Commissioner, thank you very much for being here, and welcome to "Rádio Observador".

It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me.

I'm going to ask you about the recent case about Spotify and Apple.

Mm-hmm.

You said earlier that this was not the only case regarding the App Store.

Mm-hmm.

Does this mean that you are also going after Google and Amazon on these fields?

Well, it's in the sort of Apple aftermarkets, we have this case. Once you have bought an iPhone, well, there's nowhere else you can go than to the Apple App Store to get your music streaming service. And this is why it becomes a problem when you have this commission fee of 30% on apps that compete with Apple's own apps, and that's the case in music streaming. And also, a company like Spotify or Deezer or SoundCloud, they are not allowed to tell their subscribers that they can just go to the website, and then they can save the subscription fee or the commission fee. They can get actually a 30% discount just going to the website. And they're not allowed to tell their customers that. And then, of course, it becomes a bit difficult to compete fair and square. We're looking at the other giants as well, but this is where we specifically have a case. It's with the Apple App Store.

Yes. I was asking because, well, in a certain way, they behave in the same way, with little nuances, but they do. So does this mean that it may happen an investigation like this to the competitors of Apple?

Well, we see the same thing as you do, that actually, sometimes they do similar things. Not exactly the same, but similar things. And this is why we sort of have called in the cavalry, that we have proposed regulation as well to say, well, these things that we see in the competition cases, once and for all, let's just make it clear, don't do this. If you are a designated gatekeeper, almost literally someone who keeps the gate as to whether or not other can be in this market-

Mm-hmm

... then there are a number of things that you cannot do and a number of things that you must do. For instance, one of the things that you must do is that you must open for another app store on your gadgets, so that if you're unhappy with the prices in the one app store, well, you can download another app store, and you can go there for your applications. Just as well as if you're unhappy with one supermarket, well, then you will go to the next one.

Okay. In 2020, Apple won the case brought by the European Commission regarding the almost 15 billion euros in taxes. And you've said a lot of times publicly that you would like to make this kind of a global tax for the tech industry. So do you think that this is a problem for this goal of you? Do you think that it's still possible to have this global tax agreement about this? Is it an utopia?

Well, of course, we appealed the Apple decision, so now the European Court of Justice will look at it. For a long time, I said it's really slow, and I'm being impatient for tax justice. I thought it was also very slow. But now, actually, when the US have changed their signals really fundamentally, it might actually happen that we get a global consensus about some of these tax matters.

And when do you think that may happen?

Well, everyone is fingers crossed, maybe sometime mid this year. But nothing is a given when it comes to tax, as everyone would know.

Well, but it's a short term-

It's a short term-

... fix

... but we have been working on this for a very, very long time.

In a previous Web Summit, you've said something that really got in my head, that you asked Facebook for more action instead of words.

Mm-hmm.

Do you think that you managed to achieve that?

Well, actually, we do see some changes. Unfortunately, not so many changes that we do not still have work to do in the competition law enforcement. But we had quite a good cooperation with the platforms during COVID to make sure that people see real facts, real information as the first thing if they are looking for information about the COVID and corona. And that I find to be quite good. And also, the work to take down sort of the most outrageous things, awful things that happens out there, beheadings and excitement to terror, that sort of things. So they do do something. Apple now working on privacy to tell you as a customer, would you want to allow this app to trace you also when you're not using this app? So I think there are interesting things out there. But in order to make sure that it's a general rule for everyone, I still think that regulation is important.

And one of the things that has changed, that was completely new, was that meanwhile, all the social media ban Donald Trump from their platforms. What do you have to say about this? Should these kind of tech companies have this power and make these kind of decisions?

Actually, I tend to understand why they did it. As any other service, they have terms and conditions. So in that line of thinking, I understand that there comes a point. Also because now we are asking them To abide to new legislation, to say, well, if you do ban someone, and you may do that because they're doing something that would be illegal in the offline world, sharing abuse of children or bomb recipes, horrible stuff. But also, when it sort of comes into more difficult areas like hate speech, in a number of countries, hate speech is illegal, that if your post is taken down, you'll have to tell people, and they will have to be able to complain about it. So that you get sort of a transparent complaint mechanism in order to protect the freedom of expression. Because in the gray zone, there would be things that I would think of as harmful and deeply hurting, but that may actually be legal. So I think it's important that they develop, but also that they develop into a framework where we have transparent procedures to protect freedom of expression. But the second thing that we're asking them is to make sort of a risk assessment of how their services work. To make sure that if they actually, by sort of rethinking it, find that their services may pose a risk to democracy, that they then put in place things that will actually handle those risks. Because platforms, social media, all of that, really useful in many, many instances, only not if it undermines democracy.

Well, but are you confident enough that they will be receptive to do all this kind of transparency process and be able to answer the legislation and the measures that European Union can put in place?

Well, Europe is a very interesting market. It's a good place to be if you want to do business. And I think it is a general rule that when you do business, well, then you follow the rules of that market. And if the European Parliament and the Council together decides on these pieces of legislation, of course, I take it as a given that businesses will live up to this.

One of your missions is to change the way big tech operates, right? Like you are launching now the Digital Services Act and the Digital Market Act. And well, my question is in the same way, are you confident enough that this will serve your goals and that these tech companies won't find loopholes just to avoid the structure that you are trying to build?

Well, I think the world would be a better place if all creativity sort of went into producing something that was law-abiding and served democracy well. Unfortunately, creativity also goes into finding loopholes and doing things that are actually not legal. So I don't think that we will be unemployed. I still think that there is a need for vigilant competition law enforcement, but I think that things will be better. I think it will be easier for smaller companies to present their products to potential customers. And if that is the case, then it's also easier to find financing for your innovative processes. Because the alternative is that you don't want to finance innovation if those innovative products will never have a chance to reach customers.

Mm-hmm. You are launching also the artificial intelligence legislation. It's a really big step. It's like a pioneer thing-

Mm-hmm

... like GDPR was. But there are already some critics regarding the biometric data and the public surveillance service. So do you think that it-- Wasn't it more easy if you just exclude all the exceptions because it may be the case that people are feeling afraid that these exceptions may be abused and then, I don't know. Do we have the risk to be in like kind of big brother society?

Well, that is exactly what we want to avoid. To say, well, as a matter of principle, it is not allowed to use biometric identification sort of remotely to identify everyone who's passing the city square or going into another public space, because this is not the kind of society we want to live in. But we want to give a few exceptions. If a judge say, "Okay, fine, you really need to find this terrorist," or, "You really need to find this missing child," then you can use the technology for a certain period of time. And I think that is justified, and I also think that, at least for myself as a citizen, that is a good balance. That as a matter of principle, I'm not being identified when I'm out and about in the city. But if something really, really serious happen, then our law enforcers, they have good tools.

You are a woman, you are the vice president of the European Commission. So what do you have to say about the Sofagate situation recently?

Well, it's really interesting how furniture can play a role in geopolitics. I think it's important wake-up call as to how careful one should be to make sure that those who represent us are seen as the equals that they are.

Have you ever experienced something similar in the tech world?

If I have, I have long forgotten about it because I don't go around saving that kind of things, because sometimes if you start saving it in your memory, then it drags you down instead of saying No. Go. Also because I think only then we can change the culture by having many more women coming in, because that is the real cultural change. That is when you have gender balance. And I feel that in the commission that it's difficult to pinpoint, but there is a different atmosphere now when we are half women, half men.

I really would like to ask you one more thing about the Portuguese airline, about TAP. What's happening here? Why isn't the plan out yet?

For TAP, two parallel processes. They got damage compensation as most airlines, because of lockdown very few people could travel, so they've been compensated for that. They also, some time ago, got rescue aid. And when you get rescue aid, then you are to restructure the company in order to make sure that it's a strong, viable company for the future. And we are in the process of dealing with this latter part right now. We cooperate very well with the Portuguese authorities, so I hope that quite soon that we will have a result.

Regarding the recovery plan for the economy, Portugal was one of the first countries to present the plan. Will this have an impact on the funds that we will be receiving, like the first ones, or is it already made a decision upon that?

Well, what is the important thing right now is that all member states ratify that we can go to the market and borrow all this money. And here we still have a few countries who have not done it. So you know that we're really, really encouraging them to get this done because then we can go to the market before summer. And then, of course, all the countries who are well-prepared, strong plans, that they can get their funding.

Okay. One last question, just quick. You are implementing a lot of measures and regulations and fines. Aren't you afraid that this may constrain the entrepreneurship or the innovation in Europe? Or do you think that it won't happen?

Well, of course, it's a constraint on the people who want to innovate on technology for a surveillance society. If you want to make technology that take advantage of people, then no, maybe Europe is not really the place for you. But for everyone else, and there are so many wonderful things that you can do with technology, come.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

You're more than welcome.