Это МКС или нет? Прецедентное право о границах

The classification of a service as an Служба информационного общества (ISS) under EU law has profound legal implications. It determines whether a provider benefits from the harmonized rules of the E-Commerce Directive, including limited liability, freedom to operate cross-border without additional authorization, and exemption from prior authorization. However, the rise of hybrid digital platforms has blurred the lines between online intermediation and traditional, regulated services like transport and real estate.

Over the past decade, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been repeatedly called upon to draw this line. The results have shaped the digital regulatory landscape and clarified when a digital interface qualifies as an ISS—and when it does not.

Uber Spain (C-434/15): Platform or Transport Service?

One of the most significant rulings on the boundary between ISS and traditional services came in the Uber Spain case. Uber argued that it was merely providing an intermediation service via a mobile app connecting passengers and drivers. However, the Court disagreed.

The CJEU held that Uber’s service was not an ISS, but rather a composite service in the field of transport. The Court emphasized that Uber exercised decisive influence over the conditions under which the transport services were provided—controlling pricing, access, and quality standards.

As a result, Uber’s activities could be regulated under national transport law, and the company could not claim protection under the E-Commerce Directive. This decision highlighted that control over the core offline service may disqualify a platform from ISS status.

Airbnb Ireland (C-390/18): Digital Booking or Real Estate Intermediation?

In contrast to Uber, the Court in the Airbnb case held that the platform does qualify as an ISS. Airbnb operates an online platform allowing users to offer and book short-term accommodation. It does not, however, manage the accommodation, set prices, or control the conditions of service.

The CJEU ruled that Airbnb acts independently of the providers of the accommodation services and merely provides a neutral digital intermediation tool. Thus, Airbnb benefits from the protections of the E-Commerce Directive and cannot be subjected to additional licensing requirements (such as a real estate broker license) under national law unless justified by specific EU-accepted derogations.

This ruling affirmed that passive or neutral platforms that do not shape or control the offline service typically fall within the definition of ISS.

Association for the Protection of Copyright v YouTube (C-682/18): Hosting or Promoting Content?

The YouTube case addressed another aspect of ISS boundaries—liability and classification of content-sharing platforms. YouTube offers users the ability to upload, view, and share videos. The question was whether such a service provider should be considered merely a hosting platform (ISS) or whether its activities went beyond that.

The CJEU held that YouTube qualifies as an ISS, enjoying the liability exemption under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive, provided that it acts neutrally and does not have actual knowledge of illegal content. However, platforms risk losing that protection if they actively curate, promote, or organize content in a way that goes beyond passive hosting.

This case clarified the importance of the “neutrality” criterion in maintaining ISS classification and enjoying limited liability protections.

Key Legal Principles for ISS Qualification

Across these rulings, a number of legal criteria have emerged for determining whether a service qualifies as an ISS:

1. Autonomy from the underlying service: A digital platform that operates independently from the physical service (accommodation, transport, etc.) is more likely to be classified as an ISS.
2. Control and influence: Platforms that exert control over pricing, contractual conditions, or the execution of the underlying service may be reclassified under the relevant sectoral regulations.
3. Neutral intermediation: Статус ISS в значительной степени зависит от того, выступает ли платформа в качестве нейтрального посредника или играет активную роль в формировании коммерческого предложения.
4. Экономическая деятельность и вознаграждение: Даже бесплатные сервисы могут быть квалифицированы как ISS, если они предлагаются в контексте коммерческой деятельности, обычно финансируемой за счет рекламы или комиссий.

Последствия для бизнеса и регулирующих органов

Для цифрового бизнеса правильная классификация в качестве ISS определяет оба применимые нормативные рамки и степень распространения подверженность ответственностиПредприятия должны тщательно оценивать степень своего участия в офлайн-элементах предоставляемой ими услуги.

Регулирующие органы, между тем, должны найти баланс между защитой потребителей и уважением свобод, гарантированных Директивой об электронной торговле и принципом страны происхождения.

Заключение

Границы услуг информационного общества остаются ключевым вопросом в цифровом регулировании. Хотя Суд Европейского союза предоставил ценные разъяснения, появление новых гибридных бизнес-моделей — особенно в сфере ИИ, сдельной работы и платформенной экономики — будет и впредь проверять границы этого определения.

Практикующие юристы должны внимательно следить за этими событиями и помогать клиентам в тонком понимании того, что квалифицируется как МВО — и что не квалифицируется.