The draft law, which involves a series of amendments and additions to audiovisual legislation and has generated much debate and criticism in the public sphere, provides, among other things, for the introduction of a new chapter in the Audiovisual Media Services Code addressing video-sharing platforms (VSPs) and the potential obligations they should comply with.
The draft was developed by the Working Group on Media Legislation Improvement, which includes representatives of several non-governmental organizations in the field and members of the relevant parliamentary committee. The document was registered with Parliament on May 29. According to the explanatory note, the Media Services Code needs to be amended to bring audiovisual legislation into line with EU standards in the context of the European integration process. This mainly concerns the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the European Act on Media Freedom and the Digital Services Act (DSA).
At the same time, the amendments are intended to respond to new challenges in the field, including: the ambiguous definition of certain terms; the growing influence of video-sharing platforms, which are not adequately regulated and can facilitate the dissemination of illegal or harmful content; the lack of strict transparency mechanisms regarding the ownership and financing of media service providers, and others.
REGULATION OF VIDEO-SHARING PLATFORMS
The draft law proposes new definitions for the concepts of video-sharing platform provider, user-generated video and video-sharing platform service, terms that already exist in Moldovan legislation. The new definitions are taken from the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Video-sharing platforms are online services that offer the public the possibility to access videos – whether produced by professionals or generated by users – such as YouTube, social networks, European platforms such as Dailymotion, Vimeo or specialized platforms such as OnlyFans or Snapchat.
The document also takes up the concept of trusted flaggers from the Regulation of EU Digital Services, referring to persons with specific expertise in detecting, identifying and reporting harmful content. Notifications from these natural and/or legal persons should be treated as a priority by video-sharing platforms. The amendments also transpose (in accordance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive) the criteria for determining jurisdiction, i.e. for identifying video-sharing platforms that are to be subject to regulation in the Republic of Moldova.
The authors of the amendments propose a new wording for Article 11 of the Audiovisual Code, which distinguishes between two types of content that need to be restricted both on TV and on video-sharing platforms. The first category (illegal content) refers to material that is completely prohibited, such as content that endangers national security, incites the violent overthrow of the constitutional order of the state, urges military aggression or armed conflict, or content whose dissemination constitutes an illegal activity, including public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, offences related to child pornography and offences of a racist and xenophobic nature, etc. The second category refers to harmful content, i.e. content that may affect the physical, mental or moral development of minors. This content may appear on TV or video-sharing platforms only if measures are in place to restrict minors’ access to harmful content (e.g. the use of age verification tools).
The draft law also introduces a new chapter dedicated solely to video-sharing platform services, taken from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. This establishes a general obligation for VSPs providers to protect minors from content that may harm their development, as well as the public from illegal content. In order to ensure the protection of minors and the public, VSPs providers must take appropriate measures to prevent minors from viewing harmful content; establish mechanisms enabling platform users to report or flag illegal content or provide parental control systems under the control of end users, etc. The draft also provides for the obligation for platforms to establish their own mechanism for challenging decisions to restrict content.
POWERS OF THE BROADCASTING COUNCIL
Where the content of a video-sharing platform infringes the provisions of the article on the protection of minors and the public, the BC may request VSPs providers, within 24 hours of official notification, to remove the illegal content or block access to it, or to display a warning to users when accessing this content, or to disable the user’s account for a period of one to three months. The provider is obliged to take the appropriate measures within the time limit specified by the BC and to inform the Council of the measures taken.
Furthermore, VSPs providers under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova must submit a prior declaration to the BC, including information such as identification data and ownership structure, and the authority shall maintain an up-to-date register of VSPs providers within its jurisdiction.
The BC would be given additional powers, including developing the procedure for certifying trusted notifiers; assessing the protective measures taken by providers and monitoring compliance with the new legal obligations.
EU LEGISLATION
At EU level, video platform providers have been subject to sector-specific regulations since the revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Until then, EU audiovisual legislation only covered traditional television and video-on-demand services. Thus, protecting users from illegal or harmful content is a central obligation for these platforms.
In fact, Cristina Durnea, a lawyer at the Centre for Independent Journalism, notes that although the VSPs regulation appears to be a novelty in Moldovan legislation, the Audiovisual Code currently contains a number of provisions that address these platforms but do not reflect developments in EU legislation. “With regard to VSPs, the proposed text still contains a number of ambiguities and regulatory overlaps. One of the important gaps is the absence of explicit transparency mechanisms: there is no obligation for VSPs providers or trusted flaggers to publish reports on removed content, reports received or the effectiveness of protective measures,” she said.
The first debates on the proposals were held in Parliament on June 9, and several provisions of the draft law sparked discontent and criticism, including accusations of attempts at “censorship” by the ruling party. The main issues discussed were trusted flaggers, the regulation of illegal content and video-sharing platforms, and the definition of disinformation. The chair of the parliament’s media committee, Liliana Nicolaescu-Onofrei, suggested a ten-day deadline for all interested parties to submit their proposals.
Earlier, Media Azi explained the provisions of the draft law aimed at removing Teleradio-Moldova from parliamentary control and changing the mechanisms for appointing members of the BC and CSD.