- 2025-12-06 “Thank you very much for the question. Indeed. I think there will be an onus on us on our shoulders in the European Commission when the MFR is is fully in application as of August, to really take a critical look at where member states are and also not hesitate to launch infringement procedures if there is really no willingness to kind of act. Of course, we also have to be aware, of course, MFA is a is a is a regulation and directly applicable, but there are some kind of adjustments to be done, and some member states have chosen to do it in law and not in administrative notices. And sometimes, you know, parliamentary processes also take some time. So there has to be a nuanced approach. What I can share from our reality check, which is also a very proactive engagement with Member states even before the full entry into force of the Inter. Application of the amfAR is that I don't sense, with very few exceptions. I don't sense that member states are ignorant. I sense that member states are really willing to cooperate with us and to make the best out of it. On article six, I think, you know, with Renate Schroeder, we have here in the panel somebody who will definitely kind of do her role to kind of, you know, share the information about that possibility.”
Privacy & detection of online child abuse
- 2025-12-06 “I am aware from my contacts with the stakeholders at article six already had an impact. And some of the discussions that are happening, you know, between kind of media providers and authorities and within the kind of, you know, context of editorial independence in member states. But probably more needs to be done to make the full kind of use of all the kind of, you know, articles in the amfAR when it comes to I, I think we are lucky that we have the guardrails in the AI act also, that will kind of step by step enter into application here. The kind of the dilemma that you To describe how to kind of protect rights holders. Also publishers, journalists and on the other hand, support AI. Innovation that we need in Europe is really kind of at the heart of the matter when it comes to the finalization of the code of practice, which deals with, you know, general, you know, AI models. And of course, you know, I think I would also want to underline that in the AI act that also has a lot of transparency rules, that is also giving some kind of, you know, support for kind of the rights and the interests of media providers and journalists in the context of the AI revolution that we are witnessing.”
Artificial Intelligence · Disinformation & online freedoms · Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
- 2025-12-06 “Thank you very much for the question. I want to kind of, you know, reaffirm that indeed with the regulatory framework that we now have in place, in particular with MFR, that will become fully applicable in August, we will have a possibility to move from words to action. I think, you know, some of what you have been referring to has indeed been referred to in reports will certainly also reappear in the in the upcoming rule of law report that I mentioned, because that is a transitional rule of law report that will still also refer to to some of the aspects which will in the future will be dealt with more by the MFR itself. But certainly I want to reassure you that when the MFR is in full application, we will kind of use it. We want to have an impact, and that's why we will, of course, then also test all the articles that are there in the context of the the protection of journalistic sources, in particular article four that was already mentioned a lot when it comes to the follow up to the Pegasus. Indeed, there has been a very clear request from the Parliament to do more. I know that colleagues in DG justice are kind of, you know, discussing that. Um, this is not really you know, I cannot give you the final solution on that, but it's very clear that in the commission, your your repeated kind of call for action has been very clearly heard and I am sure will be addressed.”
EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Surveillance equipment & spyware
- 2025-12-06 “Thank you very much, chair. Thanks for the questions. So on the Media Freedom Act, again, you know, this was not about regulating media as such. It was about, you know, the structure, um, to to look at the structure and here in particular about transparency, about the protection of the rights of journalists so that media freedom can flourish. There is a link to the single market. We have clearly kind of developed that in our impact assessment. And this is also why we have based our MFR on article 114 as legal basis from the treaty when it comes to slap. I can just repeat what I said earlier. Our focus is now on making the best of that kind of directive that we have, but without kind of, you know, closing the door to kind of revisiting this further. Once we see what the what the impact of the implementation effective implementation is, and of course, also how this evolves, you know, on the ground when looking at the practice in courts. When it comes to the question on Leipzig Institute, what could be done in the future? That was Mr. Schenk a little bit. What I hinted at when when referring to the next MFF, because I think we have done, especially in the in the multimedia actions under the cross-sectoral strand of the um media programme, quite a lot in the Creative Europe context. Um, but it was very often pilot projects and I think there is a kind of, you know, maybe a debate to be had whether news media also in the context of the vulnerabilities of democracy, everything that we want to do in the democracy should not have a better place for a more sustainable support, for instance, in the digital transition, for instance, in the context of journalism at risk, like the kind of context that was covered by the Leipzig Institute, to have a more sustainable kind of, you know, also support structure within our programming. And when it comes to I, I can.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · EU Single Market harmonisation · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- 2025-12-06 “I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Um, on I. I can confirm that we have on our radar, and we have a task for next year to evaluate the copyright. Um, you know, aqui. And, uh, you know, we will then also see how the code of practice that we are finalizing now in the context of the AI act and the potential, you know, additional support that we can give for a potential licensing market that I hope can develop, um, on the basis of the copyright, right, that you mentioned, the text and data mining exemption that is in the copyright aqui how that develops further and if need be, I do not exclude at all that if our evaluation shows that that there might be a need next year to revisit the copyright rules to see whether, you know, we we do not need to have a regulatory intervention here.”
Intellectual property rights (IPR) · Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
- 2025-12-06 “Good morning, Mr. Chair. Um, good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning, members of the Parliament. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Um, I'm very happy that I can participate at this event, uh, albeit remotely, because I am currently at the Globsec conference in Prague. Uh, but it's a very important theme, so I'm happy to kind of bring my contribution, indeed, the work of independent journalists and professional editorial processes, is a key pillar for our open debate in democracies, and it's always media freedom and freedom of expression. And this is all the more important to give objective, reliable and impartial information to citizens. In our digital transition, where we see, of course, also the ample disinformation waves, in particular on social media platforms. Against this background, it is indeed worrying when we are witnessing an environment for journalists that is rather deteriorating with a situation where we have threats, intimidation and attacks both physical and online increasing, of course, with the objective to silence critical views and where we see reports also that show there is a growing use of spyware and surveillance technologies targeting media professionals. And of course, where we see the spread of disinformation with the amplification Information systems of algorithmic and recommender systems that, of course, also are facing independent journalism. So luckily in Europe we have taken action and we have enlarged our toolbox so that we are better equipped to address these issues. So it was already mentioned. The key kind of advancement is the European Media Freedom Act.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · Recommender systems · Surveillance equipment & spyware
- 2025-12-06 “It includes very, very strong safeguards against the use of spyware on journalists. It includes safeguards on editorial independence. It includes safeguards for transparent and fair allocation for state advertising. And it includes safeguards to prevent undue political and economic interference in media organizations. It has entered into force this May. It will enter into full application in August this year, and we are in a very active exchange with our Member States to make sure they are all getting ready for the application of the European Media Freedom Act and the upcoming Rule of Law report will also give a certain kind of indication where member states are in their readiness to get ready for the European Media Freedom Act. In the meantime, the European Media Board on Media Services has already started working. That's an important watchdog in the context of amfAR, because they will ensure the consistent application of the amfAR rules and will also create a very strong cooperation amongst national regulators in full independence from the European Commission. We in the European Commission are also taking on our role to kind of prepare the ground. We are, for instance, preparing the guidelines, which are important to bring the leverage in a procedural term between the platforms and the media operators. So here there is work to do to facilitate the self-declaration of media providers so that they can use their procedural rights to avoid over overblocking of their content. But given the threats against journalists that I mentioned.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · Surveillance equipment & spyware · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- 2025-12-06 “I will try. Absolutely. So, given the threat situation, of course, we need to use the MFR also, manifestly to really shield the journalists from spyware. Let me remind you that MFA has indeed a very, very strong restriction on the use of spyware. The use of intrusive surveillance technologies, such as spyware, will only be possible in exceptional circumstances involving serious crimes and subject to prior judicial authorisation and other safeguards. This is a very, very strong safeguard system that we will have in the future against spyware, and we haven't stopped with the MFA in expanding our regulatory toolbox, as was mentioned. We have also taken measures to really cut the abusive use of strategic law.”
Privacy & law enforcement · Surveillance equipment & spyware
- 2025-12-06 “Thank you, Mr. Casa, for the question. I can reassure you that our colleagues in DG justice, who are leading on the implementation of the anti-SLAPP directive, will have a very proactive way of monitoring the implementation of the directive in Member States. This is very much also the narrative of this Commission that we take implementation of the laws very seriously. So we will have occasions to kind of report back also to this House about how Member States are implementing that. We can then also draw, of course, conclusions when we are seeing how the member States deal with the recommendation for the domestic cases that you also mentioned. So we will have ample of information in the future to keep on pushing member States to keep on monitoring and if need be, also to adjust the law further. But I want to underline that it was, as was mentioned by Mr. Kauser, also quite a fight to get to it. It was quite a legal debate. I think the focus on the cross border was inevitably linked to the competences that we have under the treaty. But of course it's always work on process. It's in this field of media pluralism, media freedom in general, and a very interactive process. How we come closer to establishing the right regulatory framework. So I would hope that also the anti-SLAPP will be seen in this context, and I'm not excluding at all that in the future we will also want to come back to address some shortcomings. But the first focus should be on effective implementation. And here the Commission will play its role as guardian of the treaty.”
EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
- 2025-12-06 “We just had a public consultation on that. And I think that can also kind of, you know, be, uh, An additional tool. We will, of course have to show that we are enforcing our new rules. But in addition, I think we have to be better in our situational awareness to monitor the potential landscape that is threatening also our civic discourse in terms of disinformation and hybrid attacks. And of course, we need to kind of, you know, be better on the demand side to have a more resilient society where we need to support news media, we need to have a sustainable media, pluralistic landscape and need to kind of address also media literacy here. If I may make a last remark in the context of the upcoming MFF debate on the multiannual framework, we have probably an interest to ensure that the current support that we are giving to news media, which is rather limited, is sustained so that we can also, from the side of the budget, support the structural challenges of media. Thank you very much.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- “Thank you very much for the question. I want to kind of, you know, reaffirm that indeed with the regulatory framework that we now have in place, in particular with MFR, that will become fully applicable in August, we will have a possibility to move from words to action. I think, you know, some of what you have been referring to has indeed been referred to in reports will certainly also reappear in the in the upcoming rule of law report that I mentioned, because that is a transitional rule of law report that will still also refer to to some of the aspects which will in the future will be dealt with more by the MFR itself. But certainly I want to reassure you that when the MFR is in full application, we will kind of use it. We want to have an impact, and that's why we will, of course, then also test all the articles that are there in the context of the the protection of journalistic sources, in particular article four that was already mentioned a lot when it comes to the follow up to the Pegasus. Indeed, there has been a very clear request from the Parliament to do more. I know that colleagues in DG justice are kind of, you know, discussing that. Um, this is not really you know, I cannot give you the final solution on that, but it's very clear that in the commission, your your repeated kind of call for action has been very clearly heard and I am sure will be addressed.”
EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Privacy & law enforcement · Surveillance equipment & spyware
- “On the other hand, preliminary findings, because we did not we were not convinced that their way of mitigating the risk of reappearing illegal products was convincing. The same kind of, uh, at least concern that we expressed with regard to Tamo. Uh, the of course, evidence gathering on Shein is is continuing online financial scams is another kind of a strong focus for us, for the future, where we have kind of launched requests for information to new players like Apple App Store, Booking.com, Bing, Google services, because we really feel that this is also working with our digital service coordinators in the member states, a really increasing complaint area where we hear a lot of complaints by consumers and citizens. So we want to look into that, and we want to do a double trick of strong enforcement of the rules compared with awareness raising of the consumers DMA. I know you heard kind of, you know, things earlier today, but just also to remind us that we would have less choice, um, you know, without the DMA rules, we have kind of more control over our data. We can choose between different search engines and browsers. We have alternative app stores. Nothing of that would have happened without the rules. Um, we of course need to go further.”
EU rules on digital competition · Liability for online marketplaces · Search engines (liability)
- “And I think that is something that we need to work on together as well, because it will help us ensure that there is always access to trustworthy information. Also, on digital age, um, interoperability is absolutely key. We will launch when we present a digital omnibus. Also the overall digital fitness check. I can only recommend everybody to kind of contribute to that. I do not um, I do not kind of, you know, uh, say that we will never kind of touch the DSA and the DMA. It's not planned right now. Um, but certainly we will be open to discuss these issues further. And when it comes to is there another model to deal with data for platforms? Yes, I think there is. And if we effectively enforce DSA and DMA, you know, for instance, article five two of DMA is very strong on data collection. If we continue to enforce efficiently the data protection rules that we have, then I am sure that we will step by step also on this kind of, you know, change the business model that we have maybe too long accepted in kind of simply like vacuum vacuum cleaners, simply collect all the data. Thank you very much.”
EU rules on digital competition · Privacy & digital economy · Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
- “We just had a public consultation on that. And I think that can also kind of, you know, be, uh, An additional tool. We will, of course have to show that we are enforcing our new rules. But in addition, I think we have to be better in our situational awareness to monitor the potential landscape that is threatening also our civic discourse in terms of disinformation and hybrid attacks. And of course, we need to kind of, you know, be better on the demand side to have a more resilient society where we need to support news media, we need to have a sustainable media, pluralistic landscape and need to kind of address also media literacy here. If I may make a last remark in the context of the upcoming MFF debate on the multiannual framework, we have probably an interest to ensure that the current support that we are giving to news media, which is rather limited, is sustained so that we can also, from the side of the budget, support the structural challenges of media. Thank you very much.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- “Thank you very much, chair. Thanks for the questions. So on the Media Freedom Act, again, you know, this was not about regulating media as such. It was about, you know, the structure, um, to to look at the structure and here in particular about transparency, about the protection of the rights of journalists so that media freedom can flourish. There is a link to the single market. We have clearly kind of developed that in our impact assessment. And this is also why we have based our MFR on article 114 as legal basis from the treaty when it comes to slap. I can just repeat what I said earlier. Our focus is now on making the best of that kind of directive that we have, but without kind of, you know, closing the door to kind of revisiting this further. Once we see what the what the impact of the implementation effective implementation is, and of course, also how this evolves, you know, on the ground when looking at the practice in courts. When it comes to the question on Leipzig Institute, what could be done in the future? That was Mr. Schenk a little bit. What I hinted at when when referring to the next MFF, because I think we have done, especially in the in the multimedia actions under the cross-sectoral strand of the um media programme, quite a lot in the Creative Europe context. Um, but it was very often pilot projects and I think there is a kind of, you know, maybe a debate to be had whether news media also in the context of the vulnerabilities of democracy, everything that we want to do in the democracy should not have a better place for a more sustainable support, for instance, in the digital transition, for instance, in the context of journalism at risk, like the kind of context that was covered by the Leipzig Institute, to have a more sustainable kind of, you know, also support structure within our programming. And when it comes to I, I can.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- “No problem. Thank you so much honorable members for all these very valid contributions and thank you so much for those of you who have clearly underlined that this is really to support AI made in Europe. This is what we want and this is what we want to enable our European companies to do. Indeed, as many of you also said, this is to contribute to the clarification of the rules and not to lowering any of our kind of standards, in particular not on fundamental rights including on privacy. Let me now go to the individual kind of, you know, issues that were raised. Do I have proof that we don't do this for American interests? Yes I do. If you remember the genesis of the simplification priority for this Commission, there was no American handling in this. This was Draghi letter, this was the wake up calls that we got from very wise people around us who said you need to kind of look at your key and you need to kind of make this more appealing for European businesses to do business in Europe. There was a very different context in the White House at that stage. So you know we did our, we did develop our simplification agenda in the run up of the transition from the previous Commission to this Commission and with the support of a majority of this Parliament in our own interest and this is what drives the simplification agenda and this is what drives the omnibuses. Not if certain ministers are in town at a certain moment from the United States. That doesn't mean I am in the machine room of the DSA and the DMA enforcement every day. That this is not something that we also experience. But let me reassure you also on the question of Madam Gideen that you know we will continue to enforce our digital rule book and you can see this our colleague has clearly said about all the enforcement kind of measures that we had taken and you have also seen that when the American partners were in town that we had very clear kind of, you know, statements by the two leading executive vice presidents both Madam Ribera and Madam Virkonen clearly saying that you know these are our sovereign digital rules and we will continue to apply them and enforce them effectively. Of course with due diligence but effectively and this is incidentally also what the European Council has in his last kind of, you know, October Council conclusions also confirmed. This is only a first step was said by Mister Muller. Yes it is a first step because we wanted to bring something that we consider as relatively low hanging fruit of clarification that we can bring to the business as a good kind of news after deliberation of course with you and with the Council rapidly. That doesn't mean that we will not continue to fitness check. At the same time with the simplification package we also launched a public consultation on the broader fitness check that you might have seen and this is really to look at the broader AI key and look at coherence also in governance or in other aspects and we will have to come back to that because we really want to kind of engage in that discussion in the broader sense as everybody as I said earlier in this kind of places has to do in this new Commission. One stop shop and you know so we heard support for the one stop shop. We also heard you know shouldn't it be done nationally? My reply to that will be and we have to go into the details in the discussion but if you see what we have done in the Cyber Resilience Act already then this is already a direction of travel. We have already given a direction of travel for ANESA to be that one stop shop. In reality what we are doing with the single entry point is building on that but of course the devil is in the details. We will discuss this. Let me reassure you that it will have to be a single entry point that is privacy and secure mindful because otherwise it won't work. But I think the design that we have in mind serves those purposes and the rest we will have to to do together in in very good way. So the GDPR, the question of Madam David, the GDPR adjustments do they benefit only American companies? By no means. You know when you look at giving clarification on how the European Court of Justice sees sodomized data is very useful for everybody for every start up that wants to kind of use data and is in that situation that it is a third party that cannot reidentify the person. So you're really no longer in the situation. It's a huge threshold that the Court has established and that threshold we are building into the GDPR. We're not lowering any protection but that is to the benefit of startups that's to the benefit of everybody or that there is a simplification on how you do the data breaches notifications how you kind of you know have the kind of the data protection impact assessment who has to do it or not. So there's a lot in the targeted adjustments that are actually for smaller European companies and not for big tech in the US only or for big tech in general. So on the Ombudsperson on the better regulation point made by Madam Cavazini you know as as I said I try to to help you to understand that we have gone thoroughly through an assessment of really kind of close stakeholder involvement. We also have in our digital omnibus accompanied by a very important staff working document that is quite big and that has a lot of kind of detailed material on how we assess kind of our rules. So I think we have actually done a very thorough job to come to the conclusions that we drew in the digital omnibus. But of course there is a debate with the Ombudsperson on whether that can be amended and can be adapted in the future. Indeed it is so important to bring clarity to the to the companies because that's what they are saying they are not against an AI Act they are not against kind of rules because it's always better to have a single set of rules for the single market instead of having the mushrooming of national initiatives. We all know that you all know that because that's you know the purpose and the objective of course of your work in the single market committee but of course some of it was not clear enough and that's where we want to bring comfort including also on the AI standards and for the details of that and why what is the plan for that I would now ask our AI office director Lucia to come in.”
Artificial Intelligence
- “And I think what we have allowed in the past, too much gold plating by member states. And, you know, I think that has to drive also our legislative work when I'm working on future legislation, this is very much a kind of, you know, a much clearer kind of, you know, uh, objective that I, uh, Pursue effective implementation again. I couldn't agree more, but I would of course disagree that too little has been done. Let's let me take two examples on Tik Tok. I think it's wrong to say that nothing has happened. The DSA, the DMA are not fine machines. Yes, they are threatening with fines and we will also not hesitate to apply the fines because that's what the law is there for. But what they are really aiming for is to change the business models and to bring about change. And we would have TikTok lite in our system if we hadn't kind of threatened with DSA enforcement, and we would have kind of no change of the notice and action for, for consumers if we hadn't threatened AliExpress to do that. And also on X, you know, the other kind of, you know, feeling that not enough is done, um, you know, watch the space. We are kind of working on the cases and we are looking into that with kind of dedication and also with ambition to, to advance fast. Um, when it comes to the important aspect that was raised about deepfakes, I just want to give a little bit of context here.”
EU rules on digital competition · Disinformation & online freedoms
- “It's not that we are not doing anything. We are also this week actually coming with a democracy shield. The democracy Shield will have a very strong kind of focus on how we can equip us better to ensure election integrity, and it will rely and repeat also what we have been doing in the context of the DSA ever since the European Parliament elections, we have done election guidelines, which are very clear for the platforms that they should do more to label, to watermark, to kind of identify deep fakes. And we are watching that in every election campaign where we're working hand in hand with national authorities, with the platforms, with the fact checkers, to be best prepared to kind of deal with all the potential kind of issues that can that can come up in an election campaign. Of course, that requires that the national authorities invite us to be a partner. I'm not sure that this is going to happen in the Hungarian case, but certainly there's at the moment, a very, very good kind of preparatory work for us to really watch also that also that election very closely and the democracy she will also be very clear on the free press and what we need to do more to kind of secure a free press and a digital transition. And here let me just also highlight that the Avms review that we have announced in the work programme for next year is an important kind of tool to ensure, for instance, the prominence of kind of traditional media in the digital transition.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- “Thank you very much Madam Chair, thank you honorable members to give us the possibility to present this digital omnibus which was adopted on the nineteenth of November. You know very well that simplification is an important theme for this Commission. Every Commissioner, every Executive Vice President has in their mission letter the task to fitness check their entire kind of a key to look at whether there are issues of lack of coherence. We just talked about that with the Article ninety one report to look at can we cut costs for the businesses to make the European Union an interesting place in particular for European companies and that's what we are addressing in this digital simplification package which includes very targeted adjustments, regulatory adjustments in some areas and which also introduces the data union strategy because that's an important part of the puzzle and also the European business wallet. So how have we come to that result? We have done an extensive kind of outreach to European stakeholders, businesses and civil societies. EVP Wirkunen, Commissioner MacRae held implementation dialogues for instance on the themes of data, for instance on the themes of cybersecurity. We did of course public consultation, we had very targeted stakeholders roundtables to do reality checks with certain sectors and that's why we have come up with three parts of this simplification package: a big part on data, a big part on AI and a big part on cyber securities. Let me underline also that these measures are the result of European views and they are for the benefit of European companies. This is the intention of the digital simplification package and nothing else. Let me focus on the data part of the package first. So in the future we will have a much clearer regulatory context around data. There will be one important law for personal data, the GDPR and there will be one important law for nonpersonal data, the Data Act. So when you look the area of nonpersonal data we had a little bit of a very, you know, let's say consolidated kind of scene of old legislation such as the Free Flow of Data Regulation, the Open Data Directive, the Data Governance Act and the Data Act. Well out of these four laws we do one law. We draw conclusions from the experience for instance with the Data Governance Act which had very interesting ideas for instance on data altruism, on intermediaries but which was heavy heavy in its structure and it failed to kind of really take off. Well and that's why we keep the idea of data intermediaries and data brokers. They can be very important for a data market in the EU but we make it lighter, we make it more voluntary and build it into the Data Act or the Free Flow of Data legislation. That's really from the old days, it's really it really is obsolete. The only thing that we retain and that we take also in the Data Act is the confirmation that in the European Union we should not have data localization rules because we should trust each other but the rest has really become obsolete and should have been taken away already long ago. The Open Data Directive is about, you know, public data access. We have taken that up big time in the Data Act. So we also felt it's better to have a coherent system so it really makes a lot of sense to give one ensemble one clear regulatory framework for data and that's why we accompany it with the Data Union strategy which builds on the kind of the seeds that we planted with the data spaces in the last mandate, the health data space being the most important one but also others to scale them up to make them user friendly for the data that we need for the AI revolution as well. So it's really important to address that also. It was clear that we need to kind of also in the data package address the SME and the mid caps kind of, you know, issues and here while we also on the cloud services made some kind of, you know, adjustments and I know the committee is very interested in that because you contributed to that in the deliberation on the Data Act but it's really not taking away the objectives of the cloud switching that's the big kind of advantage of the Data Act. But we heard a lot of kind of issues especially from smaller European companies that it is important to adjust here and there. So that's why for the SMEs and the mid caps we've given their services a little bit of leeway to address their adjustments of their contracts and also when you look at cloud services you have off the shelf services and you have more customs made services and since we have in the Data Act a retroactive effect we felt that for the more customs made services that are really the result of a long negotiations with partners we felt that there we should kind of, you know, do it for the future and not for the past because that is really easier for the European companies to adjust to. It's an important kind of package that will help us to really create this data market in particular on nonpersonal data that we need for the kind of the use for the AI innovation for the AI factories for making the EU the AI continent. But we also kind of addressed the GDPR in this digital package and let me underline and I have been a part of the negotiating team of the GDPR this is not lowering the levels of protection. This is really living up to a promise that we gave when we negotiated the GDPR that it should be future proof and that it should be open to technological advancements and this is what we are addressing in the GDPR targeted adjustments. We really are addressing clarifications that have been brought about both by European Court of Justice jurisprudence and by the opinions that the European Data Protection Board has developed on the generalized data on kind of legitimate interest. We are not kind of, you know, changing goalposts, we are not kind of lowering the protection for the individuals. We are keeping our golden standard for data privacy in the EU but we are making it clearer also for the effective enforcement which is a decentralized enforcement as we have just heard on the GDPR that we have a clearer indication in the law what we mean by it. This is the idea and not to kind of, you know, change anything on the high level of protection. We are also dealing in this data package with something that should have been dealt with long time ago. This is the cookie fatigue. It is no longer reasonable to have this ePrivacy Directive that is an old fashioned kind of thing from the past. We have to take the things out from that ePrivacy Directive and we have it into bring it into our modern regulatory framework. That's why we take the cookies out of the ePrivacy Directive and we bring it into the GDPR but again it's not about, you know, lowering the level of protection. We will still be able to only give access to the terminal equipment with consent so data in the terminal equipment nothing will change. We are simply kind of clarifying that some things can be done without having to do a kind of a cookie banner and we also make the cookie banners much more feasible instead of us having to kind of click it all the time which was probably maybe also not the best way of protecting our privacy. So the data package is by no means a kind of a deregulation on kind of our high level of protection of data. It's a fundamental right, the European Court of Justice is ruling on it, it's not a possibility, it's a clarification that builds into this context of the Data Union vision. We also address cybersecurity because we heard as a number one complaint from many companies in Europe that, you know, we have nobody is challenging that there should be strong cybersecurity rules. What people are challenging is that we have created parallel universes for finance, financial services, data protection, NIS2, CRA and we have on all of these of course incident reporting lines because that's what we need to do on cybersecurity to have an effective response. But all these were done in parallel universes and what we are trying now is to bring this together. So the idea is really to build together a single entry point use ENISA for that and some member states have already done very important steps in that direction that we can build on. So it's not something that we are inventing, it's something that also member states have already discovered as an important way forward so that you have from a business perspective one reporting that will be used for different kind of use cases and that's I think an important cost reduction for the businesses. And the third point is of course the AI context and here you know I have our head of the AI office with me Lucy who is also going to be involved in of course the discussion later on but let me just also underline here there is no backtracking on the objectives of our guardrails in the AI Act. There is no kind of challenging the principles that we have negotiated in a pioneering work in the EU together with you but we are simply, you know, bringing the implementation timelines in line with the support instruments that we need to give legal clarity to the business to kind of, you know, get ready for these laws. And this means, you know, there were some challenges there were for instance the challenge that, you know, certain standards for the high risk kind of application of the annex three were not ready. So what we are kind of adjusting in the digital omnibus on the AI is that we are first of all setting a clear end date so there is clarity when it will come and in the meantime we give us time to work on standards or specification or guidelines and if they are ready we will come with a Commission decision and then we will go but there will also be clarity at the end of that tunnel with a clear kind of, you know, timetable so a maximum of sixteen months from the original deadline. This is only be truthful to the kind of, you know, AI innovators in the EU to give them legal clarity. We cannot keep them in the limbo if the standards are not there and then also we are adjusting the compliance costs so again we are kind of having more simplified compliance rules for the SMEs and also the mid caps. We are also addressing the AI literacy not that we kind of give up the important kind of theme of AI literacy but also there the way we kind of negotiated maybe a little too heavy so we are not giving up the objective but we are maybe kind of putting it more, you know, as an obligation for the member states and the Commission to actually do something about it instead of putting it all on the burden of the businesses. We are also strengthening the governance structure because we have realized with that fast developing technology on AI that on general purpose AI models where the Commission, the AI office is already in charge we had so far only linked that to those models that were offered by the same provider so the ChatGPT's, the OpenAI's and now we are opening that space and say that we should be in charge of all these models regardless of whether they are still linked and that's I think an important kind of, you know, approach to ensure coherence in kind of overseeing these developments. And then of course we also wanted to ensure there is better support and here, you know, we all kind of negotiated together sandboxes but we felt that there should be also with all the developments on AI innovation that we have together decided on with the AI action plan for the AI continent, the apply AI strategy that we should also have more EU based regulatory sandboxes that we can, you know, work on together. And finally and this builds very much on what we heard from the Commission on the Article ninety one we also used the AI digital omnibus to bring coherence actually between the DSA and the AI Act and to make sure that when we start working on the AI Act we immediately do it with that coherence kind of in view a place in mind so that we avoid further coherence steps that we have to take in the future. This goes for instance also on conformity assessments which can be in different laws and we group that together we make this a reasonable a more streamlined approach. So it's a really important step. It's a promise to European businesses that we are hearing them, that we are hearing their concerns, that the job is not over when the law is done, that we are allowing ourselves not to do away with the objectives, not to do away with the principles but to make targeted adjustments. And I think it is we are really looking forward to a constructive debate on these kind of omnibuses also with this committee because I think business, European business out there are expecting that we make these targeted changes and bring about an environment where European business can flourish and this I think is in all our interest. Thank you very much.”
Artificial Intelligence
- “It includes very, very strong safeguards against the use of spyware on journalists. It includes safeguards on editorial independence. It includes safeguards for transparent and fair allocation for state advertising. And it includes safeguards to prevent undue political and economic interference in media organizations. It has entered into force this May. It will enter into full application in August this year, and we are in a very active exchange with our Member States to make sure they are all getting ready for the application of the European Media Freedom Act and the upcoming Rule of Law report will also give a certain kind of indication where member states are in their readiness to get ready for the European Media Freedom Act. In the meantime, the European Media Board on Media Services has already started working. That's an important watchdog in the context of amfAR, because they will ensure the consistent application of the amfAR rules and will also create a very strong cooperation amongst national regulators in full independence from the European Commission. We in the European Commission are also taking on our role to kind of prepare the ground. We are, for instance, preparing the guidelines, which are important to bring the leverage in a procedural term between the platforms and the media operators. So here there is work to do to facilitate the self-declaration of media providers so that they can use their procedural rights to avoid over overblocking of their content. But given the threats against journalists that I mentioned.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · Surveillance equipment & spyware · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
- “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Honourable members. It's great to be back. And to bring in the perspective of DG connect, which kind of deals with the regulatory framework and with innovation policy at the same time. So allow me to bring in these two perspectives. First of all, I think the regulatory framework that we have built with the DSA, the DMA, the GDPR, and in the future the Digital Fairness Act, I think offers a huge kind of potential of better protection and choice for consumers in the digital age. Of course, compared with the accountability of the respective players online, I just want to underline that in the young, relatively young age of the DSA and the DMA rules, we have shown that with resolve, we can actually already kind of bring about changes. If you look at the users rights on the online space, there's a lot more that you can do in terms of kind of, you know, making your voice heard with the notice and action system, with the kind of possibilities to appeal against kind of content moderation that you might disagree with, um, with the kind of the default settings that have been established by some platforms with the transparency rules that we have established, the ad repository and other things that are very important for the consumers to have a better kind of overview. Let me also underline that we are meaning it, that we really ensure effective implementation of these rules.”
EU rules on digital competition · Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
- “Thank you very much, Mr. Leghari, for, uh, for for for the questions. Um, let me first say that in the case of the investigations, the ongoing investigations, the criminal investigations in Malta, this is an issue that, of course, you know, is falling under the competence of the national authorities. But in our rule of law discussions and reporting with Malta, this is also something that is being discussed. Um, I am very happy to pick up what you said about the French Channel, because we are in the finalisation of this year's rule of law report. So I'm taking that back so that this kind of information that you have shared with us, um, can be properly reflected, um, when it comes to your, you know, um, Uh, aspects, uh, on freedom of speech and the reference to the Economist article. Let me reassure you that there is no intention whatsoever to create any ministry of truth in the Commission. Let me also reassure you that, as I have said in my introductory remarks, the Digital Services Act is agnostic when it comes to content. It is a risk based system that looks at the systemic risk mitigation of platforms, in particular the very large online platforms. But it has one clear kind of context, which is that when something is illegal, you know, the platforms have to act under the notice and action system. Um, but what is illegal, for instance, is entirely determined by the national criminal law. Apart from the very few Euro crimes that we have agreed together, as, you know, substantive criminal law at the European level, otherwise, this is really absolutely determined by the national law.”
Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Rule of law in Malta
- “When it comes to other content, this is not about addressing this or that content. It is about, you know, systemic risks that might kind of, you know, be caused by the systems of the platforms to kind of hinder the broader civic discourse. And I really want to stress that. So I really want to defend this very, very respectful of freedom of speech approach that we have designed in the context of the Digital Services Act. Um, also, when it comes to the support of civil society in this context, uh, this is not kind of, you know, done in a discriminatory way. Um, they have a role to play when flagging, kind of, you know, content to the platforms, but there is no direct cooperation or financing for a certain purpose, um, from the side of the commission. And let me just, if I may, just the last word on the national security aspects, because I think this is more linked to amfAR than to anti-SLAPP. The balance that we have found in article four that I referred to, that, you know, you can still use spyware when there are kind of, you know, contexts with criminal offences when it is authorised by the judicial authorities. That's exactly the balance that we needed to find to allow national authorities, of course, to pursue kind of, you know, security issues in the context of terrorism, but at the same time also protect.”
Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content · Disinformation & online freedoms · Surveillance equipment & spyware
- “You have just recently seen another kind of, you know, preliminary findings that we have decided with regard to meta and TikTok because we were not convinced that what they have done in terms of kind of mechanism for users to actually notify illegal content or to get kind of, you know, effective address of the challenges on their side of content moderation was sufficient or that they are kind of, you know, transparency rules for access data access for researchers was sufficient. So we will not hesitate to kind of move further on these cases. Let me also underline how important the minor protection is for us online, and how much we have worked on that, not least with the article 28 guidelines, which establish a much more clearer guardrail for all the platforms. You know what to do. And in order to kind of give effective use to the guidelines, we have also now started requests for information to kind of platforms like Snapchat, YouTube, Google Play and Apple Store to really request concrete, um, you know, information on how they abide by the, by the platforms. And of course, we have the ongoing cases where also in the enforcement cases with regard to TikTok and meta, you will see further steps, um, on the online marketplaces, another important aspect for consumer protection online. You have seen our actions on Tmall, AliExpress, um, a mix of kind of carrot and stick with AliExpress, very important commitments that we got from AliExpress on a more effective notice and action system.”
Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content · Liability for online marketplaces · Safety features & content control for child protection online
- “Good. We have also taken the anti-SLAPP regulatory framework that this is to avoid abusive lawsuits. So this directive provides safeguards against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings in civil or commercial matters, with cross-border implications brought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation. It's accompanied by a recommendation for the purely national kind of context, and will again also expand the safeguards. In addition to that, we have from 2021, the recommendation on the safety of journalists, where we have studied the impact it had last year. This is in particular to support kind of services for journalists and member states. And we will also report on that in the upcoming Rule of Law report and will continue to monitor the situation. And last not but not least, let me also mention the Digital Services Act. Our foundation for the platform accountability rules in the European Union, because with the Digital Services Act, which is in full respect of freedom of speech and a content agnostic regulatory framework, we are establishing transparency and higher safety for our online environment, which will of course, also be to the benefit of journalists in the future. Let me also mention that, if I may, um, we are working on the Democracy Shield in the European Commission.”
EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content · Disinformation & online freedoms
- “Just a couple of points. You have heard our vision of an AI continent to really kind of, you know, roll out the potential of AI applications in the EU in particular. When you think about industrial AI, we have to kind of talk about digital sovereignty. We had an interesting kind of, you know, indication, again from the last European Council how important it is for the 27 heads of states that digital sovereignty is kind of not only a concept that we actually act upon it. The upcoming cloud and AI Development Act will deal with issues such as sovereign cloud. It's high time for Europe to kind of, you know, take its kind of destiny in its hand. And, of course, this has to be accompanied by the lever of, you know, strategic public procurement. So to sum it up, the EU has the ingredients, um, both to have a strong regulatory framework and to have an innovation path where two the two belong to each other. They are not either or. They are two sides of the same coin. To ensure a fair online environment and a competitive online environment for Europe, where EU players can also play a role, thank you very much.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty · "Buy European" provisions
- “And the same goes, I think, for the work that executive vice president is doing on the reform of the public procurement to really think about strategic public procurement. I know that these things will also be at the heart of the upcoming German-French Digital Summit, and I hope that that will also give an inspiration for the further debate in the European Union. And that goes also for the gigafactories context, because also there we should kind of, you know, put the money in that context of our digital sovereignty. But it's going to be a difficult debate because, you know, I think the member states come from different positions on that. We also don't want to close the shop. We want to remain open to the world, continue to work with our allies. But on the other hand, you know, I think we need to allow ourselves that debate to really also allow the scaling up, for instance, of a European cloud kind of, you know, ecosystem that also exists and that so far always had a difficulty of scaling up. Um, and then when it comes to the single market, I couldn't agree more. I think, you know, it was in the latter report. It wasn't the Draghi report. You know, you have seen that this is very much in the political guidelines of this commission to really aim for, you know, a more effective kind of use of the single market, because that's the biggest asset that we have.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty · "Buy European" provisions · EU Single Market harmonisation
- “We are pushing the the gatekeepers in our regulatory dialogue. And you have seen we have come to non-compliance decisions. If it's not kind of, you know, leading to results in a different way. And will we continue doing so? I also want to stress here our good cooperation with the data protection colleagues, and kind of also bringing about the interplay between the DMA and GDPR, because that's of course, also important. If you want to have an effective use of all the instruments, you will be very kind of interested in kind of seeing the DFA in the future. The Digital Fairness Act, which is now announced, and the work programme for next year. Just also to underline that it's very important that we really address potential legal gaps for consumers in the online world that we kind of deal with the manipulative design and potential kind of, you know, um, wrongdoings on, on that side. But we should kind of build it on the existing kind of work that we already have so that it makes sense. And it is a coherent system, because simplification and regulatory coherence has been underlined by other speakers. And I can only underline that this will also be our kind of direction of travel when we look into that. Um, a couple of words, if you allow me still, on the kind of innovation side, I think a lot has been said I fully subscribe to the need that we develop an EU tech ecosystem, and I think we have all the ingredients to actually kind of build on that.”
EU rules on digital competition · EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
- “Good morning, Mr. Chair. Um, good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning, members of the Parliament. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Um, I'm very happy that I can participate at this event, uh, albeit remotely, because I am currently at the Globsec conference in Prague. Uh, but it's a very important theme, so I'm happy to kind of bring my contribution, indeed, the work of independent journalists and professional editorial processes, is a key pillar for our open debate in democracies, and it's always media freedom and freedom of expression. And this is all the more important to give objective, reliable and impartial information to citizens. In our digital transition, where we see, of course, also the ample disinformation waves, in particular on social media platforms. Against this background, it is indeed worrying when we are witnessing an environment for journalists that is rather deteriorating with a situation where we have threats, intimidation and attacks both physical and online increasing, of course, with the objective to silence critical views and where we see reports also that show there is a growing use of spyware and surveillance technologies targeting media professionals. And of course, where we see the spread of disinformation with the amplification Information systems of algorithmic and recommender systems that, of course, also are facing independent journalism. So luckily in Europe we have taken action and we have enlarged our toolbox so that we are better equipped to address these issues. So it was already mentioned. The key kind of advancement is the European Media Freedom Act.”
Disinformation & online freedoms · Recommender systems · Surveillance equipment & spyware
- “Thank you very much for the questions. Um, on the digital omnibus, because it will be coming in two weeks time. I just want to underline that this is not at all about lowering the protection. Also not on data, but it is important to kind of underline that when we started this work in the Commission on Simplification, regardless of what policy area looking at and including in our policy area, we had to realise that it was really a lack of coherence and that there are issues that can really be done without lowering the kind of the level of objective, the objectives or the protection to make it simpler, easier and more coherent, you know, to to deal with that. So what you will be seeing coming out of the digital omnibus in two weeks time on AI, on data and on cyber is really very much kind of driven by that and very happy to discuss to discuss this further once it's out. But it's really not about deregulating, and it's also not about lowering our level of ambition when it comes to the digital sovereignty. Indeed, the public procurement and the kind of, you know, let's say, European preferences, a debate will be really important in this on, you know, the cloud and the cloud and AI Development Act. I cannot give you the details yet. But indeed, if this is supposed to be a game changer, it has to be concrete in terms of, you know, our sovereign choices.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty