Salut la liste !
There is little real progress on the Digital Services Act, as the European
Parliament committees are bickering about competencies. On the other hand
TERREG and the Data Governance Act and E-Evidence are moving ahead. Sorry
for the longer read, but plenty of nuance to unpack.
Anna & Dimi
This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
We have the final vote date for the long-debated terrorist content
regulation proposal.  The Plenary will take their decision in the last
week of April, most likely on April 28th. Despite many interinstitutional
clashes , the regulation is still too blurry, too broad, and infringing
on rights to express political views and to access information.
EDRi together with Wikimedia Deutschland, Access Now, and Civil Liberties
Union for Europe launched an open letter  to MEPs urging them to vote
“no” on this proposal. We cite the danger of content filtering, the over
policing of content by state and private actors, and the cross-border
prerogatives as main reasons why the proposal should be rejected. Please
spread the word and, if you can, contact your favourite MEP to make sure
they are on the right side of history with this one.
Digital Services Act
Our basic position hasn’t changed  and we are still making the rounds
with MEPs and Member States so chart the map.
Meanwhile compétence conflicts between the Internal Market Committee (IMCO)
and the Judicial Affairs Committee (JURI) as well as the Industry, Trade
and Research Committee (ITRE) and keeping MEPs from actually delving into
the text. We expect a final decision to be reached during the coming two
weeks and to be adopted during the plenary session thereafter. 
In the Council, Germany worries about how the DSA will impact its national
NetzDG law. Denmark and Ireland want more requirements for smaller
platforms “which can host extremist groups”. France was asking about
illegal products on marketplaces. The Dutch seemed to complain to the
Commission about not including disinformation provisions. Malta is
concerned that by having to respect national law, platforms would be forced
to disable access in one country or another, which would lead to
fragmentation of the online environment. We know all this from written
Commission answers to the Member States, which are not public.
Data Governance Act
Both the Portuguese Presidency and the European Parliament rapporteur
Angelika Niebler (EPP DE) published their draft for changes to the Data
Governance Act.  Unfortunately neither takes into account our
demands to explicitly state that “collaborative knowledge” projects are
“general interest” services, which could be important for the requirements
our projects fall under.
However, Ms. Niebler proposes to define “data intermediaries” as providers
of data sharing services with the main objective of establishing a
business, a legal and potentially also technical relation between an
indefinite number of data holders, including data subjects and an
indefinite number of potential data users and which assists both parties in
a transaction of data assets between the two”. The Presidency of the
Council on the other hand makes clear that “data sharing services” are
“commercial services”, which might be good enough.
Both drafts keep the limitation on the sui generis database rights in
place, which is welcome.
Digital Markets Act
This legislative proposal  is important on its own as it can
potentially reign in the so-called gatekeepers - the most influential
internet platforms - into more transparency and accountability. We read it
and we lay the basics out  for you: what the DMA, as proposed by the
European Commission, regulates - and (equally as important) - what it
Also, the MEP Rapporteur team in the IMCO (Internal Market and Consumers
Committee) has finally formed. If you want to tell them what you think
about the DMA, they are: Andreas Schwabb (EPP, DE - at the helm); Evelyne
Gebhardt (S&D, DE); Andrus Ansip (RE, EE); Virginie Joron (ID, FR), Martin
Schirdewan (GUE, DE), Marcel Kolaja (Greens, CZ), and Adam Bielan (ECR,
The Regulation on European production and preservation orders for
electronic evidence in criminal matters (E-Evidence)  aims to create
clear rules on how a prosecutor in one Member State can request electronic
evidence. One such use case would be requesting user data from a platform
in another EU country during an investigation. We wrote about our main
issues in the past. 
We mainly worried about a new category - “access data” - which would allow
prosecutors to demand information such as IP addresses, date and time of
use, and the “interface” accessed by the user without judicial oversight.
In the Wikipedia context this would mean being able to follow what someone
The second question we have is whether the hosting country’s authority will
have the right to intervene in some cases where fundamental rights of its
citizens are concerned.
After the European Parliament and the Council reached their negotiating
positions last year the trilogue rounds (meetings between the two
co-legislators) have now begun. Last week was the second trilogue. So far
the good news is that both co-legislators and the Commission are in favour
of dropping the “access data” category. However, in exceptional emergency
situations prosecutors will be allowed to request data needed to identify
persons quickly. Details important here.
On the second main point, we are seeing that both European Parliament and
Council are coming closer around some sort of “notification” regime for the
hosting country’s authorities. The European Commission didn’t have anything
in its proposal. The European Parliament wants to make sure citizens are
(doubly) protected against prosecutorial misuse, having in mind that not
all EU members have a great record on this. The Council mainly worries
about simplicity and speed of procedures. Again, we will need to see a
possible compromise, as details are key.
Furthermore a Common EU Exchange System for such requests is discussed
through which platforms would receive production orders. This would solve
the issue of each platform knowing which the competent authority is in each
Member State. There would also be an option for the platform to request
reimbursement from national authorities for the costs incurred by such
The next trilogue will be on 20 May, still under the Portuguese Presidency.
In the meantime there will be technical meetings (assistants, experts and
advisors). Participants are expecting the talks to continue through the
Slvoenian and French Presidencies, so until first half 2022.