Net Neutrality

► Full Reference: G. Loiseau, "L’intensité de l’obligation de vigilance selon les secteurs : le cas des opérateurs numériques" (The intensity of the Duty of Vigilance in different sectors: the case of digital operators), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, forthcoming - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'obligation de Compliance, in which the contribution is published - ► English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : L'auteur développe le cas des opérateurs numériques. Il souligne le paradoxe d'un Droit qui est parti d'un texte qui a posé le principe de l'irresponsabilité des hébergeurs, en raison de leur neutralité technique, pour aboutir au DSA et leur imposer des diligences, mais il rappelle que cette obligation n'apparaît qu'à partir d'un signalement qui est porté auprès de l'opérateur numérique et une interdiction expresse d'une obligation générale de surveiller les informations. Moreover, there is no general duty of vigilance incumbent on digital operators, even if recent case law seems to be tightening the role imposed on hosting providers. The Monumental Goal here is to fight against illegal content, but freedom of expression must also be preserved and regulations vary according to the type of content, whereas the DSA has a more general conception, aims at a logic of accountability and prevention of systemic risks. But wanting to make platforms 'accountable' ex ante, without touching the liability regime ex post, may pose a problem. The duty of vigilance will vary depending on whether the digital operator plays a passive or active role. This may lead platforms to adopt prior measures that may constitute structural obligations, with the trusted third party taking the form of a trusted signaller. The platform is thus made responsible for its own vigilance, but despite the possibility of enhanced vigilance, this does not have to extend to investigative measures. There are, however, specific enhanced vigilance obligations for very large platforms, justified by the risks involved and the types of content (terrorism, pornography). - 🦉This contribution est available in full text for persons following Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche teaching -

The regulatory authority of the North American telecommunications (Federal Communications Commission – FCC) adopted a position 5 August 2014 to admit that the service providers charge users for the service of priority access to content. For some commentators, allowing this monetization, the FCC has "killed" the "net neutrality". Immediately, President Barack Obama is strongly opposed to this position on behalf of the principle known as "net neutrality." The Washington Post, in its presentation of this reaction of the President, described it as "populist". Basically, it comes to choosing whether you prefer to favor companies that produce content and containing or to favor search engines. It is true that the search engines, whose business model relies heavily on the legal principle of "net neutrality" are American firms, like Google. On the other hand, many companies that carry the content and can therefore monetize the service of access to a priority basis are divided to more evenly around the world, including being located in Europe.

TRANSLATED SUMMARIES ENGLISH “Acting in a neutral way” is an oxymoron. “Companies often require however that States use their powers in a neutral way (eg tax neutrality). In regulated sectors, some are right or even duty , of not being neutral. Firstly, it is the State, which requires the market for other purposes, other temporalities and other values​​. Secondly, they are also the “crucial operators”, which are sort of regulators of second degree, such as transmission system operators or companies capital markets firms. The difficulty increases when the systeme requires neutrality of regulators and judges, when first build economic policy and the second create jurisprudence. Their consistency, impartiality and rationality can create an objectifiable neutralitys FRENCH «Agir de façon neutre» est un oxymoron. «Les entreprises ont souvent besoin, cependant, que les États utilisent leurs pouvoirs de manière neutre (neutralité fiscale par exemple). Dans les secteurs réglementés, certains ont le droit ou même le devoir de ne pas être neutre. Tout d’abord, c’est l’État, qui insère le marché à d’autres fins, d’autres temporalités et d’autres valeurs. En second lieu, ils sont aussi les «opérateurs crucial», qui sont des sortes de régulateurs du second degré : par exemple les opérateurs de réseaux de transport ou de entreprises de marchés financiers. La difficulté augmente lorsque le systeme économique et politique exige la neutralité des autorités de régulation et des juges, alors que les premiers construisent la politique économique et les seconds construisent la jurisprudence. Le respect qu’ils doivent avoir de l’impartialité et d’une rationalité suffisamment objectivables pourra permettre cette objectivité requise.

Translated Summaries In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors ENGLISH The debate on Net Neutrality faces a major difficulty, namely that of its legal status: does there exist a “legal principle”—meaning a rule somewhere within the entire body of law—with mandatory force that could be used to counter infrastructure operators’ discriminatory practices?   FRENCH Le débat sur la neutralité du Net fait face à une difficulté majeure, à savoir son statut juridique: existe-t-il un «principe juridique», qui exprime une règle dans l’ensemble du système juridique – avec une force obligatoire qui pourrait être utilisée pour contrer les pratiques discriminatoires des opérateurs d’ infrastructure ? SPANISH El debate sobre la Neutralidad de la Red se enfrenta a una gran dificultad, primordialmente en cuanto a su estatus legal: ¿realmente existe un “principio legal” – es decir, una regla que se encuentra dentro de la disciplina del derecho – con fuerza mandataria que podría ser usado para enfrentar a las prácticas discriminatorios que practican los operadores de infraestructura? ITALIAN Il dibattito sulla neutralità della rete si trova di fronte ad una difficoltà rilevante dal punto di vista del suo fondamento giuridico: esiste una norma giuridica obbligatoria – intesa come una norma legale – che possa essere utilizzata contro le pratiche discriminatorie degli operatori? ……………….. Other translations forthcoming.

Translated Summaries In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors ENGLISH Article: What does it mean to be neutral ? Socrates in the land of regulators Should regulatory agencies, as we define them in today’s economic and cultural world, be obligated to be neutral in accomplishing their regulatory activities? What would the meaning of such an obligation be? ITALIAN Articolo: Cosa vuol dire essere neutrale? Socrate nella terra dei regolatori Le autorità di regolazione, come sono denominate oggigiorno nel mondo economico e culturale, dovrebbero essere obbligate ad essere neutrali quando compiono le loro attività di regolazione? Quale sarebbe il significato di un tale obbligo? ………………… Other translations forthcoming.