OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Application Developers Alliance

Developers Alliance

The Developers Alliance is a non-profit association representing software developers and the digital industry.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs and

12 Apr 2023 · Revision of the Product Liability Directive

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Insurance Europe and Association Mieux Prescrire

14 Mar 2023 · Revision of the Product Liability Directive

Developers Alliance warns Cyber Resilience Act ignores software realities

23 Jan 2023
Topic — The EU is setting mandatory cybersecurity requirements for all products with digital elements.
Message — The group demands a clear exemption for open-source software and the removal of impossible vulnerability requirements. They advocate for alignment with international standards and more realistic reporting timelines.12
Why — These modifications would reduce legal liability and heavy compliance burdens for software developers.3
Impact — Security-conscious users may face higher risks if companies target only minimum compliance levels.4
Read full response

Developers Alliance opposes strict liability rules for software products

9 Dec 2022
Topic — The consultation reviews liability rules for defective products in the digital age.
Message — The Alliance wants standalone software excluded from the definition of a product. They argue software should only be liable if negligence is proven. They also request removing psychological harm and data loss from covered damages.123
Why — This would reduce legal risks and litigation costs for software startups.4
Impact — Consumers lose the right to seek compensation for psychological injuries or data loss.5
Read full response

Developers Alliance warns AI liability rules will discourage European innovation

28 Nov 2022
Topic — The EU is proposing rules to adapt civil liability to artificial intelligence technologies.
Message — The group urges legislators to dismiss rebuttable presumptions and reject reversed burdens of proof. They demand strong protections for trade secrets and alignment with the AI Act.123
Why — Reducing legal risks and litigation costs would prevent a chilling effect on startups.45
Impact — Claimants face higher barriers to proving fault and obtaining compensation for AI-related damages.67
Read full response

Meeting with Maurits-Jan Prinz (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton) and DOT Europe and

16 Sept 2022 · Product liability directive

Developers Alliance urges rejection of radical online surveillance proposal

12 Sept 2022
Topic — New EU rules require online service providers to detect child sexual abuse material.
Message — The group calls for the rejection of this radical proposal to avoid creating a surveillance system. They recommend a legal basis for voluntary actions to counter abuse instead.12
Why — This would allow companies to avoid backdoors and reduce high compliance costs.34
Impact — Law enforcement would lose mandatory scanning tools designed to detect child sexual abuse.5
Read full response

Response to Cyber Resilience Act

25 May 2022

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to respond to the call for evidence for an impact assessment on a legislative initiative for common cyber security rules for manufacturers and vendors of tangible and intangible digital products and ancillary services. Please find our comments in the attached document.
Read full response

Developers Alliance warns Data Act will stifle innovation and increase costs

13 May 2022
Topic — The consultation concerns new rules for fair data access and use within the digital economy.
Message — The group calls for stronger safeguards for trade secrets and alignment with GDPR. They oppose mandatory technical standards for cloud services and interoperability.123
Why — Limiting mandates would help software developers avoid higher business costs and protect intellectual property.4
Impact — Startups and ambitious entrepreneurs face regulatory burdens that could discourage them from growing in Europe.5
Read full response

Response to Review of the general product safety directive

28 Sept 2021

Developers Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the consultation on the proposal for a Regulation on general product safety. Our comments are strictly limited to aspects related to software development, and in particular on the correlation with other relevant EU legislation and legislative proposals. We welcome the choice for a regulation, which guarantees a uniform approach across the EU Single Market, as well the necessary alignment to the New Legislative Framework (NLF). We reiterate our disagreement with the presumption that software in general, and AI in particular, are always a potential source of ‘high-risk’, as stated in our positions on the proposals for the AI Act and the revision of the Machinery Directive. The definition of “safe product” (art. 3.1) should be clearer. The reference to “misuse” risks disproportionately broadening the scope of risks and consequently the responsibility of manufacturers. It should be clear that unlawful and abnormal behavior cannot be interpreted as ‘misuse’. We suggest instead to make reference to “reasonably foreseeable misuse”, as for example, in the Machinery Directive, the Medical Devices Directive or the AI Act proposal. One of the declared objectives of the proposal is to address “some new risks linked to connectivity, the applicability of the Directive to software updates and downloads as well as the evolving functionalities of AI-powered products”. Moreover, the regulation is intended to act as a “safety net” for products and risks to health and safety of consumers that are not covered by specific EU legislation. As a general observation, smart, connected and IoT devices should be covered by specific legislation, according to the relevant sectors and categories of use. We strongly recommend more legal clarity and certainty in relation to products that will fall under the upcoming legislative frameworks for AI and cybersecurity. This is especially important with regards to the presumption of conformity and the available standards. The proposed provisions on the aspects for assessing the safety of products proposed in art. 7 h) and i) should be revised in this sense. Similarly, the obligations related to data proposed in art. 8 and art. 10 should be correlated with the requirements of the GDPR, with careful consideration to avoid duplication or conflicting norms.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Machinery Directive

14 Aug 2021

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal for a Regulation on Machinery Products. We limit our observations to elements implicating software and software developers. Software developers are contributing to technological solutions for more and more sophisticated machinery products. A clear and harmonized legal framework is a prerequisite for the good functioning of the market of machinery products and for the development of state of the art technology in the EU. We welcome the necessary update of the Machinery Directive and the alignment to the New Legislative Framework (NLF), but we disagree with the proposal’s presumption that software in general, and AI in particular, are always a potential source of ‘high-risk’. The regulation should provide clear specifications in relation to “safety function” or “connected device”. This will allow a clear understanding of the requirements to be assessed for ensuring conformity of the products and especially of safety components. We strongly recommend a better correlation with other relevant legislation and legislative proposals, including on AI and cybersecurity. It is essential to avoid inconsistency in the conformity assessment procedures for those products that are falling under several specific pieces of legislation (e.g. AI systems, cybersecurity requirements of radio equipment incorporated on machinery). Art. 8 and 9 do not provide the necessary legal clarity and certainty. The proposed scope includes “any software ensuring safety functions” as a high‐risk machinery product. Software embedded solutions are widespread in all industrial sectors, and regulating all their uses as high-risk is disproportionate. Nonetheless, particular attention could be paid to those situations where embedded AI systems are ensuring safety functions and are capable of evolving autonomously throughout the product life cycle. The mandatory conformity assessment by a third party for products listed under Annex I is disproportionate, considering that the criteria for safety components according to the definition in Article 3 (3) provide a comprehensive list of elements for solid conformity assessment procedures. Presumption of conformity should be preserved, in the spirit of the NLF principles, as confirmed by the relevant ECJ jurisprudence. The proposal is also disproportionately granting extended powers to the European Commission to define technical specifications. We made a similar observation in relation to the AI Regulation proposal. The requirement for full disclosure of software source code to market surveillance authorities is unreasonable. We suggest a differentiated application, on a case-by-case basis, according to different contexts and with respect to trade secrets and relevant IP protection rights. Recordkeeping requirements should be fit for purpose, to avoid unrealistic situations and unnecessary burden for SMEs. They should also be aligned to the GDPR’s data minimization principle, where applicable. The restrictive requirements related to autonomous mobile machinery, in particular those on the supervisory control function, could have a deterrent effect on the development of such technologies in the EU. We remain committed to providing further input on this proposal and other related legislative proposals.
Read full response

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

4 Aug 2021

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the AI Act proposal. We commend the objectives and the risk-based approach of the proposal. We call on the EU co-legislators, however, to address a series of critical issues so the regulation will be fit for purpose and to reduce the competitive disadvantage for European developers: - set legally clear definitions and limit the scope to clearly defined high risk use cases of AI, in line with the declared objectives of the regulation, - provide clear and reasonable rules for high risk use cases of AI, focused on the deployment phase, and less preemptive requirements for the development phase when the intended purposes might not be obvious (as in the case of general-purpose and open-source AI solutions), - ensure reduced regulatory burdens for startups and SMEs and set up a solid framework for regulatory sandboxes as incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship, - remove the proposal’s extraterritorial reach to avoid potential barriers to trade on products and services created outside the EU that contain no AI themselves, - recognise that AI systems are by definition modelled on human decision making, with all their weaknesses and strengths. Holding AI to an absolute standard where an equivalent human process is viewed under a reasonableness standard is legally inconsistent. Please find attached our detailed position paper.
Read full response

Response to Digital Services Act package: ex ante regulatory instrument of very large online platforms acting as gatekeepers

4 May 2021

Our mission is to provide a collective voice for software developers and to represent their interests on matters affecting the software development ecosystem. From this perspective, we see the potential benefits of the DMA, but also predictable spillover effects on certain digital ecosystems, raising the cost of doing business for developers, as well as a negative impact on investment in the EU digital markets. The stated objectives of the DMA would be better met by: • Shifting the focus from outright and arbitrary prohibition to a rebuttable assumption of harm such that practices that are beneficial to consumers and other ecosystem stakeholders are taken into account. • Limiting the application of general remedies and prohibitions to specifically enumerated practices and services, rather than building a framework of generic prohibitions which are questionable in many service contexts. • Specifically articulating the predicted long-term market outcomes of the individual remedies, to ensure that cascading and overlapping actions and responses don’t destroy the very markets the regulation is seeking to protect. Please find attached our position paper.
Read full response

Response to Digital Services Act: deepening the Internal Market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services

30 Mar 2021

Please find attached Developers Alliance's feedback on the proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
Read full response

Response to Legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces

5 Feb 2021

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s consultation on the proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (Data Governance Act). Please find attached our position paper.
Read full response

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

10 Sept 2020

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to further provide feedback on the European Commission’s proposals on requirements for AI. The Inception Impact Assessment presents several regulatory options and the underlying policy objectives, based on the approach initiated by the White Paper on AI. Our response emphasizes the need to avoid excessive regulatory burden and to adopt a fit-for-purpose approach aimed at promoting AI development in the EU. We commend the EC’s engagement to avoid “a fragmentation of the Digital Single Market into potentially divergent frameworks preventing the free circulation of goods and services containing AI”. Please find attached our detailed position.
Read full response

Response to European Digital Identity (EUid)

31 Aug 2020

The Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the European Commission’s planned revision of the eIDAS Regulation. Developers Alliance advocates on behalf of software developers and the companies invested in their success, to support the industry’s continued growth and promote innovation. Please find attached our position paper.
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

14 Aug 2020

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the European Commission’s roadmap for the IP Action Plan. Developers Alliance advocates on behalf of software developers and the companies invested in their success, to support the industry’s continued growth, and promote innovation. 1. We support further measures for raising awareness and enabling uptake of IP, especially by SMEs. In the same vein, we salute Commissions’ commitment to “offer targeted guidance to businesses to help prevent cyber-theft of trade secrets”. To be noted that technology startups often rely on trade secrets as the most appropriate tools to protect their innovative products. 2. We appreciate the Commissions’ engagement to “continue to monitor the application of the IPR Enforcement Directive to ensure it is effective and balanced, particularly on injunctions”. The prevention of potential abusive litigation practices is of particular interest for developer small businesses that could be targeted by patent trolling. 3. It is not clear what “a European approach to AI and IP protection” would imply. We recommend a careful consideration of the need to amend the current IP protection system in relation to the development of AI. We remind that the European Patent Office states in its Guidelines for examination that artificial intelligence and machine learning “are based on computational models and algorithms” and applies the same approach as for mathematical methods and computer programs (provided in art. 52.2.a) and c) of the European Patent Convention). We also emphasize the importance of open source software collaborative environments for AI development, especially from the perspective of startups and SMEs. 4. The proposal to “explore ways to promote the sharing of privately held data whilst retaining return on investment” should be strictly correlated with other policies and existing legislation. We are underlining in our position on the Data Strategy that it is essential to preserve the voluntary nature of privately held data sharing, to avoid, among other unintended consequences, undermining the incentive to innovate. 5. Besides ensuring that “the Copyright Directive is implemented promptly”, we suggest that the EC should actively engage with the Member States in order to ensure a harmonized and coherent interpretation and application of this important legal framework. Legal clarity, including on fair use, is crucial for stakeholders. With reference to the proposal to ‘promote an efficient use of high quality rights-management metadata in the copyright market’, it is of critical importance an easy to use mechanism to identify rights owners in digital assets or online, perhaps through an industry-agreed rights management protocol. 6. When pursuing the objective to “harness the EU’s capacity to act as a global standard-setter in key areas such as IP and AI” one should also take into account that many AI systems, like the large majority of software solutions, are developed in a collaborative environment at global level. As mentioned in our position on the White Paper on AI, the developer community relies on open source software from both inside and outside the EU. Any new requirements affecting advanced software solutions deployed in the EU must consider the impact on existing practices and avoid putting EU developers at a disadvantage. The conflict of laws and different standards across jurisdictions represent an important barrier for ambitious technology start-ups and SMEs.
Read full response

Response to Legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces

27 Jul 2020

The free flow of data and strengthening the use and re-use of data in certain sectors have great potential to drive increased economic and societal benefits, but it should be done entirely under a voluntary approach. We reiterate our strong recommendation to base any future framework on the principle of voluntary sharing of data between individuals or businesses, in full respect of contractual freedom. Mandated sharing of data related assets between private actors may pose risks related to privacy and cybersecurity, but also inhibits the commercial incentive to innovate. The legislative initiative should not affect existing rights and obligations, such as IPRs, trade secrets or legitimate commercial interests. One of the problems that the proposed initiative seeks to address is the “low availability of data for research and innovative uses resulting from transaction costs that hinder data exchanges”, which “may result from the absence of relevant standards”. Standardization is always triggered by market demand and industry needs. The stakeholders will always attempt to find ways to satisfy this demand, by developing and utilizing the necessary tools, including technical standards. Therefore the markets should be left to find, in a natural way, the particular areas where data exchanges are needed and the best interoperability solutions. The IIA doesn’t indicate how the proposed initiatives correlate with the relevant European and international frameworks for standards development. Legal uncertainty and the burdens related to the implementation of the legal framework for data protection and privacy represent clear obstacles in data access and sharing for large and small companies, but especially for SMEs. In this sense, the IIA rightly identifies “the cost of giving and maintaining permissions on use of data (consent for personal data and permissions for other data)”. It should be noted that it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to separate personal from non-personal data and industrial data. The problem of making data available in accordance with the GDPR rules on consent can only be solved with clear legal solutions. A forced mandate for “certification or labelling of tools or apps for communicating data and consent” will not necessarily guarantee innovation and definitely will not solve the issues related to the legal uncertainty caused by the evolving GDPR implementation. It is very important to avoid overlaps between any new mechanisms with the current certification framework provided by art. 42 of the GDPR. The IIA is also proposing support “to be given to the commercial uptake of novel data intermediaries”. The future legal framework should be future-proof. One should let the market decide the best technologies and business models in this area. The IIA mentions that “when designing the options, conditions to data access from outside the EU will also have to be assessed”. We strongly recommend against any measures that impose data localisation or restrict EU companies from benefiting from global datasets. An obstruction of the data flows will prevent European developers from expanding their businesses at global scale. The future legislative proposal should be correlated with other initiatives and existing legislation both at the EU and national level. The potential cumulative burden for SMEs should be properly reflected by the impact assessment. We support the objective to “make more data held by the public sector usable for research and innovative uses”. The IA must consider, however, the difficult problems encountered by the public sector in this area, such as: a low level of digitalisation of administrative processes and certain public archives, the discrepancies between the level of digitalisation of different administrative sectors and between Member States and regions, or limited incentives for data normalisation and interoperability between different public services.
Read full response

Response to Digital Services Act: deepening the Internal Market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services

30 Jun 2020

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide its input on the IIA on Digital Services Act package. The future regulation governing the provision of online services in the EU should be fit-for-purpose and provide a clear and stable legal framework which will allow businesses to provide a diversity of products and services to consumers, in a safe way and with respect to fundamental rights. We fully agree with the Commissions’ evaluation, which confirms the validity of the main objectives and the core principles of the e-commerce directive, as an “underpinning basis”. The “country of origin principle”, freedom of establishment, freedom of cross-border digital services across the Single Market and the limited liability regime should be maintained. Furthermore, the liability regime should remain anchored in the notice and takedown mechanism based on “actual knowledge”. It is essential that the new framework provide legal clarity and certainty. This means, inter alia, a clear scope of application, including on the notions of “active” and “passive” hosts, that create considerable legislative uncertainty for online services and requires an update. The prohibition of general monitoring should be preserved as a guarantee for fundamental rights. The capabilities and limitations of different technologies should also be carefully considered. If the rules are such that a provider of online services will have no other alternatives than to use automated content filters to tackle illegal content, then the regulation will fail to provide a proportionate solution, endangering citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms or forcing smaller platforms out of the market. The updated rules should be flexible in order to allow online service providers to balance the fundamental values of safety, privacy, and freedom of expression for themselves and their users. As proposed by the second policy option, the new framework should “remove disincentives for their voluntary actions to address illegal content, goods or services they intermediate.” Also, it should avoid unnecessary burdens for small businesses, while taking into consideration the characteristics of different online services, the nature of the services they provide, and their targeted audience. A proportionate approach is recommended in establishing transparency and reporting obligations, and for enforcement as well. The regulation should not serve as a barrier to entry for new competitors in the market. The transparency requirements of algorithmic systems and online advertising should be carefully considered with respect to intellectual property rights, privacy and other relevant existing legal provisions. Businesses that operate or want to develop their operations across borders need a coherent set of rules across the entire Single Market. Harmonized oversight systems at the EU level, as described by the third policy option, could represent a solution in this sense. Correlation with sector-specific regulations is also necessary. Regarding the intention for extraterritorial application, the impact of conflict of laws should be considered, especially when it comes to provisions and constitutional principles related to freedom of expression (which varies outside the EU). An EU content regulation should not lead to the creation of an “European internet”, but should rather seek coherence with jurisdictions based on democratic values and allow companies to provide online services at a global level.
Read full response

Response to Digital Services Act package: ex ante regulatory instrument of very large online platforms acting as gatekeepers

30 Jun 2020

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide its feedback on the IIA on ex-ante regulation for large online platforms, as part of the Digital Services Act package. Software developers, like other entrepreneurs, need a predictable regulatory environment. The proposed regulatory initiative raises concerns from this perspective. The Platform-to-Business Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 already responds to issues faced by developers and other small businesses in the online platform environment. It provides them not only much needed transparency, but requires online intermediaries services to engage in fair commercial practices (e.g. notice periods, specific contractual terms, internal complaint systems). There is no evidence to show a drastic change is required before seeing the effects of the P2B regulation. Beyond this, current studies and investigations by competition authorities are already addressing specific complaints that relate to the issues mentioned by the IIA. There is no clear indication to suggest structural problems across digital markets that require a new horizontal regulation. The problems mentioned by the IIA seem more specific to certain sub-sectors or particular online platforms. The IIA recognizes the risk of overlapping with the proposed new competition tool and the need to ensure consistency. However it doesn’t explicitly mention the option to address the issues exclusively by competition policy, which is more targeted to specific issues. We also observe that the presumptions of the IIA are very biased, and the benefits of the online platform ecosystems are completely overlooked. There are multiple opportunities offered by these ecosystems to entrepreneurs, including growing their business in “adjacent markets”. We will provide our perspective and detailed comments on these aspects in the consultation. Short comments regarding the proposed options: Option 1 - The role of the EU Observatory on the Online Platform Economy is to evaluate whether more specific, sectoral rules will be needed and inform the review of the P2B Regulation. We propose to maintain the course of this legislative intervention, as set by art. 18 of the regulation. Option 2 - There is a high risk of overlapping with the existing powers of authorities at national level and also a subsidiarity issue. The transparency provided by the P2B Regulation benefits not only business users, but also national regulators (e.g. competition authorities, market surveillance authorities, authorities designated to ensure the implementation of P2B Regulation). Option 3 - 3a) As previously mentioned, a horizontal approach is not feasible due to the wide range of business models. The problems identified are more likely sector-specific or platform-specific. 3b) Establishing remedies via legislative intervention entails a high risk of unintended consequences, with an irreversible impact. Specific conduct by “large online platforms” may require intervention. Remedies are to be identified and applied after an appropriate case-by-case evaluation. The equilibrium of the markets can be restored only in a targeted way. Competition policy is the best answer for these problems. In conclusion, we strongly caution against this type of intrusive intervention on the market which could permanently change the European digital economy, creating new barriers to entry and growth. In such a situation, innovators and entrepreneurs will be incentivized to do business outside the EU where the business environment is more favourable. This will obviously have a negative impact on European consumer welfare. The decision to intentionally distort the market and its irreversible effects should be fully acknowledged and assumed by the co-legislators.
Read full response

Response to New competition tool

30 Jun 2020

Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide its feedback on the IIA on the New Competition Tool (NCT). Businesses, no matter the size and the market they’re active in, need a balanced and predictable environment. Obviously, software developers feel no different. They need to know the rules of the game, and have confidence that they won’t change arbitrarily. But a predictable business environment doesn’t necessitate government intervention, forced modification of the market, dismantling of profitable and innovative companies, or “directing” the successful business models and their number. In these situations one cannot consider that companies compete on the merits in a free market. A new instrument for competition policy should not be used to distort markets on purpose (for example to ensure more players or lower profits), according to an industrial policy agenda. That will only create an incentive for European entrepreneurs and innovators to do business elsewhere; where a more flexible environment which fosters and rewards the “successful mix” of hard work, innovation and investment exists. Winners in free markets are picked by consumers, not governments. With that said, case-by-case assessment and interventions against anti-competitive behavior should remain the sound basis for competition enforcement. As we mention in our contribution on the IIA on ex-ante regulation for large online platforms (part of the Digital Services Act package), the problems described seem specific to certain sub-sectors, markets, or companies, which could potentially call for targeted versus horizontal intervention. Existing competition policy is still the best answer for these problems. An ex-ante intervention could be effective if it is principles-based, hence future proof, tailored to each market. In this sense, an approach in the form of a code of conduct, complementary to the Platform-to-Business Regulation, would provide principle-based solutions and useful flexibility to encourage companies to adjust their behaviour. Codes of conduct should involve all affected players participating in the market under scrutiny. This approach, recommended by the UK Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel, could be complemented by specific ex ante-guidance for digital and other fast-moving markets, as proposed by the Joint Memorandum of the Benelux competition authorities. The coherent enforcement of such measures across the Single Market should be ensured by a central presence of DG COMP, supported by enhanced cooperation with and between Member States competition authorities and other national authorities (especially on data protection and consumer protection). Regarding the proposed policy options, all converge in the same direction. The distinction between the four options is illusory, since the tool could be applied in a discretionary way simply by re-defining industry segments in order to achieve whatever outcome political policy requires. We strongly recommend considering the approaches mentioned above instead. We will provide our input to the public consultation and we stand ready to contribute with our developer membership perspective further on. We suggest that the targeted stakeholder workshops should include a broad range of participants such as consumer organisations, and a broad range of representative industry players - including software developers.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Commission Notice on market definition in EU competition law

14 May 2020

1. The Developers Alliance welcomes the opportunity to provide the European Commission with comments on the Evaluation Roadmap of the Commission Notice on market definition in EU competition law. The Developers Alliance (https://www.developersalliance.org/) is the leading advocate for the global software developers workforce and the companies that depend on them, supporting the industry’s continued growth and promoting innovation. The Developers Alliance teams in Washington, DC, and Brussels work with members and policymakers to better understand industry and technological changes and to create an environment that promotes and rewards innovation. 2. We concur with the purpose of the evaluation, considering the context presented by the Commission. The proposed evaluation criteria should allow a comprehensive assessment of the fitness of the 1997 Commission Notice, but also of the adequacy of its application, in view of the economic and technological developments. 3. With regard to the consultation strategy, we notice that for the stakeholder consultation envisaged for Q2 2020, “a diverse group of stakeholders is expected to have valuable information and an interest in the evaluation”. A conference or workshop is also foreseen, for Q4 2020, “with technical experts as well as representatives from all main stakeholder groups on areas of particular interest for the review of the Market Definition Notice”. The declared objective of the stakeholder consultation is “to deliver an in-depth evaluation of high quality on whether the Market Definition Notice fulfilled its objectives (...) and whether there is a need to update it (...), in particular the digitalisation and the globalisation of the economy.” There are no details about the ‘technical experts’ that the Commission would like to invite to the conference/workshop. None of the five main categories of stakeholders that are mentioned includes software developers, different categories of experts - such as engineers, computer scientists, venture capital consultants, financing and investment experts, or innovators and entrepreneurs. These specialists are directly involved in the development of different technologies and digital ecosystems and their practical knowledge and expertise offer an accurate perspective of the digital economy. They should participate in all phases of the consultation. 4. Concerning the data collection and methodology, we agree with “the need to analyse new technical and market developments – mainly deriving from the digitisation and globalisation of the economy – that could have an influence on the competitive constraints faced by undertakings”. Hoewer, these developments should not be assessed only on the basis of the case practice of competition authorities and in academic research. The international developments in the regulatory area and their impact on the competitive environment should also be considered. The contributions of the above-mentioned categories of technical experts and specialists would provide an adequate understanding of the specifics and the dynamics of the digital markets, and of the development and marketing of digital goods. 5. Software developers are an important group of stakeholders that can provide an in-depth perspective of the essential elements of digital ecosystems they participate in and their evolution. They also represent one of the categories of players in different markets that can be affected by the remedies prescribed by the EU competition law enforcement. Developers Alliance looks forward to participating in the stakeholder consultation proposed by the Commission on the evaluation of the Notice on market definition in EU competition law.
Read full response

Response to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation

28 Apr 2020

Following the call for feedback on the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2 years after its entry into application, please find attached Developers Alliance's contribution.
Read full response

Meeting with Friedrich Wenzel Bulst (Cabinet of Commissioner Margrethe Vestager)

8 Feb 2018 · Digital Single Market

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

24 Jan 2018 · Platform to business relationships

Meeting with Kaius Kristian Hedberg (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska)

15 Dec 2017 · platform-to-business relations

Meeting with Stig Joergen Gren (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

12 Dec 2017 · Platforms

Response to Fairness in platform-to-business relations

22 Nov 2017

In response to the European Commission’s announcement of their intention to introduce new legislation to govern the relationship between platforms and businesses, the Developers Alliance surveyed over 110 European-based developers and publishers on their experiences, in an effort to gain a more robust understanding on their relationship with platforms and examine the need for regulatory intervention. The results of the survey serve as evidence for our response to the public consultation on the inception impact assessment on fairness in platform-to-business relations. The survey found that developers have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards platforms. Platforms are both conducive towards their success and responsive to their needs. The survey results also show that platforms do their best to service their users and help them grow. That is not to say developers do not face challenges; however, those challenges are not due to platforms misbehaving, or any conflict between publishers and platforms. It’s a byproduct of a constantly changing industry where best practices are constantly being rewritten and rendered obsolete as technology evolves. In such an environment, the only path to success for platforms and publishers alike is to work with one another. That can only happen if platforms are responsive, and those who work with platforms constantly tell us that they are. In our conversations with developers and publishers for this report, the theme that stood out the most was the one of transparency and the need for improved communication. Many developers explicitly stated this, particularly when it comes to reporting bugs or fixing Application Programming Interface (API) compatibility issues. Clearer and better explained guidelines would help mitigate those and other issues; for example, the app store review process. To be clear, this is an area that is seeing continuous improvement. Platforms are genuinely responsive and strive to serve their clients better; however, they also face a cacophony of issues on a daily basis from the companies they work with. It takes efforts like ours and the European Commission’s to help pinpoint specific areas of need that helps break through that noise and find macro-level improvements. In any case, the large majority of the developers and publishers we surveyed believe that the relationship between them and platforms is best handled within the industry, rather than through government intervention. There exists a real threat of unintended consequences and massive disruption from undue legislation. Unnecessary legislation can cause disruption by freezing in place a best practice at - or behind- the current level of technology or inducing unintended product delays and additional costs. While many publishing firms - and the developers who work for them- can shrug off these costs as the price of doing business, many smaller businesses and start-ups have much lower margins and much shorter runways. This has an even more insidious side effect of creating more uncertainty around newer companies, which discourages investment in small businesses and increases the gap between them and larger, more established companies. For these reasons, in order to improve relations between platforms and publishers, we advocate for industry-led efforts to better equip developers with the knowledge they need to make prudent business decisions. Platforms, along with other players in this space, can do a better job of being transparent with the processes they set up when it comes to entering into business relationships while still protecting proprietary information. The Developers Alliance will continue its efforts to help platforms generate best practices with a specific focus on communications and transparency. We encourage the European Commission to do the same, not through the heavy hand of legislation - which few in the mo
Read full response

Meeting with Eric Peters (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)

26 Sept 2017 · Introduction and EC Android Investigation

Meeting with Kamila Kloc (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

4 Sept 2017 · Market developments, competition

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

4 Sept 2017 · Competition in the Digital Ecosystem in the EU

Meeting with Szabolcs Horvath (Cabinet of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics)

29 Aug 2017 · Competition in the App ecosystem

Meeting with Michael Hager (Digital Economy) and DIGITALEUROPE and

20 Jan 2015 · Digital Agenda