Policy analysis reveals monitoring inconsistencies in European intermediary service regulation, highlighting a shift toward shared co-regulation.
The article argues that the Digital Services Act, as part of the EU’s broader attempt to regulate intermediary services providers in a constantly growing and challenging technological, social and political environment, does not provide a final and comprehensive solution to the issue. The Digital Services Act appears inconsistent with the previous case law of European supranational judiciary forums regarding the prohibitionofgeneralmonitoringbyintermediary services providers.Infact,itprovides the Member States with vaguely worded regulatory exceptions in the event of a ban on general monitoring. However, the Digital Services Act can be seen as a legitimate and necessary attempt to enforce the regulation at the European level through Member States while at the same time giving a unique regulatory position in specific cases to the European Commission or pan-European legal bodies in general. Finally, the Digital Services Act also turns initial enforced self-regulatory attempts to regulate social harms, possibly caused by intermediary services providers, into co-regulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gosztonyi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: