I am not sure. The territorial scope of the remedy might be different depending on the cause of action. The platform may strategically elect to rely upon the DSA, which guarantees due process, a degree of transparency, or robust redress mechanisms for their users.

In fact, wasn't Russmedia a removal request primarily based on defamation and the protection of one's image rights?

Another operational challenge is determining the appropriate process for handling removal requests that allege multiple personality rights or causes of action, since these claims now appear to necessitate differing legal standards and follow different procedural requirements.

Please monitor carefully the comments your blog's visitors published, and also if the comments posted can be easily copied and distributed across third-party sites!

"132. [...] Moreover, the obligation of the operator of an online marketplace to comply with the requirements arising from the GDPR cannot, in any event, be classified as such a general monitoring obligation."

Me acabo de enterar. ¡Enhorabuena!

The bill wasn't notified to the EC, as required by Directive 2015/1535. Also, I think the obligation to channel rectification requests cannot be imposed on providers established in other Member States due to the ECD's country of origin principle, as interpreted by the CJEU in C-376/22 or C-662/22.

The new obligation for online platforms would be to put a mechanism for the "referral" of the rectification requests directed to users of special relevance and the "monitoring" of the process.

It allows for an alternative version of the facts to be disseminated as a "reply". In the event this right is denied by the publisher, a lawsuit can be filed and, ultimately, a judge can order the publication of the counter-narrative, but is not empowered to adjudicate the accuracy of either version

The main change in the bill is that it extends the right of rectification beyond traditional media outlets to include "users of special relevance of online platforms and equivalent services". Note this right does not serve to verify the accuracy of certain statements.

@gateklons.bsky.social I've just come across this discussion on the Spanish bill to update the law on rectification, which allows individuals to reply to published information that (i) refers to them and (ii) they believe is inaccurate and potentially harmful.

I think it's a balanced and sophisticated opinion. Reconciling the ECD with the GDPR is not easy. The AG and the EC have openly challenged some of the referring court's assumptions, regarding the categorization of an intermediary as a data controller, rather than just a processor, concerning UGC.