Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts To Monitor or Not to Monitor? The Uncertain Future of Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive
|
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
To Monitor or Not to Monitor? The Uncertain Future of Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive
Guest Blogger New Controversies in Intermediary Liability Law
Aleksandra Kuczerawy
Current policy discourse in the European Union is
steadily shifting from intermediary liability to intermediary responsibility. The long-established principle prohibiting
general monitoring obligations is currently being challenged by two initiatives
in particular, namely the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive and
the proposal on the Regulation preventing the dissemination of terrorist
content online. By holding service
providers liable and requiring broad implementation of censoring measures, this
growing trend toward imposing monitoring obligations may have significant
ramifications for the ability of individuals to freely share and access content
online.
No General Monitoring Obligation
The limited liability regime for Internet intermediary services in the European Union is currently going through major changes. To date, the liability exemptions for Internet intermediary service providers have been governed by E-Commerce Directive (ECD). The Directive applies horizontally to various domains and to any kind of illegal or infringing content.
Under
Article 15 of the ECD, E.U. Member
States may not impose on intermediary service
providers a general obligation
to monitor information that they transmit or store. Further, Member States cannot
introduce a general obligation to actively look for facts or circumstances
indicating illegal activity. The prohibition of monitoring obligations (Recital
47) refers solely to monitoring of a general nature. It does not concern
monitoring obligations in a specific case; nor does it affect orders issued by
national authorities in line with national legislation.
The ECD, moreover, does allow Member States to require
hosting providers to apply duties of care. Such duties of care, however, should only be
introduced to detect and prevent certain types of illegal activities, foreseen
by national law. The Directive does not specify what exactly such duties of
care entail. As a result, the boundary between duties of care and general monitoring is not
clear.
Per Article 15, Member States are not allowed to introduce obligations that would require intermediary service providers to systematically monitor the information they store or transmit. This does not mean that service providers cannot take up such activities on their own initiative. Most of the service providers in the European Union do perform certain voluntary monitoring activities in order to maintain a “civilized” environment on their platforms. Voluntary monitoring, however, can prove detrimental. Exercising too much control could compromise the neutral status of the intermediary service provider and, in consequence, deprive them of the safe harbour protection provided by Article 14 of the ECD. The E.U. intermediary regime does not contain a provision which protects service providers from liability should their voluntary monitoring prove imperfect (such as the one offered by the Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act in the United States). The lack of a Good Samaritan-style protection results in a certain level of prudence on the side of the E.U. service providers when administering the monitoring activities on their platforms. Current policy discourse in the European Union is steadily shifting from intermediary liability to intermediary responsibility. The amended Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market, and the proposal for a Regulation on preventing dissemination of terrorist content online, as well as recent soft law initiatives, such as the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online and the most recent Code of Conduct on Disinformation, are all examples of that trend.
The former is understood as a negligence-based
approach, while the latter emphasizes the need for proactive measures. The
long-established principle prohibiting general monitoring obligations is currently
being challenged by two initiatives in particular, namely the Copyright in the Digital
Single Market Directive and the proposal on the Regulation preventing the
dissemination of terrorist content online.
Copyright in the DSM Directive
In mid-February 2019, at the end of the so called “trilogue” procedure, the negotiating E.U. institutions reached a compromise on the text of the Copyright in the DSM Directive. The text passed the vote by the European Parliament on 26 March 2019 and was ultimately approved by the Council on 15 April 2019. Article 17 (formerly Article 13) of the Copyright in DSM Directive includes a substantial change to the established intermediary liability regime, in that it makes service providers directly liable for the content uploaded by their users. To avoid liability, service providers must enter into licensing agreements with any owners of any content they may possibly host. Per Article 17.4b, if the service provider does not want to (or is not able to) pay licensing fees, they have to demonstrate they made best efforts to ensure the works are unavailable “in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence.” Only then may they be able to escape direct liability for the content of their users. The Copyright in DSM Directive stipulates that the application of Article 17 “shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.” Interestingly, the final text of the provision no longer refers specifically to Article 15 of the ECD. The provision clearly aims to pacify the numerous critics of the Directive. Despite the insistence that Article 17 will not lead to general monitoring obligation, it is hard to imagine in what other way service providers can ensure copyrighted works are not made available without proper licensing. To effectively recognize infringing content, a technological tool must be used to examine all newly uploaded content on the platform and comparing it with an existing database. This amounts to installing upload filters by the service providers and systematic monitoring of the entirety of the users’ content. Despite repeated attempts to convince the broad public that the Copyright in DSM Directive was not meant to introduce upload filters, several officials admitted, soon after the vote, that the filters are unavoidable.
Proposal for a Regulation on Preventing
Dissemination of Terrorist Content Online
In September 2018, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation on preventing dissemination of terrorist content online. Apart from one-hour content removal orders (Article 4) and content referrals (Article 5), the proposed regulation provides that service providers should take “proactive measures to protect their services against the dissemination of terrorist content” (Article 6). According to the European Commission’s proposal in Article 6, service providers are expected to check against publicly or privately-held tools containing known terrorist content. They may also use “reliable technical tools to identify new terrorist content,” either using those available on the market or those developed by the service provider. If the competent authority considers the taken measures insufficient, it may request that the provider takes “specific additional proactive measures.” If no agreement can be reached, the competent authority has the power to impose “specific additional (…) proactive measures.” Recital (19) of the European Commission’s proposal states that imposing “specific proactive measures should not, in principle, lead to the imposition of a general obligation to monitor,” as prohibited by Article 15 of the ECD. After this optimistic note, the proposal explains that in light of the “particularly grave risks associated with the dissemination of terrorist content,” the decisions adopted on the basis of the Regulation could, in fact, derogate from Article 15’s prohibition. The derogation would apply to “certain specific, targeted measures, the adoption of which is necessary for overriding public security reasons.” It would seem, therefore, that a general monitoring obligation may very well be the intended outcome of the Regulation, in contradiction with Article 15. On 17 April 2019, the European Parliament adopted its Report on the proposed Regulation. The Parliament Report made significant changes to the whole proposal and to Article 6, which no longer mentions “proactive” measures. Instead, Article 6 now states that the service providers “may take specific measures” that should be “effective, targeted and proportionate.” The amended Article 6.4 provides that competent authority “may send a request for necessary, proportionate and effective additional specific measures” to hosting providers that have received a substantial number of removal orders. However, the competent authority “shall not impose a general monitoring obligation, nor the use of automated tools.” The Parliament Report also amended Recital (19) of the proposed Regulation. The new version of the recital does not contain the worrying statement that Article 15’s prohibition could be derogated from due to overriding public security reasons. The changes introduced by the Parliament Report eliminate the most significant threats to the Internet freedoms. The issue, however, is not yet resolved. The proposed Regulation will continue to proceed through the “trilogue” procedure, where proactive measures may still be reintroduced by the Council of the European Union.
Outlook
According to the Court of Justice of the E.U., as described in Scarlet v. SABAM and SABAM v. Netlog, a requirement to install a filtering system capable of identifying specific types of content, for almost all information stored by the users, applied indiscriminately to all of them, as a preventive measure, and for unlimited period of time, amounts to a general monitoring obligation. It is difficult to imagine how the “best efforts” and “proactive measures,” as envisaged by the Copyright in DSM Directive and the Terrorist Content Regulation respectively, would not constitute a general monitoring obligation. Despite multiple warnings that the proposed measures would undermine the E.U. acquis, policy makers are still moving forward. One therefore cannot help but wonder if the times of no general monitoring obligations are coming to an end. By holding service providers liable and requiring broad implementation of censoring measures, this growing trend toward imposing monitoring obligations may have significant ramifications for the ability of individuals to freely share and access content online.
Dr. Aleksandra Kuczerawy is a postdoctoral researcher
at the Centre for IT and IP Law at the KU Leuven, Belgium. She is the author
of Intermediary Liability and
Freedom of Expression in the EU: From Concepts to Safeguards (Intersentia,
2018). She can be reached at aleksandra.kuczerawy at kuleuven.be.
Posted 9:00 AM by Guest Blogger [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |