Transposition Of The Digital Content Directive (EU) 2019/770 Into Estonian legal system

Digital Content Directive (EU) 2018/770 (DCD) is an innovative directive insofar as contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services were not regulated by EU law and like in most European countries, this area was not regulated in Estonia either. Member States extend the scope of the material regimes concerned. That includes the case of dual-purpose contracts and of platform providers who are not direct contractual partners of the consumer. Member States are also free to provide for longer time limits for the liability of the trader than those laid down in the Directives. The qualification and the categorisation of digital content and service contract also remain unsolved. The draft law for the transposition of the Digital Content Directive has not yet been submitted to the Estonian Parliament. The Ministry of Justice of Estonia has prepared a draft law concerning transposition of the DCD, Sale of Goods Directive and recently adopted the Modernization Directive which is not publicly available. The article briefly describes the process of transposition of the DCD and the place of digital content and digital service as concepts in the Estonian private law system, as well as legislative choices made during preparation of the draft. The most reasonable option is to transpose relevant provisions of DCD into general part of LOA which is consistent with current transposition practices. The author also discusses the possibility of extending the scope of application of the DCD. Contracts where consumers provide or undertake to provide personal data to the trader are contracts for payment under Estonian law. Despite the possibility that general rules on termination of contract apply, the need to regulate consequences for withdrawal of consent by specific rules is examined in the article. Currently, Estonian draft law provides a time limit for trader’s liability and limitation periods. The author analyses the existing system of traders’ liability and possible consequences if only the limitation period will be kept. Finally, the author provides some concluding remarks