- Recital 1 – Role of digital services
- Recital 2 – Characteristics of core platform services
- Recital 3 – Characteristics of gatekeepers
- Recital 4 – Market effects of gatekeeper characteristics
- Recital 5 – Limitations of existing competition law
- Recital 6 – Gatekeepers’ impact on the internal market
- Recital 7 – Purpose of the DMA to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market
- Recital 8 – Harmonisation
- Recital 9 – National rules and public interest
- Recital 10 – Interplay with national competition rules
- Recital 11 – Objective of the DMA (fairness and contestability) and relation to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
- Recital 12 – Interplay with GDPR, e-Privacy Directive and other EU laws
- Recital 13 – Focus on gatekeepers’ weak contestability and unfair practices
- Recital 14 – Types of core platform services
- Recital 15 – Gateways and core platform services in scope
- Recital 16 – Designation as gatekeepers
- Recital 17 – Assessing significant impact on the internal market
- Recital 18 – Significance of an undertaking’s market capitalisation (1/2)
- Recital 19 – Significance of an undertaking’s market capitalisation (2/2)
- Recital 20 – Calculating active end users and business users
- Recital 21 – Meaning of an entrenched and durable position in the internal market
- Recital 22 – Commission’s power to determine quantitative thresholds
- Recital 23 – Rebutting the presumption of having a significant impact on the internal market
- Recital 24 – Medium-sized, small and micro enterprises
- Recital 25 – Market investigations
- Recital 26 – Intervention to prevent future entrenched and durable market positions (1/2)
- Recital 27 – Intervention to prevent future entrenched and durable market positions (2/2)
- Recital 28 – Proportionality
- Recital 29 – Gatekeepers’ compliance and Commission’s implementing measures
- Recital 30 – Regular review of gatekeeper status
- Recital 31 – Clarity of harmonised rules
- Recital 32 – Meaning of “contestability”
- Recital 33 – Meaning of “fairness”
- Recital 34 – Interplay between “contestability” and “fairness”
- Recital 35 – Relevance of public policy concerns
- Recital 36 – Processing of personal data
- Recital 37 – Provision of a less personalised alternative service and consent
- Recital 38 – Protection of minors
- Recital 39 – Gatekeepers’ imposition of contractual terms and conditions on business users
- Recital 40 – Business users and end users’ freedom to conduct business
- Recital 41 – Restricting end users’ freedom to use alternatives to the core platform service
- Recital 42 – Safeguarding the rights of end users, business users and whistle-blowers
- Recital 43 – Gatekeepers’ imposition of dependencies on business users like payment systems and browsers
- Recital 44 – Subscriptions and registration requirements
- Recital 45 – Online advertising and transparency for business users
- Recital 46 – Dual role of gatekeepers as providers and competitors of business users (1/2)
- Recital 47 – Dual role of gatekeepers as providers and competitors of business users (2/2)
- Recital 48 – Cloud computing services and business users
- Recital 49 – Gatekeepers’ favouring of their own services such as pre-installed applications
- Recital 50 – Restrictions on end users’ ability to install and use third party software
- Recital 51 – Vertical integration of gatekeepers (1/2)
- Recital 52 – Vertical integration of gatekeepers (2/2)
- Recital 53 – Restricting end users free choices
- Recital 54 – Restricting end users access to online content and services
- Recital 55 – Interoperability
- Recital 56 – Gatekeepers’ dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers
- Recital 57 – Gatekeepers’ dual role and interoperability
- Recital 58 – Gatekeepers’ provision of online advertising services
- Recital 59 – End users’ access to data collected by gatekeepers and data portability
- Recital 60 – Business users’ access to data collected by gatekeepers
- Recital 61 – Online search engines
- Recital 62 – Conditions of access for software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services
- Recital 63 – Account closure and unsubscribing
- Recital 64 – Interoperability of number-independent interpersonal communication services
- Recital 65 – Compliance by design
- Recital 66 – Gatekeepers’ opportunity to request suspension of a specific obligation
- Recital 67 – Suspension of specific obligations on public health or public security grounds
- Recital 68 – Compliance reporting to the Commission
- Recital 69 – Investigations to amend the scope of the DMA
- Recital 70 – Anti-circumvention of the DMA’s obligations
- Recital 71 – Notification requirement to the Commission
- Recital 72 – Data protection, profiling and transparency
- Recital 73 – Commission’s additional powers to achieve effective compliance with the DMA
- Recital 74 – Commission’s review of emerging gatekeepers
- Recital 75 – Commission’s power to impose additional behavioural or structural remedies
- Recital 76 – Gatekeepers’ offer of commitments to the Commission
- Recital 77 – Review of lists of core platform services and DMA obligations must be regular and adapt to technological advances
- Recital 78 – Commission’s power to enact delegated acts (1/2)
- Recital 79– Commission’s power to enact delegated acts (2/2)
- Recital 80 – Commission’s investigative and enforcement powers
- Recital 81 – Commission’s power to request information (1/2)
- Recital 82 – Commission’s power to request information (2/2)
- Recital 83 – Commission’s power to conduct inspections and interviews
- Recital 84 – Commission’s power to order interim measures
- Recital 85 – Commission’s power to appoint independent external experts and auditors for compliance monitoring
- Recital 86 – Fines and periodic penalty payments
- Recital 87 – Solvency and payment of fines
- Recital 88 – Right to good administration, right of access to the file, right to be heard and confidentiality
- Recital 89 – Publications and protection of trade secrets
- Recital 90 – Cooperation between the Commission and national authorities
- Recital 91 – National competent competition authorities’ investigations into possible non-compliance by gatekeepers and coordination with the Commission
- Recital 92 – National courts’ ability to request information from the Commission
- Recital 93 – Expertise of a dedicated high-level group
- Recital 94 – Court of Justice’s unlimited jurisdiction in respect of fines and penalty payments
- Recital 95 – Commission’s power to issue guidelines
- Recital 96 – Commission’s power to request standardisation of data access, portability and interoperability
- Recital 97 – Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts (1/2)
- Recital 98 – Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts (2/2)
- Recital 99 – Commission’s implementing powers (1/2)
- Recital 100 – Commission’s implementing powers (2/2)
- Recital 101 – Advisory committee
- Recital 102 – Protection of whistle-blowers
- Recital 103 – Directive on the protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law
- Recital 104 – Representative actions
- Recital 105 – Commission’s periodic evaluation of the DMA and its effects
- Recital 106 – Resources and staffing for Commission’s enforcement
- Recital 107 – Achieving the DMA’s objective at Union-level
- Recital 108 – Consultation with the European Data Protection Supervisor
- Recital 109 – Relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Recital 75
Commission’s power to impose additional behavioural or structural remedies*
The Commission should investigate and assess whether additional behavioural, or, where appropriate, structural remedies are justified, in order to ensure that the gatekeeper cannot frustrate the objectives of this Regulation by systematic non-compliance with one or several of the obligations laid down in this Regulation. This is the case where the Commission has issued against a gatekeeper at least three non-compliance decisions within the period of 8 years, which can concern different core platform services and different obligations laid down in this Regulation, and if the gatekeeper has maintained, extended or further strengthened its impact in the internal market, the economic dependency of its business users and end users on the gatekeeper’s core platform services or the entrenchment of its position. A gatekeeper should be deemed to have maintained, extended or strengthened its gatekeeper position where, despite the enforcement actions taken by the Commission, that gatekeeper still holds or has further consolidated or entrenched its importance as a gateway for business users to reach end users.
The Commission should in such cases have the power to impose any remedy, whether behavioural or structural, having due regard to the principle of proportionality. In this context, the Commission should have the power to prohibit, to the extent that such remedy is proportionate and necessary in order to maintain or restore fairness and contestability as affected by the systematic non-compliance, during a limited time-period, the gatekeeper from entering into a concentration regarding those core platform services or the other services provided in the digital sector or services enabling the collection of data that are affected by the systematic non-compliance. In order to enable effective involvement of third parties and the possibility to test remedies before its application, the Commission should publish a detailed non-confidential summary of the case and the measures to be taken. The Commission should be able to reopen proceedings, including where the specified remedies turn out not to be effective. A reopening due to ineffective remedies adopted by decision should enable the Commission to amend the remedies prospectively. The Commission should also be able to set a reasonable time period within which it should be possible to reopen the proceedings if the remedies prove not to be effective.
* This title is an unofficial description.