Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:02:48.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital constitutionalism across the Atlantic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2022

Giovanni De Gregorio Open the ORCID record for Giovanni De Gregorio [Opens in a new window]
Giovanni De Gregorio*
Affiliation:
Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, Manor Road Building, Manor Road, Oxford, OX1 3UQ, United Kingdom
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the reasons for different constitutional approaches to platform governance across the Atlantic. By adopting a comparative perspective under the lens of digital constitutionalism, it analyses the move from converging to diverging strategies of the United States and the European Union to address platform governance. From a liberal approach inspired by the US framework at the end of the last century, the European Union has moved towards a constitutional democratic strategy as demonstrated, for instance, by the launch of the Digital Services Act. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States has reacted to the consolidation of platform governance by maintaining a liberal approach based on a vertical paradigm driven by the First Amendment. Given these democratic and liberal approaches, this article explains how the different constitutional premises of the United States and the European Union have produced diverging responses to the power of online platforms, thus underlining different expressions of digital constitutionalism across the Atlantic. The first section of the article introduces the rise of digital constitutionalism as the primary research angle to study the trans-Atlantic approaches to platform governance. The second section compares the European and US responses to the rise of platform powers. The third section focuses on the implications of these different constitutional strategies on a global scale.

Keywords

digital constitutionalismEuropean lawUS lawconstitutional lawplatform governancecomparative law
Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , July 2022 , pp. 297 - 324
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Benkler, Yochai, The Wealth of Networks (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2007)Google Scholar.

2 See, e.g., Johnson, David R. and Post, David, ‘Law and Borders: “The Rise of Law in Cyberspace” (1996) 48(5) Stanford Law Review 1367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1371; John P. Barlow, ‘A Declaration of Independence of the Cyberspace’, Electronic Frontier Foundation (1996), available at: <www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence>.

3 See, e.g., Haggart, Blayne, Tusikov, Natasha and Scholte, Jan Aart (eds), Power and Authority in Internet Governance Return of the State? (Routledge, London, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Giovanni De Gregorio and Nicole Stremlau, ‘Internet Shutdowns and the Limits of Law’ (2020) 14 International Journal of Communication 1; Justin Clark et al., The Shifting Landscape of Global Internet Censorship (Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research, Cambridge, MA, 2017), at: <http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33084425>; Deibert, Ronald et al., Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Cohen, Julie E., Truth, Between and Power, . The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020)Google Scholar.

5 Zuboff, Shoshana, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Profile Books, London, 2018)Google Scholar.

6 Moore, Martin and Tambini, Damian (eds), Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018)Google Scholar.

7 van Dijck, Josè and Nieborg, David and Poell, Thomas, ‘Reframing Platform Power’ (2019) 8(2) Internet Policy Review CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: <https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/reframing-platform-power>.

8 Constantinides, Panos, Henfridsson, Ola and Parker, Geoffrey G., ‘Introduction: Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age’ (2018) 29(2) Information Systems Research 381 Google Scholar; Plantin, Jean-Christophe et al., ‘Infrastructure Studies Meet Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook’ (2018) 20 New Media & Society 293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Rahman, K. Sabeel, ‘Regulating Informational Infrastructure: Internet Platforms as the New Public Utilities’ (2018) 2(2) Georgetown Law and Technology Review 234 Google Scholar.

10 Guggenberger, Nikolas, ‘Essential Platforms’ (2021) 24 Stanford Technology Law Review 237 Google Scholar.

11 Jack M. Balkin, ‘Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation’ (2018) 51 UC Davis Law Review 1149, 1151.

12 Brittany Kaiser, Targeted: The Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower’s Inside Story of How Big Data, Trump, and Facebook Broke Democracy and How It Can Happen Again (2019).

13 Frank Pasquale, ‘From Territorial to Functional Sovereignty: The Case of Amazon’, LPE (Dec., 6 2017), https://lpeblog.org/2017/12/06/from-territorial-to-functional-sovereignty-the-case-of-amazon.

14 Teubner, Gunther, Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Christou, George and Simpson, Seamus, ‘The Internet and Public–Private Governance in the European Union’ (2006) 26(1) Journal of Public Policy 43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC OJ L 119/1.

17 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC COM(2020) 825 final; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act) COM(2020) 842 final.

18 Communications Decency Act (1996), Section 230.

19 See, for example, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (2020).

20 De Gregorio, Giovanni, ‘The Rise of Digital Constitutionalism in the European Union’ (2021) 19(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Celeste, Edoardo, ‘Digital Constitutionalism: A New Systematic Theorization’ (2019) 33(1) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Claudia E. Haupt, ‘Regulating Speech Online: Free Speech Values in Constitutional Frames’ (2021) Washington University Law Review 751.

22 Choudhry, Sujit, ‘Migration as a New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law’, in Choudhry, Sujit (ed), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Tushnet, Mark, ‘The Inevitable Globalization of Constitutional Law’ (2009) 49 Virginia Journal of International Law 985 Google Scholar; Ip, Eric C, ‘Globalization and the Future of the Law of the Sovereign State’ (2010) 8(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law 636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Sassen, Saskia, ‘On the Internet and Sovereignty’ (1998) 5(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 545 Google Scholar.

25 Balkin, Jack, ‘Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society’ (2004) 79 New York University Law Review 1 Google Scholar.

26 Pollicino, Oreste and Bassini, Marco, ‘The Law of the Internet Between Globalisation and Localisation’, in Maduro, Miguel et al. (eds), Transnational Law: Rethinking European Law and Legal Thinking (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Johnson and Post (n 2); Barlow (n 2).

28 Governments such as China and the Arab states have not adopted the same free-market approach to the internet. See Chander, Anupam and Le, Uyen P, ‘Data Nationalism’ (2015) 64(3) Emory Law Journal 677 Google Scholar; Warf, Barney, ‘Geographies of Global Internet Censorship’ (2011) 76 GeoJournal 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Kosseff, Jeff, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2016)Google Scholar.

30 Helmond, Anne, ‘The Platformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready’ (2015) 1(2) Social Media + Society 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Floridi, Luciano, The Fourth Revolution How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016)Google Scholar.

32 Edoardo Celeste, ‘Terms of Service and Bills of Rights: New Mechanisms of Constitutionalisation in the Social Media Environment?’ (2018) 33(2) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 122; Luca Belli and Jamila Venturini, ‘Private Ordering and the Rise of Terms of Service as Cyber-Regulation’ (2016) 5(4) Internet Policy Review, https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.4.441.

33 Klonick, Kate, ‘The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech’ (2018) 131 Harvard Law Review 1598 Google Scholar.

34 Ranchordas, Sofia and Goanta, Catalina, ‘The New City Regulators: Platform and Public Values in Smart and Sharing Cities’ (2020) 36 Computer Law & Security Review 105375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Pasquale (n 13).

36 Laidlaw, Emily B, ‘A Framework for Identifying Internet Information Gatekeepers’ (2012) 24(3) International Review of Law Computers & Technology 263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zittrain, Jonathan A, ‘History of Online Gatekeeping’ (2006) 19(2) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 253; Burris, Scott et al., ‘Nodal Governance’ (2005) 30 Australian Journal of Law and Policy 30 Google Scholar.

37 Klonick, Kate, ‘The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression’ (2020) 129(8) Yale Law Journal 2232 Google Scholar (2020); Douek, Evelyn, ‘Facebook’s “Oversight Board”: Move Fast with Stable Infrastructure and Humility’ (2019) 21(1) North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 1 Google Scholar.

38 Van Loo, Rory, ‘The Corporation as Courthouse’ (2016) 33 Yale Journal on Regulation 547 Google Scholar.

39 Freeman, Jody and Minow, Martha (eds), Government by Contract: Outsourcing and American Democracy (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Jeremy Waldron, ‘Constitutionalism: A Skeptical View’ (2012) New York University Public Law Research Paper, available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722771&rec=1&srcabs=1760963&alg=1&pos=1>; Joseph HH Weiler and Marlene Wind (eds), European Constitutionalism Beyond the State (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).

41 Sajó, András and Uitz, Renáta, The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Padovani, Claudia and Santaniello, Mauro, ‘Digital Constitutionalism: Fundamental Rights and Power Limitation in the Internet Eco-System’ (2018) 80 International Communication Gazette 295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Suzor, Nicolas, Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019), 173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Antje Wiener et al., ‘Global Constitutionalism: Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law’ (2012) 1 Global Constitutionalism 1.

45 Bartole, Sergio, The Internationalisation of Constitutional Law (Hart, Oxford, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Mortelmans, Kamiel, ‘The Common Market, the Internal Market and the Single Market: What’s in a Market?’ (1998) 35(1) Canadian Modern Language Review 101 Google Scholar.

47 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012) OJ C 326/47, Title II and IV.

48 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1995) OJ L 281/31; Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (2000) OJ L 178/1.

49 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012) OJ C 326/391. Grainne De Burca, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator?’ (2013) 20(2) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 168.

50 Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union OJ C 326/13, Article 6(1).

51 Massimo Fichera and Oreste Pollicino, ‘The Dialectics Between Constitutional Identity and Common Constitutional Traditions: Which Language for Cooperative Constitutionalism in Europe?’ (2019) 20 German Law Journal 1097.

52 European Convention on Human Rights (1950), Articles 8, 10.

53 Oreste Pollicino, Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights on the Internet: A Road towards Digital Constitutionalism (Bloomsbury, London, 2021).

54 Delfi AS v Estonia (2015) 62 EHRR 6; MTE v Hungary (2016).

55 S. and Marper v The United Kingdom (2008).

56 Charter (n 49), Article 11(1).

57 Ibid., Article 7.

58 Ibid., Article 8(1).

59 Ibid., Article 51.

60 Ibid., Article 52. Koen Lenaerts, ‘Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2013) 8(3) European Constitutional Law Review 375.

61 Convention (n 52), Article 17.

62 Charter (n 49), Article 54.

63 Nevertheless, this process started even before the Maastricht Treaty entered into force when the fundamental rights started to be applied as limitations for fundamental freedom and common market principles. Precisely, the recognition of fundamental rights as general principles of EU law has opened the door towards a balancing exercise between fundamental freedoms and rights, or between the economic and constitutional dimension of the European Union. See, in particular, Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich (2003) ECR I-905; Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (2004) ECR I-9609; Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (2007) ECR I-11767; Case C-438/05, Viking Line ABP v The International Transport Workers’ Federation, the Finnish Seaman’s Union (2007) ECR I-10779; Case 29/69, Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt (1969); Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (1970); Case 4/73, J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Ruhrkohle Aktiengesellschaft (1977).

64 Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (2011) ECR I-11959; Case C-360/10, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV (2012).

65 C-70/10 (n 64).

66 Charter (n 49), Articles 8, 11.

67 Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH (2014); Case C-484/14, Tobias McFadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH (2016).

68 Cases C‑293/12 e C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others (2014).

69 Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (2006) OJ L 105/54.

70 Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (2014).

71 Ibid, 34.

72 Ibid, 58.

73 Ibid, 97.

74 Chenou, Jean-Marie and Radu, Roxana, ‘The “Right to Be Forgotten”: Negotiating Public and Private Ordering in the European Union’ (2017) 58 Business & Society 74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (2015).

76 Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (2000) OJ L 215/7.

77 Data Protection Directive (n 48), Article 25.

78 Case C-362/14 (n 75), 71.

79 Ibid, 73.

80 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe COM(2015)192 final.

81 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2016) 288 final.

82 Ibid.

83 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (2019) OJ L 130/92.

84 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (2018) OJ L 303/69.

85 Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online OJ L 172/79.

86 GDPR (n 16), Recital 1. Gellert, Raphaël, The Risk-Based Approach to Data Protection (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 The European Union has adopted different guidelines and code of practices in the field of content. See Code of Conduct on Online Hate Speech (2016), available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=42985>; Code of Practice on Online Disinformation, (2018) <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=54454>.

88 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 on the Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed (2020/2022(INI)).

89 Grimm, Dieter, ‘The Protective Function of the State’ in European and US Constitutionalism, edited by Georg Nolte, 101–28. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 Google Scholar).

90 Ginsburg, Tom and others, ‘The Coming Demise of Liberal Constitutionalism?’ (2018) 85(2) University of Chicago Law Review 239 Google Scholar, 253.

91 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1996), section 512.

92 Mehra, Salil K. and Trimble, Marketa, ‘Secondary Liability, ISP Immunity, and Incumbent Entrenchment’ (2014) 62 American Journal of Company Law 685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Danielle K. Citron and Benjamin Wittes, ‘The Problem Isn’t Just Backpage: Revising Section 230 Immunity’ (2018) 2 Georgetown Law Technology Review 453.

93 Floridi, Luciano, ‘On Human Dignity as a Foundation for the Right to Privacy’ (2016) 29 Philosophy & Technology 307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whitman, James Q., ‘The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty’ (2004) 113 Yale Law Journal 1153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Kerr, Orin S, ‘The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment’ (2012) 111 Michigan Law Review 311 Google Scholar.

95 Schwartz, Paul M and Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, ‘Transatlantic Data Privacy Law’ (2017) 106 Georgetown Law Journal 115 Google Scholar.

96 Anupam Chander et al., ‘Catalyzing Privacy Law’ (2021) 105 Minnesota Law Review 1733.

97 Zoller, Elisabeth, ‘The United States Supreme Court and the Freedom of Expression’ (2009) 84 Indiana Law Journal 885 Google Scholar.

98 Schenck v United States 249 US 47 (1919).

99 Abrams v United States 250 US 616 (1919).

100 United States v Rumely 345 US 41 (1953).

101 Coase, Ronald, ‘Markets for Goods and Market for Ideas’ (1974) 64(2) American Economic Review 384 Google Scholar.

102 See, e.g., Miller v California 413 US 15 (1973); New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964). See also Roth v United States 354 US 476 (1957); Ginsberg v New York 390 US 629 (1968). New York v Ferber 458 US 747 (1982). See also the set of the ‘minimum contact test’ in Calder v Jones 465 US 783 (1984).

103 Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 (1969).

104 Whitney v California 274 US 357 (1927).

105 Fisch, William B., ‘Hate Speech in the Constitutional Law of the United States’ (2002) 50 American Journal of Company Law 463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Reno v American Civil Liberties Union 521 US 844 (1997).

107 Ibid.

108 See, in particular, Ashcroft v American Civil Liberties Union 535 US 564 (2002); Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 535 US 234 (2002).

109 Johnson and Post (n 2).

110 Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0 (Basic Books, New York, 2006).

111 Goldsmith, Jack and Wu, Tim, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reidenberg, Joel R, ‘States and Internet Enforcement’ (2004) 1 University of Ottawa Law and Technology 213 Google Scholar.

112 Packingham v North Carolina 582 US ___ (2017).

113 Ibid.

114 Jaffe, Louis L., ‘Law Making by Private Groups’ (1937) 51(2) Harvard Law Review 201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Kessler, Friedrich, ‘Contracts of Adhesion: Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract’ (1943) 43 Columbia Law Review 629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 642.

116 Ibid, 640.

117 Slawson, W. David, ‘Standard Form Contracts and Democratic Control of Lawmaking Power’ (1971) 84 Harvard Law Review 529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Rakoff, Todd D., ‘Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction’ (1983) 96 Harvard Law Review 1173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 Brittany Scott, ‘Waiving Goodbye to First Amendment Protections: First Amendment Waiver by Contract’ (2019) 46 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 451; Alan E. Garfield, ‘Promises of Silence: Contract Law and Freedom of Speech’ (1998) 83 Cornell Law Review 261, 265. The Supreme Court has not banned waiver of constitutional rights including First Amendment speech rights. See Curtis Publ’g Co. v Butts 388 US 130, 135 (1967); Johnson v Zerbst 304 US 458, 459 (1938), including not through contractual arrangements. See, in particular, Cohen v Cowles Media Company 501 US 663 (1991); Snepp v United States 444 US 507 (1983).

120 Radin, Margaret J., Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights, and the Rule of Law (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Chander, Anupam, ‘How Law Made Silicon Valley’ (2014) 63(3) Emory Law Journal 639 Google Scholar.

122 York, Jillian C., The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism (Verso, New York, 2021)Google Scholar.

123 Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ v Trump, No. 18-1691-cv (2d Cir. 2019).

124 Ibid.

125 See, for instance, Brittain v Twitter, Inc. WL 2423375 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Fyk v Facebook, Inc., No. C 18-05159 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2019); explicitly about the refusal of the application of the state action doctrine, see Johnson v Twitter, Inc. no. 18ECG00078 (Cal. Superior Ct. 2018) and Williby v Zuckerberg 3:18-cv-06295-JD (N.D. Cal. 2019).

126 Gardbaum, Stephen, ‘The Horizontal Effect of Constitutional Rights’ (2003) 102 Michigan Law Review 388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 Tushnet, Mark, ‘The Issue of State Action/Horizontal Effect in Comparative Constitutional Law’ (2003) 1(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 Peller, Gary and Tushnet, Mark, ‘State Action and a New Birth of Freedom’ (2004) 92 Georgetown Law Journal 779 Google Scholar, 789.

129 Chemerinsky, Erwin, ‘Rethinking State Action’ (1985) 80 Northwestern University Law Review 503 Google Scholar, 505.

130 Mattias Kumm and Victor Ferreres Comella, ‘What is So Special about Constitutional Rights in Private Litigation? A Comparative Analysis of the Function of State Action Requirements and Indirect Horizontal Effect’, in The Constitution in Private Relations: Expanding Constitutionalism, edited by Andras Sajó and Renata Uitz, 241 (Chicago: Eleven International Publishing, 2005).

131 Jonathan Peters, ‘The “Sovereigns of Cyberspace” and State Action: The First Amendment’s Application (or Lack Thereof) to Third-Party Platforms’ (2018) 32 Berkeley Technical Law Journal 988; Paul S. Berman, ‘Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to “Private” Regulation’ (2000) 71 University of Colorado Law Review U1263.

132 Prager Univ v Google LLC, No. 17-CV-06064-LHK, (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018); Nyabwa v Facebook, No. 2:17-CV-24, (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2018); Quigley v Yelp, Inc., No. 17-cv-03771-RS, (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2017); Buza v Yahoo!, Inc., (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011); Young v Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-03579-JF/PVT, 2010 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010); Estavillo v Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. Inc., No. C-09-03007 RMW, 2009 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2009); Jayne v Google Internet Search Engine Founders, 63 Fed. Appx. 268, 268 (3d Cir. 2008); 360Insight, LLC v Comcast Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Langdon v Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622, 631–32 (D. Del. 2007); Green v Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465, 472 (3rd Cir. 2003); Nat’l A-1 Advert. v Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156, 169 (D.N.H. 2000); Cyber Promotions v Am. Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 445 (E.D. Penn. 1996).

133 Manhattan Community Access Corp. v Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 US ___ (2019).

134 Prager University v Google LLC, No. 18-15712 (9th Cir. 2020).

135 Jackson v Metropolitan Edison Co. 419 U. S. 345, 352.

136 Flagg Bros., Inc. v Brooks 436 U. S. 149, 158 (1978).

137 Terry v Adams 345 U. S. 461, 468– 470 (1953); Marsh v Alabama 326 U. S. 501, 505–509 (1946); Smith v Allwright 321 U. S. 649, 662–666 (1944); Nixon v Condon 286 U. S. 73, 84–89 (1932).

138 Hudgens v NLRB 424 US 507 (1976).

139 Marsh v Alabama 326 US 501 (1946).

140 Ibid.

141 Oreste Pollicino and Marco Bassini, ‘Free Speech, Defamation and the Limits to Freedom of Expression in the EU: A Comparative Analysis’, in Research Handbook on EU Internet Law, edited by Andrej Savin and Jan Trzaskowski, 508–42 (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2014).

142 Licra et UEJF v Yahoo Inc and Yahoo France TGI Paris 22 May 2000; Yahoo!, Inc. v La Ligue Contre Le Racisme 169 F Supp 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal 2001). See Joel R Reidenberg, ‘Yahoo and Democracy on the Internet’, 42 Jurimetrics 261 (2001/2002).

143 Pollicino (n 53).

144 Frantziou, Eleni, A Constitutional Analysis. The Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights in the European Union (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019)Google Scholar.

145 Kuczerawy, Aleksandra, ‘The Power of Positive Thinking. Intermediary Liability and the Effective Enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression’ (2017) 3 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 182 Google Scholar.

146 Ibid, Article 54; Convention (n 52), Article 17.

147 Daniel Augenstein and Lukasz Dziedzic, ‘State Responsibilities to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities Under the European Convention on Human Rights’, EUI Working papers (2017), available at: <https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/48326/LAW_2017_15.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.

148 Duprè, Catherine, The Age of Dignity. Human Rights and Constitutionalism in Europe (Bloomsbury, London, 2016)Google Scholar.

149 Becchi, Paolo and Mathis, Klaus (eds), Handbook of Human Dignity in Europe (Springer, Dordrecht, 2019)Google Scholar.

150 James Q. Whitman, ‘On Nazi “Honour” and the New European “Dignity”’, in The Darker Legacies of Law in Europe, edited by Christian Joerges and Navraj Singh Ghaleigh, 243 (Bloomsbury, London, 2003).

151 Lorraine Weinrib, ‘Human Dignity as a Rights-Protecting Principle’ (2004) 17 National Journal of Constitutional Law 330.

152 Charter (n 49), Art 1. See also Articles 25, 31.

153 Treaty on the European Union (2012) OJ 326/13, preamble 2, 4.

154 Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (28 May 2020) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship>.

155 See the proposal on The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act (2020).

156 Giovanni De Gregorio and Roxana Radu, ‘Trump’s Executive Order: Another Tile in the Mosaic of Governing Online Speech’, MediaLaws, 6 Jun 2020, available at: <http://www.medialaws.eu/trumps-executive-order-another-tile-in-the-mosaic-of-governing-online-speech>.

157 Daphne Keller, ‘Who Do You Sue? State and Platform Hybrid Power Over Online Speech, Hoover Institution’, Aegis Series Paper No. 1902 (2019), available at: <https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/who-do-you-sue-state-and-platform-hybrid-power-over-online-speech_0.pdf>.

158 Lewis v YouTube, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).

159 582 US ___ (2017) (n 112).

160 Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins, 447 US 74 (1980).

161 587 US ___ (2019) (n 133).

162 Gomez v Zuckenburg, 2020 US Dist. LEXIS 130989 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020).

163 David Smith, ‘Trump Says He will Sue Social Media Giants Over “Censorship”’, The Guardian, 7 July 2021, available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/07/donald-trump-facebook-twitter-google-lawsuit>.

164 Biden v Knight, First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, 593 U.S. ____ (2021).

165 Crawford, Susan, ‘First Amendment Common Sense’ (2014) 127 Harvard Law Review 2343 Google Scholar.

166 Frank Pasquale, ‘Internet Nondiscrimination Principles: Commercial Ethics for Carriers and Search Engines’ (2008) University of Chicago Legal Forum 263.

167 See, e.g., M. Feeney, ‘Are Social Media Companies Common Carriers?’ Cato, 24 May 2021; Eric Goldman, ‘Are Social Media Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?’ Technology & Marketing Law Blog, 12 February 2021.

168 Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy (9 July 2021), available at <https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy>.

169 EU–US Trade and Technology Council Inaugural Joint Statement (29 September 2021), available at <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_21_4951>.

170 Luciano Floridi, ‘The Fight for Digital Sovereignty: What It Is, and Why It Matters, Especially for the EU’ (2020) 33 Philosophy & Technology 369.

171 Niva Elkin-Koren and Eldar Haber, ‘Governance by Proxy: Cyber Challenges to Civil Liberties’ (2016) 82 Brookings Law Review 105; Michael D. Birnhack and Niva Elkin-Koren, ‘The Invisible Handshake: The Re-emergence of the State in the Digital Environment’ (2003) 8 Virginia Journal of Law & Technology 6.

172 Lyon, David, Surveillance After Snowden (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2015)Google Scholar.

173 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European Democracy Action Plan COM(2020) 790 final.

174 Bradford, Anu, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Scott, Joanne, ‘Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law’ (2018) 62 American Journal of Comparative Law 87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

175 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Shaping Europe’s digital future’ COM (2020) 67 final, 2.

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid.

178 Ibid.

179 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts COM(2021) 206 final.

180 Greenleaf, Graham, ‘Global Data Privacy Laws 2019: 132 National Laws & Many Bills’ (2019) 157 Privacy Laws & Business International Report 14 Google Scholar.

181 Address of the UN Secretary-General to the Italian Senate (18 Dec. 2019), available at: < https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sgsm19916.doc.htm >.

182 Oreste Pollicino, ‘Contact Tracing and COVID-19: Commission and Member States Agree on Specifications’, EU Law Live (16 Jun 2020), available at: <https://eulawlive.com/contact-tracing-and-covid-19-commission-and-member-states-agree-on-specifications>.

183 GDPR (n 16), Article 3(2).

184 Moerel, Lokke, ‘The Long Arm of EU Data Protection Law: Does the Data Protection Directive Apply to Processing of Personal Data of EU Citizens by Websites Worldwide?’ (2011) 1(1) International Data Privacy Law 28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

185 Kuner, Christopher, ‘The Internet and the Global Reach of EU Law’, in EU Law Beyond EU Borders: The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Law, edited by Cremona, Marise and Scott, Joanne, 112–45 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

186 Dan J.B. Svantesson, ‘A ‘Layered Approach’ to the Extraterritoriality of Data Privacy Laws’ (2013) 3(4) IDPL 278.

187 Kuner, Christoper, ‘Extraterritoriality and Regulation of International Data Transfers in EU Data Protection Law’ (2015) 5(4) International Data Privacy Law 235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

188 Arora, Payal, ‘GDPR – a Global Standard? Privacy Futures, Digital Activism and Surveillance Cultures in the Global South’ (2019) 17(5) Surveillance & Society 717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

189 De Hert, Paul and Czerniawski, Michal, ‘Expanding the European Data Protection Scope Beyond Territory: Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation in its Wider Context’ (2016) 6(3) International Data Privacy Law 230, 240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

190 Case C-507/17, Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (2019).

191 Case C-18/18, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook (2019).