Recital 8 of the proposed #EMFA #MediaFreedomAct contains very surprising statements, particularly the fact that VSPs may actually be media services, based on the role they play in the "content organisation". 
If that was true, it would introduce a complete change from the current conceptual framework established by the eCommerce Directive, the case law of the ECJ and even the #DigitalServicesAct .
Funny thing, however, is that such conclusion does not have a clear consequence or reflect when we look into the articles of the proposal.
The fact that VSPs exercise editorial control over a section or sections of their services does not mean that "an entity could be qualified both as a video-sharing platform provider or a very large online platform provider and as a media service provider" ...
and this is because EU law regulates services, not entities. For example when a cable platform also provides their own TV station, this specific activity will be regulated as broadcasting, not telecoms. This is not new.
Why then introducing in the Recitals inaccurate language that pretends to say something that is actually not said and also inconsequential when it comes to the actual legal text?
This is the kind of legislative bad poetry that creates false expectations, misunderstandings and litigation, or... is there something else coming up in subsequent versions of the draft which the recital is paving the way for?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
