The EU has postponed a new digital tax, much to the relief of tech companies.

Margrethe Vetager, EVP of the European Commission for a Europe Fit for the Digital Age and commissioner for competition since 2014, tweeted Monday (July 12) that the new digital tax would be postponed until October, though tech companies are hoping to nix the unilateral digital levy altogether.

Also Read: ITI Pans UK Digital Services Tax

The tax had been planned to take effect later this month. The October date is due to a G20 finance minister plan for global tax reform expected to be adopted then, according to the Computer & Communications Industry Association. 

The digital tax was part of a larger plan to fund recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and with the justification that tax rates for digital companies are lower than for those in traditional businesses.

Also Read: Tech Giants Offer Road Map to EU's Digital Future

“It is positive that the European Commission is prioritizing global tax reform over a unilateral digital levy which risks derailing international efforts," said CCIA VP Christian Borrgreen, head of the Brussels office. “We urge all nations to immediately remove unilateral digital taxes as foreseen in the global framework. A new global tax framework for the 21st Century is crucial to ensure legal certainty, for economic recovery and to avoid international tax and trade tensions.”  

“ITI welcomes the European Commission’s decision to postpone consideration of a digital levy and fully commit its efforts to realizing a multilateral, consensus-based approach to the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the global economy," said Megan Funkhouser, director of tax policy for the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). "Such action is in keeping with the multilateral project’s stated intent for participating governments to withdraw unilateral tax measures, and in that spirit, we encourage the Commission to further commit to taking the levy off the table entirely.”

The Senate Commerce Committee plans to hold a hearing next week on privacy and data.

Committee chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) announced the hearing, “The Invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield and the Future of Transatlantic Data Flows,” for 10 a.m. Wednesday (Dec. 9).

Related: EU, U.S., Working on New Privacy Shield

The hearing will look at the policy issues that led to the invalidation of the shield framework, as well as that decision's impact on U.S. businesses, and where the U.S. is in the process of coming up with a successor shield.

The U.S. started huddling with the EU back in August about fixing the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield after the EU's Court of Justice ruled that the U.S. can't live up to its part of the bargain, promising to strengthen privacy protections.

Concluding that it does not sufficiently protect data transferred from the EU to the U.S., the Court of Justice invalidated the shield.

The privacy shield replaced the safe harbor agreement that a European Union court invalidated in October 2015 over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The voluntary framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal data is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

The shield was a way for U.S. companies to be considered in compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) simply by signing on to the shield's data protection guarantees rather than having to come up with individual policies and agreements to comply with the GDPR protections of cross-border data flows. 

Legislators from both parties are rooting for the Trump Administration, specifically the Commerce Department and Federal Trade Commission, to come up with a successor to the invalidated Privacy Shield that allows cross-border data flows with the EU.

The Trump Administration has been huddling with the European Commission to talk about that successor to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield after the EU's Court of Justice ruled in July that the U.S. can't live up to its part of the bargain.

The Privacy Shield had itself replaced a safe harbor agreement that a European Union court invalidated in October 2015, also over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The voluntary framework required companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

In a bipartisan letter to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and FTC chairman Joseph Simons, almost two dozen legislators led by Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) the legislators wrote to express their support for the work they were doing, buoyed by the news that they were working with the EU.

They said it was crucial to establish a "stable and reliable mechanism" protecting data flows between the U.S. and EU countries, adding: "We commend your efforts and support your continued work to develop a successor to the Privacy Shield. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue."

They were preaching to the choir, but pointed out that the shield protected over 5,000 U.S. companies, most of them small businesses. They said they were encouraged by a joint statement made by Ross and European commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders about a potential new enhanced shield. 

The Trump Administration has started to huddle with the European Commission to talk about enhancing the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield after the EU's Court of Justice ruled that the U.S. can't live up to its part of the bargain, promising to strengthen privacy protections. 

Concluding that it does not sufficiently protect data transferred from the EU to the U.S., the Court of Justice last month invalidated the "privacy shield." 

"The U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission have initiated discussions to evaluate the potential for an enhanced EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework to comply with the July 16 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Schrems II case," said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and EU commissioner for Justice Dider Reynders in a joint statement Monday (Aug. 10). "This judgment declared that this framework is no longer a valid mechanism to transfer personal data from the European Union to the United States. 

Related: FTC Cracks Down on Alleged Privacy Shield Pretenders 

"The European Union and the United States recognize the vital importance of data protection and the significance of cross-border data transfers to our citizens and economies. We share a commitment to privacy and the rule of law, and to further deepening our economic relationship, and have collaborated on these matters for several decades."   

"As we face new challenges together, including the recovery of the global economy after the COVID-19 pandemic, our partnership will strengthen data protection and promote greater prosperity for our nearly 800 million citizens on both sides of the Atlantic." 

The shield was a way for U.S. companies to be considered in compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation simply by signing on to the shield's data protection guarantees, rather than having to come up with individual policies and agreements to comply with the GDPR protections of cross-border data flows.  

In invalidating the shield the court said data protections in U.S. laws "are not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially equivalent to those required under EU law."  

Now Commerce and the EU will have to find a way to get the U.S. data protections on the same page as the EU. 

Related: FCC, FTC Chairs Defend Privacy Rules Rollback

The FCC under former chairman Tom Wheeler approved tough U.S. data privacy rules, but they were invalidated by Republicans in Congress despite pushback by privacy groups and Democrats who have called for a consumer privacy "bill of rights."

“Cross-border data flows are pivotal to the $1.3 trillion trading relationship between the U.S. and EU and are relied upon by the more than 5,300 Privacy Shield-certified businesses," said Jason Oxman, president of tech association ITI. "We’re encouraged that the U.S. and EU have begun talks on a successor framework in the wake of the CJEU’s decision in the Schrems II case, and the tech industry is committed to working with all stakeholders in the development of such framework to protect individuals’ personal data while supporting innovation and the free flow of data.”   

Concluding that it does not sufficiently protect data transferred from the EU to the U.S., the EU's Court of Justice has invalidated the "privacy shield." 

Related: FTC Cracks Down on Alleged Privacy Shield Pretenders 

The decision, which affects some 5,00 companies, will likely ramp up calls for Congress to pass the data privacy protection legislation both sides have said they support but have failed to agree on. 

The privacy shield replaced the safe harbor agreement that a European Union court invalidated in October 2015 over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The voluntary framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

The shield was a way for those U.S. companies to be considered in compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation simply by signing on to the shield's data protection guarantees rather than having to come up with individual policies and agreements to comply with the GDPR protections of cross-border data flows. 

But the court concluded the U.S. was not able to hold up its end of the agreement about protecting that data. 

The Department of Commerce said Thursday (July 16) that it is reviewing the decision but that, in the meantime, it will continue to administer the Privacy Shield program, including processing submissions for self-certification and re-certification. "Today’s decision does not relieve participating organizations of their Privacy Shield obligations," it said.

The FCC under former chairman Tom Wheeler approved privacy rules, but they were invalidated by the Congress despite pushback by privacy groups and Democrats who called for a privacy "bill of rights." 

Related: FCC, FTC Chairs Defend Privacy Rules Rollback

"In the view of the Court, the limitations on the protection of personal data arising from the domestic law of the United States on the access and use by US public authorities of such data transferred from the European Union to that third country, which the Commission assessed in Decision 2016/1250, are not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially equivalent to those required under EU law," the decision held. 

The European Union gave a thumbs up to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in its first annual review back in 2017, though the annual report said it could still use some work.

“While the Department of Commerce is deeply disappointed that the court appears to have invalidated the European Commission’s adequacy decision underlying the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, we are still studying the decision to fully understand its practical impacts,” said Secretary Wilbur Ross in a statement. “We have been and will remain in close contact with the European Commission and European Data Protection Board on this matter and hope to be able to limit the negative consequences to the $7.1 trillion transatlantic economic relationship that is so vital to our respective citizens, companies, and governments. Data flows are essential not just to tech companies—but to businesses of all sizes in every sector. As our economies continue their post-COVID-19 recovery, it is critical that companies—including the 5,300+ current Privacy Shield participants—be able to transfer data without interruption, consistent with the strong protections offered by Privacy Shield.” 

“The interruption of transatlantic data flows resulting from this decision is a significant setback for all businesses and industries in the U.S. and EU who relied on Privacy Shield and hampers their ability to conduct day-to-day operations—everything from accessing the cloud to managing human resources and running payroll," said ITI president Jason Oxman. "The Court’s decision negatively affects the two economies’ shared efforts to facilitate trade while providing necessary privacy protections for EU citizens." 

Related: EU Says Privacy Shield is Working

“This decision creates legal uncertainty for the thousands of large and small companies on both sides of the Atlantic that rely on Privacy Shield for their daily commercial data transfers," said Computer and Communications Industry Association public policy senior manager Alexandre Roure. "We trust that EU and U.S. decision-makers will swiftly develop a sustainable solution, in line with EU law, to ensure the continuation of data flows which underpins the transatlantic economy. We hope enforcement authorities will grant Privacy Shield signatories time to migrate to alternative legal mechanisms.” 

As the European Union contemplates the best way to start reopening businesses, tech advocate ITI has some recommendations on how to harmonize that process to protect public health and worker safety. 

That guidance was provided in letters to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president Charles Michel. 

Related: COVID-19 Crisis Hits TV Industry

ITI said the EU will need to coordinate the process to avoid a patchwork of policies and with a focus on "assessing readiness; health monitoring; transmission mitigation techniques; and employee support." 

It also said that since the pandemic is a moving target, the "consistent, scientific, and data-driven recommendations" must be reviewed and updated to meet the moment. 

While it is focused on the tech sector--its members include internet companies, hardware and networking equipment manufacturers, and software developers--ITI said the following guidelines apply to businesses large and small across all industries: 

1. "Assessing readiness: A checklist of considerations prior to reopening would enhance employee and consumer confidence while mitigating transmission of the virus.  

2. "COVID-19 screening: General guidance on reliable screening methods would encourage the widest possible deployment of employer-based screening. 

3. "COVID-19 testing: Flexible testing guidance would give companies the ability to adopt testing measures based on the safety needs of their workforce. 

4. "Physical changes to office environments to enable social distancing: Space planning guidance, addressing for example how to reconfigure cubical or open workspace environments, and mitigate transmission risk in shared spaces. 

5. "Alternative mitigation strategies where social distancing is infeasible: Alternative mitigation guidance where workspaces do not lend themselves to retrofitting or job functions prevent social distancing.  

6. "Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or face coverings: Guidance on who is responsible for providing PPE or face coverings, and whether an employer may require employees to provide their own face coverings in an environment that does not require PPE. 

7. "High risk or vulnerable employees: Guidance on risk profiling and related privacy obligations; describe what responsibilities, accommodations, or protocols particularly susceptible employees trigger; and how to encourage these individuals to appropriately protect themselves. 

8. "Sanitation and disinfectant protocols: Guidance on sanitation and disinfectant protocols as offices reopen and after a confirmed COVID-19 exposure occurs. 

9. "In-person gathering restrictions: Guidance on what restrictions on in-person gatherings will persist will benefit employers, employees, and individuals alike. 

10. "Contact tracing: A clear set of protocols for data processing among private entities and local public health agencies – as well as across borders- to enable interoperability and data sharing among bordering Member States and closely situated localities.  

11. "Compliance: Guidance on how to best encourage and ensure compliance with public-health driven guidelines by employees and customers. 

12. "Mobility guidance: Clarity with regards to intra-EU mobility prospects, along the lines of the recent and very helpful European Commission Guidelines concerning the exercise of the free movement of workers during COVID-19 outbreak. 

13. "Balancing health and safety and COVID-19 related family circumstances: Guidance on how to balance workplace re-openings, health and safety concerns, and COVID-19 family circumstances." 

ITI (the Information Technology Industry Council) has weighed in with its Policy Recommendations for a European Tech Agenda as the European Union that it said can help that future be a secure and prosperous one. 

Those include embracing free trade, preserving technological sovereignty without excluding foreign entities, and relying on global, adopting industry-led standards rather than regulation-driven, overly prescriptive government standards, avoiding artificial boundaries on the use of data, pushing back on data localisation efforts (requiring that a member country's citizens' data be collected and stored in that country under local privacy laws), and a host of others. 

It contains the tech trade group's recommendations for helping to shape the EU's "vision for a digital future..." as the EU pursues its Shaping Europe's Digital Future initiative launched this month as a road map to Europe's goal of investing in "connectivity, deep tech and human capital, as well as in smart energy and transport infrastructures," with the security of those connected systems a key to that "digital transformation." 

ITI said the tech industry must be a constructive and active partner in that effort and outlined 10 key policy areas. 

1. "International Cooperation. Global cooperation and open competition are essential to advancing innovation. ITI’s recommendations offer steps to ensure Europe’s commitment to open competition and international cooperation continues to drive technological breakthroughs and help home-grown innovators compete globally. 

2. "Artificial Intelligence. Global convergence will benefit the people, society, and economy of Europe. AI transforms lives and addresses some of society’s most challenging issues. ITI’s approach to AI promotes the technology’s ethical development and deployment globally to manage AI’s potential challenges while ensuring Europeans can reap its benefits and keep innovators on the cutting-edge. 

3. "Privacy. Individual and enterprise trust is key to innovation. ITI’s recommendations offer steps for European policymakers to continue to empower people through a strong, uniform, and consistent set of privacy protections no matter where their data is located.  

4. "Data Governance. Economic growth can be catalyzed by supporting voluntary data sharing agreements, facilitating access to government data, and implementing an ‘open by default’ principle. ITI’s recommendations outline how Europe can responsibly promote a balanced framework for data governance. 

5. "Cyber and Supply Chain Security. Cybersecurity is integral to the EU’s economy and competitiveness. However, cybersecurity risks have intensified and supply chain risk management becomes increasingly complex as the world’s digital infrastructure has become more and more interconnected. ITI’s recommendations support the EU’s continuous work with its international partners to strengthen cybersecurity and reflect shared responsibility and the changing nature of cyberspace.   

6. "Tax. Ensuring a strong, functioning and dependable international tax system is essential for business certainty and growth. ITI’s recommendations call for a multilateral solution that addresses cross-border taxation in a digitalized global economy. 

7. "Trade. Open markets and free trade agreements are catalysts for innovation. ITI’s recommendations offer the industry’s views to ensure Europe’s trade commitments enable the free flow of data, curb forced data localisation, and enhance regulatory and enforcement cooperation globally. 

8. "Digital Services. Online platforms drive innovation and create opportunities for people and businesses across Europe. Our industry understands platforms’ transformative role and is committed to helping ensure the internet stays a safe and open place for all. ITI’s recommendations aim to shape policies that encourage innovation and resolve proven market failures by bringing together all actors involved in the debate. 

9. "Competition. To encourage economic growth, ITI suggests policies that support free and undistorted competition to promote continued innovation and consumer welfare, while also addressing the challenges arising from technological change globally and in the EU. ITI and its members advocate for an approach that maintains the EU’s long-standing commitment to collaborating with like-minded democracies and economic partners in order to help European players be competitive globally. 

10. "Sustainability. ITI supports Europe’s ambitious goal to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050. We are aware that our industry has an important role to play in this transition and we stand ready to support Europe in this endeavor. Our recommendations for industry-led, collaborative policies are the starting point for Europe to meet its goals while promoting innovation." 

"Our industry looks forward to serving as a trusted resource in these efforts," said ITI president Jason Oxman. 

ITI members comprise an A-list of tech companies including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Intel and Microsoft. 

The European Union has opened an investigation into Amazon, and has put it high on the "to do" list..

The EU wants to know whether its use of sensitive data from retailers on its platform breaches EU competition rules.

Related: Privacy Groups File Complaint Against Amazon at FTC

"E-commerce has boosted retail competition and brought more choice and better prices," said EU Commissioner Margreth Vestager. "We need to ensure that large online platforms don't eliminate these benefits through anti-competitive behavior. I have therefore decided to take a very close look at Amazon's business practices and its dual role as marketplace and retailer, to assess its compliance with EU competition rules.”

Amazon is both a marketplace for other sellers and a seller of its own products. The EU says that based on some preliminary fact-finding, Amazon appears to use the competitively sensitive data it collects about the activity of those outside retailers on its site.

It will be looking into the Amazon agreement that allows it to analyze and use third-party seller data, and whether how it uses that affects competition.

It will also look into the role of that data in selecting on which retailers and products to confer its "Buy" box.

The EU said it is not prejudging the outcome, but will make the investigation of Amazon a priority.

Amazon and other edge providers are also in U.S. regulators' sites as they try to figure out whether and how to regulate them in terms of antitrust and what practices they may want to rule out of bounds.

News outlets took aim at Google Friday, saying its "Together for Copyright" campaign belied the facts that the European Union

Copyright Directive proposal the campaign is citicizing protects publishers and that the changes Google is pushing would limit access to "high-quality" online news in Europe.

"Currently, online platforms such as Google and other corporate businesses can use – and make money from – publishers’ online news content every day, paying the publishers nothing," said the News Media Alliance. "For obvious reasons, Google would prefer to keep the status quo and go on using publishers’ content for free, but this is not a fair and equitable arrangement for news publishers, many of whom are already struggling with decreased revenues from shifting preferences away from print, and advertisers electing to give their dollars to the platforms."

Under the Publishers Right, Google would have to negotiate for a license with publishers to distribute their news in EU countries and would be liable for any infringing uses of copyrighted material on their platforms at the time it is uploaded, rather than having the notice and takedown process as there is in the U.S.

The Alliance said Google is making false claims about the Publisher's Right, a right film and music creators in the EU already have.

Google has said the EU proposal has "unintended consequences" that could threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and lead to the blocking or limiting of content on YouTube and Google Search.

"Any service that hosts uploads, including YouTube, would be held liable at the moment of upload for any copyright infringement," says Google of the EU proposal. "Services could have no choice but to block existing and newly uploaded videos in the European Union with unknown or disputed copyright information, in order to avoid legal liability."

Google also wants the EU to define the "quality journalism" that should be protected, a definition "that specifies news content by news publishers."

"Google claims it wants to help journalists find an audience and make a living, yet the changes they are proposing to Article 11 would weaken publishers’ rights to protect their content," says the Alliance. "Contrary to what Google claims in its campaign, adopting a strong Publishers’ Right would ensure the public’s continued access to a diverse pool of information online."

The alliance has told the Federal Trade Commission that edge giants like Google and Facebook are using their market power to force practices on their members that threaten the viability of the news business. https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/newspapers-to-ftc-digital-deck-is-stacked-against-quality-journalism.

Google has won a preliminary victory in a decision that could help other U.S. search engines and edge providers navigate the European Union's privacy shield framework without having to block U.S. and other countries' access to info.

Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union Maciej Szpunar, in an advisory (non-binding) opinion to the court, says a French Commission ruling that Google should have to block access ("de-referencing" in EU parlance) to offending sites on all its domain names, not just those from EU countries, is overly broad.

The advocate general's job is to propose solutions to cases before the court.

Google had balked at the French ruling, only removing the links from searches performed in the EU countries, and proposed geo-blocking to make sure that the sites did not show up in EU countries, while still available to countries outside the EU.

France fired back with a penalty, reported to be €100,000. Google appealed and France referred the issue to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. In guidance to the court Thursday for that ruling, Szpunar said "search requests made outside the EU should not be affected by the de-referencing of the search results."

He said the right to "be forgotten" must be balanced with the "legitimate public interest in accessing the information being sought."

If worldwide "de-referencing" were upheld, he said, "the EU would not be able to define and determine a right to receive information, let alone balance it against the other fundamental rights to data protection and to privacy."

He did not rule out de-referencing on a worldwide scale in some instances, but said the case before the court was not one of those.

He told the court that when agreeing to an EU de-referencing request, a search engine opertor should not be not required to apply it to all domain names, and should be encouraged to use geo-blocking and other methods to insure full de-referencing of EU searches.

Technically, the Court of Justice decision won't decide the matter, either. It is up to individual courts in EU countries to dispose of the cases they refer to the Court of Justice, but they are bound by their EU membership to decide it "in accordance with the Court of Justice's decision, so as a practical matter that decision holds sway.

That advisory was just fine with the Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include Google and and major edge providers.

“The Advocate General’s opinion respects access to information around the world and we hope the European Court of Justice follows the balance and consideration given to global internet users,": said CCIA president Ed Black. "Those who have fought for access to information for decades have grave concerns about any one person or government having the ability to delete information - no matter how tempting that prospect may be in any one example.”

While Britain is exiting the EU, it is joining the league of nations looking to tap into global digital commerce.

Tech Association ITI, which represents edge giants including Google, Amazon and Apple, is hammering the UK over the decision this week to propose a 2% digital services tax, which could affect digital revenues from ad space, online sales, sales of user data and more.

"Our position is simple: The U.K.’s decision to tax digital service will chill economic investment, slow job growth, and work against its government’s goal of becoming a technology hub," ITI said.

The EU is still considering whether to impose a 3% digital sales and services tax that, like the UK proposal, would affect edge providers and anyone else doing digital business in those countries.

In a statement last week on the EU digital tax, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the Administration has "strong concern with countries’ consideration of a unilateral and unfair gross sales tax that targets our technology and internet companies. A tax should be based on income, not sales, and should not single out a specific industry for taxation under a different standard."

The European Union is considering levying a 3% tax on digital sales and services that would affect edge providers and anyone else doing digital business in the EU and it has the Trump Administration and tech companies both raising red flags.

According to the Tax Foundation the EU is trying to come up with a uniform definition of a "digital permanent establishment" for companies doing digital business in an EU member state, which would "be at least $8.1 million (€7 million) in annual EU revenues, more than 100,000 users and more than 3,000 contracts for digital services with businesses in the EU."

That would be a long-term solution, while in the short term the EU would levy a digital services tax, or DST, on companies with annual worldwide revenues of at least $868 million (€750 million) and EU revenues of at least $58 million (€50 million).

It would be a tax on digital revenues from ad space, online sales, sales of user data and more.

In a statement Thursday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the Administration has "strong concern with countries’ consideration of a unilateral and unfair gross sales tax that targets our technology and internet companies. A tax should be based on income, not sales, and should not single out a specific industry for taxation under a different standard."

He warned the EU against unilateral action.

Tech association ITI, whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft, agreed.

“The imposition of a digital tax poses a real and significant threat to companies in all sectors of the economy," said ITI CEO Dean Garfield, "While the notion of a digital tax isn’t new, the likelihood of its implementation is gaining momentum and its possible passage should be taken seriously by all major economies. We welcome the administration’s attention to this issue and share its concerns."

He called the tax a "dangerous precedent" that could violate existing treaties. "We join the administration in urging the European Union to take a multilateral approach to address these complex and far-reaching tax policies and to finish the...process with the United States and other nations.”

The European Commission has issued a new Code of Practice on Disinformation, which comnprises voluntary self-regulations on a host of things, from transparency and political advertising to closing fake accounts, to try and head off online election meddling ahead of the spring 2019 European elections.

The EC billed it as "first time worldwide that industry agrees, on a voluntary basis, to self-regulatory standards to fight disinformation."

The code was the product of "online platforms, leading social networks, advertisers and agencies," according to the commission, which released the code Wednesday (Sept. 26).

The code is meant to achieve the objectives of an April communication from the commission.

The basic commitments are pretty general, as could be expected of a self-regulatory code, with language like "could include" and "reasonable efforts." The commitments do include:

1) Use commercially reasonable efforts not to promote accounts or Web sites that consistently misrepresents information about themselves, including taking compensation from them.

2) Commit to "enabling public disclosure of political advertising (defined as for or against election of a candidate or passage of referenda in national and European elections), which could include actual sponsor identity and amounts spent.

3) Use "reasonable efforts towards devising approaches to publicly disclose "issue-based advertising."

The signatories to the code commit to producing an annual report of their efforts to counter disinformation, and make it public, so it is a "reviewable by a third party."

In the case of advertisers, the World Federation of Advertisers will provide aggregated reporting to identify "barnd safety activities" by brands. In the case of ad agencies, the European Association of Communications Agencies (EACA) will do the same thing for ad agencies.

Signatories will review the code every 12 months.

The European Union has given a thumbs up to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in its first annual review of the framework for protecting cross-border data flows.

The first annual report concluded the shield works, but could use some bolstering, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

"Overall the report shows that the Privacy Shield continues to ensure an adequate level of protection for the personal data transferred from the EU to participating companies in the U.S. The U.S. authorities have put in place the necessary structures and procedures to ensure the correct functioning of the Privacy Shield, such as new redress possibilities for EU individuals," the report concluded. "Complaint-handling and enforcement procedures have been set up, and cooperation with the European Data protection authorities has been stepped up," it said. "The certification process is functioning well - over 2,400 companies have now been certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce. As regards access to personal data by U.S. public authorities for national security purposes, relevant safeguards on the U.S. side remain in place."

LeBlanc Tapped As Privacy Shield Arbitrator

Among the recommendations for bolstering the shield include "more proactive and regular monitoring of companies' compliance with their Privacy Shield obligations by the U.S. Department of Commerce," appointing an ombudsperson and filling vacancies on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

The report will be distributed to the European Parliament and U.S. authorities for follow-up on the recommendations.

The White House had predicted the positive review. Last month, press secretary Sarah Sanders said: "We firmly believe that the upcoming review will demonstrate the strength of the American promise to protect the personal data of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic."

The privacy shield replaces the safe harbor agreement that a European Union court invalidated in October 2015 over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The voluntary framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

“We welcome the positive outcome of the first EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Annual Review," said Federal Trade Commission Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen. "Enforcing international privacy frameworks such as Privacy Shield is an integral part of our Privacy and Data Security program, as highlighted in three recently announced Privacy Shield enforcement actions. We look forward to continuing to work with our European counterparts to ensure that the Privacy Shield remains a robust mechanism for protecting privacy and enabling transatlantic data flows.”

"We applaud, and are relieved by, the positive review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield," said ACT | The App Association President Morgan Reed. "We support the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield as a model framework to foster cross-border data flows and secure privacy protections. Our small business members are among the 2,400 businesses that depend on Privacy Shield certification to engage with and access customers throughout the EU. Their growth and success hinges on the ability to protect consumer privacy, and maintain consumer trust. We will continue to work with U.S. government entities to ensure the Privacy Shield and its commitments are upheld."

Cable Europe, a group that represents MSOs in the region, said European regulators should proceed with caution following the issuance of network neutrality guidelines for member countries.

The guidelines, from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), provide National Regulatory Authorities direction in implementing the net neutrality regulations. Those guidelines, similar in respect to the FCC’s version of its rules,  call for no blocking or throttling of online content, applications and services, while holding that zero-rated services should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Calling the pursuit of a ‘Digital Single Market” strategy is a one of the “greatest ambitions” of the European Union, Cable Europe likewise noted that “[l]egislators have acknowledged that a fast paced technological evolution is not compatible with overly prescriptive rules.”

“We believe that the ambitions of the Digital Single Market strategy are shared by industry and legislators alike,” Matthias Kurth, executive chairman of Cable Europe, said in a statement.  “We recognise that the potential for digital transformation must not be fettered by overly prescriptive rules that will stifle innovation and put lead boots on the boundless potential of our digital technology.

He added that “[m]uch rests now on the use of these guidelines by regulators, which whilst allowing National Regulatory Authorities the necessary autonomy could result in a negative outcome for progressive innovation.  We urge the NRAs to embrace the ambitions of  the Digital Single Market, and look forward to working with them as we turn the potential of Europe’s digital future into a reality." 

Cable Europe’s members include Liberty Global, Virgin Media, Vodfone, NOS, GET, Ziggo, SuisseDigital, Canal Digital, Cable Belgium, ANGA, Telecolumbus, NLKabel, Kabel Norge and com hem, among others.

The European Commission has told Google that it believes the company has abused its dominant position in search by putting restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile broadband ISPs in violation of EU antitrust rules.

In its preliminary finding, the commission took issue with the fact that Google Search was pre-installed and the default setting on most Android devices set in Europe and that it appeared to be closing of ways for rival search engines to access the market with competing browsers and operating systems. In addition, it said, Google appeared to be "stifling competition and restricting innovation in the wider mobile space."

That came in a statement of objections sent to Google and parent company, Alphabet. The preliminary finding is just that, and signals a reason for continuing investigation, not a conclusion. (It also came a day after Canada's Competition Bureau closed an investigation into allegations of Google anticompetitive business practices in search and advertising services in Canada) (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/04066.html).

"A competitive mobile internet sector is increasingly important for consumers and businesses in Europe," said "Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who is in charge of competition policy. "Based on our investigation thus far, we believe that Google's behavior denies consumers a wider choice of mobile apps and services and stands in the way of innovation by other players, in breach of EU antitrust rules. These rules apply to all companies active in Europe. Google now has the opportunity to reply to the Commission's concerns."

The commission began investigating Google in April 2015 given its dominance in search, smart phone/tablet operating systems and Android app stores, with market shares of more than 90% in each in the European Economic Area (EEA).

The EU alleges that Google has breached antitrust rules by:

"requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

"preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

"giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices."

The EU is separately investigating Google for more generally favoring its own search results, copying rival Web site content (scraping), and ad exclusivity and restrictions.

The commission is presenting its charges in writing, after which google can look at the investigation findings, reply in writing, request and oral hearing and make their case.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association--whose members include Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!--sent up a warning flare. “The Commission needs to be careful as challenging the contractual provisions that allow open source operating systems to compete against proprietary software can backfire. If not careful, the Commission could harm competition, not foster it.

“While we can appreciate the European Commission’s desire to be vigilant about investigating competition issues, the market for apps and services is extremely competitive," CCIA said. "At first blush, it is difficult to see the contracts identified by the Commission as being competition problems. In fact, they have clear procompetitive motivations.  The agreements identified by the Commission do not prevent hardware manufacturers and mobile operators from preinstalling whatever non-Google apps they so choose.  As a result, consumers have more choice, not less.  Furthermore, the charges are curious given the ease at which consumers can easily download competing apps and customize their phones.  In fact, nearly 80% of consumers do customize their smartphone’s home screen, and the average Android user downloads nearly 100 apps.”

In the U.S., there has been some talk on Capitol Hill of the Federal Trade Commission taking a fresh look at allegations that Google favors search.

An advisory group to the European Union has said it can't endorse the "privacy shield" proposal agreed to by the EU and U.S. to succeed a data protection agreement invalidated last year, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

The ITIF said it was disappointed that the group -- the Article 29 Working Party,  made up of EU's data protection regulators --  could not support the negotiated framework.

"The new agreement offers a host of new protections, obligations and opportunities for redress that affirm the commitment of the U.S. government to safeguard European data and respect the rights of European citizens," the ITIF, a technology policy think tank, said. "Moreover, the agreement has achieved widespread support on both sides of the Atlantic from many policymakers, businesses and advocacy groups for offering an opportunity to move forward after the European Court of Justice invalidated the Safe Harbor agreement in the Schrems decision."

If the privacy shield proposal is approved, it would replace the Safe Harbor agreement that an EU court invalidated over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for and an "opt out" mechanism.

The ITIF said the fact that the advisory group thinks the agreement needs work isn't a reason not to approve it.

"While members of the Article 29 Working Party should continue to offer suggestions on how to strengthen this agreement — and there are opportunities for improvement — the opportunity for improvement should not preclude official approval of the agreement," the ITIF said.

The Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue, civil society groups that also had issues with the shield, said the signal from the advisory committee was clear and should be heeded.

"We hope that the European Commission will take the opinion of the Data Protection Authorities very seriously. It is clear that the Privacy Shield does not adequately protect EU consumers’ fundamental rights," said Jeff Chester, U.S> co-chair of TACD's Information Society Committee. "The Commission must reconsider its adoption. The EU cannot afford to set a precedent like this and allow fundamental rights and values to be high jacked by political and commercial interests.”

The Commerce Department has released the full text of the EU-US Privacy Shield framework, the voluntary agreement companies sign on to to protect over a quarter of a billion dollars in cross-border digital information flows.

Once it becomes official, it replaces the safe harbor agreement that an EU court invalidated over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

The EU still must approve the agreement. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the agreement. In addition, the State Department will establish a Privacy Shield Ombudsperson for inquiries about U.S. government intelligence practices. The Justice Department is also providing a letter spelling out the limitations and safeguards.

The U.S. congress did its part earlier this month, passing legislation, the Judicial Redress Act, that gives EU member citizens, at least those in countries considered U.S. allies, privacy rights similar to those of U.S. citizens for data stored in this country and the legal standing to seeks judicial remedies here for mishandling of that data.

Passage was considered key to establishing the new framework.

The framework agreement was struck Feb. 2. ""The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is a tremendous victory for privacy, individuals, and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic," said Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker in a statement.

"We have spent more than two years constructing a modernized and comprehensive framework that addresses the concerns of the European Court of Justice and protects privacy."

“The Privacy Shield will provide strong privacy safeguards, legal certainty for companies and enhances transatlantic trust," said Computer & Communications Industry Association International Policy Director Christian Borggreen.

“Privacy Shield will enable companies safely to transfer data between the world’s two largest economies. It bridges the privacy frameworks of the EU and U.S. which are essentially equivalent. “We applaud the EU and U.S. for agreeing to strong privacy safeguards that limit government access to commercial data. The Privacy Shield includes strong U.S. Government commitments, many company obligations, and privacy safeguards for consumers which will enable commerce and help to restore trust.”

“We welcome the publication of the text of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, which aims to create a strengthened mechanism for transatlantic data transfers, consistent with the high levels of privacy protection in both the European Union and United States,” Global Policy Josh Kallmer said. “After our initial review, it appears that the two sides have achieved the objective of securing an agreement that both enhances privacy protections and provides the certainty needed to promote innovation and economic growth."

Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), which represents software and digital content companies in the United States and Europe, today welcomed the release of the text and related documents for the new Safe Harbor agreement – the EU-US Privacy Shield.

Mark MacCarthy, SVP of public policy for the Software & Information Industry Association, urged swift EU sign-off.

“The Privacy Shield creates an essential legal and political foundation for the free flow of data across the Atlantic.

It provides a mechanism that allows companies that wish to transfer personal data from Europe to the United States to do so in a way which complies with European laws and regulations," he said.

“This is a critical milestone in the effort to protect the transfer of data across the Atlantic,” said Linda Moore, president and CEO of TechNet, in a statement. “The transatlantic flow of data is the lynchpin of U.S.-EU trade relations, and a clear framework to protect these transfers is vital for American and European shared interests in promoting innovation and data protection.”

The agreement affects thousands of U.S. companies storing of EU member state citizens. The U.S. and EU have been working on a new agreement since the 2013 Snowden revelations, but the court October 2016 decision imposed that deadline.

There was optimism on both sides Monday that the U.S. and European Commission will come up with a new safe harbor ("safe harbor 2.0") for protecting European data flows to the U.S. as the deadline nears, but a European Commission representative warned that would likely not be the end of the story.

That came at the Internet Education Foundation State of the Net conference in Washington, where snow rearranged the program.

The U.S. and EC have a Jan. 31 deadline for coming up with a new framework before data protection actions can be brought after a European Union court in October invalidated the current safe harbor in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations about U.S. government surveillance.

Before flying out for more negotiations, Justin Antonipillai, deputy general counsel of the Department of Commerce and a leading figure in the negotiations, suggested the deadline was actually going to be Feb. 2 given that Jan. 31 was a Sunday and there were working party meetings set for Feb. 2.

Antonipillai agreed that time was not on their side as the clock ticked down, but that they had been having productive dialogue.

He said that the court decision annulling the safe harbor framework did not say that U.S. companies were not protecting European's data. That was seconded by Bijan Madhani of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

Andrea Glorioso, representing the European Commission, warned that when--he said he was going to say "when," not "if"--a new safe harbor agreement was struck, that was not the end of the process. He said that it still had to be voted on by members countries and run by the EU Parliament for its input, and he had already heard from civil liberty groups that they were preparing a challenge to whatever the final product is.

He said the bottom line is that the EC wanted to make sure it was a solid framework that could resist those challenges, which is why he said it was not in anyone's interest to rush the agreement only to have it struck down in a few months.

Glorioso would not characterize the negotiations beyond saying the were happening daily. He suggested that the new harbor would need a trust but verify approach. He said the EC takes at face value what the U.S. says, but that it also needs more clarity, "if at all possible," about how the U.S. will protect information going forward.

The U.S. and EC have been working on a new framework for two years, prompted by the Snowden revelations, but the EC court decision in October has put them on the clock to get a deal done.

Madhani said he was optimistic that there would be an agreement by Feb. 2.