede doel voor $ 2,9 miljoen.[7]Twitter boss Jack Dorsey’s first tweet sold for $2.9 million as an NFT’, Reuters 22 maart 2021 Net als bij fysieke dragers van eenvoudig reproduceerbare kunstwerken (etsen, foto’s, video’s) krijgt de koper het alleenrecht op het exemplaar, maar nog geen (auteurs)rechten op het onderliggende werk. En misschien is het (overigens nogal stroomslurpende) ‘minten’ van een NFT zelf een (beschermbare?) vorm van performance art?[8]William Holmes, ‘What the non-fungible token craze means for IP law’, LegalCheek 12 maart 2021:“Because NFTs can provide an aura of authenticity for digital art, they have become an ideal canvas for digital artists to create a new type of performative digital art. Consider Jack Dorsey’s NFT tweet. It is just a screenshot of his tweet, something that anyone can make and therefore has little value. So, what makes it art? Is it inherent to the tweet itself? Or did Jack Dorsey become an artist (and his tweet art) when he created the NFT of his tweet? Is the act of selling his tweet an artistic performance that can be qualified as art?” NFT’s kunnen digitale bestanden uniek, authentiek, traceerbaar en verhandelbaar maken. Zij kunnen een nieuwe goldrush inluiden voor allerhande virtuele media, markten en diensten, gefaciliteerd door rechtstreekse cont(r)acten tussen makers en fans en automatisch afgedragen volgrechtbetalingen bij doorverkoop.[9]Voor een heldere en optimistische uitleg, zie Jesse Walden, ‘NFTs make the internet ownable. Why crypto is becoming the “port of entry” for all internet media’, Variant Fund; en de a16z Podcast ‘All about NFTs’, 27 maart 2021. Continue reading “NFT’s – performatief pronken voor de 21e eeuw”

EU Influence on U.S. Internet Law, Policy and Practice in the field of digital advertising

Presentation to the Yale Law School / Floyd Abrams Institute conference “Commercial Speech and the First Amendment 2020” 

2 June 2020

Introduction

In keeping with the subject of today’s conference, I will focus on the regulation of online advertising, talking briefly about the existing situation and then focusing on what’s coming next. I will occasionally zoom out to look at EU regulation of online platforms more broadly.  

What a time it is to be talking about platform regulation! We have no Donald Trump in Europe, but we do have lots of other presidents. The techlash over here is almost as heated, and the basic issues around platform responsibility are similar: should tech companies be doing more, i.e. taking greater responsibility for keeping their platforms safe and lawful, and for dealing with the negative externalities of their success? Should they be doing less, e.g. to interfere with their users’ speech and/or personal data? Commercial speech and political advertising are a core part of the debate. As in the US, the European debate is throwing up a broad range of concerns and demands, which are diffuse and often contradictory, but which are also so heated and repeated that some kind of additional regulation is all but inevitable. A major new EU legislative initiative launched just this morning, which I will get to. Continue reading “EU Influence on U.S. Internet Law, Policy and Practice in the field of digital advertising”

Regulation of Online Platforms in the European Union – The State of Play

For the past two decades, the 2000 Electronic Commerce Directive has been the cornerstone of internet regulation in the European Union, and its safe harbors have played a crucial part in the creation of the modern internet.[1] In recent years, however, rightholders, politicians, civil society groups and others have increasingly challenged the status quo, arguing that Europe has naively allowed itself to be exploited by unaccountable – mostly American – tech giants. Although these critics often disagree strongly about exactly what needs to be done and why, they have convinced legislators that something must be done. As a result, dozens of laws have been passed or proposed at the EU level in the last few years, transforming the legal environment in which platforms operate on everything from privacy, copyright, and free speech to competition, labor law, and tax. By acting first and asking questions later, the EU is hard at work establishing a de facto global standard for tech regulation.[2]

The process is anything but smooth, and not everyone is convinced of the quality, cohesion or wisdom of the EU’s regulatory approach. Like it or loathe it, however, EU regulation has become a significant business concern for global tech companies. Although Europe’s population is dwarfed by those of rising powers such as China and India, its market of 500 million affluent consumers spread over 28 – more or less – coordinated member states is hard to ignore. Moreover, its regulatory innovations have a habit of catching on in other jurisdictions, and some elements of its approach to Big Tech are even gaining traction in the US.[3] The EU is also projecting power beyond its borders by promoting its regulatory agenda within international bodies like the G7 and the OECD.[4]

In this article, we discuss the current state of online platform regulation in Europe.[5] European intermediary liability has law traditionally focused on the liability of internet access and hosting providers for their users’ unlawful activities, leaving it up to individual member states’ national law to craft a wide range of Good Samaritan obligations in relation to, for example, the production of subscriber data or the blocking of infringing websites. In recent years, this discussion has become more fundamental, more wide-ranging, and more fragmented, all at the same time. The essential question is what online platforms must do to keep their services safe and lawful, and to what extent they are responsible when they fail to do so.

Publication with Dorien Verhulst in MLRC Bulletin: Legal Frontiers in Digital Media 2019/1 – now paywalled, full text continues below.

Continue reading “Regulation of Online Platforms in the European Union – The State of Play”

Kroniek Technologie & recht 2019

In het digitale domein ontwikkelen privacyrecht, informatievrijheid, auteursrecht en de aansprakelijkheid en verantwoordelijkheid van internetplatforms zich in rap tempo tot een nieuwe informatierechtsorde van de 21e eeuw. In deze nieuwe wereld is de meeste wetgeving afkomstig uit Europa en schijnbaar gericht op het creëren van een digitale eengemaakte markt die kan concurreren met China en de Verenigde Staten.

Het Europese wetgevingsproces leidt echter tot onmogelijke compromissen die het Hof van Justitie in de ene na de andere prejudiciële procedure zal moeten uitleggen. De belangrijkste thema’s van het moment zijn de regulering van een eclectische groep internetplatforms en privacy als kerninstrument om controle uit te oefenen in de informatiemaatschappij. In de toekomst zijn met name verdere ontwikkelingen in artificiële intelligentie en grootschalige data-analyse interessant. Toepassingen zoals automatische gezichtsherkenning en zelfrijdende auto’s creëren nieuw gemak en nieuwe economische kansen, maar ook zorgen over de gevolgen voor privacy en menselijke autonomie.

Kroniek geschreven samen met Anke Strijbos en Dorien Verhulst, gepubliceerd in het Nederlands Juristenblad 2019/15. [PDF]

Correctie Op p. 1134 en in voetnoot 95 schrijven wij ten onrechte dat NSE partij is bij de daar besproken procedure tegen Brein. Dat is niet het geval.

IP protection of deep learning systems

On 15 June 2018, the Dutch Association for Copyright (VvA) organised a study session on the interaction between intellectual property and artificial intelligence. While this issue is often approached in terms of IP protection of artificial works and inventions, the first session considered the IP protection of deep learning systems themselves. Jean-Marc Deltorn of CEIPI (University of Strasbourg) gave a detailed presentation. I delivered a brief response, which contained a number of specific questions about Mr. Deltorn’s presentation, and also raised some broader issues about the extent to which further IP protection of deep learning systems is necessary and the impact of deep learning creations on the market for human-created works.

Both papers have been published in the Dutch copyright journal AMI, and a pdf of mine is available here. The English version follows below.

Continue reading “IP protection of deep learning systems”

Communication to the public in Europe

Communication to the public in Europe: recent developments in EU copyright law in relation to digital media services

This paper, prepared for the 2018 AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC (slides available here), provides an introduction to the remarkable recent body of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the author’s exclusive right of communication to the public in relation to digital media services. It places this case law in the context of purpose and setup of the CJEU’s preliminary reference procedure, and of pending EU legislative developments that will further muddy the waters for providers of digital media services.

In the last two years, the CJEU has ruled that hyperlinking to a work on a third-party website that you have reason to believe was uploaded unlawfully is a communication to the public of that work;[1] that selling fully-loaded Kodi hardware boxes is a communication to the public of the content that users view on it;[2] that torrent-indexing sites infringe copyright;[3] that offering a cloud-based personal video recorder service infringes the communication to the public right; and that publishing a school presentation containing a photo taken from a travel website requires the photographer’s permission.[4]

With its recent decisions, the CJEU has all but abandoned any notion that the author’s exclusive right to authorize “communication to the public” refers to a technically, objectively delineated set of actions that involve the actual transmission of protected works – notwithstanding the recital to the 2001 EU Copyright Directive which ostensibly limits the scope of the right to the transmission or retransmission of a work to the public not present at the place where the communication originates.[5] The Court has redefined the concept in considerably more subjective and functional terms. Indeed, one might be forgiven for concluding that the CJEU essentially considers any deliberate for-profit facilitation of access to copyright-protected information to require the rightholder’s permission.

Understanding the CJEU’s recent decisions about the communication to the public right, and identifying a broader coherence in the case law as a whole, is a challenge for practitioners both in the EU and beyond. Lawyers not familiar with EU procedural law face an additional interpretative hurdle, in that the CJEU’s role and procedures are unique and subtle. The CJEU is not a supreme court, and its role is entirely different to that of, for example, the US Supreme Court in shaping US copyright law.

Adding a further layer of complexity to EU digital copyright law, a proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Singe Market, currently being finalised,[6] seeks substantially to erode the safe harbour regime for online intermediaries, providing that “online content sharing service providers” bear primary liability for their users’ infringing uploads unless they install proactive copyright filters. The proposed directive will also give news publishers additional rights to restrict digital uses of their press publications, posing new challenges to the way that news is referenced and shared online. Continue reading “Communication to the public in Europe”

Balancing in EU copyright law

During the 2018 AIPPI World Congress, a panel session was held to discuss the means by which copyright laws in different jurisdictions seek to achieve balance between copyright and other rights and interests. Once mostly achieved through exceptions and limitations, recent developments show an increasing role for other doctrines and methodologies. In Europe, balancing has moved increasingly into the sphere of constitutional law. The Court of Justice of the European Union has established that the protection of copyright is a fundamental right, which must be balanced against other fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression and of information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the protection of privacy and personal data.

The situation in Mexico and the United States was addressed by Ms. Irely Aquique, and Mr. Gregory Sebald respectively.

My presentation on balancing copyright in EU law is available here. It  addresses three kinds of balancing:

  1. ‘traditional’ balancing: copyright rules designed to protect other rights and interests;
  2. ‘internal constitutional balancing’: where fundamental rights are used to interpret copyright rules, specifically when defining the scope of the exclusive right, when interpreting exceptions and limitations, when assessing the suitability of specific enforcement measures; and, possibly, when defining copyrightable subject-matter; and
  3. ‘external constitutional balancing’, where other fundamental rights operate as an autonomous limitation to copyright, outside the statutory system of exceptions and limitations, i.e. where another overriding fundamental right ‘trumps’ copyright.

Presentatie Nationale Mediarechtcongres 2017

Tijdens het Nationale Mediarechtcongres op 16 november 2017 gaf ik een presentatie over recente en toekomstige ontwikkelingen in het toezicht op commerciële en publieke mediaorganisaties, met aandacht voor o.a.

  • de distributiebutierevolutie
  • de aggregatienachtmerrie
  • toezicht op mediadiensten
  • actualiteiten reclame- en sponsorregels
  • actualiteiten dienstbaarheidsverbod publieke omroep
  • toekomstperspectief: de nieuwe AVMS-richtlijn

De presentatie is hier beschikbaar [PDF].