Characteristics of the European Platform Regulation
Platform Law and User Protection
Copyright (c) 2022 Ződi Zsolt
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This paper presents the European regulation of platforms. In its first part, it reconstructs the process by which the concept of ‘platform’ in information technology and marketing have evolved and become a legal concept. This emerged from the mid-2010s, first in amendments of sectoral rules and later in sui generis platform rules. The second part of the paper argues that these rules can be interpreted as an emerging separate area of law, the ‘European platform law’. One of the most important ultimate justifying principles and purposes of this legal corpus is the protection of users. This is achieved through a number of tools, some of which are legal transplants from other legal areas (such as consumer protection), while others are sui generis legal rules created specifically for platforms, such as the protection of user accounts or the explainability and transparency of algorithms.
Keywords:
How to Cite
References
Balkin, J. M. (2016). Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment. UC Davis Law Review, 49(4), 1183–1234. Online: https://bit.ly/3CC02Xd
Balkin, J. M. (2020). The Fiduciary Model of Privacy. Harvard Law Review Forum, 134(11), 11–33. Online: https://bit.ly/3yJv6Dp
Cohen, J. (2019). Between Truth and Power. The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism. Oxford University Press. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246693.001.0001
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society. Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
Van Dijck, J., Nieborg, D. & Poell, T. (2019). Reframing Platform Power. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). Online: https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1414
Van Dijck, J. (2021). Governing Trust in European Platform Societies: Introduction to the EJC Special Issue. European Journal of Communication, 36(4), 323–333. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211028378
Dumbrava, C. (2021). Key Social Media Risks to Democracy: Risks from Surveillance, Personalisation, Disinformation, Moderation and Microtargeting. EPRS. Online: https://bit.ly/3MHNsu7
Gillespie, T. (2010). The Politics of ‘Platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Malgieri, G. & Comand, G. (2017). Why a Right to Legibility of Automated Decision-Making Exists in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(4), 243–265. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx019
Riordan, J. (2016). The Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Oxford University Press. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198719779.001.0001
Shapiro, C. & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press.
De Waal, M., Poell, T. & Van Dijck, J. (2016). De platformsamenleving: strijd om publieke waarden in een online wereld. Amsterdam University Press.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
Wheelwright, S. & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development. Simon and Schuster.
Wong, J. C. (2018, March 18). The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Changed the World – But it Didn’t Change Facebook. The Guardian. Online: https://bit.ly/3TlTCCV
Zhu, F. & Iansiti, M. (2007). Dynamics of Platform Competition: Exploring the Role of Installed Base, Platform Quality and Consumer Expectations. ICIS 2007 Proceedings, 38. Online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2007/38
