Jordi Cañas, Cs MEP: "The EU has made it clear that there will be no spaces for impunity in the digital world"

“What is illegal in the real world must also be illegal in the digital world”. Is that the DSA maxim? It is one of the maxims, yes and it is probably one of its main objectives. I think that we should all start to eliminate the distinction between the physical and digital world because in the end we move in a world in which the digital cannot be separated. It is necessary to regulate all spaces of interaction between people, companies, products and services. For that, special legislation is required because precisely that separation had created a sensation of impunity; in the digital world it seemed that the rights of citizens were less than in the analog world.

The European Parliament has defined the two standards as “historic”. What other goals do they have? In addition to what we were saying, which is extending the regulatory framework, there is another fundamental one: protecting the rights of citizens. Also delimit the large companies in their scope of action, they cannot believe that because they are very large they are outside the regulation. They looked too big for anyone to mess with and the EU tells them no; here the rules are met. It shows that there is no impunity even for the big technology companies, and they are not going to be allowed to run wild.

Are the tech giants a problem, an opportunity or a challenge for the EU? Quite a bit, actually. Antitrust laws have already been approved in other countries, such as the US, and precisely if one looks at the large companies, one sees that some exercise this monopoly, so it is evident that this must be regulated because the monopoly or the oligopolies have a position of dominance over the market that ends up affecting the freedoms and rights of citizens, but also competition. Large companies are not a problem in themselves, but also an opportunity. But there is a risk that their dominant position will make them a threat to rights and competition. They can be a danger but it can be prevented from being so.

Is the Internet a jungle right now that the EU aspires to order? The Internet must continue to be a space of freedom that must be regulated but not restricted. I love the jungle. There has to be everything, not everything can be a garden, but the issue is that in that jungle it is safe, without criminals and in which one knows where one is getting into. We as a liberal party defend that citizens are aware of exactly where they are getting into; Nothing in the world is free because in the end you are giving up your identity, your data, and what you have to do is regulate and make people aware. The citizen has to understand. We have gone from total confidentiality of the data to one who voluntarily exposes himself. It has to be, I repeat, a space in which there is no room for impunity.

What then is the conclusion? That it may be a jungle and should remain so, but the law has to rule the same as outside of it. You have to understand that everything is going to evolve but what does not have to change are the principles, and the important thing here is that everyone knows that the EU is not going to allow spaces of impunity in the digital world and the rights and freedoms of citizens will be protected and protected.

Are our personal data then in danger if an effective framework is not created? What is clear is that self-regulation has not worked and when this happens it becomes clear that it is necessary to regulate. Personal data is personal and you have to decide who you give it to, but this delivery has to be conscious and free because personal data is the raw material of the digital world.. It is evident that there are legal uses but there are many illegal ones, and I think everyone is aware of this.. Mechanisms and resources are needed because companies are always going to be ahead. It is a very complicated topic because it requires very specific skills. Data and lack of regulation are an explosive cocktail and that is why DMA and DSA are a form of order power.

And the EU is a pioneer in this regard. We are the first in the world to do so, and it is true that legislators often do not have the necessary knowledge to address issues of this magnitude.. Everything is moving very fast. Now we are, for example, with the AI debate, with concepts that are complex. But Europe will once again be the global regulator and, for example, in Brazil, a law is already being developed that uses DSA and DMA as references.. We generate a regulatory framework and we are going to set the global trend. This shows that the EU does not bow to pressure from the powerful.

In addition, the penalties for non-compliance (which include DSA and DMA) are especially powerful.. The Commission is empowered to impose fines on companies for an amount of up to 10% of their total worldwide turnover in the preceding fiscal year, which could go up to 20% in the event of repeated offences . That is why we can say that we have been the first and we have not bowed to the pressures. This Parliament and the European institutions have been able to stand up to the companies, with a willingness to collaborate because they are not the enemy. But we have sat down to say that we have come this far and we are going to regulate this. We have been the first, we have not been afraid and we are a guarantee of defense of the citizens.

Another of the objectives of the regulations, they explained, is that “Europe receives the best companies and not only the largest”. Were we lukewarm or unselective until now? None of the big technology companies is European, so they are very big companies that prevent smaller ones from appearing in the digital ecosystem and that affects the principle of competition. We might love it if there was a European Google or a European Meta, but there isn't, and so we have to ensure that those giants don't drain the competition; their presence, capacity and size do not impede the development of the single market. The idea is to create an ecosystem in which medium and small companies can compete and coexist with large ones.

What then remains to be done? It remains to develop the DSA and the DMA, of course. The problem with any law is that it meets its objectives and that is everyone's job; we must make it effective and improve what needs to be improved because reality is ahead of regulations. We had a regulation from the year 2000 and it was necessary to reduce that distance. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen again.