Implementing acts relating to Commission intervention
Chapter 4|Supervision, Investigation, Enforcement and Monitoring of VLOPs and VLOSEs|đ 19 min read
In relation to the Commission intervention covered by this Section, the Commission may adopt implementing acts concerning the practical arrangements for: (a) the proceedings pursuant to Articles 69 and 72; (b) the hearings provided for in Article 79; (c) the negotiated disclosure of information provided for in Article 79.
Before the adoption of any measures pursuant to the first paragraph of this Article, the Commission shall publish a draft thereof and invite all interested parties to submit their comments within the period set out therein, which shall not be less than one month. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 88.
Understanding This Article
Article 83 grants the Commission authority to adopt implementing acts establishing detailed procedural rules governing Commission enforcement activities under Section 4 (Supervision, Investigation, Enforcement and Monitoring of VLOPs and VLOSEs). While Articles 66-82 establish the substantive powers and legal framework for Commission enforcement, they intentionally leave practical operational details unspecified, recognizing that granular procedural requirements are better addressed through flexible implementing acts that can be updated as enforcement experience accumulates. Article 83 fills this gap by enabling the Commission to standardize enforcement procedures, creating uniform and transparent rules that promote legal certainty for regulated platforms while ensuring effective enforcement.
Categories of Implementing Acts Authorized: Article 83 specifies three distinct categories of implementing acts addressing different aspects of Commission enforcement procedures. (a) Article 69 and 72 ProceedingsâInspection and Monitoring Procedures: Article 69 grants Commission authority to conduct on-site inspections of VLOP/VLOSE premises, examining documents, accessing IT systems, interviewing personnel, and seizing evidence. Article 72 enables Commission to appoint independent auditors and experts to conduct monitoring actions assessing compliance. Both provisions describe enforcement powers in general terms but leave practical operational details unspecified. Implementing acts under Article 83(a) establish detailed procedures for conducting these investigations and monitoring actions, addressing: (i) Advance Notice RequirementsâWhether and how much advance notice Commission must provide before inspections (balancing platform preparation time against evidence preservation concerns); (ii) Inspection Team CompositionâQualifications and expertise requirements for Commission officials and appointed experts conducting inspections; authorized team size; language capabilities; (iii) On-Site Access ProtocolsâTiming and duration of on-site presence; business premises versus non-business premises access rules; protocols for accessing IT systems and databases; procedures for imaging hard drives and accessing cloud storage; (iv) Document Examination and SeizureâCategories of documents subject to examination; procedures for identifying and separating privileged materials (attorney-client communications, trade secrets); protocols for seizing or copying documents; chain of custody requirements ensuring evidence integrity; (v) Interview ProceduresâRules governing interviews of platform employees and executives; whether interviewees may have legal counsel present; recording and transcription protocols; rights against self-incrimination; (vi) Evidence PreservationâRequirements that platforms preserve potentially relevant evidence upon receiving investigation notice; sanctions for evidence spoliation; (vii) Monitoring Action ProtocolsâProcedures for appointing auditors and experts under Article 72; scope of work specifications; access rights to platform systems; confidentiality obligations; reporting timelines and formats; (viii) Provider Cooperation ObligationsâSpecific actions platforms must take to facilitate inspections (providing workspace, IT access, document production); timelines for responding to information requests; designation of responsible contact persons.
(b) Article 79 HearingsâRight to Be Heard Procedures: Article 79 grants providers under investigation the right to be heard before the Commission adopts non-compliance or penalty decisions, ensuring compliance with fundamental due process rights. While Article 79 establishes the substantive right, it does not specify detailed hearing procedures. Implementing acts under Article 83(b) address practical hearing arrangements: (i) Hearing Scheduling and FormatâTimelines for requesting hearings after receiving Statement of Objections; whether hearings are in-person, virtual, or hybrid; location (Brussels or elsewhere); hearing duration; (ii) Participant RightsâWho may attend on behalf of provider (executives, legal counsel, technical experts); number of participants permitted; whether observers (e.g., affected Member State representatives) may attend; (iii) Hearing ProceduresâOrder of proceedings (Commission presentation, provider response, questions); time allocated to each speaker; whether cross-examination permitted; rules for submitting exhibits or additional evidence; (iv) Recording and TranscriptionâWhether hearings are recorded; transcription requirements; provider access to hearing transcripts; use of transcripts in subsequent proceedings; (v) Post-Hearing SubmissionsâWhether providers may submit post-hearing written comments; deadlines for such submissions; Commission consideration obligations; (vi) Hearing Officer RoleâDesignation of independent hearing officer to ensure procedural fairness; hearing officer's authority to rule on procedural objections; hearing officer's reporting obligations. These procedures ensure hearings provide meaningful opportunity for providers to contest Commission findings before final decisions are adopted.
(c) Article 79 Information DisclosureâConfidentiality Negotiation Protocols: Article 79 grants providers access to the Commission's investigation file to enable effective defense, but allows Commission to withhold confidential information and internal documents. This creates tension between provider defense rights (requiring access to evidence) and protection of confidential business information (preventing disclosure of trade secrets and sensitive data). Article 79 requires Commission and providers to engage in "negotiated disclosure" procedures finding appropriate balance. Implementing acts under Article 83(c) establish protocols for these confidentiality negotiations: (i) Initial Disclosure ProceduresâTimelines for Commission to provide access to investigation file; format of disclosure (physical documents, electronic data room, secure portal); indexing and organization requirements enabling providers to efficiently review large files; (ii) Confidentiality Review ProcessâProcedures for Commission to identify potentially confidential information requiring protection; categories of information presumptively confidential (trade secrets, commercially sensitive business strategies, personal data); provider opportunity to designate own submissions as confidential; (iii) Negotiation ProceduresâProcess for providers to challenge Commission's confidentiality determinations; timelines for Commission to respond to disclosure requests; escalation procedures for resolving disputes; role of hearing officer in mediating confidentiality disputes; (iv) Redaction and Summary ProtocolsâRequirements that Commission provide non-confidential summaries or redacted versions of withheld documents enabling provider to understand and contest evidence while protecting confidentiality; standards for adequate summarization; (v) Challenge ProceduresâProvider rights to appeal Commission's final confidentiality determinations; timelines and procedures for such appeals; standards of review. These protocols balance competing interests ensuring providers can mount effective defense while protecting legitimate confidentiality concerns.
Public Consultation Requirement: Before adopting implementing acts, Article 83 paragraph 2 requires Commission to "publish a draft thereof and invite all interested parties to submit their comments within the period set out therein, which shall not be less than one month." This mandatory consultation serves multiple functions: (1) Stakeholder InputâPlatforms subject to enforcement, civil society organizations monitoring enforcement effectiveness, academic experts studying platform governance, and other interested parties can provide input on whether proposed procedural rules are workable, proportionate, and effective. This enables Commission to refine procedures before finalization, avoiding impractical requirements and incorporating stakeholder expertise. (2) TransparencyâPublic consultation ensures enforcement procedures are developed transparently rather than behind closed doors, promoting legitimacy and accountability. Stakeholders can see exactly what procedures are being considered and why. (3) Legal CertaintyâConsultation creates clear advance notice of enforcement procedures platforms will face, enabling platforms to prepare compliance systems and internal processes aligned with forthcoming requirements rather than being surprised by unanticipated procedural demands. (4) Evidence of ReasonablenessâIf stakeholders raise substantive concerns during consultation and Commission proceeds without adequate response, this may evidence unreasonable or arbitrary rulemaking potentially vulnerable to legal challenge. Consultation thus creates incentive for Commission to seriously consider stakeholder input and address legitimate concerns.
The one-month minimum comment period provides meaningful opportunity for stakeholders to review draft implementing acts (which may run dozens of pages with highly technical procedural provisions), consult with legal and technical experts, draft substantive comments, and submit comprehensive responses. Commission typically provides longer consultation periods (60-90 days) for complex implementing acts. After consultation closes, Commission reviews all comments, publishes summary of comments received, and explains in final implementing act preamble how major stakeholder concerns were addressed or why certain suggestions were not adopted.
Digital Services Committee Advisory Procedure (Article 88): After public consultation, implementing acts must be adopted "in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 88." Article 88 establishes the Digital Services Committee comprising Member State representatives, operating under Regulation (EU) 182/2011 Article 4 advisory procedure. Under advisory procedure: (1) Commission submits draft implementing act to Digital Services Committee; (2) Committee members (national experts from Member State regulatory authorities) review draft and provide opinions and suggestions; (3) Committee votes on non-binding opinion regarding draft implementing act; (4) Commission considers Committee opinion but retains final decisional authorityâCommission may adopt implementing act even if Committee opinion is negative or suggests modifications. Advisory procedure (in contrast to examination procedure used in some other EU legislation) preserves Commission flexibility while benefiting from Member State technical input and political perspectives. Committee review ensures implementing acts account for diverse national enforcement practices and legal traditions, practical implementation challenges identified by Member State authorities with platform oversight experience, and political sensitivities in different Member States. Commission typically incorporates Committee suggestions when they improve implementing act workability or address legitimate concerns, but may proceed with original approach when Committee concerns are outweighed by other considerations.
Commission Implementing Regulation 2023/1201: Pursuant to Article 83, the Commission adopted Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1201 of 21 June 2023 laying down rules concerning the practical arrangements for the conduct of inspections and monitoring actions under Articles 69 and 72, and the right to be heard and access to file under Article 79. This implementing regulation, spanning 59 Articles across 9 pages in the Official Journal, establishes comprehensive procedural framework including: detailed inspection protocols (advance notice requirements, inspection team composition, on-site access procedures, document examination rules, employee interview protocols); monitoring action procedures (auditor/expert appointment processes, access rights, reporting requirements); hearing procedures (scheduling rules, participant rights, format requirements, hearing officer functions); file access and confidentiality protocols (disclosure timelines, redaction standards, negotiation procedures). Regulation 2023/1201 creates uniform enforceable procedural standards applicable to all Commission VLOP/VLOSE enforcement actions, providing legal certainty for platforms and ensuring consistent due process protections across investigations. The regulation underwent extensive public consultation (receiving comments from platforms, civil society, Member States, academic experts) and Digital Services Committee review before adoption, reflecting the Article 83 consultation and advisory procedure requirements.
Key Points
Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing practical arrangements for Commission enforcement procedures
Covers three categories: (a) Article 69 inspection and Article 72 monitoring proceedings, (b) Article 79 hearing procedures, (c) Article 79 information disclosure negotiations
Public consultation required before adoption with minimum 1 month comment period
Draft implementing acts must be published for stakeholder review and comment
Advisory procedure per Article 88 applies requiring Digital Services Committee consultation
Creates uniform procedural standards across all Commission enforcement actions
Prevents ad hoc inconsistent enforcement approaches across different investigations
Implementing acts address practical operational details not specified in DSA primary legislation
Ensures transparency and predictability for platforms subject to Commission enforcement
Balances Commission enforcement flexibility with procedural safeguards protecting provider rights
Stakeholder consultation enables platform input on workable procedural requirements before finalization
Practical Application
Standardized Inspection Procedures Under Implementing Regulation 2023/1201: The Commission initiates Article 69 inspection of Meta's Irish headquarters investigating potential Article 35 risk mitigation violations. Under Commission Implementing Regulation 2023/1201 (adopted pursuant to Article 83), the inspection follows standardized procedures ensuring consistency with inspections of other VLOPs and providing Meta with clear procedural expectations. Advance Notice (Regulation 2023/1201 Art. 5)âCommission provides Meta with written inspection notice at least 2 working days before inspection commencement (shorter notice permissible if evidence spoliation risk exists). Notice specifies: subject matter and purpose of inspection; legal basis (DSA Article 69); date and approximate duration of inspection; categories of information to be examined; Commission officials who will conduct inspection; Meta's obligation to cooperate and legal consequences of non-cooperation. Two-day notice provides Meta time to prepare (gather potentially relevant documents, brief employees who may be interviewed, arrange workspace for inspection team) while limiting opportunity to destroy or alter evidence. Inspection Team Composition (Regulation 2023/1201 Art. 6)âInspection team comprises: 4 Commission officials with legal and technical expertise in platform risk assessment; 2 appointed technical experts specializing in algorithmic content moderation systems; 1 representative from Irish regulatory authority (as establishment Member State). Team includes at least one member fluent in English (Meta's business language) and one fluent in Irish (local language). All team members sign confidentiality undertakings per Article 84 professional secrecy obligations.
On-Site Access and Document Examination (Regulation 2023/1201 Arts. 8-12)âInspection team arrives at Meta's Dublin office at 9:00 AM. Meta designates compliance officer as primary contact and provides dedicated conference room workspace. Inspection covers: (1) Document ReviewâTeam examines Article 34 risk assessment reports, Article 35 risk mitigation implementation documentation, internal communications regarding risk mitigation strategy, algorithmic system design specifications, content moderation training materials. Regulation 2023/1201 establishes procedures for identifying potentially privileged documents: when inspection team encounters documents that may be subject to attorney-client privilege, documents are segregated and Meta has 24 hours to assert privilege with supporting explanation; Commission hearing officer reviews privilege claims and makes determination; privileged materials excluded from investigation file. Meta asserts privilege over 47 documents containing external counsel legal advice on risk mitigation compliance strategies. Hearing officer reviews, upholds privilege for 43 documents (genuine legal advice), denies for 4 documents (business strategy discussions not protected). (2) IT System AccessâTeam accesses Meta's content moderation databases to examine how risk mitigation measures operate in practice. Regulation 2023/1201 Art. 10 specifies that IT system access must be proportionate and limited to systems relevant to investigation. Meta provides read-only access to content moderation decision logs, algorithmic classifier training data, and risk assessment monitoring dashboards. Commission may not access user personal data unrelated to risk mitigation investigation. (3) Employee Interviews (Regulation 2023/1201 Arts. 13-15)âTeam interviews 8 Meta employees including: Head of Trust & Safety, algorithmic systems engineers, content moderation supervisors, risk assessment analysts. Interview procedures: Meta employees may have legal counsel present; interviews are audio recorded with transcripts provided to Meta; interviewees informed that they must answer questions truthfully but may assert rights against self-incrimination if testimony could expose them personally to sanctions (though corporate officer testimony generally compelled); interview questions limited to inspection subject matter. Trust & Safety Head explains risk mitigation strategy, acknowledges certain measures proved less effective than anticipated, describes ongoing enhancement efforts. Engineers provide technical details on algorithmic content detection systems.
Document Seizure and Evidence Preservation (Regulation 2023/1201 Arts. 16-18)âInspection team identifies 1,247 documents relevant to investigation. Under Regulation 2023/1201: Commission may copy documents rather than seizing originals (minimizing business disruption); Meta receives contemporaneous list of all copied materials; documents are stored securely with access limited to investigation team; chain of custody documented to ensure evidence integrity for potential later proceedings. Meta also receives formal evidence preservation notice requiring Meta to preserve all potentially relevant materials (documents, emails, databases, system logs) pending investigation conclusion; intentional or negligent evidence destruction during preservation period may result in Article 74 penalties and adverse inferences. Inspection concludes after 3 days. Commission issues inspection report documenting activities conducted, evidence gathered, and preliminary observations. Meta has 15 days to submit corrections or clarifications of factual inaccuracies. Standardization BenefitsâRegulation 2023/1201's detailed procedures ensure: Meta understands its rights and obligations (advance notice, privilege protection, counsel presence at interviews); Commission officials conduct inspection consistently with inspections of Google, TikTok, Amazon, and other VLOPs (preventing selective procedural variations that could evidence bias); procedural regularity protects evidence integrity and ensures any enforcement action based on inspection can withstand legal challenge; balance between effective investigation and proportionate intrusion on Meta's business operations and legal rights. Absent Article 83 implementing acts, each inspection might follow ad hoc procedures creating unpredictability, inconsistency, and potential due process violations.
Article 79 Hearing ProceduresâRight to Be Heard: Commission investigation of TikTok's Article 40 researcher access compliance reaches preliminary conclusion stage. Commission issues Statement of Objections finding TikTok systematically violated Article 40 through overly restrictive application procedures, arbitrary denials of qualified researchers, and inadequate data access scope. TikTok exercises Article 79 right to be heard before Commission adopts final decision. Hearing procedures governed by Regulation 2023/1201 Arts. 35-42 (adopted under Article 83): Hearing Request and Scheduling (Reg. 2023/1201 Arts. 35-36)âTikTok submits hearing request within 15 working days of receiving Statement of Objections. Request specifies TikTok's preliminary objections to Commission findings and identifies hearing participants: 3 TikTok executives (Head of Legal Affairs, Head of Research Relations, Head of Data Governance); 4 external counsel from law firm representing TikTok; 2 technical experts on data access systems. Commission schedules hearing for 6 weeks after request, providing TikTok time to prepare comprehensive response. Hearing Format (Reg. 2023/1201 Art. 37)âHybrid format: TikTok participants in Brussels Commission headquarters conference room; Commission officials and hearing officer present in person; observers (Irish DSC representatives, European Data Protection Supervisor) attend via video link. 4-hour hearing scheduled. Hearing Officer Independence (Reg. 2023/1201 Art. 38)âCommission appoints independent hearing officer (senior Commission official from different directorate-general than enforcement team) to ensure procedural fairness. Hearing officer: rules on procedural objections TikTok may raise; ensures TikTok has adequate opportunity to present defense; issues post-hearing report assessing whether procedural rights were respected; report included in Commission decision-making file and may inform Commissioners' assessment of case strength.
Hearing Proceedings (Reg. 2023/1201 Arts. 39-40)â9:00-10:00 AM: Commission PresentationâInvestigation team presents preliminary findings: TikTok's Article 40 application process requires researchers to disclose detailed research methodologies before access decisions made, enabling TikTok to deny access to research it dislikes; denial rate of 73% far exceeds other VLOPs (Facebook 18%, Google 22%, X 31%); approved researchers receive severely limited data access (aggregate statistics only) rather than meaningful access to public content data required by Article 40; Commission presents evidence from denied researchers, comparative analysis of VLOP access practices, technical assessment of TikTok's data access infrastructure. 10:15-12:00 PM: TikTok ResponseâTikTok legal team presents defense: Article 40 and implementing delegated acts permit platforms to screen researcher qualifications and research proposals to ensure legitimate scholarly purposes; TikTok's 73% denial rate reflects high volume of unqualified applications from non-eligible researchers and commercially-motivated data requests not covered by Article 40; data access limitations reflect legitimate privacy and security concerns protecting user data and platform intellectual property; TikTok has approved access for 87 qualified researchers from 34 universities representing substantial compliance effort. Technical experts explain data access architecture and privacy-preserving limitations. 12:00-1:00 PM: Commission QuestionsâInvestigation team questions TikTok representatives: What specific criteria trigger application denials? How does TikTok distinguish qualified researchers (Article 40 beneficiaries) from commercial entities? Why is denial rate 2-3Ă higher than comparable VLOPs? Can TikTok identify any researcher denied access who clearly met delegated act qualification criteria? TikTok provides responses but struggles to articulate clear principled criteria distinguishing approved and denied researchers, suggesting arbitrary decision-making. 1:00-1:30 PM: Closing StatementsâCommission reiterates preliminary violations finding. TikTok counsel argues Commission misinterprets Article 40 permissible restrictions and requests opportunity for post-hearing written submission.
Post-Hearing Procedures (Reg. 2023/1201 Arts. 41-42)âHearing officer grants TikTok's request for post-hearing submission with 10 working day deadline. TikTok submits 45-page post-hearing brief with additional evidence and legal argument. Commission considers brief before finalizing decision. Hearing officer issues report concluding: TikTok's procedural rights were fully respected; hearing provided adequate opportunity to contest Commission findings; TikTok's responses during hearing and post-hearing submission did not persuasively refute Commission's preliminary conclusions that denial rate and access limitations violate Article 40. Commission adopts final Article 73 non-compliance decision finding Article 40 violations, incorporating hearing officer's report. Decision explains how Commission considered TikTok's hearing defense and why defense was ultimately unpersuasive. Due Process ProtectionâRegulation 2023/1201 hearing procedures (adopted under Article 83) ensure TikTok received meaningful opportunity to be heard before adverse decision adopted, satisfying fundamental due process requirements under Article 79 and Article 47 Charter. Independent hearing officer oversight prevents procedural irregularities. Detailed procedures create record for potential later judicial review under Article 81, enabling courts to assess whether Commission respected TikTok's defense rights. Standardized procedures ensure TikTok received same hearing protections as other VLOPs in comparable proceedings (Google, Meta, Amazon), preventing discriminatory treatment.
Article 79 Confidentiality NegotiationsâBalancing Defense Rights and Trade Secret Protection: Commission investigation of Amazon's marketplace platform (designated VLOP) for potential Article 25 dark pattern violations involves evidence from competing sellers and internal Amazon business strategy documents. Amazon exercises Article 79 right to access investigation file to prepare defense. Commission file contains: 347 pages of Amazon internal documents (algorithmic recommendation system specifications, user interface design decisions, A/B testing results measuring impact of interface changes on purchase behavior); 89 pages of third-party seller complaints alleging Amazon manipulates product displays to favor Amazon-owned brands; 124 pages of consumer complaints about misleading interface elements; 67 pages of documents from competing platforms (eBay, Etsy) describing their interface design practices for comparison. Confidentiality issues arise: Amazon designates 198 pages of its own documents as containing trade secrets (algorithmic specifications, business strategies, competitive intelligence); competing sellers designated their submissions as confidential commercial information (business volumes, profit margins, product strategies); competing platforms claimed their interface documentation is confidential. Article 79 requires Commission to enable Amazon's defense while protecting confidential information. Regulation 2023/1201 Arts. 28-34 (adopted under Article 83) establish negotiated disclosure procedures:
Initial Disclosure and Confidentiality Claims (Reg. 2023/1201 Arts. 28-29)âCommission provides Amazon with access to investigation file via secure electronic data room. File includes all evidence except: internal Commission deliberative documents (exempt from disclosure); documents covered by attorney-client privilege; documents containing third-party confidential information requiring redaction. Commission's initial assessment identifies 289 pages potentially containing confidential information requiring protection: 198 pages Amazon designated confidential, 91 pages third parties designated confidential. Commission provides Amazon with: (1) full access to all Amazon-submitted documents (even those Amazon designated confidentialâAmazon can access its own information); (2) redacted versions of third-party documents with confidential commercial data removed but sufficient information preserved to enable Amazon to understand and contest evidence. Amazon Challenges Commission Redactions (Reg. 2023/1201 Arts. 30-32)âAmazon argues Commission redacted excessively, preventing effective defense: (1) Competing seller complaint documents redacted seller identities, sales volumes, and specific product categories affected. Amazon argues this prevents Amazon from investigating complaint accuracy and presenting counter-evidence. Amazon requests unredacted versions. (2) Competing platform interface documentation redacted specific design features and user metrics. Amazon argues comparative analysis requires access to specific competitor practices to demonstrate Amazon's interfaces are consistent with industry standards. (3) Commission's own technical analysis documents redacted portions of methodology. Amazon argues inability to examine Commission's analytical approach prevents challenging conclusions.
Confidentiality Negotiation Process (Reg. 2023/1201 Art. 31)âCommission hearing officer mediates confidentiality dispute: Seller ComplaintsâHearing officer reviews unredacted complaints and Amazon's specific challenges. Determines: Seller identities must remain confidential (commercial sensitivity, potential retaliation risk), but Commission can provide additional non-confidential details enabling Amazon to identify which product categories and time periods complaints reference, allowing Amazon to present data demonstrating these categories/periods did not exhibit complained-of patterns. Sales volumes and profit margins remain redacted as highly confidential commercial information, but Commission provides summary statistics (e.g., "complaints from sellers with sales volumes ranging from âŹ500K-âŹ5M annually") enabling Amazon to understand complaint source context. Competitor Platform DataâHearing officer determines: Specific interface design features and user metrics legitimately confidential, but Commission must provide more detailed non-confidential descriptions of competitor practices enabling meaningful comparison. Commission revises redacted versions providing: "Competitor Platform A employs neutral-design 'Add to Cart' buttons without color contrasts or size differentials between options" (vs. overly broad original redaction: "Competitor Platform A employs standard interface practices"). Commission MethodologyâHearing officer determines Commission's analytical methodologies are not confidential and must be disclosed to enable Amazon to challenge analysis. Commission provides unredacted methodology sections. Final File Access (Reg. 2023/1201 Art. 33)âAfter negotiation, Amazon receives: full unredacted access to 198 pages of Amazon's own documents; revised redacted versions of 91 pages third-party documents with enhanced non-confidential summaries enabling defense while protecting confidential commercial information; full access to Commission methodology enabling challenge to analytical approach. Hearing officer issues determination that disclosure balances Amazon's defense rights (Article 79, Article 47 Charter) with third-party confidentiality protection (trade secrets, commercial confidentiality). Amazon prepares defense using disclosed materials. Procedural Regularity BenefitsâRegulation 2023/1201 negotiated disclosure procedures (adopted under Article 83) create structured process for resolving inherent tension between defense access and confidentiality: standardized procedures ensure consistent treatment across investigations; hearing officer mediation provides independent assessment preventing Commission from using confidentiality claims to withhold inculpatory evidence; detailed standards and procedures enable parties to predict outcomes and understand their rights; procedural regularity ensures any final Commission decision can withstand judicial review challenges alleging defense rights violations.