EU Revises FAQ on "Operator" under Reg 833 after CJEU Ruling
The European Union has updated its FAQ guidance on the interpretation of the term "operator" under Article 2f of Regulation (EU) 833/2014, following the Court of Justice of the EU's judgment in the Traugott Ickeroth preliminary ruling.
In that judgment, the CJEU took issue with the definition the EU had been applying — a definition that existed only in the FAQ guidance rather than in the regulation itself. The previous version of the guidance stated that operators must be engaged in "commercial or professional activity", effectively narrowing the scope of the provision.
The revised guidance now reflects the Court's approach. Under the updated wording, "operator" is to be understood as covering any natural or legal person directly or indirectly responsible for making available or transmitting the relevant content to the public.
The change is significant in practice: the broader reading extends the reach of Article 2f beyond traditional commercial media and service providers, potentially capturing a wider range of parties involved in the dissemination of prohibited content. It is also a useful reminder that FAQ guidance is not binding law — where it conflicts with the regulation as interpreted by the CJEU, the Court's reading prevails.
In that judgment, the CJEU took issue with the definition the EU had been applying — a definition that existed only in the FAQ guidance rather than in the regulation itself. The previous version of the guidance stated that operators must be engaged in "commercial or professional activity", effectively narrowing the scope of the provision.
The revised guidance now reflects the Court's approach. Under the updated wording, "operator" is to be understood as covering any natural or legal person directly or indirectly responsible for making available or transmitting the relevant content to the public.
The change is significant in practice: the broader reading extends the reach of Article 2f beyond traditional commercial media and service providers, potentially capturing a wider range of parties involved in the dissemination of prohibited content. It is also a useful reminder that FAQ guidance is not binding law — where it conflicts with the regulation as interpreted by the CJEU, the Court's reading prevails.
