OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Computer & Communications Industry Association

CCIA

CCIA is an international tech industry association representing computer, communications and internet companies in EU policy debates.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Marie Frenay (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

28 Nov 2023 · European Media Freedom Act

Meeting with Eleonora Ocello (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

27 Jun 2023 · Telecom and digital policies

Meeting with Simon Genevaz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

21 Jun 2023 · Open finance

CCIA Europe urges flexible and limited first-year DSA audits

2 Jun 2023
Topic — Drafting rules for independent audits of very large online platforms and search engines.
Message — CCIA requests a focus on existence rather than effectiveness of controls during first-year audits. They argue auditors should not give legal advice or dictate specific compliance actions. Non-binary obligations should be excluded until legal interpretations are settled by courts.12
Why — Platforms would avoid early negative reports and maintain discretion over their internal compliance measures.3
Impact — Vulnerable groups and civil society lose influence over how platforms assess systemic risks.4
Read full response

CCIA Europe demands strict safeguards for tech data sharing

30 May 2023
Topic — Establishing technical conditions for researcher access to data from very large online platforms.
Message — The organization requests that data access be limited to the minimum necessary while protecting confidential commercial information. They propose excluding sensitive materials like source code and making researchers liable for any data misuse.123
Why — This would protect their trade secrets and prevent proprietary information from being exposed to competitors.4
Impact — Academic researchers face increased legal liability and restricted access to platform data for their investigations.5
Read full response

CCIA Europe Demands Stronger Rights for Companies in Data Investigations

23 Mar 2023
Topic — The initiative aims to harmonize administrative procedures for cross-border GDPR enforcement cases.
Message — CCIA Europe requests judicial oversight of board decisions and stronger rights for defendants. They also suggest requiring companies' internal processes be used before filing complaints.12
Why — This would increase legal certainty and shield companies from overlapping regulatory enforcement.34
Impact — Complainants would face more bureaucracy and risk having their cases dismissed automatically.56
Read full response

CCIA Europe urges stronger legal safeguards for DSA investigations

16 Mar 2023
Topic — The European Commission is defining procedural rules for enforcing the Digital Services Act.
Message — The organization requests that an employee’s right to privacy should be respected during inspections. They argue the 50-page limit undermines the right of defence by hindering explanations. They also advocate for an oral hearing as part of the proceedings.123
Why — The changes help platforms protect business secrets and avoid multi-billion euro fines.45
Impact — The Commission loses flexibility to conduct fast investigations and quickly enforce rules.6
Read full response

CCIA Europe urges simpler foreign subsidy reporting rules

6 Mar 2023
Topic — This consultation establishes procedural rules for investigating foreign subsidies distorting the internal market.
Message — CCIA recommends exempting ordinary business transactions and classified information to minimize administrative burdens. They support using minimum value thresholds to simplify the administrative efforts for undertakings concerned. They also request a direct channel for subcontractors to protect sensitive business information.123
Why — These measures would reduce compliance costs and protect the industry's sensitive commercial data.45
Impact — EU regulators would lose visibility into financial contributions that fall below specific thresholds.6
Read full response

Response to Fighting against online piracy of live content

10 Feb 2023

Please find attached the Computer & Communications Industry Association's (CCIA Europe) feedback on the call for evidence on combating online piracy of live content.
Read full response

Response to Methodology for the calculation of the supervisory fee provided for in the Digital Services Act

19 Jan 2023

Please find attached the Computer & Communications Industry Association's (CCIA Europe) feedback on the draft delegated act on the methodology for calculating the supervisory fee.
Read full response

Response to DMA Implementing Regulation

9 Jan 2023

Please find attached the submission of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe)
Read full response

CCIA Europe urges safeguards against media content moderation loopholes

20 Dec 2022
Topic — EU legislation establishing a common framework for media services and pluralism.
Message — CCIA Europe recommends narrowing media provider definitions and improving self-declaration processes to prevent abuse. They also seek an 18-month implementation period to ensure alignment with existing laws.123
Why — Tech firms would avoid liability for hosting disinformation and reduce new regulatory costs.45
Impact — Mainstream media outlets would lose their guaranteed special status on internet platforms.6
Read full response

CCIA Europe urges narrower liability rules for software developers

9 Dec 2022
Topic — This consultation updates EU product liability rules for digital products and software.
Message — CCIA Europe calls for narrower definitions to exclude standalone software from strict liability. They recommend keeping financial thresholds and limiting liability to material damages. The group suggests shorter limitation periods that match the lifespan of digital products.123
Why — This would shield technology developers from unpredictable legal costs and heavy compliance burdens.45
Impact — Injured consumers would find it harder to obtain compensation for non-physical damages.67
Read full response

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

29 Sept 2022 · To learn more about the Commission President’s legislative plans for the Fall, notably on a possible internet traffic usage fee.

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

19 Sept 2022 · Contribution to network investment

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

16 Sept 2022 · Product liability directive

Meeting with Penelope Papandropoulos (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager), Penelope Papandropoulos (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager), Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager), Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

2 Jun 2022 · Telecom infrastructure fee, CSAM proposal, Digital Services Act.

Meeting with Monika Ladmanova (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová), Wojtek Talko (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

4 Apr 2022 · Political Advertising

Response to Fight against counterfeiting

2 Mar 2022

Please find attached the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) submission to the call for evidence on the EU toolbox against counterfeiting.
Read full response

Response to EU Competition law – revision of the market definition notice

16 Feb 2022

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments to the European Commission (Commission) in response to its call for evidence in relation to “updating its Market Definition Notice”. CCIA is an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms. For over fifty years, CCIA has promoted open markets, open systems, and open networks. Market definition in digitally enabled markets requires careful assessment. In particular, CCIA agrees with the purpose of the review, and the necessity of updating the Commission’s assessment of overlaps and competitive constraints which may have an impact on the scope of the relevant product and geographic market in light of the development of the digital economy. The focus of this contribution is on the assessment of the relationship between market definition and market power. CCIA's contribution is attached.
Read full response

Tech Industry Urges Clarity in EU Political Advertising Rules

31 Jan 2022
Topic — EU regulation on transparency and targeting of political advertising.
Message — The association requests clearer definitions of political ads and political actors to avoid legal uncertainty. They argue the current broad definitions leave too much room for interpretation and could capture influencers and social issue ads.123
Why — This would reduce legal uncertainty and compliance burdens for their member companies.45
Read full response

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

26 Jan 2022 · Data Act, Artificial Intelligence Act, Digital Service Act

Response to Revision of the EU competition rules on horizontal agreements

2 Jul 2021

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes this opportunity to provide comments to the European Commission (EC) Inception Impact Assessment for the Revision of the Revision of the two Block Exemption Regulations for horizontal cooperation agreements and the Horizontal Guidelines (HBER). CCIA represents large, medium, and small companies in the high technology products and services sectors, including computer hardware and software, electronic commerce, telecommunications, and Internet products and services. CCIA is committed to protecting and advancing the interests of our members, the industry as a whole, as well as society’s beneficial interest in open markets, open systems and open networks. CCIA supports the HBER’s objective to increase legal certainty for companies that cooperate in ways that do not harm the competitive process. Our views on specific aspects of the IIA are below: (a) CCIA agrees with the need to ensure that the HBER accurately reflects case law as developed over time. (b) A focus on SMEs is warranted since they tend to have fewer resources and experience dealing with the complexities of competition law and are thus best placed to benefit from the HBER. Nevertheless, market share thresholds of the HBER should in most circumstances already cover most SMEs. (c) With regards to facilitating more beneficial R&D agreements by all types of market participants, CCIA supports the Commission’s intention to explore limitations to the requirement(s) of full access to the results and/or access to pre-existing know–how. Market participants often decide to take on projects, such as R&D expenditure, where the necessary costs to earn a return on an investment, the market value of the investment, and the appropriability of that investment, are hard to predict. Facilitating this risk-taking by allowing some restraints can, overall, increase economic output and innovation. CCIA agrees with the Commission’s concern that mandated access and forced sharing can have a chilling effect on the conclusion of horizontal cooperation agreements, which could be beneficial to consumers and may contribute to increasing innovation, research and competitiveness in the EU. (d) With regards to new market developments, CCIA supports additional guidance on assessing unproblematic data pooling and data sharing arrangements, and clearer definitions of terms particularly as related to digital technologies which sometimes require significant investment but which are not necessarily protected by patents, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights. We look forward to further contributions in support of the Commission’s efforts to increase legal certainty with the HBER.
Read full response

Response to Data Act (including the review of the Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases)

24 Jun 2021

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (‘CCIA Europe’) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the policy options which the European Commission (‘Commission’) is considering ahead of its proposal for a new Data Act. CCIA Europe remains a staunch supporter of policies fostering greater data access and re-use among public and private sectors which can drive social improvements and economic innovations in Europe. We commend the European Commission’s goal to create a Single Market for data, where data flows between countries and sectors, and where data is available for use in full respect of European values and rules. You will find below a summary of our comments to the various policy options under consideration. Our supplementary comments are enclosed. 1) B2G data-sharing: CCIA Europe encourages the European Commission to introduce an EU-wide, off-the-shelf, and voluntary B2G data-sharing framework model, in full compliance with existing laws and regulations. Such a framework model would provide legal certainty and facilitate on-going and future negotiations for data-sharing agreements across the EU. However, CCIA Europe cautions against any form of mandated B2G data-sharing. Any expropriation of companies’ investments and subsequent free-riding by public bodies would achieve the opposite of “fairness in the data economy”, and raise serious questions about companies’ incentives to invest time, technology and resources in collecting, transforming, and enriching datasets. 2) B2B data-sharing: The Data Act should remain proportionate to that objective without disrupting the foundational principles of an open market economy with free competition which creates private economic incentives to invest and innovate in data collection and processing, the fundamental freedom to conduct a business, and the freedom to contract. CCIA Europe invites the European Commission to consider that any type of B2B data sharing obligation be limited to instances where competition law enforcement cannot address the issue. 3) Data portability for consumer connected products: CCIA Europe cautions against mandating “real-time” and seamless data portability without first taking into account the obvious technical challenges which it raises, including user authentication, data import and export eligibility, data format, and exchange protocols. CCIA Europe also urges the European Commission to carefully consider the privacy impact that overly broad portability requirements may present for data that reveal information about both sides of a commercial transaction or digital experience. CCIA Europe encourages the European Commission to facilitate an industry-led Code of Conduct for B2C services, similar to the B2B SWIPO Codes of Conduct. In addition, data portability would be greatly facilitated if service providers had greater legal certainty. This is currently not the case with the 2017 EDPB guidelines on data portability. 4) Cloud switching: CCIA Europe has long supported the SWIPO Codes of Conduct for cloud infrastructure and software switching. It is too premature to either mandate the Codes of Conduct via model clauses, or introduce new legal requirements on cloud service interoperability. The EU should advertise and support the Codes, i.e. by adding them to the upcoming cloud rulebook. 5) Government data access: Extraterritorial government and data access laws are a global phenomenon which require multi-lateral safeguards. Any unilateral measures such as those contemplated under the IIA risk pre-empting and potentially conflicting with the outcome of on-going intergovernmental initiatives such as the 2nd protocol to the Budapest Convention, or the on-going OECD process on principles for government data access. For further information, please contact Alexandre Roure, Senior Manager, Public Policy, CCIA Europe: aroure@ccianet.org.
Read full response

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

5 May 2021

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes this opportunity to provide feedback on the European Commission’s proposal for a Digital Markets Act (DMA). CCIA represents large, medium, and small companies in the high technology products and services sectors, including computer hardware and software, electronic commerce, telecommunications, and Internet products and services. CCIA is committed to protecting and advancing the interests of our members, the industry as a whole, as well as society’s beneficial interest in open markets, open systems and open networks. On 11 March CCIA published its position paper addressing the underlying principles and governance framework of the DMA. CCIA supports the objectives of the DMA proposal. CCIA believes that in order to meet its stated goals, the DMA should protect the open market economy and free competition, preserve dynamic competition and innovation for the benefit of consumers, preserve business freedom, prevent distortive regulatory dependencies, and ensure a framework for digital economy regulation that will provide legal certainty and harmonisation. CCIA's position paper provides constructive suggestions to help the DMA achieve this while ensuring effective and proportionate enforcement for the benefit of consumers in the internal market. The full position paper is available at the below link: https://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-03-11-CCIA_Position_on_DMA_Principles_and_Governance.pdf On 12 April economic experts Drs. Teece and Kahwaty of the Berkeley Research Group (BRG) published a report prepared for CCIA titled “Is the Proposed Digital Markets Act the Cure for Europe’s Platform Ills? Evidence from the European Commission’s Impact Assessment”. The report finds that “Instead of allowing for dynamic competition to continue between platforms, the DMA would reinforce existing market structures with regulation, ossify market boundaries, and stunt innovation in Europe.” The full report is available at the below link and is attached to this submission: https://media.thinkbrg.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/11215103/Is-the-DMA-the-Cure_Teece_Kahwaty.pdf CCIA urges the European Commission to carefully consider the findings of the BRG report alongside CCIA’s recommendations for achieving an effective and proportionate DMA as laid out in its position paper. We look forward to working with the Commission to ensure good regulatory outcomes for Europe.
Read full response

Response to Guidance on tackling disinformation

29 Apr 2021

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) and its members are fully committed to tackling the dissemination of disinformation and we welcome the European Commission (EC) goal to strengthen the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (“the Code”). We believe that strengthening of the Code is an opportunity to promote a wider adoption of this important tool based on a clear scope and objectives; flexible, widely-recognized and future-proof definitions; and clear metrics. Clarifying those should be the first priority for the new iteration of the Code to ensure its consistent application and positive impact. It is, moreover, important to limit the incentives for establishing national initiatives that might increase legal fragmentation with potential negative effects on the Single Market. Several CCIA members have signed the Code and they are committed to develop effective measures to reduce disinformation. Since its adoption, the Code has proved to be an effective powerful risk-mitigating instrument to fight the spread of disinformation, reinforcing the responsibility and accountability of all the involved signatories. We support the EC’s multilateral approach which creates room for discussions among different parties, notably the EU institutions and digital service providers. We consider the ability to involve many different actors as a critical element for the success of the Code. It will therefore be key to maintain a certain level of flexibility within the Code and to take into consideration the differences (resources, capabilities, business models, reach, etc.) among all the possible signatories. The ability to compare the results of the Code should not come at the expense of the signatories’ capability to draft and enforce policies that will be the most helpful in combating misinformation on their platforms. It should be pivotal to assess whether the signatories are meeting the objectives of the Code, rather than comparing quantitative and qualitative criteria and KPIs. Reporting requirements should also be agreed upon and predictable to ensure signatories invest resources into meeting the Code's objectives. While providing more transparency is important, we believe that meaningful transparency should not come at the expense of users’ privacy or the risk of enabling bad actors to abuse the system. We also encourage the EC to avoid an overly prescriptive approach. We also encourage the EC to work closely with the various players to refine some aspects of the Code by adopting a clear and proportionate Guidance. This should take into account the positive results already achieved and the Digital Services Act (DSA) proposal. While we support a consistent and coordinated application of these two instruments (the Code and the DSA), some provisions of the DSA proposal would require further clarification. For example, it might be not appropriate to impose highly-prescriptive audit requirements on all the Codes of Conduct adopted within the DSA framework considering the voluntary nature of these tools and their specificities. We also urge careful assessment to avoid contradictory reporting obligations. It will be very important, especially for the signatories of the Code falling into the scope of the DSA, to avoid inconsistent overlaps in terms of requirements and compliance processes. Similarly it is crucial to make sure that the Code will also be consistent with the European Democracy Action Plan and the upcoming proposal on political advertising. To conclude, CCIA welcomes the objective of strengthening the Code of Practice on Disinformation and we stand ready to share industry experiences and provide constructive suggestions. We look forward to working with policymakers and to exchanging information on how to address disinformation in the most effective way.
Read full response

Response to Revision of certain procedural aspects of EU merger control

23 Apr 2021

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes the opportunity to share its comments on the European Commission (EC) inception impact assessment “Merger control in the EU – further simplification of procedures”. CCIA agrees with the merger evaluation findings that there may be additional cases that are typically unproblematic which are currently not captured by the simplified procedure and that information requirements may be too extensive in certain circumstances. CCIA supports further targeting of EU merger control by expanding, but also clarifying the scope of cases falling under the simplified procedure as set out in the Notice on Simplified Procedure. In particular, CCIA supports shortening the pre-notification phase, increasing legal certainty for the notification of cases directly without pre-notification, and streamlining the review of non-simplified cases where appropriate. CCIA also supports fully digital notifications, including digital signatures. CCIA would further support an impact assessment for what the EC calls a “reappraisal” of Article 22 of the Merger Regulation, and the EC’s corresponding “change in approach” for referral of concentrations below national jurisdictional thresholds, embodied in its guidance of 31 March 2021 “Guidance on the application of the referral mechanism set out in Article 22 of the Merger Regulation to certain categories of cases” (2021/C 113/01). According to the EC’s Better Regulation Guidelines, “[f]or major initiatives … roadmaps or inception impact assessments must be finalised and published as quickly as possible. They explain to external stakeholders what the Commission is considering and allow them to provide early feedback.” CCIA is not aware of any roadmap or impact assessment having been done, or any opportunity being given for industry stakeholders to comment on this change, despite the significant expansion of EC jurisdiction that this decision entails, the inevitable extraterritorial effects, and significant reductions in legal certainty. In this respect, CCIA notes recital 11 of the Merger Regulation stating that the rules governing the referral of concentrations should “take due account of legal certainty and the ‘one-stop shop’ principle”. CCIA fears that, in the absence of an impact assessment and stakeholder consultation, such due account may not have been taken.
Read full response

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

3 Mar 2021

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback. Please find attached the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe)'s position paper on the Digital Services Act. We believe the DSA to be an opportunity to create a better functioning EU Digital Single Market, provide clarity on everyone’s responsibilities, and safeguard online rights. We look forward to working with policy-makers and providing information on how industry counteracts illegal content, products, services, and activities on intermediary services while safeguarding users’ fundamental rights. We stand ready to work with the EU institutions to tackle any remaining challenges that existing initiatives haven’t solved.
Read full response

Tech Industry Urges Self-Regulation Over New EU Political Ad Rules

22 Feb 2021
Topic — EU proposal for greater transparency in sponsored political content and political advertising.
Message — The association requests clear EU-level rules defining political advertising, cross-border frameworks, and advertiser standards, but emphasizes self-regulatory approaches over new legislation. They argue existing initiatives like the Digital Services Act should be evaluated first before adding new requirements.123
Why — This would allow members to avoid new compliance burdens while relying on voluntary measures already implemented.456
Read full response

Response to Digital Levy

10 Feb 2021

CCIA strongly supports efforts at the G20/OECD-level to reform the international corporate tax framework. This remains the optimal forum to address tax challenges linked to the digitalisation of the economy. The renewed U.S. and EU support for this historic undertaking holds the promise of developing a durable global tax reform. We appreciate the European Commission (EC) IIA’s acknowledgement of this process in its “baseline scenario”. The EC will be instrumental in ensuring a harmonised and effective implementation of the multilateral framework across the EU. Lawmakers should, however, refrain from enacting unilateral measures that risk triggering tax and trade disputes that derail multilateral efforts. Unfortunately, the three outlined policy options in the IIA appear to violate the goals of the ongoing international process. We therefore encourage the EU to focus its efforts on delivering a timely globally agreed solution. Any new EU initiatives must be based on reliable evidence. Unfortunately, the IIA repeats several misconceptions. Notably, the IIA alleges that digital companies “pay less tax compared to more traditional businesses.” This argument appears based on a 2017 study. The authors have clarified that the study does not calculate effective average tax rates using tax information for actual companies or sectors and cannot be used to compare the tax burdens of digital and traditional companies. The lead author has said that “it is not correct to state that the digital sector is undertaxed” and that “effective tax rates for digital and traditional businesses cannot be compared one-by-one”. More relevant studies have, in fact, found that so-called digital companies already pay their fair share of taxes. Finally, U.S. multinationals are, unlike European firms, already subject to a minimum tax on their overseas earnings. The IIA also makes the unsubstantiated assertion that user involvement in digital services somehow represents value creation. The real value of a digital service is the software and business model created by a company. The collection and analysis of user data is moreover not unique to so-called digital services. A similar use can be observed in retail, logistics, and other sectors. The digital transformation is transforming all economic sectors. Any new measures must be based on objective criteria and not arbitrarily target certain business models. Similarly, perceived “market power” issues can already be addressed under existing EU competition enforcement rules. More positively, the IIA confirms that any initiative must comply with the EU’s international trade commitments. The EU digital levy aims to increase the 'own resources' component of the EU budget but these funding sources are typically broad-based and sustainable. Pursuing a digital-only levy seems self-defeating when the OECD settlement will require digital taxes to be abandoned. Digital tools, such as video conferencing and e-commerce services have helped keep Europe open for business during physical lockdowns. The EU has identified the importance of digital tools to Europe’s economic recovery and earmarked 20% of the new EU recovery fund to digital projects. The IIA correctly identifies that a possible digital levy would impact Europe’s “competitivenes and GDP, as the initiative is likely to affect investment decisions and productivity”. The IIA also notes that European “consumers” and “business engaging and operating in the digital economy” would be economically impacted. Recent studies have indeed found that digital taxes “will mostly be borne by consumers and businesses that use digital marketplaces”. Raising taxes for EU companies and consumers during an economic downturn would harm Europe’s economic recovery. The EU should only consider a digital levy in the event of a lack of global consensus. In this event, the EU initiative should build on the OECD design principles and be profits-based and non-discriminatory in its scope.
Read full response

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

10 Feb 2021 · DSA, DMA, AI, data

Response to Collective bargaining agreements for self-employed – scope of application EU competition rules

3 Feb 2021

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes this opportunity to offer comments. We support the European Commission’s (EC) objective to provide legal certainty for self-employed workers and to ensure that EU competition law does not undermine collective bargaining. The upcoming consultation by the EC should primarily focus on examining if there is any need for intervention. Collective negotiations may not be needed to ensure appropriate worker welfare as platforms have a business interest and motivation to compete for workers. The existing framework allows for collective bargaining and we already have seen two recent examples under the existing framework: (1) in Denmark, the local Chamber of Commerce and the United Federation of Danish Workers signed an agreement that would provide food delivery drivers with a fixed salary, a pension and sick pay — should their platform choose to sign up; (2) in Sweden a food delivery company (Foodora) came to an agreement with the Swedish Transport Workers’ Union, with the agreement including a fixed salary and working hours. While improved legal guidance and certainty is always welcome, particular features of the digital economy suggest a need for less intervention than in the non-digital context. First of all, self-employed workers have many choices available to them, both between digital intermediaries and increasingly also other short-term flexible work options. As between digital intermediaries, there is significant variation in the contractual terms. Digital intermediaries generally do not restrict access to their applications other than the restrictions imposed by national regulations. Service providers are, therefore, free to choose when, where and if they will work. CCIA members’ commercial contracts with their service providers include a non-exclusivity clause, meaning that self-employed can use multiple apps or set up their own businesses. Service providers value this flexibility, which would not be feasible in a traditional employment relationship in most countries. Self-employed individuals using online platforms to provide their services often have different interests depending on their personal situation/preferences (e.g. working time or use of multi-homing), and the potential existence of another primary form of employment. The latter should particularly be considered, as many platform workers use the platform to complement other sources of income. The Commission should also assess the effect of any potential change to the broader sector and neighboring sectors of the economy. In this respect, it is important to note that there are different business factors across the collaborative economy that affect prices such as promotional campaigns to generate demand or initiative to ameliorate the working conditions. Moreover, platforms assess the level of supply and demand, allowing it to optimize the price to match the benefits for both the customer and the service providers. In such settings, reducing the intermediaries’ flexibility and ability to compete on a variety of dimensions would likely cause consumer harm. For the above reasons, CCIA advocates for a channel-neutral approach, regardless of whether the self-employed provides its services ‘offline’ or ‘online’. We believe that a fragmented approach would not benefit the ‘gig economy’/platform workers nor businesses. Creating different regimes for individuals who provide their services through platforms or other mediums in the ¨off-line economy¨ would create arbitrary distinctions and could slow Europe’s digital transformation. Additional legal certainty would benefit all self-employed workers, regardless of their type of services. Additionally and given the lack of worker exclusivity in the broader sector, the Commission should assess whether a horizontal approach would be a better fit to ensure that self-employed have access to social protections no matter how they provide their services.
Read full response

Response to Child sexual abuse online: detection, removal and reporting

24 Dec 2020

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) appreciates the European Commission for the work on the EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse. We welcome this opportunity to provide comments. Our Members are unreservedly committed to fight against child sexual abuse online. We support the European Commission’s objectives to more effectively fight against child sexual abuse and to set out a comprehensive EU response against child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) online and offline. Like other general purposes technologies before it, the Internet can be misused. Rogue players seek to inflict harm on others, for instance through the dissemination of child sexual abuse material. Our members continuously invest resources in technology and human review to keep their services trustworthy and safe from rogue players. Companies regularly review their policies and programmes to prevent the dissemination of CSAM. The upcoming Regulation should provide sufficient legal basis for online platforms to continue to operate their child safety efforts and without being penalised for their good faith when doing so. A stronger and properly balanced EU harmonisation would provide greater legal clarity and reduce the growing compliance burden of stemming from divergent Member State initiatives. A common EU framework would also strengthen the effectiveness of the fight against child sexual abuse. We encourage the European Commission to also ensure consistency with the broader legislative framework and with EU proposals currently being discussed, such as the Digital Services Act. To provide legal certainty, it’s crucial to align the forthcoming Regulation with any new proposal tackling illegal content online. It is also important to highlight that each online platform is different and each thus takes different actions to address child sexual abuse on its services. A one-size-fits-all framework wouldn’t reflect the varied and dynamic nature of online communications. To effectively address child sexual abuse both online and offline, we believe that any initiative should reflect the multitude of actors involved. Expertise and best practices should be shared among the many involved entities such as governments, regulators, civil society, online platforms, as well as the general public. Finally, enforcement is key to success. If a specific oversight body is created, we would suggest to clearly outline the type of body, areas to cover, and mission statement. This potential EU body should strengthen the existing frameworks, and not hinder global initiatives. To conclude, CCIA welcomes the European Commission’s objective to improve the fight against child sexual abuse and we stand ready to share industry experiences and provide constructive suggestions. The Regulation is an opportunity to limit the dissemination of CSAM and provide Europe with a robust framework. We look forward to working with policymakers and to exchange information on how to address child sexual abuse online and offline. Kind regards, Victoria de Posson Senior Manager, Public Policy, CCIA
Read full response

Response to Commission Implementing Decision on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to third countries

10 Dec 2020

CCIA welcomes the timely publication of the draft Standard Contractual Clauses (‘SCC’) implementing decision. We generally support the current draft and believe it will pave the way towards greater legal certainty for the vast majority of data transfers outside the European Economic Area. However, we are concerned that some aspects of the draft implementing decision and the draft Clauses are impractical, while others go beyond the CJEU Schrems II decision and the GDPR. 1. Transition period: under Article 6(3), it is unclear whether organisations contracting with new customers after the entry into force of the new SCC would benefit from the one year transition period, and what a “change” of contract means. A one-year transition period will not be enough time for many businesses which rely on thousands of contracts with different parties. Considering that the CJEU upheld the current SCC implementing decision, the European Commission may wish to consider introducing some flexibility for parties which are currently using or will use updated SCCs. 2. Suspensive effect of a transfer suspension/ban decision: Section II, Clause 6(d) should be clarified to only require the data importer to immediately suspend transfers pursuant to a Supervisory Authority decision if it chooses not to appeal or if all avenues for an appeal have been exhausted. 3. Challenging government data requests when it makes sense: Section II, Clause 3(3.2) should clarify that data importers should challenge conflicting third-country data access requests where there is a realistic chance of success. 4. Consistency between processing agreements and SCC: Modules 2 and 3 should be consistent with Article 28 GDPR to avoid confusion and possible renegotiations of existing processing agreements that would further delay the implementation of the new SCC. 5. Meaningful transparency: It should be clear in Recitals 4 and 11 of the draft implementing decision that data subjects may receive a copy of the SCC upon request, consistent with the Clauses in the Annex. 6. Realistic provision for processor-processor module: Processor-processor SCC should only govern relationships between processors and sub-processors. Sub-processors should not have to interact with controllers or data subjects in P2P transfers. 7. Module identification and SCC implementation for parties with multiple roles: It should clarify how exporters and importers should sign SCC where one of the parties mainly act as a processor but also qualify as a controller for any value-added services it may provide its client. Finally, CCIA invites the European Commission to consider providing country-to-country guidance on foreign laws and practices which do not “respect the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms, [...] exceed what is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society to safeguard one of the objectives listed in Article 23(1) GDPR [and] contradict the Clauses.” Such guidance would be of significant value to companies in scrutinising their own data transfers to these jurisdictions. You will find CCIA’s detailed comments in attachment.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation

20 Nov 2020

CCIA supports the EC’s efforts to adapt the VBER to market developments and make it simpler and clearer and to avoid divergent interpretations. Digital distribution models have been growing over the last years and will continue to grow. Consumers benefit from an abundance of choice on digital shelves. Prices are driven down by vigorous competition between suppliers on digital intermediaries that make it easier than ever for consumers to learn about the products, services, and sellers they choose to deal with. Digital intermediaries pass on the benefits of their scale, network and learning effects, and dramatically lower transaction costs for small and medium sized enterprises across the EU single market. These benefits are particularly important given the existence of supply constraints in certain geographies (DG GROW “Study on territorial supply constraints in the EU retail sector”, 19 November 2020). CCIA notes that multi-sided business models present unique analytical features and that judgments of the CJEU affirm that restraints which may appear to reduce competition, but are necessary precisely in order to enable market forces to function, should be allowed. In this respect, CCIA welcomes the possibility of engaging with the EC in discussions on concrete instances where certain restraints may be justified. On areas of further in-depth assessment: Dual distribution is not problematic. Digital intermediaries invest heavily to attract customers and suppliers to their service. Sometimes this requires subsidising one side of the service, or even entering as a supplier of particular niche products to fulfill unmet demand and grow the customer base. This is common offline as well, but in e-commerce most of the revenue generated by dual-role intermediaries is from third-party suppliers. Accordingly, digital intermediaries’ interests are closely aligned with those of suppliers. At the same time, suppliers increasingly use digital services to attract customers and then compete with those services by selling directly to consumers using their own online channels (so-called “D2C”). Selective distribution systems should not be designed to restrict active sales via online channels, particularly where the nature of the products sold does not justify such restriction. Digital ecosystems are increasingly capable of addressing concerns about how products are displayed (e.g. with the use of augmented reality and other virtual technologies). Indirect measures restricting online sales should not benefit from block exemption. EU Courts have held that online sales bans are hard-core restraints as they are equivalent to a restriction of both active and passive sales. Like direct online sales bans, online marketplace bans (“OMBs”) often constitute an unnecessary restriction of resellers’ ability to reach a greater number and variety of customers, and should also be considered a hard-core restraint requiring individual assessment. Indirect restrictions on online sales, such as dual pricing or the equivalence principle, may have the same effect as direct bans. These indirect measures should also be subject to individual assessment, because procompetitive justifications for such restrictions are likely achieved through less restrictive alternatives, such as direct payments for costs of physical sales. Parity obligations should continue to be block-exempted. Parity obligations such as MFNs continue to address significant market failures by preventing free riding on the customer-specific investments made by digital intermediaries. This is particularly true of narrow parity clauses or absent significant market power. Finally, CCIA submits that the EC should consider the VBER in a manner consistent with other pending legislation including the “Digital Markets Act”, and in particular with respect to the treatment of OMBs and the possible designation of certain online intermediaries as essential online channels (“digital gatekeepers”).
Read full response

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

10 Sept 2020

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the European Commission’s inception impact assessment on Artificial Intelligence (AI). We support the Commission’s aim to “create trust and incentivise the use of such AI systems by citizens and businesses”. We agree that AI “can contribute to a wide array of economic and societal benefits”. Like any other technology, risks lie not in the AI application itself, but in its usage. We therefore support a regulatory focus on “high risk” use cases. Comments on policy options: Option 0: No EU policy change: AI is already subject to EU legislation and we therefore encourage EU lawmakers to ensure that existing law is properly implemented before proposing any new AI-specific regulation. Option 1: EU “soft law”: We support this approach and agree that it can “facilitate and spur industry-led intervention”. Option 2: EU legislative instrument setting up a voluntary labelling scheme: While in principle in favor of such voluntary measures, we would caution that any such scheme would have to; remain voluntary; focus only on low risk applications, and; must not place a costly administrative burden nor delay time to market. We must avoid overburdening developers and startups given their minimal resources. Option 3a: EU legislation limited to a specific category of AI applications only, e.g. remote biometric identification (RBI) systems: We agree that some use cases of RBI systems could be considered high risk, and therefore warrant mandatory requirements. However, facial recognition technologies can also be used to reduce risks, e.g. a search for missing persons on the Internet or secure login on a smartphone. We would caution against focusing on regulating a specific technology, given that there is no risk inherent to a technology, and instead recommend a clear emphasis on specific “high risk” use cases to address specific and known risks and harms. The Commission can build on, without duplicating, existing specific vertical legislations that already identify specific risks, e.g. in the areas of medical devices and transportation. 3b: EU legislation limited to “high-risk” AI applications: We support the Commission’s risk-based approach and the distinction between high and low risk AI systems. We would suggest a clear and narrow definition of “high risk” applications, with emphasis on specific (high risk) use cases rather than blanket categories of technologies. Inspiration can be drawn from existing EU sectoral legislation as mentioned above. 3c: EU legislative act covering all AI applications: We would oppose this option which would be disproportionate, overburdensome, and run counter to stated goals to make the EU a leader in the data economy. This would also ignore the necessary risk-based approach of linked EU policies, e.g. GDPR. We finally would caution against considering significantly expanding the scope of the future AI regulation to the open ended category of “automated decision making.” This would go against the initial, thoughtful direction proposed in the AI White Paper that proposes to focus on the risk-based, double-criterion for sectorial and application/use-based AI technologies. Option 4: Combination of any of the options above taking into account the different levels of risk: We support a combination of policy options, notably we favor the main elements of options 0, 1, 3a, and 3b. Enforcement: Ex ante and/or ex post: We support a combination of ex ante and ex post enforcement. Ex ante self-assessment and testing procedures should be based on clear due diligence guidance from regulators made against recognised global standards. Authorities can moreover conduct ex post intervention when required and in limited circumstances. We would finally caution against any bureaucratic, lengthy, ex-ante assessments. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We stand ready to provide further information.
Read full response

Response to Review of the general product safety directive

31 Aug 2020

Please find our contribution attached.
Read full response

Response to European Democracy Action Plan

27 Aug 2020

Please find our contribution attached.
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

13 Aug 2020

Please find attached our contribution
Read full response

Response to Revision of the NIS Directive

13 Aug 2020

CCIA represents a wide range of suppliers and users of Digital Services and Essential Services, and we welcome the opportunity to contribute to the review of the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive. The NIS Directive has contributed to a higher level of security of network and information systems in Europe to the extent that it mandates all Member States to adopt national cybersecurity strategies and set up governance models and bodies to manage cybersecurity threats and attacks in critical sectors of their economies. The NIS Directive also rightly differentiates the regulatory requirements and enforcement mechanisms between essential and digital services. However, we share the European Commission’s observation that Member States have implemented the NIS Directive very differently from one another, in particular with respect to (a) the scope and identification of Operators of Essential Services (OES) and Digital Service Providers (DSP) subject to the security and incident reporting obligations under NIS, (b) the thresholds of service criticality, and (c) incident reporting obligations for OES (timeline, form, granularity of the reports). We also observe opaque national procedures applicable to OES, including a lack of transparency on the identification of OES. CCIA therefore supports a combination of further guidance (Option 2) and targeted legislative changes (Option 3) to consolidate and harmonise parts of the existing NIS Directive and encourage further information sharing among stakeholders and Member States authorities. Based on our Members’ experience, we believe that the following 3 principles could help guide the European Commission in this review process: (1) The implementation experience of the NIS Directive is still relatively new for many actors, from DSPs, OES and their suppliers, to national competent authorities. This review should focus on improving the existing framework and resolving the shortcomings of its implementation rather than expanding its scope; (2) If everything is critical, nothing is. Targeted amendments should generally preserve the differentiated, risk-based approach of the NIS Directive, including more prescriptive but harmonised requirements and oversight mechanisms for essential services; (3) Targeted amendments should refer to services rather than the entities providing those services. Companies of all sizes will often provide multiple services - some of which may be within scope, some which may not be. The identification process should therefore be focused on confirming which services (provided by a given entity) are within scope. We provide additional and specific suggestions for improvement in the attached document. For further information, please contact Alexandre Roure, Senior Public Affairs Manager at CCIA at aroure(at)ccianet.org
Read full response

Response to Strengthening of Europol’s mandate

9 Jul 2020

CCIA welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Europol mandate inception impact assessment. Over the years, many CCIA Members have built a trusted relationship with Europol and regularly assist the agency in tackling cross-border criminal activities, particularly counter-terrorism, child exploitation imagery and cybercrimes. We take note of the call from Member States of “the urgent operational need for Europol to request and receive data directly from private parties, while respecting the supporting role of Europol with regard to the actions carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States”. As the Commission contemplates additional purposes of processing for Europol to better support national competent authorities, CCIA recommends formalising the existing voluntary cooperation between Europol and private parties to minimise the chances of overlaps or conflicts with existing instruments (EIO, e-Evidence) and to ensure that Europol continues to support the competent law enforcement authorities. Our attached comments focus on data requests and cooperation with private parties (“problem 1” as referred in the inception impact assessment), as well as the expansion of the scope of processing purposes by Europol to the extent that the said processing pertains to private parties’ customer data. For further information, please contact Alexandre Roure, Senior Manager, Public Policy: aroure@ccianet.org
Read full response

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

30 Jun 2020

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Digital Services Act’s instrument aiming at deepening the internal market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services. Please find our contribution attached. The DSA should be a horizontal, principle-based legislative initiative, which could be complemented by targeted measures (legislative, non-legislative, and co-regulatory) tackling specific concerns. Obligations should be achievable, and proportionate to known risks. This should also reflect the need for sufficient protections for users’ rights of freedom to do business and freedom of speech, and to prevent over-blocking as the default response to obligations and any regulatory oversight. CCIA would be pleased to provide additional information. We thank you for your consideration.
Read full response

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

30 Jun 2020

CCIA appreciates the Inception Impact Assessment’s ("IIA") acknowledgement of the “wide consensus concerning the benefits for consumers and innovation, and a wide-range of efficiencies, brought about by online platforms in the European Union’s internal market.” Nevertheless, CCIA agrees that there is a need for action at the EU level to safeguard an effectively functioning digital single market from the risk of regulatory fragmentation. CCIA also supports the Commission’s “overarching policy objective ... to ensure a fair trading environment and increase the innovation potential and capacity across the online platform ecosystems in the EU’s single market.” To that end, the IIA states that increasing the “contestability” of online platform ecosystems “would have a positive impact on innovation and research, technological development and growth of the digital economy.” CCIA submits that an overbroad interpretation of “contestability”, i.e. limitations on ecosystem growth, would in fact have a negative impact on these dimensions, for three main reasons: First, large digital ecosystems have driven the growth of the digital economy. In the digital environment, where choices are abundant, consumers often prefer convenience, consistency, and a one-stop-shop experience. These efficiencies lower transaction costs, increase consumer welfare, and drive overall technological adoption. In this respect, according to The Digital Economy and Society Index, 42% of Europeans still lack at least basic digital skills. A digital ecosystem that offers reliable solutions to a variety of user needs, that does a number of jobs conveniently and well, will often be more important to the marginal user considering a digital alternative than the “social gain” of having to navigate through a swamp of “innovative alternatives”. CCIA submits that the value that broad digital ecosystems provide to their users, and their contribution to the growth of technological adoption, should not be overlooked. Second, digital intermediaries often need size. That’s because the business model of large digital intermediaries, particularly those based on software, is premised on significant fixed costs, very low marginal costs, and massive scale. Start-ups and SMEs in this sector often operate at a loss while attempting to achieve sufficient scale to become profitable. Often that scale comes from expanding into adjacent markets. Efforts aimed at increasing ecosystem contestability that would result in reducing that potential scale (or increasing marginal costs) would make such ventures terminally unprofitable. This would ultimately result in less up-front investment, less technological development and less growth for the digital economy. Third, the size of digital platforms is directly related to their positive impact on innovation and research. Network effects mean not only that users benefit from the size of a network, but also that innovations are more quickly disseminated throughout that ecosystem. New tools, features, and functionalities, new solutions to existing problems, spread more quickly through large ecosystems than fragmented ones. Furthermore, according to the Commission’s 2019 EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard, the five largest “gatekeeper platforms” (Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook), spent a combined €72.8 billion in R&D in 2018, nearly twice the amount spent by the entire EU ICT sector (approx. €42 billion). Innovation levels therefore already appear quite high. Finally, the IIA references the Commission’s experiences with the implementation of the Platform-to-Business Regulation as contributing to its analysis underpinning the present initiative. CCIA submits that the Commission’s analysis could benefit from revision in light of market circumstances prevalent after the Regulation becomes applicable from 12 July, 2020. This is particularly true given that both address concerns around unfair trading practices and fairness.
Read full response

Response to New competition tool

30 Jun 2020

CCIA represents large, medium, and small companies in the high technology products and services sectors, including computer hardware and software, electronic commerce, telecommunications, and Internet products and services. CCIA is committed to protecting and advancing the interests of our members, the industry as a whole, as well as society’s beneficial interest in open markets, open systems and open networks. CCIA supports the Commission’s continued focus on strengthening the Digital Single Market (“DSM”). The Commission Staff Working Document to the Single Market Performance Report 2019 (SWD(2019)444 final) cites several divergences amongst Member States that are hampering European DSM performance including varying levels of digital skills, digitisation in companies, digital infrastructure, and availability of venture funding. We also note that in addition to these issues, there may be certain “structural competition problems” hampering the DSM which would be best addressed at EU level. However, the Inception Impact Assessment ("IIA") and questionnaire identify several “structural competition problems” which do not by themselves appear to be competition problems at all. In particular: (1) “Tipping markets” are not problematic. Many investments are made in start-ups on the basis that they can be recovered once sufficient scale is achieved. The characteristic of “tipping” is itself related to the increased value that users derive from the network effects. Where such characteristics are present, preventing tipping would mean worse outcomes for consumers. (2) “Leveraging” into adjacent markets is not inherently problematic. Where a firm has transferable skills and resources, leveraging those for market entry leads to increased efficient competition in those adjacent markets and hence better outcomes for users. Any intervention should carefully distinguish between pro-competitive and anti-competitive leveraging. (3) Unilateral strategies by non-dominant companies are unlikely to be problematic. The concept of dominance is inherently flexible. It applies where a company has the ability to distort competition, and is increasingly applied to narrow market segments. By definition, a non-dominant company is unlikely to have the market power sufficient to produce an anticompetitive effect on the market. (4) High entry barriers are a characteristic common to several industries. The question is whether a competitor with a superior business model or product could contest an incumbent, and/or whether the threat of such entry is sufficient pressure to ensure efficient market outcomes. (5) To the extent that issues are related to consumer behaviour (e.g. the prevalence of multi-homing), consumer focused interventions that address root causes, like lack of digital skills, are likely more effective than industry-level interventions. If the Commission presumes that each of the above are inherently problematic and must be addressed by competition intervention, then Europe’s DSM performance will likely be hampered further. CCIA is particularly concerned by the weight that the questionnaire places on theories of harm related to digital sectors, while ignoring the one area where we believe “structural competition problems” are most likely to appear, namely, common ownership / horizontal shareholdings. See Elhauge “Tackling Horizontal Shareholding” OECD (DAF/COMP/WD(2017)95). The absence of this point is particularly concerning given the Commission’s clear identification and analysis of these structural issues in two recent high-profile merger cases, Dow / DuPont (2017) and Bayer / Monsanto (2018). Finally, CCIA submits that, contrary to what is indicated in the IIA, the Commission should at least consider one option for action that would not grant it the power to impose structural remedies.
Read full response

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

14 May 2020

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (“CCIA”) welcomes this opportunity to provide feedback on the European Commission’s roadmap on its evaluation to decide whether to update the Market Definition Notice (“Evaluation”). CCIA represents large, medium, and small companies in the high technology products and services sectors, including computer hardware and software, electronic commerce, telecommunications, and Internet products and services. CCIA is committed to protecting and advancing the interests of our members, the industry as a whole, as well as society’s beneficial interest in open markets, open systems and open networks. CCIA agrees on the purpose and scope of the Evaluation, and has the following comments, which applies to both the consultation strategy and data collection and methodology. The Commission has noted that the consultation will be of interest to undertakings with business operations and economic advisers, and plans a conference in Q4/2020 to include technical experts and representatives from all main stakeholder groups. The Commission correctly recognises that its “evaluation will also 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 and that may already be reflected in the case practice of competition authorities in the EU and elsewhere as well as in academic research.” However, the Commission proposes only “desk research, a literature and case review (to be carried out internally or externally), as well as from stakeholders in the public consultation and in targeted consultations and possibly during a stakeholder conference or workshop.” CCIA encourages the Commission to investigate, as broadly as possible, the prospect of supply-substitutability and of rapidly evolving consumer demand causing shifting definitional boundaries between markets. In this respect, CCIA suggests that the Commission look not only at academics and representatives of stakeholders, nor solely at legal literature and case review, but rather, should pay particular attention to the views of engineers, technologists, computer scientists, developers, innovators, inventors and futurists. Based on its industry knowledge, CCIA believes that those working on future technologies are well placed to inform the Commission on the factors relevant, particularly in respect of supply-side substitutability, in determining dynamic market definitions in light of the digitisation and globalisation of the economy.
Read full response

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

28 Apr 2020

CCIA appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’). CCIA firmly believes that the GDPR is a success and should not be reopened. The GDPR strikes the right balance between the protection of European citizens’ personal data and enabling data-driven growth in Europe. Furthermore, we observe that the reach of the GDPR has extended well beyond the EEA, with companies across the world embracing the GDPR accountability model within their own organisation and across their supply chain. However, we do observe several shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of the GDPR. Some of them can be resolved through modest improvements, but others emanate from structural deficiencies (local SAs) and fail to live up to the objectives and spirit of the GDPR. The GDPR remains a living regulation and CCIA is concerned that the enforcement status quo would, in the long term, effectively undermine what is otherwise a robust piece of legislation. Broadly speaking, the deficiencies we have observed include (1) a failure to implement all international data transfer instruments, (2) slow, unharmonised and sometimes contradicting guidance, and (3) enforcement actions which undermine the One-Stop-Shop principle. We note that these deficiencies are often the result of a lack of appropriate resources allocated to national Supervisory Authorities (‘SA’). This in turn affects the efficiency and meaningfulness of the European Data Protection Board (‘EDPB’) and undermines the harmonisation of GDPR enforcement. Please find attached CCIA’s detailed observations and recommendations on: - Adequacy decisions - Standard Contractual Clauses - Binding Corporate Rules, Codes of Conduct and Certifications - Intra-EU transfers within the same group of undertakings - Enforcement actions conflicting with the One-Stop-Shop principle - Discrepancies between national guidance and practices on harmonized data protection rules For further information, please contact Alexandre Roure, Senior Manager, Public Policy at aroure@ccianet.org.
Read full response

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

14 May 2019 · Platforms, data

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

20 Sept 2018 · GDPR, privacy shield, e-privacy

Meeting with Manuel Aleixo (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)

14 May 2018 · EU competition policy

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)

11 Apr 2018 · Competition policy in digital markets

Response to Measures to further improve the effectiveness of the fight against illegal content online

29 Mar 2018

Dear Madam, dear Sir, Please find attached a 2 pages document with the feedback of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) on the Inception Impact Assessment on measures to further improve the effectiveness of the fight against illegal content online. Sincerely, Maud Sacquet CCIA
Read full response

Meeting with Julie Ruff (Cabinet of Commissioner Julian King)

7 Mar 2018 · Cybersecurity

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

1 Feb 2018 · Illegal content online

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

30 Jan 2018 · GDPR, e-privacy

Response to Fairness in platform-to-business relations

21 Nov 2017

Please see CCIA's comments in the attachment.
Read full response

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

6 Jul 2017 · Platforms

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

24 May 2017 · GDPR Implementation and Privacy Shield

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

19 Dec 2016 · Discussion with industry on general data protection regulation implementation

Meeting with Laure Chapuis-Kombos (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

25 Nov 2016 · e-privacy

Meeting with Anna Herold (Digital Economy)

26 Oct 2016 · Copyright

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

8 Oct 2016 · DSM

Meeting with Michael Hager (Digital Economy) and DIGITALEUROPE and

27 Sept 2016 · DSM

Meeting with Szabolcs Horvath (Cabinet of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics)

1 Sept 2016 · Copyright reform

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová) and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its various subsidiaries and Yahoo! EMEA Ltd.

29 Aug 2016 · Copyright reform

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

9 Aug 2016 · Views on telecommunications, market and co-operation

Meeting with Markus Schulte (Digital Economy)

19 Jul 2016 · Telco review

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

30 Jun 2016 · Privacy shield, data protection

Meeting with Markus Schulte (Digital Economy)

17 Jun 2016 · Digitising European Industry

Meeting with Michael Hager (Digital Economy) and DIGITALEUROPE and

3 May 2016 · DSM

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

3 May 2016 · DSM

Meeting with Kilian Gross (Digital Economy)

27 Apr 2016 · e-commerce

Meeting with Szabolcs Horvath (Cabinet of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics)

22 Apr 2016 · Digital Single Market

Meeting with Anna Herold (Digital Economy)

14 Apr 2016 · copyright

Meeting with Roberto Viola (Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

7 Apr 2016 · Online platforms – OTT/telecoms - Copyright reform- Free flow of data initiative – AVMS/portability

Meeting with Kevin O'Connell (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

10 Mar 2016 · EU-US Privacy Shield

Meeting with Michael Hager (Digital Economy) and DIGITALEUROPE and

23 Feb 2016 · DSM

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

8 Feb 2016 · EU-US Privacy Shield

Meeting with Eric Mamer (Digital Economy)

22 Jan 2016 · DSM

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

21 Jan 2016 · Implementation of the DSM Strategy

Meeting with Kevin O'Connell (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

20 Nov 2015 · Data protection

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

14 Oct 2015 · Meeting with tech businesses after Safe Harbour ruling

Meeting with Michael Hager (Digital Economy) and DIGITALEUROPE and

14 Jul 2015 · DSM

Meeting with Kevin O'Connell (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

25 Jun 2015 · Data protection

Meeting with Eric Mamer (Digital Economy)

7 May 2015 · DSM

Meeting with Markus Schulte (Digital Economy)

27 Apr 2015 · DSM

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

17 Apr 2015 · Digital Single Market

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

14 Apr 2015 · Digital Single Market

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

5 Feb 2015 · Platforms, online sales and sales restrictions

Meeting with Michael Hager (Digital Economy) and DIGITALEUROPE and

20 Jan 2015 · Digital Agenda