“Amazon Defeated in EU Digital Act”

Amazon experienced a setback on Wednesday as it failed to halt an obligation concerning its online advertisements as part of the EU’s tech regulations. This came after the highest court in Europe sided with the EU regulators, stating that the EU’s interests take precedence over Amazon’s material interests.

According to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which began implementation last year, Amazon is classified as a major online platform, and is thus subject to stringent regulations aimed at combating illegal and harmful activities on its platform. Amazon disputed a condition of the DSA that necessitates the public disclosure of a comprehensive record of its online advertisements. It also requested a temporary halt until a declaration on the case was released.

In September, a lower court concurred with Amazon’s plea for a temporary suspension of the contentious obligation. This led the European Commission to seek redress from Europe’s highest court. The Court of Justice of the European Union, based in Luxembourg, overruled the suspension order and rejected Amazon’s plea for a temporary halt.

The judge indicated that Amazon’s claim that the obligation unconstitutionally restricts its fundamental rights to privacy safeguards and the liberty to conduct a business could not be disregarded. He also stated that, without a suspension, Amazon was likely to incur substantial and irrecoverable damage before any ruling repealing the Commission’s decision was made. Nonetheless, he highlighted that a suspension might adversely affect the aims of the DSA.

The judge emphasised that pausing the regulation could result in a several years’ delay in achieving its goals, potentially promoting an online environment threatening fundamental rights. This led the judge to conclude that the interests defended by the EU take precedence over Amazon’s material interests, and hence the request for suspension should be rejected.

In response to the court’s decision, Amazon expressed its disappointment, asserting that its operation does not align with the definition of a ‘Very Large Online Platform’ (VLOP) under the DSA and should therefore not be defined as one.

Condividi