A central source of Big Tech gatekeepers’ power is their encompassing access to individuals’ personal data. The prohibition of Article 5(a) of the proposed Digital Markets Act, therefore, is a welcome attempt to limit the private power over data held by gatekeeping platforms. However, end-user consent cannot be regarded as an adequate safeguard for keeping data-driven markets competitive.
The Digital Services Act contains regulation that does not directly interfere with platforms’ freedom to operate but indirectly creates incentives for their handling of risk-aware behaviour, for example, towards personality right violations. Within the context of general and specific monitoring obligations in the Act, in particular, indirect regulation can encourage innovative and pragmatic decision-making, although further guardrails are necessary.
Under EU law, platforms presently have no obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their terms and conditions. The Digital Services Act seeks to change this in its draft Article 12, however, there has been severe criticism on its meagre protection. As it stands and until courts intervene, the provision is too vague and ambiguous to effectively support the application of fundamental rights.
For the Digital Markets Act to function properly – that is, to dismantle overwhelming private power – enforcement capacities of private actors should be strengthened at the outset: Competitors and customers should be integrated into the enforcement system as complainants, informants and litigants. The digital giants will not tumble because of government intervention but because of innovative competitors and stronger customers that can rely on the framework set by governments. Private power needs to be cured with private empowerment.
In an effort to establish a “safe, predictable and trusted online environment” for the EU, the Digital Services Act proposal sets out an extensive catalogue of due diligence obligations for online intermediaries, coupled with tight enforcement rules. A freedom of expression perspective on the proposal reveals that it partly reinforces Big Tech’s control over communication, and moreover fights fire with fire by establishing a powerful public/private bureaucracy able to monitor and potentially manipulate online communication trends.
The functions exercised by online platforms raise questions about the safeguarding of fundamental rights and democratic values from the autonomous discretion of the private sector, which is not bound by constitutional law. The Digital Services Act horizontally translates European constitutional values to private relationships, to limit governance by platforms.
The combination of the features characterising gatekeepers in the Digital Markets Act's is likely to create significant power imbalances in the market and lead to unfair practices that the proposal aims to prevent and repair. A service-based approach, over a provider-based one, as well as a functional description of core platform services would remedy this unintended consequence.
One of the most pressing questions in the ongoing debates about the Digital Services Act (DSA) proposal is the question of entrenching dominance. While the DSA aims at providing a harmonized regulatory framework for addressing online harms, there is a risk that imposing accountability at the threat of fines might increase the power of already dominant intermediaries. This problem is particularly evident for content moderation, where over the last decades a handful of services have consolidated their position as the primary arbiters of speech and online activity.
Der Charakter der Gesetze hat sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten tiefgreifend gewandelt. Dennoch greift die Bundesrepublik zu ihrer Verkündung mit dem Bundesgesetzblatt bis heute auf ein aus der Französischen Revolution geborenes Medium zurück und überlässt ihre anderweitige Bereithaltung weitgehend privatwirtschaftlichen Akteuren. Wenn der Staat weiterhin darauf verzichtet, sein Recht zentral, systematisiert und aufbereitet im Internet bereitzuhalten, fällt das Publizitätsniveau in verfassungsrechtlich bedenklicher Weise ab.
Since 1982, States have sent Youth Delegates to the General Assembly as part of the official UN Youth Delegate Programme. However, information on youth delegates, their past agendas and speeches is hard to come by. There is no central repository that is publicly available and would list all past youth delegates and the statements they delivered. In order to close this gap, we have created Youth Delegate Search, a platform dedicated to making speeches of Youth Delegates easily accessible. We believe that with this database we also created a potential for transforming both academic research and practice in the domain of youth participation.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters