On July 12, 2024, Taiwan's Legislative Yuan officially passed the "Anti-Fraud Crime Prevention Ordinance," which mandates that online advertising platforms publish an annual fraud prevention transparency report. This historic enactment signifies Taiwan's pioneering steps into the realm of internet governance. Numerous nations have already integrated transparency reports into their internet regulatory frameworks, and the EU's recently promulgated "Digital Services Act" exemplifies legislative sophistication in this domain. As the details of Taiwan's fraud prevention transparency report continue to evolve, the "Digital Services Act" provides a beacon of guidance for envisaging Taiwan's potential legal developments.
Provisions of the EU Digital Services Act
The "Digital Services Act" defines an online platform as a hosting service that principally enables users to store or disseminate information. This definition encompasses major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Amazon Store. For these platforms, the Act mandates the preparation of transparency reports that meticulously outline the following elements:
The quantity of orders issued by member state authorities (such as directives to remove unlawful content or provide information), the nature of the illegal content, the member states involved, and the processing timelines.
The volume of notices submitted by individuals, entities, and trusted flaggers under the "notice and action" mechanism, the types of illegal content, the legal grounds, processing capabilities (particularly the deployment of automated tools), and the timeframes.
The platform’s internal content moderation mechanisms (including operational methods, handling procedures, and volumes) and staff training protocols.
The number of complaints received via internal complaint systems, their handling status, legal justifications, processing durations, and the number of decisions overturned.
Detailed descriptions of the usage of automated tools, including accuracy metrics, error rates, and measures to safeguard rights.
The number of cases resolved through the out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism under Article 21 of the Act, along with their outcomes and processing times.
The number of service suspensions due to misuse (whether through the provision of evidently illegal content, misuse of the notice and action mechanism, or the complaint system) under Article 23 of the Act.
Furthermore, for platforms of significant scale (defined under the "Digital Services Act" as those with over 45 million monthly active users), additional specifications include:
The human resources dedicated to content moderation, delineated in the official language of each member state, detailing personnel language skills and expertise.
Explanations of automated tools, also detailed in the official language of each member state.
Provisions and Trends in the Anti-Fraud Crime Prevention Ordinance
Taiwan's "Anti-Fraud Ordinance" stipulates that transparency reports must be drafted by online advertising platforms of a certain magnitude, specifically those providing spaces or slots for advertisements targeted at end-users. Although the "Anti-Fraud Ordinance" and the "Digital Services Act" apply to different entities, their shared objective is to ensure that platform operators maintain sufficient transparency and accountability in their content control mechanisms.
The "Digital Services Act" enhances comprehension of the operational efficacy of content control mechanisms by disclosing relevant data, types, explanations of derivative measures, and staff training details. This transparency allows for rigorous evaluation of these mechanisms' effectiveness. In a similar vein, Taiwan could consider mandating the disclosure of data related to advertising control mechanisms in its future fraud prevention transparency reports, including quantities, methodologies, and case types. Such disclosures would not only permit various sectors to assess the effectiveness of fraud prevention measures but also lay a robust foundation for thwarting the evolution of fraudulent schemes.
Editor: Doris Lin, Harvey Huang
Comments