Wikipedia: Exemption from Liability in Case of Immediate Removal of Unlawful Materials

Three years after the enactment of the Loi sur la confiance numérique (Loi No 2004- 575, 21st June 2004) the French Higher Court faces the application of the rules concerning the liability of an Internet content provider. The judgement shows useful hints for a comparison between the French and the Italian tort system – shaped from the implementation of the European Directive on e-commerce

Out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms for failures in content moderation

Content moderation is at the core of online platform activities. Many platforms allow users to post content that may or may not comply with the terms of service or that may violate national laws. In order to avoid these violations, online platforms have started to monitor content both ex post and ex ante. However, mistakes may still (frequently) happen. In order to allow users to effectively contest decisions and compel platforms to restore content or accounts after erroneous decisions, online platforms should provide adequate due process mechanisms to appeal and seek redress. The EU has addressed this point by including specific provisions in the recently adopted Digital Services Act (DSA). In particular, Article 21 provides that complaints against online platforms can also be resolved through out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms provided by certified bodies. After analysing the role of online platforms in content moderation, this essay focuses on the types of dispute resolution mechanisms envisaged in the DSA. Assessing, on the one hand, the proposed criteria for effective out-of-court dispute settlement bodies according to the principles of fairness, accountability, independence and transparency and, on the other hand, the shortcomings that emerge from the certification mechanism defined in the DSA

Access to (digital) justice : is there a place for vulnerable people in online dispute resolution mechanisms?

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms are procedures that provide means to resolve conflicts between two or more parties without a need to litigate the matter before a national (or supranational) court. Although they are included in the same definition, ADR mechanisms include different types of procedures that exploit the assistance of a third party or are based on fully or partially automated tools

When the algorithm is not fully reliable : the collaboration between technology and humans in the fight against hate speech

Published online: 01 November 2021With their ability of selecting content available, algorithms are used to automatically identify or flag potentially illegal content, and in particular hate speech. After the adoption of the Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online by the European Commission on 31 May 2016, the IT companies heavily relied on algorithms that can skim the hosted content. However, such intervention could not be completed without the collaboration of moderators in charge of verifying the doubtful content. The interplay between technological and human control, however, adds several questions. Under the technological dimension, the most important issues concern the discretion of private companies as regards the definition of the illegal content; the level of transparency as regards the translation of the legal concepts into code; the existence of procedural guarantees applicable to the system adopted to challenge automatic decisions. Under the human dimension, the most important issues concern the selection procedure to identify the so-called ‘trusted flaggers’ able to provide the final decision regarding the illegal nature of the online content, the existence of accreditation or verification process that would evaluate the quality of the notices provided by such trusted flaggers, the allocation of liability in case of mistake between the online intermediary and the trusted flagger

The inactive integration clause : can Art. 12 TFEU shape future sustainable consumer policies?

Published online: 02 March 2023The integration clause contained in art. 12 TFEU has been rarely invoked in European policymaking. This is due to the generic language adopted by the EU legislator, who does not impose an obligation on the EU bodies to integrate consumer protection in other Union policies or on Member States, thus reducing the justiciability of the provision. Compared to other TFEU provisions dedicated to consumer protection, the strength of art. 12 TFEU seems extremely low. However, art. 12 TFEU may come in handy in the development of a more sustainable economy in which the interests of consumers are not only focused on strengthening the internal market but also on safeguarding the environment and reducing industrial waste. This Article evaluates whether and how art. 12 TFEU may impact the choices of European bodies on the circular economy, the European Green Deal and the recent Consumer Agenda strengthening the role of consumers in the green transition

Access to justice through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms : principles emerging from the CJEU jurisprudence

The digitalisation of justice is an ongoing process that characterises all EU Member States with different scopes and, most importantly, at a different pace. This process also extends to creating Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that enhance citizens’ access to justice (social network users, consumers, or business entities). ADRs are deemed a faster and cheaper process than judicial proceedings; they can adapt to the time and place constraints of the parties, allowing the possibility to meet or communicate in a diachronic manner. Although this seemed a solution that could easily enable citizens to exercise their rights, courts, particularly the Court of Justice of the EU, slowed down this process. The (few) cases decided by the CJEU show that the Court was initially sceptical in the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to exercise EU-granted rights, and only through the repeated clarifications provided by the Member States in the arguments presented during the proceedings was able to change its approach. Still, the response of the CJEU was not simply accepting the member states’ positions but instead providing them with a framework where the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms may ensure a fair trial and effective protection outside judicial proceedings. Thanks to this dialogue, we may identify a set of criteria that may guide policymakers’ choices

Out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms for failures in content moderation

Published online: 12 November 2023Content moderation is at the core of online platform activities. Many platforms allow users to post content that may or may not comply with the terms of service or that may violate national laws. In order to avoid these violations, online platforms have started to monitor content both ex post and ex ante. However, mistakes may still (frequently) happen. In order to allow users to effectively contest decisions and compel platforms to restore content or accounts after erroneous decisions, online platforms should provide adequate due process mechanisms to appeal and seek redress. The EU has addressed this point by including specific provisions in the recently adopted Digital Services Act (DSA). In particular, Article 21 provides that complaints against online platforms can also be resolved through out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms provided by certified bodies. After analysing the role of online platforms in content moderation, this essay focuses on the types of dispute resolution mechanisms envisaged in the DSA. Assessing, on the one hand, the proposed criteria for effective out-of-court dispute settlement bodies according to the principles of fairness, accountability, independence and transparency and, on the other hand, the shortcomings that emerge from the certification mechanism defined in the DSA

European Health Data Space : is the proposed certification system effective against cyber threats?

Published online: 18 April 2024The proposal for a European Health Data Space aims at creating a common space where individuals may control their health data in a trusted and secure way. The objective is not only improving healthcare delivery, but also enhancing the opportunities to use health data for research and innovation. To achieve these results, the proposal implements a mandatory self-certification scheme for European health records systems as well as for wellness devices and applications, setting up essential requirements related to interoperability and security. Although this is the first intervention that sets a horizontal framework that is mandatory for all Member States, the security requirements that are included in the legislative proposal are not sufficiently detailed and comprehensive. Given that cyberthreats are increasing and security incidents affecting health data may potentially have an impact on the lives of patients, it is important that cybersecurity measures are adopted and implemented in the most effective way. The paper will analyse the European Health Data Space proposal pointing to the open issues and doubts that may be emerging and it will compare them with the proposed Cyber Resilience Act, identifying the issues that may be solved thanks to this horizontal regulation and the ones that instead remain open

The challenges of cybersecurity in the health sector

Published online: 16 December 2024The digitalisation of the health sector is an ongoing phenomenon, which was only accelerated by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Already in 2018, the European Commission addressed the priorities emerging in the digital transformation of health and care, identifying, first, the need to secure citizens’ access to their health data (including across borders); secondly, the crucial importance of personalised medicine through shared European data infrastructure; third, the potential for citizen empowerment with digital tools for user feedback and person-centred care

Private law perspectives of cybersecurity

Published online: 19 July 2024Cybersecurity is very rarely related to private law. However, the normative evolution and the growing intertwining of economic and organisational dependencies between entities, economic operators, and public administrations make increasingly evident the mutual influences between the legal area of cyber security with more and more of the substantial structures of private law. The overlaps and the cases of tension between the normative plexuses will be highlighted, as well as the need for linkage and translation of what are legal requirements into technical needs. The conclusions will provide suggestions for regulatory policy and interpretive practices. In the background, the contribution highlights the emergence of an increasingly intricate relationship between the cyber security requirements of value chains and the different levels of standardisation that must be implemented