Apple will surrender info on how many users it has to the EU
Big Tech platforms including Apple, Google, and Twitter, have given monthly user data to the European Union, to comply with stringent content regulations.
European Union flags
The companies had until February 17, 2023, to self-report their number of monthly users to the EU. Under the new Digital Services Act (DSA), any such firm with over 45 million users are required to comply with auditing, risk management, and data sharing with the authorities.
According to Reuters, Apple, Google, Meta, and Twitter, have all confirmed that they exceed the 45 million user threshold. In Apple's case, the company claimed that only its iOS App Store exceeded 45 million users -- but that it would also voluntarily apply the DSA rules to its Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV app stores.
"Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing versions of the App Store (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for VLOPs," said the company in a statement, "because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to protect consumers from illegal content."
Twitter reported having 100.9 million monthly users in the EU. Alphabet, Google's parent company, said the monthly total of signed-in users was 278.6 million for Google Maps, 274.6 million at Google Play, 332 million for Google Search, 74.9 million in shopping, and 401.7 million on YouTube.
Meta reported 255 million average monthly users on Facebook, in the EU, and around 250 million on Instagram.
Ebay also reported its numbers to the EU, but said that it is below the 45 million threshold.
The Digital Services Act is designed to place restrictions on online content and moderation. It concerns making Big Tech firms responsible for policing and taking down illegal content.
Read on AppleInsider
European Union flags
The companies had until February 17, 2023, to self-report their number of monthly users to the EU. Under the new Digital Services Act (DSA), any such firm with over 45 million users are required to comply with auditing, risk management, and data sharing with the authorities.
According to Reuters, Apple, Google, Meta, and Twitter, have all confirmed that they exceed the 45 million user threshold. In Apple's case, the company claimed that only its iOS App Store exceeded 45 million users -- but that it would also voluntarily apply the DSA rules to its Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV app stores.
"Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing versions of the App Store (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for VLOPs," said the company in a statement, "because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to protect consumers from illegal content."
Twitter reported having 100.9 million monthly users in the EU. Alphabet, Google's parent company, said the monthly total of signed-in users was 278.6 million for Google Maps, 274.6 million at Google Play, 332 million for Google Search, 74.9 million in shopping, and 401.7 million on YouTube.
Meta reported 255 million average monthly users on Facebook, in the EU, and around 250 million on Instagram.
Ebay also reported its numbers to the EU, but said that it is below the 45 million threshold.
The Digital Services Act is designed to place restrictions on online content and moderation. It concerns making Big Tech firms responsible for policing and taking down illegal content.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
How the heck can a EU regulatory body threaten a foreign company's revenues earned outside their jurisdiction when they aren't even headquartered within the EU?
On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers if their products just happen to have any in the final product. Even if the technology is now not US. That is to say, the US company that created the technology was sold 100% to a non-US company. And in some cases, Chinese born scientists had a hand in creating those technologies but have gained US citizenship.
Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment?
The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation.
Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US.
because here in the states, these big companies totally buy out all polticians and have them bend over backwards
The main point about fining US companies a percentage of their World revenue is that the law they violated in the EU (that resulted) in the fine, might not be a violation anywhere else in the World. How is fining Apple (a US company) a percentage of their World revenue (not profits) for not using USB-C port for charging in the EU a fair fine, when not using a USB-C for charging is perfectly fine in most other countries? Oh yeah, Apple is a "gatekeeper". We're getting tire of hearing that BS as the reason.
If the EU wants to fine EU companies a percentage of their World revenue, because fines like that been around for years in the EU, that's fine. But fines like that, specially on foreign companies, do not exist in the US. Here, punitive fines are based on the actual harm/damages. When Volkswagen (the biggest auto maker in the World) violated US auto emission standards by using the auto on-board computer to cheat on the emission test, their fine was based on actual harm done in the US and the fine amounted to a slap on the wrist. Even the EU only handed a slap on the wrist fine, for cheating on EU emission test. But I bet the fines were enough punishment for the Worlds biggest auto maker to deterred them from doing that again. A fair fine would be to fine Apple based on a percentage of EU revenue. But judging by the criteria set to be a "gatekeeper", there's nothing fair about the EU, when it comes to the big 5 US techs. This amounts to fining a Honda $50 for a parking violation and fining a Mercedes $500, for the same parking violation.
"On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers ......
Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment? "
No, not at all. What part of "US origin" do you not understand? It doesn't matter what company owns the patents to those "US origin" tech, they still originated in the US and falls under "US origin." When Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, did that make a 1990 Dodge minivan a German automobile?
"The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation."
The 15/30% commission in the Apple App Store were in place for every developer to see from day one. When developing for iOS, developers just need to comply with the App Store policies they agreed to.
"Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US."
US citizen are liable to pay US taxes on foreign income. Even if they have dual citizenship. This is not all like the US wanting foreign financial data of a non-US citizen. Only foreign financial institutions in countries with an intergovernmental agreement with FATCA, are required to comply with the request. It works both ways, US financial institutions will also honor foreign request for the same on their citizens, under the same agreement.
Weaponising 'origin' technology after the fact is definitely worth a 'what the heck' especially when that tech is also developed by Chinese nationals working in the US.
The 15/30% commission being there from day one doesn't necessarily make it legal in the context of abusive practices. It just means it wasn't put under the microscope until recently. Apple’s probem's with state aid accusations are another example. They were not on the hook for accounting issues for most of the years they were in place simply because, legally, the EU statutes made it impossible to include those years in the proceedings. In the eyes of the investigators, the practice was ilegal from the day it started. As is usual though, due to the small amounts involved, it flew under the radar for years.
FATCA. US citizens have to declare income made abroad. That is one thing but foreign companies are required to comply with that law and at great cost to them. Obligations swing both ways.
The EU/EC is beginning to sound like China in the sense that China puts out laws and regulations which makes them look like the kings of the universe.
China was not elected to be world regulators, and neither is the EU - else the city council of Podunk California can begin regulating European manufacturers assessing penalties for local violations against their worldwide revenue, and assessing criminal penalties against European executives for their violations of Podunk law.
Its CEO has said sanctions will not work. He has also said they are not valid for military justification because that equipment uses technology that is 10 to 15 years old.
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/asml-ceo-states-that-sanctions-on-china-wont-have-the-desired-impact/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asml-chief-voices-us-gained-131906827.html
The problem is that the Dutch government has stopped ASML from exporting EUV machines to China. Of course, following US pressure.
It is the US that wants to be the world's regulator and it was not elected for that role either.
There was nothing in the sale terms of that US company to ASML that stopped it from doing business with China. We know this because ASML had orders from Chinese companies for EUV lithography machines.
That negotiation would never have started if the sale was not possible.
They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
It's called punitive damages. It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business. There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine. If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.
That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations.
This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire.
These aren't 'blind' moves. There are impact assessments.
Sometimes (common chargers) there is no one size fits all solution. That was highlighted in the impact assessment.
Other times users have no final say because current legislation may be being infringed.
You, as a user, will not be forced to use an alternative app store. The whole point is choice.
Everything has literally been spelled out.
Laws cover basically everything at some point. Laws absolutely can (and do) decide how your computer works.
The consultation phase lasted 11 months. Two companies were tasked with that angle and a representative selection of 5,000 consumers was created.
Apart from that, anyone in the EU could write directly to their MEP. Don't forget that it was pressure from MEPs that resulted in legislation and not another MoU.