Sectors

Compliance and Regulation Law Glossary

Nov. 2, 2016

Events : JR

Sept. 14, 2016

Thesaurus : Soft Law

July 4, 2016

Breaking news

On 30 June 2016, Sébastien Soriano, President of the French Telecommunications Authority (Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes - ARCEP) gave an interview to the French magazine L’Usine digitale (in French).

Speaking to the press is a way for the Regulator to reach everyone, including policymakers, European institutions, and fellow Regulators who also seek to compete for space in the digital area.

As he reported: "Nous arrivons aujourd’hui, avec l'irruption du numérique, à un acte 2 de la régulation. Il y a 20 ans, on est passé du modèle PTT où l’Etat produisait le service public, au modèle d’État-régulateur qui a permis l’ouverture à la concurrence. Ce modèle vise à une bonne organisation du marché avec des outils de pilotage efficaces, mais parfois très intrusifs : les licences mobiles, qui sont des contrats assortis de sanctions administratives en cas de non-respect des obligations, ou le dégroupage, qui est une intervention sur la propriété privée… Aujourd’hui il nous faut franchir une étape nouvelle et nous projeter dans la suite, repenser nos outils pour permettre, en complément, une régulation plus focalisée, plus humble et plus agile". We can translate this passage as it follows : As of today, considering the onset of digital, we are getting to a second phase for Regulation. Over the past 20 years, we went from the ‘PTT model’, where the State provided for public service, to a new Regulatory State model that enabled competition to thrive. This model aims for good market organization with effective management tools, which may be sometimes very intrusive: e.g., mobile licenses, which are agreements that include administrative penalties in the event of failure to comply with its provisions, or unbundled access, which relates to a State intervention on private ownership… Today, we need to take it another step further and plan for the future, reconsider our tools to allow for a Regulation that would be better focused, humbler and nimbler”.

Whatever “Phase 1” was would thus be already outpaced. Farewell stringent public service, so long market openings to competition. Such an understanding of Regulation was certainly consistent with the idea that Regulation was only meant to be temporary, namely considering the everlasting protection of personal data by the dedicated supervisory authority (Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés, CNIL)…

We would then need to implement “Phase 2” and, as Sébastien Soriano advises, to “Regulate by the multitude”, which is "a concept that includes consumers, but also users, observers, and the civil society as a whole. The key question is how to use the power of information to get the greatest possible leverage on the market while relying on the multitude. The answer is clear: Regulation by data" ("La multitude, ce sont les utilisateurs, les observateurs, la société civile. Cela inclut les consommateurs, mais pas uniquement. Et la question centrale, c’est comment utiliser le pouvoir de l’information pour avoir un maximum d'effet de levier sur le marché et grâce à la multitude. La réponse, c’est la régulation par la data.").

Like all the others, the Telecom Regulator introduces himself as a sort of ‘natural’ Regulator for digital activities, as he relies on the key notion that is information. In doing so, he is seeking allies that are just as natural as he is— that is to say, consumers. Consumers fall indeed into the scope of the Regulator insofar as they provide him with the information he needs to Regulate the digital sector and space.

The Regulator thus does not define himself anymore as the one that protects consumers against the market, but as the one that binds the two together, transforming the complaint into a civic act: “There’s a problem. As a consumer, I am alerting you as a Regulator who has the means to regulate market failures and whom I shall let operate”.

In such a statement, the ARCEP not only becomes the ‘natural’ digital Regulator, but it also become the one that operates on the grounds of information brought by the web-user, who is protected by and who somehow benefits in return from the action of the Regulator.

Two concluding thoughts:

  • What a nimble reasoning indeed from the Regulator, who had initially been created to be the ‘container Regulator’, and who is now becoming, since Phase 2 is on its way, a kind of ‘overall’ Regulator that regulates both the container and the content.
  • This is a salient example that rationales and frameworks that were developed by the Banking and Financial Regulation are modelling Regulation in general: see whistleblowers, information, obsolescence of the ‘public service’.

June 20, 2016

Breaking news

Little is known about how to ‘regulate the Internet’…

Outline solutions, however, do seem to have to be found in ex-post mechanisms since Regulation (broadly speaking) understand ex-ante and ex-post mechanisms as a continuum, and since Regulators increasingly concentrate ex-post mechanisms in their hands as an effective way to ensure execution of the ex-ante prescriptions they themselves elaborated.

Ex-ante mechanisms aim at making algorithms more ‘loyal’.

As long as we hope for devices to be trustworthy and to be held accountable for their ‘loyalty’, we give merits to the idea that we probably should “take liability seriously”.                                                                                                                       

On June 14, 2016, the Californian father of one of the victims of the 11/13/2015 Paris attacks filed a suit in a U.S. District Court to prosecute Google, Facebook and Twitter

The legal dispute is clear.

The applicant based its claim to hold the companies liable on the grounds that they let terrorist groups use their networks: “The suit claims the companies “knowingly permitted” the Islamic State group, referred to in the complaint as “ISIS”, to recruit members, raise money and spread “extremist propaganda” via their social-media services”.

Conversely, the defendants unanimously claimed that they had actively implemented ‘policies’ against extremist material, and that they were working with law enforcement entities to improve regulations on the matter. Self-regulation and ethics versus common liability law.

The companies also pointed out the fact that they were not publishers, hence they could not face liability for the material users post on their networks. This is not, however, the issue at stake: the complaint concerns the use of the network not as a mere way to broadcast messages, but as a way to recruit murderers, provide them with convenient tools to communicate and to prepare criminal operations—allegations for which law does not exempt social media companies from liability.

These allegations are worth being ‘taken seriously’, should the law be unclear on whether the companies could be charged indeed, and should the total exemption from liability of such companies pleading for their ‘neutrality’ be the exception rather than the norm.

The question of principle is thus as follows: is exemption from liability of those who hold the ‘digital space’ together really the norm?

If so, their exemption from liability needs to be extended to a scenario that had not been covered by the law yet. If not, then common liability law is the rightful legal basis to assess whether the companies can be found liable or not—provided that a direct causal link between the unlawful act and an actual harm suffered by the applicant can be demonstrated.

 

 

The legal dispute is clear.

 

May 5, 2016

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Jan. 18, 2016

Compliance and Regulation Law Glossary

Jan. 14, 2016

Compliance and Regulation Law Glossary

Jan. 13, 2016

Compliance and Regulation Law Glossary

Sept. 16, 2015

Events

Attendance at this conference can be validated under the continuing education of lawyers of Paris Bar.
After the holding of this conference, a French-written book will be published in the Regulations Series, edited by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, in the French Publisher Dalloz
 
Initially the Regulation assumes the consideration of technical objects (telephone, airplane, train, wheat, currency, electricity, etc.). This practical perspective opposes the abstract view of competition law that neutralizes objects by their monetary evaluation and the elaboration of a "fair price" obtained by the meeting of supply and demand in a market.Thus, each technical object has developed specific regulation as in a cottage garden: banking regulation, financial regulation, railway regulation, telecommunications regulation, power regulation, gaming regulation, horse races regulation, and so on. The body of rules and institutions were built, unique to each object, more effective than the behemoth that is the State in charge of all these so different objects and pursuing so many objectives that it was criticized for its inefficiency.
But different technical objects are not isolated from each other. As financial products have long taken the other items as "underlying". More Internet has introduced a novelty that could be radical.
 
Indeed, the Internet allows a circulation seems unhindered benefits that fall most often regulated sectors (financial services, health service, audiovisual services, etc.). Moreover, new objects appear, the "connected objects" whose creation is based on the Internet's ability to set effective relationship hitherto separate sectors, eg telecommunication and health services (the "connected health ).
Therefore, the Internet, which is often presented as a regulatory desert, appears as a jumble of different regulations, which contradict or are deformed by passing in the virtual world and crossing or even clashing with other regulation. So Internet would appear at first glance as a "space of interregulation".
 
The conference of 16 September 2015 dedicates its morning to draw up a diagnostic for measuring the "needs" of the Internet interregulation, so that the afternoon will allow to develop some "solutions" to interregulation. On this occasion, we can measure whether it will adapt traditional regulations because of new technologies and new uses, or more radically rethink sectoral regulations and regulatory law because Internet

April 16, 2015

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Feb. 20, 2015

Breaking news

Internet needs to be regulated, but by whom and from what criteria?

The high speed building of very different cases shows the urgency of reflections on the principles.

Consider the case in which just entered the British Regulatory Authority Advertising  Standards Authority (ASA). Thiss Authority isn't specific to the Internet but the fact the behavior takes place on the Internet doesn't stop the Regulator, the ASA applying its control on "all media".

An Irish betting company organized bets about a future event: conviction or acquittal of Oscar Pistorus for the death of his fiancée. The latter doesn't deny being the author of the fatal blow but claims that he isn't responsible legally.

The website reproduces the accused of a very recognizable way in the form of an Oscar statuette. This is due to the homonymous first name and the statue of the reward. But this is also a triple ambiguity created by the company.

Secondly the statue can't walk as the athlete si one takes off his prosthetic that made him win races.

Thirdly and more than that, if convicted, he remains in prison, Oscar Pistorum would continue to be deprived of his freedom to come and go, and therefore still unable to "walk" freely, the betting firm indicating that it will reimburses money if the accused will "walk" (out of prison - as a sort of miracle ...).

_____

Watching that, more than 5,000 people protested. But before whom? In this excess of regulators, people turn to perhaps the most dynamic: in the UK it is probably the Advertising  Standards Authority (ASA) .

But what to blame?

One could have said that it is illegal to bet on the outcome of a trial.

One could argue that you can't bet about a terrible history, whose center is the death of a young woman.

But it's rather toward the disability side and "minority rights" that the case is taking shape. Indeed, associations see it as primarily a mockery of people who can't walk.

Without further developed if the ASA takes a position on this advertising that the company has since removed, it will take a strong position in the regulation of the Internet and could for example clarify and prioritize the interests that must be respect in the virtual world.

 

Jan. 12, 2015

Breaking news

France Stratégie is the French public body that advises the French Government on economic and social policies.

In January 2015, one of its researchers, Medhi Nemri, published an analytical note: "Demain, l'Internet des objets (Tomorrow, the Internet of Things)".

The release sees the Internet as a "essential facility" whose development capabilities will allow interaction between objects: the "Internet of Things". This world of "connected devices" would be a "tipping".

Indeed, the objects are connected in the industrial system (smart manufacturing) and the municipal utilities are beginning to organize themselves in the same way. The note stresses the importance of fostering an open platform for all public services. Private space is organized in the same way, for example health, but individuals often see these connected objects as gadgets. Yet by the technology platforms, interconnection allows a general improvement of services. The more traditional companies may depend on Internet companies developing these platforms.

The issue of power of this economy are standardization and standard naming of objects. In this ecosystem, data are the creation of economic value.

The author of the paper proposes the idea of a "right to experiment" way to foster innovation. This would in mobility, health management, insurance. The note doesn't specify the consequences of such a "right to experiment": Does this mean a decline in sectoral regulations?

In any case, the note stresses the need to reaffirm the rights of persons and to protect privacy.

Dec. 18, 2014

Breaking news

Virtual currency is a perfect example of the difficulties of interregulation: indeed, the bitcoins are currencies created on the Internet, usually to play games, such as poker. Thus intersect banking regulation, banking supervision, regulation and control of the game, Internet regulation itself.

In the US, the situation is complicated in that banking regulation is exercised at the state level, while the Internet is subject to intervention by federal regulators, including the Federal Communication Commission.
 
To solve this problem, the solution is to create a network of states banking regulators and supervisors, who adopt common rules. This is why the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, which is the network of state banking supervisors, created in 1902, has prepared a draft regulation of virtual currency, published December 16, 2014 and submitted for consultation for a month.

____

Dec. 3, 2014

Breaking news

The Swiss Confederation has published 19 November 2014 a consultation paper in a view to reform its federal telecommunications regulatory law (the Swiss Federal telecoms regulator is the Federal Communications Commission (ComCom), which articulates with the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM).

Available in several languages, the document is titled: Dynamic telecoms market requires modern legal bases.
End of the document, the Confederation reports that it raises that State presence in the capital of Swisscom is legitimate (information that hasn't perhaps belong in a consultation document).

The consultation document intends to proceed with a progressive review". A first step of review will take place late 2015.
 
First, it will focus on international roaming, for which Swiss prices are too high but for which the ceiling price technique is rejected, the protection of youth or the need for market participants to register including Internet players.
In addition, the consultation focuses on increasing access to networks, including passive infrastructure, to increase competition. It is envisaged to grant the Federal Communications Commission (ComCom) ex officio powers.
Other issues will be discussed after 2015, for example universal service and neutrality in order to "not to break the dynamics of investment."

Operators have already protested about the narrowness of the consultation, in particular because the issue of optical fiber is not asked!footnote-5.
 

Dec. 2, 2014

Breaking news

Internet requires regulation. It does not works solely because of the moral sense of the users or through vigilance of companies that develop on it.

The regulator of the virtual space can be imagined, or a regulator of the various possible activities that develop there, regulators then deploying their powers as when the activity takes place on the Internet. Thus, it is the case of advertising.

In the UK, the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) monitors the advertising business, also on the Internet.

Its decision of 26 November 2014 is remarkable for several reasons. It punishes two non-professionals, namely two users Youtube tool. But in communication, non-market entrepreneurs sometimes have more weight than businesses. But on the Internet, users can sponsor their free activity, which is to monetize. In this case, the two had played on their Youtube channel short films that were advertisements.

The complaint made against them is that Youtube is not a support on which those who put content make it to commercial purposes. And other users could not understand they watched the advertisement and not a distraction film or information.

The Regulator imposes a sanction against Internet users not because they did a promotional contract with the company, in this case Cadbury wich  wants to promote Oreo cookies. By this contract, the entreprisee via the famous Internet users can reach consumers, which is permissible. They are punished because they have deceived the confidence of the other Internet users who can't imagine being the target of an advertisement. The fact that it is people with many fans on youtube counted in the severity of the Regulator. Indeed, they have more than 2 million subscribers. More than 1.3 million have seen the offending video. Only 243 people have not loved it.

Thus, in a virtual world always close to self-regulation, the notion of trust made to the information transmitters is the central concept of the system served by the Regulator power to impose sanctions,The author of the message is a professional or not is irrelevant. What matters is the importance that others give the message he sends.

Dec. 1, 2014

Breaking news

The laws are general and abstract. It is the mark of their modernity (Max Weber) and the mark of the rule of law. Thus, a State adopting or applying for adoption of a text against a designated person or a company that aims is literally backwards.

However, France and Germany have asked 27 November 2014 to the European Commission to take steps against those who hold the platforms on the Internet, including search engines. Everyone knows that this is the famous "GAFA" (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon).

It seems that the EU institutions fit, since the European Parliament voted on November 27 a text saying that it could ban these companies to monetize their platform activities themselves.

By their regulatory perspectives, Europe gets "retrograde" against the US dynamism?

At first glance, one might say. But it may be that these companies have become "critical", they take the heart of the digital economy, or even the knowledge economy and social cohesion. In such cases, the regulation of these objective phenomena justifies intervene directly in companies in which the social group comes to identify itself. If the company comes to stifle others, it is not that it stifles competition only, but innovation and free expression.

Then pass the mere vigilance competition law instruments of regulation, common in banking and financial law, such as transparency requirements.

This demonstrates Regulation and Supervision meet when companies become crucial.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: Dec. 7, 2011)

Sectorial Analysis

Translated Summaries

In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors


ENGLISH

The Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) handed down a ruling (n°339154) on October 19, 2011 in the French Data Network, Apple, and iTunes case. In this ruling, it refused to annul the decree giving the "Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet" (HADOPI — France’s Internet Piracy Regulator) the power to issue injunctions to force the accessibility of essential information on the Internet in order to guarantee interoperability, using either penalties or fines.


 

FRENCH

Le Conseil d’Etat a rendu un arrêt (n ° 339154) le 19 Octobre 2011 French Data Network, Apple et iTunes. Dans cet arrêt, il a refusé d’annuler le décret donnant à la Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des Œuvres et la protection des Droits sur Internet (HADOPI) le pouvoir d’émettre des injonctions pour forcer l’accessibilité des ’informations essentielles sur Internet afin de garantir l’interopérabilité, en utilisant des injonctions ou des amendes.


ITALIAN

Il “Conseil d’Etat” (il Consiglio di Stato francese) ha pronunciato una decisione (n° 339154) il 19 ottobre 2011 nel caso della rete di dati francese, Apple ed iTunes. In questa decisione, il Consiglio di stato ha rifiutato di annullare il decreto che conferisce alla “Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet” (HADOPI – l’autorità francese di regolazione contro la pirateria informatica) il potere di emettere delle sanzioni per assicurare l’accessibilità di informazioni essenziali su internet per garantire l’interoperabilità, usando così delle multe o delle ammende.


..................

Other translations forthcoming.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: June 12, 2011)

Sectorial Analysis

ENGLISH

On May 12, 2011, both Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the digital agenda within the European Commission, and Larry Strickling, Assistant Commissioner for Communications and Information within the United States Department of Commerce, sent a notification to the ICANN, a private association that manages Internet domain names. First of all, they agreed with the principle of self-regulation of Internet domain names by the ICANN. But, they requested a reform of its “governance” to improve its transparency and better take into account public authorities’ recommendations.

Association - Conflict resolution - Domain name - European commission - Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) - Memorandum - Power - Private regulator - Regulatory Authority - Self regulation - Soft law - Transparency - United Nations (UN) *

* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.

 

PORTUGUESE

Informe bibliográfico (Internet): Autoridades europeias e norte-americanas notificaram a ICANN, uma associação privada encarregada da auto-regulação de nomes de domínio na Internet, que ela deve adotar uma governança mais transparente e também adotar as recomendações de estruturas públicas.

Em 12 de maio de 2011, tanto Neelie Kroes, o Comissário Europeu para a agenda digital dentro da Comissão Europeia, quanto Larry Strickling, Comissário Assistente para Comunicações e Informação dentro do Departamento de Comércio dos Estados Unidos da América, enviaram uma notificação para a ICANN, uma associação privada que gerencia nomes de domínio na internet. Em primeiro lugar, eles concordaram com o princípio da auto-regulação dos nomes de domínio na Internet pela ICANN. No entanto, eles solicitaram uma reforma em sua governança para melhorar sua transparência e melhor levar em consideração as recomendações de autoridades públicas.


Associação – Resolução de conflitos – Nome de domínio – Comissão Europeia – Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) – Memorandum – Poder – Regulação privada – Autoridade de regulação – Auto-regulação – Soft law – Transparência – Nações Unidas (ONU)*


* No Journal of Regulation, as palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Diretor, e não pelo Autor.

ITALIAN


Relazione bibliografica (Internet): Le autorità europee e nord americane hanno indicato che l’ICANN, una società privata che ha lo scopo di auto-regolare i nomi a dominio di internet, dovrà aumentare la trasparenza della gestione ed adottare le raccomandazioni delle strutture pubbliche

Il 12 maggio 2011, Neelie Kroes, Commissario europeo per l’agenda digitale della Commissione europea, e Larry Strickling, Commissario assistente per le comunicazioni e l’informazione del Dipartimento del Commercio degli Stati Uniti, hanno entrambi dichiarato che l’ICANN, una società privata che gestisce i nomi a dominio di Internet, deve riformare il proprio sistema di gestione migliorando la sua trasparenza e deve prendere in debita considerazione le raccomandazioni provenienti dalle autorità pubbliche.


Associazione - Autorità di regolazione - Autorità privata di regolazione - Auto-regolazione - Commissione Europea - Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) - Memorandum - Nazioni Unite (ONU) - Nomi di dominio - Potere - Risoluzione di controversie - Soft law - Transparenza *


* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.

 

 Other translations fortcoming.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: Sept. 9, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

ENGLISH
 
The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) announced on September 1st, 2010 a revision to the Committee of Advertising Practice Code (the CAP Code), in order to handle consumer complaints and sanction non-compliant advertising on British websites. These new rules will be effective from March 1st 2011.
 
 
FRANCAIS

Le British Advertising Standards Authorithy (ASA — organisme britannique d'autorégulation de la publicité) a annoncé le 1er septembre 2010 une révision au Committee of Advertising Practice Code (The CAP Code — le Code des bonnes pratiques dans la publicité), afin de pouvoir répondre aux plaintes des consommateurs relatives aux publicités non-conformes sur les sites Internet britanniques, et de les sanctionner. Ces nouvelles règles entreront en vigueur le 1er mars 2011.

GERMAN

Die British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA - die britische Selbstregulierungsbehörde für die Werbebranche) hat am 1. September 2010 verkündigt, dass der Committee of Advertising Practice Code (the CAP Code - die Richtlinien für Qualitätsregeln in der Werbewirtschaft) so verändert wird, dass er für das Empfängnis und die Behandlung von Verbrauchersklagen gegen Internet-Werbungen zuständig wird. Diese Regel wird erst am 1. März 2011 im Kraft treten.

 

SPANISH

 

El British Advertising Standards Authority (la Autoridad británica de la autorregulación publicitaria) extiendo el CAP Code (el código des buenas prácticas publicitarias) para cubrir las publicidades que se encuentran en sitios de web británicos

El British Advertising Standards Authority (la Autoridad británica de la autorregulación publicitaria) anunció el 1 de septiembre 2010 una revisión al Committee of Advertising Practice Code (the CAP Code – el código des buenas prácticas publicitarias), para poder responder a las quejas y sanciones sobre las prácticas publicatarias no-conformes sobre los sitios de web británicos. Estas nuevas reglas entrarán en vigor el primero de marzo del 2011.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: May 19, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

Main information

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces on May 6, 2010 that it will reclassify broadband Internet service as a Telecommunications Service, in order to overcome the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on April 6, 2010, which found that the FCC’s approach to network neutrality lacked sufficient legal basis.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: May 17, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

Main information

A contract between Free (a French Internet Service Provider) and one of its subscribers contained a clause stipulating that access to audiovisual services was conditional upon the eligibility of the user’s telephone line for such services. The Court of Cassation deems that except in cases of force majeure, such a clause does not exempt the service provider from his strict liability to provide such services

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: May 6, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

Main information

On April 27, 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee for Health voted to introduce an amendment to the European Commission’s ‘Pharmacovigilance and Prescription Medicine Package’, which would introduce a strict regime for online prescription medicine sellers.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: April 13, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

Main information

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit strikes down a decision that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the American telecommunications regulation agency, had taken against an Internet service provider, on the grounds that the FCC is incompetent to impose the theory of network neutrality on Internet service providers.

Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: Feb. 11, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

Main information

Definitive ratification of the 'three-strikes' riposte system concerning illegal downloading as part of the Hadopi II Act