It's the second article that I read on this subject. Unfortunately none had any details about why Amazon considers it's not a VLOP. It seems to me that their argument is that their platform does...
It's the second article that I read on this subject. Unfortunately none had any details about why Amazon considers it's not a VLOP. It seems to me that their argument is that their platform does not have 45 million users in any single EU country; even though the act refers to EU as a whole.
In any case, it strikes me as extremely ironic that one of the largest businesses in the world is arguing that they are both: not a large platform (ha) and also singled out (ignoring the other 18 designated VLOP)
It’s a stupid take from Amazon — there are only 4/27 countries in the EU that even have 45 million people living in them (and Spain, at 47m, likely doesn’t have 45m people on the internet).
It’s a stupid take from Amazon — there are only 4/27 countries in the EU that even have 45 million people living in them (and Spain, at 47m, likely doesn’t have 45m people on the internet).
Satire is writing itself here. This is really just wanting any potential competition to get affected by rules but not themselves. Or at least getting away with it. In a sense, I suppose you could...
"We agree with the EC's objective and are committed to protecting customers from illegal products and content, but Amazon doesn't fit this description of a 'Very Large Online Platform' (VLOP) under the DSA and therefore should not be designated as such," Amazon said in a statement provided to Ars today.
Satire is writing itself here. This is really just wanting any potential competition to get affected by rules but not themselves. Or at least getting away with it.
Amazon also claims it's unfair that some retailers with larger businesses in individual countries weren't on the list of 19 companies that must comply with the Digital Services Act. The rules only designate platforms with over 45 million active users in the EU as of February 17.
In a sense, I suppose you could argue that this can make for unfair competition within a single EU member state. But I don't think what the EU law does here is senseless as the EU goes primarily about the single market in the EU, not an individual country. It's rather cherrypicking the effects here.
Those other companies Amazon referred to include Poland's Allegro or the Dutch Bol.com, according to a Bloomberg report. Neither of those platforms appears to have at least 45 million active users.
Funny they should bring it up. I do think that Bol.com over here has a dominating status here in the Netherlands with similar services. (In fact, it's difficult to argue otherwise) But you do see different package services for specific branches, such as Coolblue in tech, or Zalando with clothes(And Zalando is on the list!). Considering that it feels like comparing apples with cows. Amazon(as well as many other companies by Google and Meta) is a different beast so it makes sense to treat it differently.
"Platforms will have to identify, analyze and mitigate a wide array of systemic risks ranging from how illegal content and disinformation can be amplified on their services, to the impact on the freedom of expression and media freedom," the EC said in April. "Similarly, specific risks around gender-based violence online and the protection of minors online and their mental health must be assessed and mitigated." One new rule bans advertisements that target users based on sensitive data such as ethnic origin, political opinions, or sexual orientation.
We'll have to see how the act works in practice, but personally I'm a fan of this. These are topics that have been let loose way too long, way too often, and way too much. And I'm glad that the EU is moving with this rather than leaving it to 'individual responsibility' when as a social problem it's a collective responsibility. And honestly, privacy regarding ethnicity and sexual orientation should be non-negotiable to begin with.
Amazon's appeal asks for a complete removal of its designation but suggests two alternatives if the court doesn't fully side with Amazon. Amazon's alternative suggestions would remove "the obligation to provide users with an option for each recommender system that is not based on profiling" and remove "an obligation to compile and make publicly available an advertisement repository."
I really hope those don't go through for the reasons I've laid out above. There are already many notifications, settings, popups and other stuff that are just making users apathetic to those things in particular. Creating even more individualization on this just makes people go with the default and kick the can further down the road. People don't have an endless amount of decision-making capability. And that includes Internet users.
It's the second article that I read on this subject. Unfortunately none had any details about why Amazon considers it's not a VLOP. It seems to me that their argument is that their platform does not have 45 million users in any single EU country; even though the act refers to EU as a whole.
In any case, it strikes me as extremely ironic that one of the largest businesses in the world is arguing that they are both: not a large platform (ha) and also singled out (ignoring the other 18 designated VLOP)
It’s a stupid take from Amazon — there are only 4/27 countries in the EU that even have 45 million people living in them (and Spain, at 47m, likely doesn’t have 45m people on the internet).
Satire is writing itself here. This is really just wanting any potential competition to get affected by rules but not themselves. Or at least getting away with it.
In a sense, I suppose you could argue that this can make for unfair competition within a single EU member state. But I don't think what the EU law does here is senseless as the EU goes primarily about the single market in the EU, not an individual country. It's rather cherrypicking the effects here.
Funny they should bring it up. I do think that Bol.com over here has a dominating status here in the Netherlands with similar services. (In fact, it's difficult to argue otherwise) But you do see different package services for specific branches, such as Coolblue in tech, or Zalando with clothes(And Zalando is on the list!). Considering that it feels like comparing apples with cows. Amazon(as well as many other companies by Google and Meta) is a different beast so it makes sense to treat it differently.
We'll have to see how the act works in practice, but personally I'm a fan of this. These are topics that have been let loose way too long, way too often, and way too much. And I'm glad that the EU is moving with this rather than leaving it to 'individual responsibility' when as a social problem it's a collective responsibility. And honestly, privacy regarding ethnicity and sexual orientation should be non-negotiable to begin with.
I really hope those don't go through for the reasons I've laid out above. There are already many notifications, settings, popups and other stuff that are just making users apathetic to those things in particular. Creating even more individualization on this just makes people go with the default and kick the can further down the road. People don't have an endless amount of decision-making capability. And that includes Internet users.