How to Apply the Notice and Action Requirements under Art. 16(6) sentence 1 DSA — Which action actually?
Abstract
Art. 16 DSA and its framework for notice and action mechanisms are one of the DSA’s central due diligence obligations for hosting services, including online-platforms. Such services must put in place user-friendly reporting mechanisms, so reporters can easily notify them about allegedly illegal content. Following proper notification, Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA obliges providers to make a decision in a “timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner”. What does that actually mean? This paper addresses these issues involved: First, what is the interplay of Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA with other, more traditional takedown obligations? Can IP rights holders, based on Art. 16 DSA, initiate a Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) to act against, e.g., copyright violations? Does Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA harmonize national tort law stay-down obligations? What triggers Art. 16(6)’s imperative: Every “notice” or only specific ones received through dedicated reporting mechanisms? What is the legal standard for “diligent” decisions: Must platforms enforce their Community Standards, or only relevant laws? Speaking of laws: Must platforms consider any Member State’s laws? And might the enforcement of Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA through Art. 54 DSA advance civil law remedies against hosting providers?
© 2024 by Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt KG, Gustav-Heinemann-Ufer 58, 50968 Köln.
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelei
- Table of Contents
- Editorial
- Editorial – From Print to Online Only
- Articles
- Australian Mandatory AI Guardrails Proposed: — Drawing from the Canadian and European Experience
- Data Access under the Data Act — A practical guidance to more clarity and compliance demonstrated in three practice-oriented scenarios
- How to Apply the Notice and Action Requirements under Art. 16(6) sentence 1 DSA — Which action actually?
- Yes, This Is A Puff Piece? A Comparative Analysis of the Vendor Defences of Puffery, Statements of Future Intent and Disclaimers – Part 2 — How far does the divergence between promised and actual capabilities of an ERP implementation stretch?
- Case Law
- USA: Copyright Management Information and Training Material for Generative AI
- USA: Advertising Trackers and Pixels May Not Be Regulated by MA’s Wiretapping Law
- Updates
- UK: The Data (Use and Access) Bill.
- Imprint
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelei
- Table of Contents
- Editorial
- Editorial – From Print to Online Only
- Articles
- Australian Mandatory AI Guardrails Proposed: — Drawing from the Canadian and European Experience
- Data Access under the Data Act — A practical guidance to more clarity and compliance demonstrated in three practice-oriented scenarios
- How to Apply the Notice and Action Requirements under Art. 16(6) sentence 1 DSA — Which action actually?
- Yes, This Is A Puff Piece? A Comparative Analysis of the Vendor Defences of Puffery, Statements of Future Intent and Disclaimers – Part 2 — How far does the divergence between promised and actual capabilities of an ERP implementation stretch?
- Case Law
- USA: Copyright Management Information and Training Material for Generative AI
- USA: Advertising Trackers and Pixels May Not Be Regulated by MA’s Wiretapping Law
- Updates
- UK: The Data (Use and Access) Bill.
- Imprint
