The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Peter Hustinx, recently published a response to a European Commission consultation on reform of the “notice-and-action” (“N&A”) procedure rules — i.e., the legal regime that requires Internet intermediaries to remove hosted content when they are notified that such content is illegal.  As set out in more detail below, the EDPS response draws attention to the impact of N&A procedures on data protection and privacy rights, and voices support for a variety of measures, including harmonising the definition of “illegal content”, clarifying the definition of “hosting” and the extent to which hosting providers should take proactive steps to remove illegal content.

The EDPS’s views will be added to those of other stakeholders including rightholders, many of whom have called for a transparent and user-friendly procedure that includes an accessible appeals process and sanctions against abusive notices.  Rightholders also see value in intermediaries providing APIs that enable rightholders to remove infringing content directly, as some online platforms already do today.

Key points raised by the EDPS include:

  • Harmonising the definition of ‘illegal content’ across Europe for the purpose of N&A procedures.  The EDPS highlights that additional safeguards may be necessary when sensitive personal data is processed, and suggests that, in certain cases, it may be more appropriate for illegal content to be reported to a regulatory authority rather than to a hosting provider for removal.
  • Clarifying the definition of ‘hosting’ to take account of the current digital environment.  The EDPS emphasizes that online social networks are ‘data controllers’ in respect of personal information uploaded to their sites, as well as content hosts under European data protection law.
  • Developing harmonised procedures and forms for notifications to hosts of illegal content.  The EDPS adds that harmonised forms and procedures would need to take full account of European data protection law — for example, by developing “privacy by design” compliant notification forms that only require the minimum necessary amount of personal data about senders of notices and of the other persons involved (e.g. complainant, suspect, witnesses, etc.). 
  • Clarifying the proactive measures to be taken by hosting providers.  The EDPS refers to questions over the scope of Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC), which states that hosting providers have no ‘general obligation to monitor’ users’ illegal activity on their networks. This provision has been thrown into sharper relief following the CJEU decision in Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM (C‑70/10), decided in 2011.  In that case, partially to protect fundamental rights of privacy, the CJEU ruled against broad-based proactive filtering by ISPs for the purpose of protecting against copyright infringement.  The EDPS has commented several times in the past on this issue.

The consultation period for answering the European Commission’s questionnaire is now closed.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Mark Young Mark Young

Mark Young is an experienced tech regulatory lawyer and a vice-chair of Covington’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. He advises major global companies on their most challenging data privacy compliance matters and investigations. Mark also leads on EMEA cybersecurity matters at the…

Mark Young is an experienced tech regulatory lawyer and a vice-chair of Covington’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. He advises major global companies on their most challenging data privacy compliance matters and investigations. Mark also leads on EMEA cybersecurity matters at the firm. In these contexts, he has worked closely with some of the world’s leading technology and life sciences companies and other multinationals.

Mark has been recognized for several years in Chambers UK as “a trusted adviser – practical, results-oriented and an expert in the field;” “fast, thorough and responsive;” “extremely pragmatic in advice on risk;” “provides thoughtful, strategic guidance and is a pleasure to work with;” has “great insight into the regulators;” and “is technologically sophisticated and advises on true issues of first impression, particularly in the field of AI.”

Drawing on over 20 years of experience, Mark specializes in:

Providing practical guidance and advising on potential exposure under GDPR and international data privacy laws in relation to innovative products and services.
Handling complex regulatory investigations and enforcement actions involving data privacy regulators in the UK, EU and globally, and advising on follow-on litigation risk.
Helping clients respond to cybersecurity incidents, including ransomware, supply chain incidents, state-sponsored attacks, insider threats, personal data breaches, and IP and trade secret theft.
Advising various clients on the EU NIS2 Directive, Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), and other emerging EU, UK, and global cybersecurity laws and regulations.
Advising life sciences companies on industry-specific data privacy issues, including clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, and digital health products and services.
Advising on data privacy compliance in relation to employees and international transfers of data in connection with white collar investigations.
Providing strategic advice and advocacy on a range of UK and EU technology law reform issues relating to data privacy, cybersecurity, eIDs, and software.
Representing clients in connection with references to the Court of Justice of the EU.