国产诱惑福利

Amazon, whose filing to the European General Court was made available Tuesday, is the second company to protest the classification. German online retailer Zalando filed a legal claim two weeks ago with a similar argument.

The Digital Services Act imposes to keep users safe from illegal content and dodgy products, with violations punishable by potentially billions in fines or even a ban on operating in the EU.

The rules, which will take effect on Aug. 25, are expected to help Europe maintain its place as standard setter in global efforts to and other digital platforms.

Seattle-based Amazon is one of 19 companies classed as the largest online platforms and search engines under the DSA, which means they will have to to protect European users from hate speech, disinformation and other harmful online content.

The European Commission, the EU鈥檚 executive arm, declined to comment directly on the case, saying it would defend its position in court.

Amazon said it supports the DSA's aims of tackling systemic online risks but doesn't agree that it fits the description of a "very large online platform" that earns revenue primarily through advertising and distributes 鈥渟peech and information.鈥�

鈥淭he vast majority of our revenue comes from our retail business, we are not the largest retailer in any of the EU countries where we operate," the company said in a statement.

Amazon said it feels it's being 鈥渦nfairly singled out鈥� because none of the largest retailers in each European country where it operates has been similarly designated as a very large platform.

The commission said the DSA's scope is clear and 鈥渄efined to cover all platforms that expose their users to content, including the sale of products or services, which can be illegal.鈥�

鈥淔or marketplaces as for social networks, very wide user reach increases the risks and the platforms鈥� responsibilities to address them,鈥� it said.

German e-commerce platform Zalando was the first to file a legal challenge against the DSA. In its claim last month, the company, which sells designer shoes and clothing, argued that it doesn't pose a 鈥渟ystemic risk鈥� of spreading harmful or illegal content from third parties.