A German Perspective on Self-Regulation of Online Platforms
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
With the rise of online platforms, three problems have evolved: Firstly, there is a risk of platform operators abusing their usually dominant market position by the acting as gatekeepers. Secondly, and related to the first problem, platform operators are the ones determining the terms and conditions for the use of the platform by their “house rules” in a comprehensive way, reaching from content regulation to the use of personal data. Thirdly, platform reach and speed significantly increase the effects of “problematic” user behaviour, or even render such behaviour possible. Around the world, different regulatory approaches are applied to these problems. This article presents the German approach, with a particular focus on elements of self-regulation. Starting from a localisation of the various manifestations of self-regulation in the German “regulatory toolbox”, it first discusses limitations of the use of “house rules” by platform operators, imposed not only by competition law, but also by fundamental rights which have a horizontal effect through general provisions in private law. This co-regulatory setting is contrasted with the framework generated by the Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz,NetzDG),which does not only provide for co-regulation in a wider understanding, but also for the (optional) creation of “bodies of regulated self-regulation”. While the success of this regulatory strategy is doubtful, a concluding brief analysis of elements of self-regulation in forthcoming EU legislation (Digital Markets Act, DMA, and Digital Services Act, DSA) shows that despite the obvious need for more state regulation there is still some room for self-regulation, particularly in the area of compliance.
Abstract
With the rise of online platforms, three problems have evolved: Firstly, there is a risk of platform operators abusing their usually dominant market position by the acting as gatekeepers. Secondly, and related to the first problem, platform operators are the ones determining the terms and conditions for the use of the platform by their “house rules” in a comprehensive way, reaching from content regulation to the use of personal data. Thirdly, platform reach and speed significantly increase the effects of “problematic” user behaviour, or even render such behaviour possible. Around the world, different regulatory approaches are applied to these problems. This article presents the German approach, with a particular focus on elements of self-regulation. Starting from a localisation of the various manifestations of self-regulation in the German “regulatory toolbox”, it first discusses limitations of the use of “house rules” by platform operators, imposed not only by competition law, but also by fundamental rights which have a horizontal effect through general provisions in private law. This co-regulatory setting is contrasted with the framework generated by the Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz,NetzDG),which does not only provide for co-regulation in a wider understanding, but also for the (optional) creation of “bodies of regulated self-regulation”. While the success of this regulatory strategy is doubtful, a concluding brief analysis of elements of self-regulation in forthcoming EU legislation (Digital Markets Act, DMA, and Digital Services Act, DSA) shows that despite the obvious need for more state regulation there is still some room for self-regulation, particularly in the area of compliance.
참고문헌 (34)
- Bradford, Anu, "The Brussels Effect" (2020), Oxford University Press
- Breindl, Yana, "Can Web 2.0 applica-tions save e-democracy? A study of how new Internet applications may enhance citizen par-ticipation in the political process online", Int. J. Electronic Democracy, 1, pp.14~ (2008)
- Bundeskartellamt, "Arbeitspapier Marktmacht von –Plattformen und Netzwerken", ~ (2016)
- Busch, Christopher, "Ein neues Vertrag- und Verbraucherrecht für Online-Plattformen im digitalen Binnenmarkt?", MMR, pp.787~ (2016)
- Collin , Peter, "Selbstregulierung im 19. Jahrhundert", pp.3~ (2011), Vittorio Klostermann
- Eifert , Martin, "Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts, Vol. 1" (2012), C.H. Beck
- Fehling, Michael, "Regulierungsrecht" (2010), Mohr Siebeck
- Gersdorf, Hubertus, "BeckOK Informations-und Medienrecht, 1.1", ~ (2022)
- Grimm, Dieter, "Regulierte Selbstregulierung als Steuerungskonzept des Gewährleistungsstaates (DV Beiheft 4)", pp.9~ (2001)
- Grünwald, Andreas, "Vom NetzDG zum DAS: Wachablösung beim Kampf gegen Hate Speech", MMR, pp.283~ (2021)
- Hain, Karl-Eberhard, "Regulierung sozialer Netzwerke re-visited", K&R, pp.433~ (2017)
- Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang, "Neue Macht- und Verantwortungsstrukturen in der digitalen Welt" (2016), Nomos
- Hofmann , Franz, "Lauterkeitsrechtliche Haftung von Online-Plattformen. Die neuen Transparenzvorgaben im UWG 2022 im Kontext lauterkeitsrechtlicher Plattformregulierung", GRUR, pp.780~ (2022)
- Kühling , Jürgen, "“Fake News” und “Hate Speech”Die Verantwortung der Medienintermediäre –zwischen neuen NetzDG, MStG und Digital Services Act", ZUM, pp.461~ (2021)
- Kumkar, Lea Katharina, "Plattform-Recht revisited:Umgang mit den Marktordnungen digitaler Plattformen de lege lata et ferenda", ZEuP, pp.530~ (2022)
- Liesching, Marc, "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz", ~ (2018)
- Müller-Franken , Sebastian, "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz:Selbstbehauptung des Rechts oder erster Schritt in die selbstregulierte Vorzensur? –Verfassungsrechtliche Fragen", AfP, pp.1~ (2018)
- Paal, Boris, "Digitale Plattformen im DAS-E, DMA-E und § 19a GWB", ZfDR, pp.1~ (2022)
- Podszun, Rupprecht, "Empfiehlt sich eine stärkere Regulierung von Online-Plattformen und an-deren Digitalunternehmen?", NJW-Beil, pp.56~ (2022)
- Rauscher, Thomas, "Münchner Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 3" (2022)
- Reiling , Katharina, "Transnationale Ordnung der Digitalwirtschaft durch die Datenschutz-grundverordnung" (2019), Mohr Siebeck
- Rennert, Justin, "Urheberrechtliche Haftung von Upload-Plattformen für Nutzerinhalte", IWRZ, pp.18~ (2022)
- Ruffert , Matthias, "Staatslexikon der Görres-Gesellschaft, 4. Band" (2020), Herder
- Schmidt , Reiner, "Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht –Allgemeiner Teil" (1990), Springer
- Schreiber , Kristina, "Facebook kombiniert Nutzerdaten missbräuchlich, da DSGVO-widrig", GRUR-Prax, pp.266~ (2019)
- Schröder, Meinhard, "Drittwirkung der Grundrechte - von Lüth zu Facebook", ~
- Selbstverwaltung und Selbstregulierung aus rechtshistorischer und governancetheoretischer Perspektive, "Schuppert , Gunnar Folke", Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, 22~, pp.Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Research Paper Series No. 2015-01
- Spieker gen. Döhmann , Indra, "IT-sicherheits- und datenschutzrechtliche Implikationen", GRUR, pp.341~ (2019)
- Spindler, Gerald, "TMG" (2018), C.H.Beck Verlag
- Stockhaus, Heidi, "Regulierte Selbstregulierung im europäischen Chemikalienrecht" (2015), Mohr Siebeck
- Stürmer , Verena, "Regulierte Selbstregulierung im eu-ropäischen Datenschutzrecht" (2022), Mohr Siebeck
- Toffler , Alvin, "The third wave: The classic study of tomorrow" (1980), William Morrow and Company
- Wernsmann , Rainer, "Innovatives", ZÖR, 77, pp.825~ (2022)
- Wimmers, Jörg, "Zum Referentenentwurf eines Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes (NetzDG) -eine kritische Stellungnahme", AfP, pp.93~ (2017)