MEPs clashed sharply over how to tackle AI-generated deepfakes and sexual exploitation on social media, revealing deep divisions between calls for strict enforcement of existing EU digital laws and demands for expanding regulations. On one side, figures like Jeroen Lenaers (EPP) and Christel Schaldemose (S&D) championed immediate, robust enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and related frameworks, warning that current laws provide sufficient tools if applied rigorously. On the other hand, Birgit Sippel (S&D) and Kim van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA) argued for new legal measures including bans on AI sexualisation and personal liability for perpetrators, pushing for structural reforms beyond enforcement.
This debate took place during the European Parliament’s plenary session on 20 January 2026, amidst the Cyprus Presidency of the Council which prioritizes online child protection. The discussion spotlighted tech giants like X (formerly Twitter) and its AI tool Grok, heavily criticized by many MEPs for enabling abuse, while some warned against ideological targeting and defended platform autonomy.
Concrete proposals emerged primarily from the legal expansion camp. Birgit Sippel advocated banning AI sexualisation, imposing personal liability, and imposing temporary bans on market access. Kim van Sparrentak supported invoking Article 5 of the AI Act to outlaw image-based sexual violence tools. Conversely, MEPs such as Lenaers and Schaldemose focused on better enforcing existing laws like the DSA and GDPR, citing ongoing penalties like a €120 million fine levied on Grok's operator by the Commission. They resisted calls for new legislation, instead urging quicker and firmer application of current rules.
Policy cleavages centered on enforcement vs. legal expansion, platform accountability vs. autonomy, and the gendered nature of digital violence. The debate highlighted a tension between strengthening the EU’s regulatory power and maintaining national sovereignty in enforcement. Some MEPs called for more transparency and heft in oversight of platforms, aiming to curb profit-driven models that prioritize volume of user-generated content despite risks. At the same time, critics cautioned against EU overreach, warning about potential costs to innovation and free speech.
EU regulatory bodies are poised to enhance enforcement actions under the DSA, potentially stretching resources but signalling stronger oversight. National authorities might face increased coordination demands though avoid legislative overhaul. For tech companies like X, proposals to ban certain AI uses and increase liability represent substantial operational and reputational risks. Meanwhile, victims—particularly women and children—would benefit from more rigorous protection and faster removal of harmful deepfake content, addressing psychological harm and digital safety concerns.
Looking ahead, the European Commission plans to monitor enforcement gaps and consider clarifying AI Act definitions if needed, while the Council commits to advancing gender equality and cyberviolence strategies. Though fundamental disputes remain, this debate underscores the EU's balancing act in leveraging existing tools versus enacting new rules to confront the evolving digital threats of AI-generated abuse.