The story around the American Innovation and Choice Online Act

If you follow the political development in the USA in recent years, you can see a deep split in the political landscape between the Republicans on the one and the Democrats on the other hand. It seems almost impossible to imagine how these two parties, which are fighting each other on all levels, could pass a united law. In the last week of January 2022, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee passed the American Innovation and Choice Online Act bill by a majority of 16 to 9, with votes from both the Democrats and Republicans.

This bill is one of several legislative initiatives which wants the U.S. Congress to limit the power of dominant IT companies. These legislative measures were triggered by an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives into the business practices of so-called “gatekeepers” and their impact on competition.

What is the regulatory content of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act?

This legislative initiative specifies that companies above a certain size may no longer give preferential treatment to their own offerings, e.g., competitors may not be arbitrarily denied access to trading platforms. It is also to be prohibited to use non-public data that accumulates when using their services, for example, to launch a similar product on the market and then favor it over others in search results or recommendations.

Intense Lobby-battle until the end

Many small IT companies urged the members of parliament to adopt the law. For example, search engine operator DuckDuckGo, browser manufacturer Brave and the anonymization project TOR had pointed out in an open letter that the large Internet corporations were using their gatekeeper status in the market to the disadvantage of open competition, consumer interests and to block innovation.

With immense effort from the lobby departments of the large companies concerned, they tried to the very end to make the vote fail.

Google, for example, argues that the law would endanger the technological leadership of the USA, as well as the security and the privacy of its users.

Amazon warns of collateral damage that would affect small and medium-sized businesses, as well as consumers.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, on the other hand, is said to have personally picked up the phone to lobby lawmakers. None of this has had any effect. Despite serious misgivings, Californian senators, who are traditionally hostile to legal intervention in Silicon Valley, voted in favor of the law. Five Republicans also joined the bipartisan initiative.

The end of unlimited opportunities for Internet corporations?

The four big tech companies: Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple have been able to profit from a largely unregulated landscape in recent decades. The political realization that drastic changes in the law are urgently needed in view of the considerable dangers to free competition, consumer protection interests and the safeguarding of innovations seems to be slowly maturing here. This is also and especially necessary to ensure that the respective state sovereignty against these international monopolies does not deteriorate any further.

In this context, the almost simultaneous legislative initiative of the EU on the European Digital Markets Act (Digital Services Act), which contains similar regulations, should also be mentioned. More on this in my next Shout-Out.

The innovative new concept of Time-2-Explore GmbH for professional staff development

In times of rapid digitalization of work processes at all levels of a company, it is of existential importance to ensure the competitiveness and therefore the economic survival of a company that its most valuable resources – the employees – are familiar with the new challenges and are able to master them safely.

However, it is not enough to simply impart technical knowledge and functionalities; individual understanding and acceptance of the new opportunities offered by digitization for each and every employee at all levels of the company is absolutely necessary for the success of professional development.

It is not enough to provide knowledge in a one-sided way, through online courses, online videos or any other of the many training tools available on the market; training is only successful when the individual employee can apply their knowledge individually to the needs of their specific work environment and is supported directly and with competence.

Continuing professional development is served in many ways by an almost immense market of providers. Here, formats and tools are also offered that make use of the infrastructure and technical possibilities that the Internet offers, in individual cases even in a very innovative way.

But how can it be that:

  • in a survey of 1500 managers from 50 organizations that 75 % were dissatisfied with the training offered by their organization?
  • more than 70 % of the employees do not have the minimum perception of what knowledge is required for the job they are doing today.
  • only 12% of workers apply the knowledge they learn in training programs to their jobs.
  • Only 25% of employees believe that training improves the quality of their work!

All in all, it needs to be mentioned that most of the training offered today is not only ineffective overall, but also that the reason, timing, and content of the training offered is often inaccurate. Not to talk about the fact that the possibilities of innovative improvements offered by the Internet and digitalization are not just limited to the appropriate professionally trained employees, but really must reach every single workplace in a company.

The new and innovative concept of Time-2-Explore GmbH, a company I founded together with my two daughters, addresses, and solves exactly these problems.

Look forward to the next Shout- Outs. In them I will further explain the individual components of this concept, which is characterized by elements of personal support, flexible planning, and transparent costs.

We are looking forward to your visit on our website. There you can already find more information:

CDU/CSU and SPD argue about implementation of EU directive

At least since Edward Snowden’s spectacular revelations about the NSA’s spying practices, everyone knows what a whistleblower is.

Whistleblower usually accept a very high personal risk and repressions in order to point out significant abuses and violations of rights within their field of activity to make them public.

This usually results in termination of the respective employment without notice. This has also always been confirmed as permissible by the labor courts due to the lack of mutual trust between employer and employee, which is necessary for any employment relationship – and which is precisely what is made clear by the whistleblowing to third parties or the public.

On the other hand, there is a considerable public and social interest in ensuring that violations of the law are made public, punished and prosecuted, also and especially in companies.

This does not happen if the employee always has to expect termination or other repression.

The EU Directive on the protection of persons who report violations of Union law of 23.10. 2019.

The so-called Whistle-blower-Directive provides the protection of persons who report violations of Union law in certain areas – for example, when it comes to public procurement, financial services, product safety, transport safety, environmental protection, food, public health, consumer and data protection.

This directive would actually have to be implemented by the German government by December 17th, 2021, as part of its obligations under the EU agreements. In addition, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had already established principles for national regulations on whistle-blower protection in 2014. The United Nations Convention against Corruption, which Germany ratified in 2014, also calls on member states to take appropriate measures.

International pressure is therefore high. Effective protection for Whistle-blower should be standard practice!

Where is the problem for the disagreement between CDU/CSU and SPD?

The main point of disagreement between these parties is whether Whistle-blower should only be protected when it comes to violations of EU law or also when it comes to violations of German law.

The SPD wants to disclose violations of both European and German law. “Because otherwise, anyone who reports a violation of European data protection regulations would be protected, but anyone who points out bribe payments, tax evasion or violations of German environmental or occupational safety regulations would not be protected. “

However, the CDU/CSU would like to grant whistle-blower protection only for violations of EU law, because otherwise the requirements of the EU directive would be implemented in an excessive manner.

Particularly in the current pandemic situation, many companies are struggling for their existence and should not have any additional obstacles put in their way by further administrative burden and regulations.

It is doubtful whether a legal regulation will be passed in this legislative period, although this would logically lead to violation of contract proceedings by the EU against the Federal Republic of Germany.

Whistle-blower could also refer directly to the EU directive

However, if the implementation period expires without a corresponding law, employees could also directly rely on the EU Directive.

If, for example, the employee is terminated after receiving a tip, he or she could refer to the EU directive as a protective law – and the termination could be unlawful.

Most recently, for example, the case of a female employee caused a stir with a video from the canteen of the Tönnies slaughterhouse showing people sitting close together at lunch – in the middle of the corona pandemic.

The woman defended herself against her summary dismissal at the Bielefeld District Court, where a settlement was finally reached. In the future, courts may be more likely to rule in favour of Whistle-blower – especially since they must interpret German law in a way that implements EU law as effectively as possible.

In a recent study, the privacy experts at pCloud examined the so-called privacy labels in the App Store to identify the apps that process the most user data. The object of the investigation was not only to find out which apps use information for their own internal purposes, but also those that share their information and data with third-party providers. pCloud is a Swiss-based provider of cloud storage solutions with over 10.5 million users worldwide.

Here, it is understandable that data is collected in order to improve their own app. This includes, for example, the analysis of errors or crashes in order to fix them in updates. This use of data is often in the interest of iPhone and iPad users. It becomes more critical, however, when the companies resell the collected user data in order to finance themselves with it.

52% of apps for iPhone and iPad share information with third-party providers.

The research results have been summarized by pCloud in an overview. You can view the overview here:

Among other things, this overview is about apps that share the collected data with third-party providers. The information includes, for example, purchases, location, contact details, search and browsing history, financial details or health and fitness data – so it is definitely about very sensitive data.

The TOP 3 data octopuses according to pCloud:

1st place goes to ➞ INSTAGRAM

– Instagram collects 79% of personal data, and the app is only sparing with the information in a few categories.

2nd place goes to ➞ FACEBOOK

– At 57%, Facebook shares significantly more than half of all data with third-party providers.

3rd place goes to ➞ LINKEDIN

– LinkedIn shares 50% of its data with third-party providers, which somewhat surprisingly includes user content, which at LinkedIn includes the account holders’ own posts.

Also notable is that 6th and 7th place go to YouTube. In 6th place you find YouTube and in 7th place YouTube Music. It is interesting to note that YouTube’s listener data is also shared with third parties. In total, YouTube shares 43% of its customer data.

In 10th place is eBay, although it is impressive to note here that eBay also shares all of its data about auctioned and purchased items with third-party providers. In total, eBay shares 36% of its customer data with third-party providers.

So users of these apps need not be surprised if, for example, they see ads for potential purchases in other apps again and repetitively flowing in on them. It should always be taken into account that the apps also communicate with each other.

Which apps do not pass on data to third parties

At the other end of the scale of iPhone and iPad apps, however, I also find some positive surprises! These are apps that don’t share any or very few details with third parties, and thus don’t share any data that could be used by third parties for marketing purposes.

Surprisingly, they also include well-known companies, such as.



and ZOOM.

Also in this category are:

Microsoft Teams, Google Classroom, Telegram and the relatively new Clubhouse.

Thus, sharing customer data with third parties does not seem to be a mandatory requirement to establish a profitable business model on the Internet!

Apple’s new Privacy Data Labels

But it’s not just third-party providers that use users’ data; Apple’s own apps also have access to personal information.

By implementing its own privacy data labels, Apple is pursuing a transparency strategy that makes the transfer and use of data to third parties transparent for the user.

Click here for the Apple guidelines:

Apple intends to introduce these transparency guidelines in a few weeks with the delivery of IOS 14.5 for all apps in the App Store. It should come as no surprise that this is currently meeting with fierce resistance – especially from Facebook.


I think that this strategy by Apple is definitely conducive to more effective data protection – in essence, ensuring transparency in the use of personal data.

This should make it easier for users to see and decide how their data is used and distributed, and whether or not they want to use the app in question.

It is at least another small step on the way to ensuring the transparency of the processing of personal data against the economic interest in the use and exploitation of personal data by the large international Internet corporations, which is as unlimited as possible.

What does that actually mean and what is it all about?

The Diem Association, formerly Libra, co-founded by Facebook, is pursuing the mission of developing an Internet of money. A global currency and financial infrastructure for billions of people. The European Central Bank and the Bank of China are also looking at introducing a digital currency to complement cash.

This development raises a host of legal questions. What is money? When is money a currency? Is digital money compatible with Union law as an alternative currency to euro cash?

What is money?

In the advanced civilizations of Asia, coinage made of gold, silver or copper was already being used as a means of payment long before Christ, before the introduction of paper money detached the value of money from its intrinsic value. With the further spread of paper money, a banking system emerged in Germany in which cash as book money was increasingly dematerialized. This led to the development of a cashless payment system. Current developments are now aimed at further increasing digitization and internationalization of the monetary system. Blockchain technology promises to enable faster payments at low fees and thus represents a new level of innovation in the monetary system.

In economic terms, money is an asset that serves as a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value, whereby money is always a means of payment, but means of payment do not always necessarily have to be money.

When is money a currency?

In the abstract, a currency is the monetary system of one or more states, and in concrete terms it is a means of payment recognized by the state and determined by law. Against this background, it becomes clear that bitcoin, for example, is neither money nor currency, since there is already no central issuer. Only if the European Central Bank were to introduce a blockchain-based central bank money – such as an e-euro – would one have money in the legal sense and could represent an additional design form of a currency.

Is digital money compatible with Union law as an alternative currency to euro cash?

The future of payments

Under this definition, the development of private blockchain-based means of payment – such as Facebook’s planned Diem – would not strictly speaking be a currency in the legal sense. However, it has the potential to trigger profound changes in payments. These blockchain-based payment methods are very different in detail. The respective requirements in terms of different scopes and purposes of use differ significantly. For example, Facebook requires a Facebook account to use Diem, which significantly limits its use.

The European Parliament and Council Regulation “on Markets in Cryptoassets, and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937” published in September 2020 describes a digital finance strategy, legislative proposals on cryptoassets and digital resilience for a competitive EU financial sector. The purpose of this is to ensure that interpretive authority is settled vis-à-vis both regulators and market developments as to how these new means of payment should be classified and valued. This can provide consumers with access to innovative financial products while ensuring consumer protection and financial stability. The regulation addresses issuers of cryptocurrencies, utility tokens, stablecoins as well as e-money tokens. Reference is made to providers such as PayPal or the European Payments Initiative of 16 major European banks, which aim to further develop cashless, digital payments.


The future of money faces an extremely dynamic development that could usher in a turning point in the history of money. In my opinion, it would certainly be advisable for policymakers and the general public to approach these new developments with an open mind and not to block innovations here prematurely due to national egoisms. The future of money has only just begun.

An important step towards increasing trust in political decisions

Since the end of 2020, there has been an agreement to introduce a mandatory transparency register for the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission. This agreement goes back to a Proposal the Commission had already submitted in 2016.

On December 15, 2020, the Parliament, the Council and the Commission have now reached a final agreement on an Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA). The official signing and entry into force are planned for spring 2021.

Extension and new participation of the EU Council

The new Transparency Register will be managed by a secretariat in which the three institutions Parliament, Council and Commission will participate on an equal basis. To be registered, the applicants will have to comply with a code of conduct. Here, there was also a consensus to introduce stricter provisions on monitoring and investigations to ensure that effective action is also taken if a lobbyist does not comply with the code of conduct. The removal of registered lobbyists from the register is also defined as a possible sanction.

Mandatory registration of activities

The Transparency Register provides that interest representatives must register if they engage in the following activities:

  • Meeting with significant decision-makers, organizations, and
  • Participate in hearings and briefings, and
  • Seeking access to institutions.

This includes activities that aim to influence decision-making processes or formulations or implementation of policies or legislation at the EU level. Furthermore, stakeholders must explain what interests and objectives they pursue and which clients they represent, as well as providing information about resources used for interest advocacy, especially sources of funding.

Associations and networks of agencies engaged in lobbying can voluntarily register if they choose to do so.

Some activities will remain possible without registration: (for example)

  • spontaneous meetings,
  • legal advice and
  • activities of social partners, political parties, Intergovernmental Relations or Member State authorities.

Provisions for individual institutions

The European Comission: Members of the EU Commission may only meet stakeholders who are listed in the Transparency Register. Information on such meetings is published on the Europa website.

The European Parliament: Here, registration is a requirement for access to its facilities, for presentations at public hearings of parliamentary committees, or for participation in the work of intergroups or other unofficial grouping activities organized in the Parliament.

The EU Council: Again, an entry in the Transparency Register is required to gain access to its facilities, participation in thematic information and stakeholder meetings with the Secretary General and the Director General of the General Secretariat of the Council.


Perhaps this initiative on EU level here would also be an occasion for the governing parties in the Federal Republic of Germany to think about the introduction of a corresponding transparency register in Berlin.

At present lobbyists of over 500 lobby organizations can freely go in and out without any registration or transparency in the Bundestag!

Agreements and rules who when how with whom why access receives keeps the Bundestag administration as before under lock and key: a – as I find – sustainably intolerable condition! The citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany are deserving of more transparency from their government.

Excessive monitoring and performance checks of employees due to the use of products from U.S. IT corporations are increasingly leading to unlawful restrictions on employee rights and violations of applicable data protection regulations in Germany as well.

While Microsoft responded early to concerns about questionable functions in Office 365, authorities objected to Amazon’s use of certain software. Microsoft had added an additional analysis function called “Workspace Analytics” to its “Microsoft 365” software package in an update. This made it possible to calculate a productivity score for individual employees. This value includes, for example, information on how many e-mails or messenger messages the individual employees send each day or how often they save files in the Microsoft Cloud or share these data with external persons. Also technical details, such as the use of slower conventional hard disks instead of the faster SSD. Data on the length of time webcams are activated during video conferences is also recorded here.
However, Microsoft backed down and improved the update accordingly after data protectors intervened. The Productivity Score will then only be available in summarized form at company level, so that it will no longer be possible to draw direct conclusions about individual employees.
Amazon’s reaction, however, is different. The data protection commissioner of Lower Saxony has expressly prohibited Amazon from using controversial monitoring and performance control software.
With the help of the software, every scanning process that employees perform when storing or removing products is automatically transferred to the foremen’s devices and displayed there. This enables them to monitor each individual work step in real time and, for example, to recognize directly if an employee briefly interrupts his usual work rhythm. This comprehensive data is also used to create detailed employee profiles. Amazon sees no problem at all in the use of the performance monitoring software and will not accept the authority’s decision.

In my opinion, this legal opinion does not correspond to the fundamental legal templates of the GDPR. A data protection impact assessment required when using this software according to Art. 35 GDPR would certainly confirm this. After all, the necessity and proportionality of the use of this software in relation to the purpose, the risks to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects must be assessed. This software is thus tantamount to total surveillance, which certainly contradicts the fundamental idea of Article 1 of the German constitutional Law, and thus an essential aspect of the core of the fundamental right to informational self-determination.

on security and liability of the EU Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee of 19.2.2020

This report was published together with the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – a European concept for excellence and trust – by the EU Commission on 19.2.2020. This report analyses the relevant current legal framework in the EU. It examines where there are uncertainties regarding the application of this legal framework due to the specific risks posed by AI systems and other technologies. The report concludes that current product safety legislation already supports an extended approach to protect against all types of risks posed by the product depending on its use. However, in order to provide greater legal certainty, provisions could be included that explicitly address newer risks associated with the new digital technologies. In summary, the report could be said to provide an outlook on the expected legal regulations at EU level for the next few years in the field of AI systems and there in particular with regard to the associated security and liability issues. Here, the report distinguishes between two main areas of regulation, product safety regulations and questions regarding the existing liability frameworks for digital technologies.

  1. Product safety regulations
    While the report concludes that current product safety legislation already supports an expanded concept of protection against all types of risks posed by a product depending on its use, it is not clear how this is to be achieved. However, to create greater legal certainty, provisions could be included which explicitly address new risks related to the new digital technologies.
    1. The autonomous behaviors of certain AI systems during their life cycle can lead to significant security-related changes in products, which may require a new risk assessment. In addition, it may be necessary to provide for human control from the design phase onwards throughout the life cycle of AI products and systems as a protective measure.
    2. Explicit obligations for manufacturers could also be considered, where appropriate, in relation to mental safety risks to users (for example, when working with humanoid robots).
    3. EU-wide product safety legislation could include both specific requirements to address the safety risks posed by incorrect data at the design stage and mechanisms to ensure that the quality of data is maintained throughout the use of AI products and systems.
    4. The issue of opacity of algorithm-based systems – the possibility of self-directed learning and self-directed performance improvement of some AI products – could be addressed by setting transparency requirements.
    5. In the case of stand-alone software that is marketed as such or downloaded into a product after it has been marketed, existing requirements may need to be adapted and clarified if the software has safety implications.
    6. Given the increasing complexity of supply chains in new technologies, provisions making cooperation between economic operators in the supply chain and users mandatory could also contribute to legal certainty.

  2. Liability regulations
    The characteristics of new digital technologies such as AI may challenge certain aspects of existing liability frameworks and reduce their effectiveness. Some of these features may make it difficult to trace the damage back to an individual, which would be required under most national rules to make fault claims. This could significantly increase costs for the injured party and make it difficult to pursue or prove liability claims against actors other than producers.
    1. Persons who must have suffered damage because of the use of AI systems will enjoy the same level of protection as persons who have been harmed by other technologies. At the same time, there must be enough room for further development of technological innovation.
    2. All options envisaged to achieve this objective – including possible amendment of the Product Liability Directive and possible further targeted harmonization of national liability laws – should be carefully considered. For example, the Commission invites comments on whether and to what extent it might be necessary to mitigate the consequences of complexity by changing the rules on the burden of proof for damages caused by the operation of AI applications as provided for in national rules of conduct.
    3. In the light of the above comments on the liability framework, the Commission concludes that, in addition to the possible adaptation of this existing legislation, new legislation specifically targeted at AI may be necessary to adapt the EU legal framework to current and expected technological and commercial developments.

    The White Paper identifies the following areas as possible additional regulatory points:
    • A clear legal definition of AI
      A risk-based approach should be taken here, i.e. there should be AI applications with high or low risk. Here, regulatory efforts should be concentrated on those applications with high risk, so as not to cause disproportionately high costs for SMEs. Criteria for the risk class should be the question whether the AI application is used in a sector where, due to the nature of the typical activities, significant risks are to be expected. The second criterion is whether the AI application is used in a sector in which significant risks are to be expected.
    • Key features
      The requirements for high-risk AI applications can relate to the following key features: Training data, data and record retention, information to be presented, robustness and accuracy, human oversight, special requirements for certain AI applications, for example, remote biometric identification applications.
    • Addressees
      Many actors are involved in the life cycle of an AI system. These include the developer, the operator, and possibly other actors such as manufacturer, dealer, importer, service provider, professional or private user. The Commission believes that in a future legal framework, the individual obligations should be the responsibility of the actor(s) best able to manage potential risks. For example, AI developers may be best placed to manage the risks arising from the development phase, while their ability to control risks in the exploitation phase may be more limited. The Commission considers it essential that the requirements apply to all relevant economic operators offering AI-based products or services in the EU, whether they are established in the EU or not.
    • Compliance and enforcement
      Given the high risk that certain AI applications represent overall, the Commission considers at this stage that an objective ex-ante conformity assessment would be necessary to verify and ensure that certain of the above-mentioned mandatory requirements for high risk applications are met. An ex-ante conformity assessment could include procedures for testing, inspection, or certification. This could include a review of the algorithms and data sets used in the development phase.

      a) Governance
      A European governance structure for AI, in the form of a framework for cooperation between the competent national authorities, is necessary to avoid fragmentation of responsibilities, to strengthen the capacities in the Member States and to ensure that Europe gradually equips itself with the capacities needed for the testing and certification of AI-based products and services
  1. Conclusion
    Even though the considerations made by the EU Commission in the White Paper and in the report on the impact of artificial intelligence on the adaptation of the legal nationally different existing regulations regarding artificial intelligence are still at a very unspecific stage and still in the middle of the political discussion, the following can be stated
    1. With an adapted or supplementary legal regulation on EU level regarding the questions of product safety (i.e. market access requirements) as well as regarding the reorganization of liability issues in connection with AI systems, it can be assumed with some certainty that this will happen in the course of the next few years.
    2. Especially AI vendors should be prepared for the fact that the algorithm must be transparent, verifiable, and finally meet certain certification requirements. In addition, an extended liability and thus responsibility of the AI provider that goes beyond the known extent of product liability, for example with regard to responsibility for supply chains and complex products, is certainly to be expected. As a result, this will only be associated with changed, more transparent development processes and extended responsibility, i.e. considerably higher costs for the corresponding insurance cover.

On December 9, 2020, the EU Commission intends to announce a series of new planned competition and antitrust regulations to improve the control of technology groups, particularly the major Internet platforms.

In a report published on November 19, 2020, the EU Court of Auditors also urges the improvement of corresponding EU regulations. In particular, the report criticizes the fact that two antitrust proceedings against Internet platforms already exist under current law, but that enforcement here leaves much to be desired.

Although the EU Commission has opened antitrust proceedings against Google, these have been still pending before the European Court of Justice for more than three years without a decision.

Already a few weeks ago, the contents of the planned new EU regulations – the so-called Digital Services Act – were leaked, so I would like to give you a short list of the intended regulations in the following

1. Exclusive use of data

Large online platforms could be banned under the EU Digital Services Act from using collected User Data if it is not made available to smaller platforms. The activities of so-called “gatekeeper” platforms such as Google, Amazon and Facebook will be discussed in particular. These large corporations have a disproportionately high degree of economic power and control over the online world and can therefore participate in deciding “at the gate” who may enter the market.

According to the new regulation, gatekeepers are only allowed to use data

  • which is produced on the platform itself
  • or which are generated and collected on other services of the donors

for their own commercial purposes if it is also made available to other commercial users.

2. Rankings

Furthermore, online search engines are to be prohibited from displaying their own services preferentially and in an exposed position. This regulation represents a considerable tightening of the previous EU regulation from July 2019. In this regulation, search engines were only obliged to make it clear and transparent if they give preference to their own products and services.

3. Freedom of choice and Pre-installation

Equally, e-commerce giants will be prohibited in the future from restricting the ability of business users to offer the same goods and services to consumers under different conditions through other online intermediary services. It will also be prohibited for large companies to pre-install only their own apps on hardware systems. It must also be possible for consumers to uninstall applications that have already been pre-installed by the manufacturer.

4. Einführung einer sogenannten „Grauen Liste“

Furthermore, the EU Commission intends to introduce a so-called “grey list” of activities that the executive considers unfair and which may therefore require increased supervision by a competent authority in the future. According to this list, the platform giants are not allowed to prevent third parties from accessing essential information about customers and are instructed not to collect personal data beyond what is necessary to provide their services.

It ultimately remains to be seen in what concrete form the EU Commission will now present these regulations in December 2020. However, it can certainly be expected that intensive lobbying by the major Internet groups, as has already happened several times in the past, will result in some changes and public discussion before the final adoption. It remains – as so often in life – thus further exciting.

What is the reason behind this?

In a judgement, the German Federal Supreme Court confirmed the imposition of a fine by the German Federal Cartel Office against Facebook. Although the judgement of the German Federal Supreme Court was issued more than two months ago, I would like to take up the issue again here and draw attention to two problems that are made clear in this decision.


First, it should be noted that this decision will not have any legal consequences for everyday life and behaviour on and with Facebook at the moment.

This is simply due to the fact that the judgement is a summary proceeding. In these summary proceedings, the court decided on a fine imposed on Facebook by the German Federal Cartel Office in 2019.

Here is the first point of criticism: the length of time the summary proceeding lasted!

Before the fine was imposed, the Federal Cartel Office had already investigated for 3 years. This so-called summary proceeding took more than 4 years until it became legally binding!

This appears to be extremely problematic, especially in disputes related to the digital economy, because economic power in digital markets establishes itself quickly.

Facebook, on the other hand, now has the opportunity to have the decision on the main proceedings reviewed intensively once again. It is possible that the German Federal Supreme Court will also seek an opinion from the European Court of Justice in the proceedings, which would mean years of main lawsuits, without any legally binding final decision.

Here the legislator is undoubtedly called upon to ensure effective legal protection!


The second important aspect of this decision is that the German Federal Supreme Court did not adopt the substantive justification of Facebook’s dominant position – as in the original decision of the Federal Cartel Office. The German Federal Supreme Court has NOT based its decision on a violation of the German Data Protection Act as a violation of antitrust law but has instead classified Facebook’s terms and conditions as questionable under antitrust law.

In doing so, the German Federal Supreme Court avoids deciding on the question of whether a violation of the European Data Protection Act can in principle constitute a violation of antitrust law. Sooner or later, the German Federal Supreme Court will not be able to ignore a statement on this question. Because the essential point of the problem is that the European Data Protection Act does not want to protect private personal data against an excessively encroaching state, but against the economic interests of the internationally very well positioned Internet platforms! Their business model consists precisely in generating sales through the intelligent use of personal data.

In conclusion, we can say:

Since we are only at the beginning of the intensive highest court clarification of legal questions on the application and scope of the European Data Protection Act, the German Federal Supreme Court will sooner or later have to take a clear position on this issue! In essence, the question is whether the field of protection of fundamental rights, which is part of public constitutional law, also applies directly to legal relations with Internet platforms in the private sector under civil law.