OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and DIGITALEUROPE and

20 Nov 2025 · Omnibus IV

Response to Impact assessment on retention of data by service providers for criminal proceedings

18 Jun 2025

Please find attached the submission by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Read full response

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Jan 2025 · digital rights

Meeting with Anna Herold (Head of Unit Communications Networks, Content and Technology) and Reporters sans frontières and

22 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views in the context of preparatory work on draft guidelines on Article 18(1) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) to be issued by the European Commission under Article 18(9) of the EMFA. Anna Herold was replaced by Audrius Perkauskas

Meeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Dec 2024 · AI

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament) and interface - tech analysis and policy ideas for Europe e.V.

4 Dec 2024 · Digital policies

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament) and Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue

18 Nov 2024 · Digital policy round-table with CSOs and consumer protection organisations

Meeting with Eleonora Ocello (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton) and European Digital Rights and Access Now Europe

13 Dec 2023 · Digital policy

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

12 Dec 2023 · European Media Freedom Act

Meeting with Paul Tang (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Digital Rights

26 Sept 2023 · Staff Level: event: "Encryption in the age of surveillance"

Meeting with Paul Tang (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

25 May 2023 · Staff Level: Child Sexual Abuse Regulation

Response to Virtual worlds, such as metaverse

3 May 2023

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Access Now, and the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) welcome the Commissions initiative to develop a vision for virtual worlds that respect human rights and European Union law. On International Human Rights Day in 2021, Access Now and the Electronic Frontier Foundation issued the joint statement, Virtual worlds, real people: human rights in the metaverse (https://www.accessnow.org/human-rights-metaverse-virtual-augmented-reality/), calling upon governments and companies to address human rights in the context of virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR) and ensure that these rights are respected and enforced. In response to this consultation on Virtual worlds (metaverses) a vision for openness, safety and respect, we hereby submit an updated version of the statement as a pdf attachment.
Read full response

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Jun 2022 · Chatkontrolle

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Salesforce Inc. and Allied For Startups asbl

24 May 2022 · Online platform regulation

Meeting with Christel Schaldemose (Member of the European Parliament)

24 May 2022 · EU and US competition policy/interoperability, chatcontrol/encryption, content moderation & platforms/artificial intelligence

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

5 May 2021

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is among the leading non-profit organizations defending civil liberties in the digital world. We welcome the option to give feedback on the proposed Digital Markets Act (DMA). Our detailed positions on the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act can be accessed at https://www.eff.org/issues/eu-policy-principles. For the purpose of this consultation, we would like to share our opinion on a number of key issues: Scope and Design: We support the DMA’s aim to create a fairer and more competitive market for online platforms by setting out a list of do’s and don’ts “gatekeeper platforms” must comply with. In particular, we strongly support regulation that is self-executing. New obligations, may it be applicable obligations or obligations susceptible of being further specified, must be drafted in light of the need to avoid the occurrence of user and consumer harm. As proposed by the DMA, such rules should be accompanied by effective penalties to ensure compliance as well as structural remedies for platforms that can’t or won’t stop engaging in monopolistic behavior. It is a very important feature of the DMA that it contains a provision on future proofing: new anticompetitive practices will occur in the future and the lists must be updated in order for the DMA to stay relevant. Anti-monopoly practices: For the purpose of this consultation, we would like to point out that we appreciate several provisions, in particular the ban on mixing data ((Art 5(a)), the ban on forced single sign-ons (Article 5(e)), the ban on cross-tying (Art 5(f)) and the ban on lock-ins (Art 6(e)). (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/eus-digital-markets-act-there-lot-room-improvement). End-user perspective: However, the DMA proposal misses the mark on several key issues. In general terms, we are concerned that the proposal mainly focuses on the relationship between core platforms and their business users whilst the end-user perspective is only a side-issue. As put forward in a joint letter submitted by civil society organizations (https://www.article19.org/resources/eu-joint-letter-on-protecting-rights-in-the-digital-markets-act), more needs to be done to create the conditions that foster the emergence of new platforms. The gatekeeper’s practices impact on end users’ rights also justifies a stronger inclusion of civil society groups, which can inform the Commission decision-making process. Those groups should be granted a right to be heard before a decision is taken that affects their interests (to be included in Art 30) and the right to request the opening of a market investigation under Art 33. Interoperability: A key element that could reduce the dependence of users on a few gatekeeper platforms is interoperability. (https://www.eff.org/press/releases/internet-users-deserve-more-choice-through-interoperability-and-better-privacy-they). Interoperability in ancillary services such as payment processing is nice to have, but not good enough. Art 6(f) under the DMA proposal will have the result that, for example, Facebook might have to let a competitor offer its own payment processing for Oculus apps, but not offer a competing social media network that interoperates with Facebook. Only a general interoperability obligation for platforms’ core services will foster innovation and put users back in control of their data, privacy, and online experience. We appreciate that the EC introduced a real-time data portability mandate into the DMA under which platforms must provide effective tools that facilitate the exercise of data portability, and this continuously and in real-time. However, data portability is only the low-hanging fruit (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/legislative-path-interoperable-internet) of interoperability, as users can’t take advantage of it unless they have and keep an account on the gatekeeper service (and are thus still subject to potentially abusive terms of service).
Read full response

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

31 Mar 2021

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is among the leading non-profit organizations defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. Working with a unique team of technologists, activists and attorneys, we strive to ensure that rights and freedoms are enhanced and protected as our lives move increasingly online. We welcome the option to give feedback on the proposed Digital Services Act (DSA). Our principles and detailed positions on the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act can be accessed at https://www.eff.org/issues/eu-policy-principles. Our focus is on four key areas: limited platform liability, interoperability mandates, procedural justice, and user control. For the purpose of this consultation, we would like to share our opinion on a number of key issues of the proposed DSA, on which we have elaborated in detail in the document attached to this submission. We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have. christoph@eff.org
Read full response

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

9 Dec 2020 · Roundtable with NGOs on DSA and DMA

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

30 Jun 2020

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is among the leading non-profit organizations defending civil liberties in the digital world. We welcome the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission and to highlight what matters most: the E-Commerce Directive should be apt to deal with the challenges brought by a digital space that is monopolized by a few platforms and where alternative platform models and voices of persons in a vulnerable position are often marginalized. Our suggestions for the upcoming Digital Services Acts thus center on strengthening users’ self-determination, maintaining the core pillars of the Directive that have fostered freedom of expression, and establishing procedural safeguards. For the purpose of this Impact Assessment, we support the introduction of ex-ante regulation for online platforms with significant network effects, and we would like to elaborate on why there is a need to introduce interoperability obligations. 1. Ensure Interoperability The platform economy is characterized by network effects, economies of scale and feedback loops that have propelled some intermediaries into gatekeeper positions, arbitrating access to services, goods and information. To strengthen users’ self-determination and encourage innovation, we propose ex ante interoperability obligations for platforms with significant market power. Such intermediaries should be mandated to make technical interfaces available through which competitors can interoperate with the incumbent’s main functionalities. This should include the obligation to ensure users’ right to data portability. To make interoperability work, users should have the right to delegate certain services to third parties they trust. That way, interoperability obligations could also be an innovative approach to issues regarding content moderation, targeted advertisement or harassment online. 2. No commercial use of data Any data shared for the purpose of interoperability should not be available for commercial use. Data made available in the context of interoperability should only be used for maintaining interoperability, safeguarding users’ privacy, or ensuring data security. This should also positively incentivize competitors with innovative, responsible, and privacy-protective business models. 3. Privacy It is crucial to empower users to take control of how, when, why, and with whom their data is being shared. This means that key principles underpinning the GDPR —such as data minimization, privacy by design, and privacy by default—must be respected. This should also include easy-to-use interfaces through which users can give their explicit consent regarding any use of their data (as well as revoke that consent at any time). 4. Security Users’ data and communications should not only be kept private, but also safe. Interoperability measures should always center on users’ security and should never be construed as a reason that prevents platforms from taking efforts to keep users safe. However, if intermediaries do have to suspend interoperability to fix security issues, they should not exploit such situations to break interoperability but rather communicate transparently, resolve the problem, and reinstate interoperability interfaces within a reasonable and clearly defined time-frame. 5. Documentation & Non-Discrimination Finally, it is crucial to make sure that interoperability does not become a tool for powerful incumbents to further enshrine their dominant position. The goal of user empowerment is served best when diversity is strongest, so interoperability should benefit as many competitors as possible, rather than just a few favored parties. To offer users more choice, access to interoperability interfaces should not discriminate between different competitors and should not come with strenuous obligations or content restrictions. Interoperability interfaces, such as APIs, must also be easy to find, well-documented, and transparent.
Read full response

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

30 Jun 2020

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is among the leading non-profit organizations defending civil liberties in the digital world. We welcome the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission on this IIA and to highlight what matters most: the E-Commerce Directive should be apt to deal with the challenges brought by a digital space that is monopolized by a few platforms and where alternative platform models and voices of persons in a vulnerable position are often marginalized. Our suggestions for the DSA thus center on strengthening users’ self-determination, maintaining the core pillars of the Directive that have fostered freedom of expression and innovation, and establishing procedural safeguards. 1. Liability: Protect Core Pillars & Freedom of Speech The world has changed and so must the rules of the game. That being said, the core pillars of the Directive must be protected. Most importantly, intermediaries should continue to benefit from the country of origin principle and conditional liability for third party content. However, no difference should be made between active or passive host providers. Intermediaries should be exempt from liability as long as they are not involved in co-creating or modifying content in a way that materially contributes to illegality. It should be clarified that, save for narrow exceptions, actual knowledge of illegality requires a decision of a judicial authority. It is also crucial to uphold the ban on general monitoring obligations, which should include filter systems that evaluate the legality of content. Privacy rights, such as the right not to be subjected to automated decision-making, must be protected. Finally, global blocking orders should be addressed. Court orders are not designed to superimpose a national law on every other state in the world. The DSA should make sure that any removal obligation is based on the principles of necessity and proportionality in terms of its geographical scope. 2. User Self-Determination The reform of the e-Commerce Directive is an opportunity to strengthen users’ self-determination. By introducing a right to anonymity, the DSA should address the problem that vulnerable groups are subject to retribution if forced to use their legal identities. Users should also have a right to transparent and fundamental rights compliant terms of service. Users should be notified whenever the rules change and be provided with a meaningful explanation of any substantial changes to T&S in a language they understand. Similarly, intermediaries must provide meaningful explanations about the use of algorithmic tools deployed in content moderation. Platforms with significant market power should allow independent auditing of their algorithmic tools by the relevant regulators and independent researchers. Users of social media platforms with significant market power should be able to filter out content they do not want to see. They should also have the option to decide whether they want to receive algorithmically-curated recommendations at all. 3. Procedural Justice The DSA should introduce harmonized standards for notice and action systems. Users should have the right to receive explanations regarding content takedowns, filing counter-notices, and appealing content moderation decisions. Platforms should provide dispute resolution mechanisms that allow for timely appeals of content removals or account suspensions. Appeals options must be well-explained and include human review. Such mechanisms should never deprive users of their rights to an effective remedy before independent courts. Users should also have a right to have platforms reinstate wrongly removed content or accounts. Independent authorities should ensure that platforms comply with legal standards and coordination among independent national authorities should be fostered. To incentivize intermediaries to live up to the due diligence standards, harmonized penalties should be prescribed by law.
Read full response

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

18 Jun 2020 · To discuss Digital Services Act

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

18 Jun 2020 · Digital services act