The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
82
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
82-84
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue06-16
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
30 April 2025
ACCEPTED
28 May 2025
PUBLISHED
30 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue06 2025
CITATION
B.B. Bakhriddinova. (2025). Comparative-legal analysis of the draft law of
the republic of Uzbekistan “on the protection of the rights of users of
online platforms and websites”. The American Journal of Political Science
Law and Criminology, 7(06), 82
–
84.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue06-16
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Comparative-legal analysis
of the draft law of the
republic of Uzbe
kistan “on
the protection of the rights
of users of online platforms
and websites”
B.B. Bakhriddinova
Doctoral candidate of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Policy under
the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The article analyzes Draft Law No. 6294 of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, “On the Protection of the Rights
of Users of Online Platforms and Websites,” which was
released for public discussion by the Information and
Mass Communications Agency (IMCA) under the
Presidential Administration of Uzbekistan. Particular
attention is given to the terminology proposed in the
draft within the framework of the principle of legal
certainty, and a comparative analysis is carried out
against corresponding legislation in other jurisdictions.
Keywords:
D
raft law, protection of users’ rights, false
information, concept of “false information”, online
platform, legal certainty.
Introduction:
The rapid development of digitalisation in
Uzbekistan is undoubtedly reflected in the drafting of
new normative legal acts regulating various aspects of
the information sphere of society.
To date, the number of Internet users in Uzbekistan has
grown to 32.7 million. However, national legislation
lacked provisions systematising the rights of online-
platform users.
At the same time, in his congratulatory message for
Media Workers’ Day on 27 June 2025, the President of
the Republic of Uzbekistan noted that “O
ur country is
making significant progress in ensuring citizens’
constitutional rights in the information sphere … a draft
law on the protection of the rights of users of online
platforms and websites has been submitted.”.
Тем
самым
глава
государства,
подчеркнул
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
83
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
приоритетность защиты прав пользователей и
необходимость
разработки
соответствующих
нормативных актов.
Thus, the head of state emphasised the priority of
protecting users’ rights and the need to develop the
relevant regulatory acts.
The draft law under consideration is aimed at
regulating social relations in the field of protecting the
rights of users of online platforms and websites
operating in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
For the first time, such concepts are introduced as
account, blogger, website, website user, website
owner, false information, influencer, content,
moderator, online platform, public community,
profiling, spam resource, instant-messaging service,
etc.
Transparent mechanisms are envisaged for the prompt
removal of pornography, phishing, violence and false
information (Articles 13 and 15 of this draft law),
thereby ensuring the State’s proactive stance on
cybersecurity.
According to Article 9, platforms are obliged to notify
users about the privacy policy, prevent leaks and
promptly inform them of breaches
—
which correlates
with the EU GDPR norms.
It should also be noted that Article 21 guarantees users
the opening of accounts and the creation and
dissemination of content, which encourages bloggers
and online-platform authors to legalise their income
and to ensure transparency in the sphere of economic
relations.
At the same time, Article 20 introduces a fast
mechanism for the removal and refutation of false
information at users’ request, thereby protecting
reputational rights, while Articles 10 and 18 ensure
users’ right to lodge complaints about illegal content
and to apply to the courts for the protection of their
rights, dignity and lawful interests.
However, Article 3 reveals the essence of the concept
of “false
information,” stating that “false information
is information that is not consistent with reality or
contains distortions of facts, creating an incorrect
impression of persons, objects, events, phenomena
and processes, fixed in any form.”
Why does this wording not comply with the principle
of legal certainty?
First, the focus is not on an objectively verifiable fact,
but on the subjective category
—
“impression”. By its
nature, an impression is a personal and unique mental
experience
characterised
by
individuality,
multifacetedness and variability.
It is not subject to assessment or division into “correct”
and “incorrect”: one individual may have a positive
impression, another a neutral one, a third a negative
one.
Accordingly, any attempt to establish a criterion of
“correctness” for this phenomenon
contradicts the
fundamental property of legal certainty.
Second, the proposed approach effectively transfers the
subject from the sphere of objective actions or events
to the domain of subjective mental experience. From
the standpoint of the general theory of law this is
unprecedented: the traditional, verifiable elements of
an offence (act, causal link, harm) are replaced by an
assessment of the emotional-cognitive reaction of
message recipients.
Such substitution creates prerequisites for arbitrary
law-enforcement: any critical statement or news report
can be qualified as “forming an incorrect impression”
and thus declared “false”.
Third, the draft law proposes to assess the
“incorrectness” of an impression without clear
methodological criteria, granting a state div or official
the right to decide which impression is “correct”.
This approach contradicts international standards, in
particular:
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(freedom of expression) emphasises that even
“shocking and offensive opinions” fall under the
protection of freedom of speech.
In this regard, it is preferable to use a more precise legal
definition of this concept so as to avoid the above-
mentioned shortcomings. In the current version of the
draft law, the use of
the word “impression” may lead to
legal uncertainty and a threat to freedom of speech.
It would be more appropriate to use wording such as:
«False information is a deliberate distortion of facts with
the aim of misleading, damaging reputation,
destabilising society or undermining state security».
This formulation eliminates subjectivity and focuses on
intent and consequences, while also conforming to the
standards applied in the EU and the countries of the
Organisation
for
Economic
Co-operation
and
Development.
When finalising the above-mentioned draft law, it is
important to take into account the following norms and
practices:
1. GDPR (EU)
—
requires transparency in personal-data
processing policies and notification of breaches within
72 hours.
2. Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
—
ensures a
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
84
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
balance between security and freedom of expression.
International experience can also be taken into
account, for example:
1. Germany
. Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG)
–
“Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social
Networks.” It obliges platforms with more than 2
million registered users in Germany to delete
“manifestly illegal” content within 24 hours after a
complaint, and, in disputed cases, within seven days;
non-
compliance is subject to fines of up to €50 million.
2. Turkey
. The “Law on the Regulation of Publications
on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by
Means of Such Publications,” as amended on 29 July
2020, stipulates that foreign social networks with more
than 1 million daily users in Turkey are required to:
➢
appoint a permanent authorised representative in
the country;
➢
store Turkish users’ data on servers located within
Turkey;
➢
respond to official takedown requests within 48
hours;
➢
face escalating fines, advertising bans, and traffic
throttling of up to 90 % for non-compliance.
3. Kazakhstan
. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No.
18-
VIII “On Online Platforms and Online Advertising”
(signed 10 July 2023, in force 9 September 2023). The
statute
introduces
a
legal
definition
of
“blogger/influencer” and requires those engaged in
commercial activity to register. It further:
➢
Require platform owners with more than 100 000
daily users to appoint an official representative
and retain user data for cooperation with state
authorities;
➢
Prohibit the dissemination of knowingly false
information, extremist appeals, and other
unlawful content;
➢
Impose fines for failure to comply with takedown
orders.
The draft law under consideration is a timely and
comprehensive initiative aimed at strengthening
digital security, data protection, and freedom of
expression in Uzbekistan.
To increase its effectiveness, it is essential to introduce
clear time frames for content removal, transparency
standards, compliance monitoring, and mechanisms to
safeguard freedom of speech.
REFERENCES
Shelepov A.V., Kolmar O.I. “Regulation of Digital
Platforms in Russia” // Bulletin of International
Organisations. 2024. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 110
–
126.
Regulation of Digital Platforms and Internet Services:
Legal Aspects and Prospects // Information Society and
Law. 2022. No. 4. Available on CyberLeninka:
Specifics of the Legal Regulation of the Functioning of
Online Platforms and the Production, Placement,
Distribution and Storage of Content // Law and
Economy.
2023.
Available
on
CyberLeninka:
Novikov D.A., Nogailieva F.K. “Legal Regulation of
Platform Employment in the BRICS Countries” // Law.
Higher School of Economics Journal. 2025. Vol. 18, No.
1, pp. 247
–
279. law-journal.hse.ru
Legal Regulation of Information Dissemination on the
Internet
//
SciLead.
2022.
ID
5197.
https://scilead.ru/article/5197-pravovoe-regulirovanie-
rasprostraneniya-infor
