Hello!

The year is starting off with work on AI liability, child protection and text and data mining, all while the Commission is scrambling to slash red tape.

Dimi & Michele

=== AI Liability Rules ===

While the Commission is proposing to simplify rules https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_339 and reduce reporting obligations, the industry is adamant https://cdn.digitaleurope.org/uploads/2025/01/CEO-letter_Final_.pdf that the EU has been overregulating for a while and there shouldn’t be any new rules for the time being. This is echoed by quite a few lawmakers. Contradictory enough, some of these same lawmakers simultaneously want continue working on new rules, for instance the AI Liability Directive https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2024_2029/plmrep/AUTRES_INSTITUTIONS/COMM/COM/2025/01-27/COM_COM20220496_EN.pdf .

—

The act was proposed last term, and is a rather short piece of legislation (5 pages, 9 articles). It wants to empower consumers seeking damages if they experience harm by AI systems. It had been on pause until the AI Act got hammered out. The idea is to close some gaps in the current legislative framework and to have clarity on who is responsible with regards to AI systems.

—

MEP Axel Voss (EPP DE) is the rapporteur https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2022/0303(COD). His plan is to publish his draft report on 4 July this year and have it adopted by the parliament by February next. The Commission seems still supportive (although it is contradicting itself with other initiatives). On the other hand, in the Council the Member States are sceptical that this is needed.

=== Geo-blocking ===

The Geo-blocking Regulation https://wikimedia.brussels/geo-blocking-audiovisual-content-why-we-need-to-achieve-a-truly-connected-digital-single-market/ was adopted in 2018 and prohibits any forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market. However, it excludes from its scope audiovisual content and copyrighted material. In this regard, the review clause foresaw an obligation for the Commission to specifically evaluate the enlargement of the scope to include copyright-protected works and audiovisual content.

—

In 2025, the European Commission is going to review the regulation. With regards to this, the European Court of Auditors just adopted a special report https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2025-03/SR-2025-03_EN.pdf suggesting to “carry out a study to assess whether to extend the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation or amend other relevant sector-specific regulations”.

=== Child Protection ===

While work on parliament's own-initiative report is getting off the ground, the European Commission gave parliamentarians some insights on its thinking at a house event. Irene Roche Laguna, head of platforms policy and enforcement at DG CNECT, shared some points:

*Age verification is a central issue, and we need to work towards a European solution by mid-2025.

*Other ideas than age verification can be implemented, and it’s a work in progress. We want to have a public consultation on the DSA guidelines soon.

* We are in close contact with the Australian authorities and with Ofcom in the UK. Banning seems effective but it’s excluding minors from useful areas. There are other means that are less intrusive. Different platforms pose different issues. Age verification is essential for adult content, but it isn’t the answer for social media.

==== TDM ====

The European Commission launched a tender for a study https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/tender-details/8726813a-bd9b-4f58-8679-01c80f7a1abf-CN?isExactMatch=true&order=DESC&pageNumber=1&pageSize=50&sortBy=startDate on the feasibility of a central registry of text and data mining opt-out reservation expressed by rightsholders.

Reminder: The 2019 EU copyright reform introduced an exception allowing text and data mining that allows rights holders to opt out of their content being minded using a machine readable mechanism. The issue is that there seems to be no working global standard. Rightsholders are complaining that AI models mine their content, despite the expressed reservation. The Commission is currently looking into a technical solution.

==== Spain ====

The Spanish Government adopted a draft law modifying the right to rectification law https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/institucional/gabinete-comunicacion/noticias-ministerio/ley-rectificacion#. One of the main innovations, according to the Government, is the extension of the personal scope of the current law https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1984/BOE-A-1984-7248-consolidado.pdf. In other words, the right to ask for a rectification will apply also to digital platforms and influencers (users who have more than 100,000 followers on a single platform or 200,000 across several). We plan to analyse in detail the changes to fully understand their impact, once the draft will be published.

==== Anti-SLAPP ====

In April 2022 the Commission adopted a Recommendation https://commission.europa.eu/document/d615e181-eb4c-4b4f-869d-ccf1ca6df0e2_enon SLAPP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participations, calling on Member States to introduce a number of measures to protect journalists, human rights defenders and activists. Among the measures, the Member States were asked to “(...) establish a focal point that gathers and shares information on all organisations that provide guidance and support for targets of manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation”.

—

Recently, the Commission published a follow-up document https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2024)292&lang=en highlighting the measures taken by the different Member States and in particular the establishment of the different focal points, whose role is crucial for the implementation of the Recommendation. In this sense, only a limited number of Member States set-up the focal points. Here you may check out if your Country is on the list https://commission.europa.eu/document/d357f321-540d-427a-9a5a-aae261486463_en .

=== DSA implementation ===

The Commission, DG CONNECT, launched a tender https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/tender-details/fe873a7c-afc4-4306-b6e7-c970e6a606ff-CN to carry out a study to investigate and analyse the interplay between the Digital Services Act (the horizontal content moderation rulebook) and sectoral legislation, i.e. copyright, terrorist content regulation, audiovisual rules, GDPR and so on. In the EU’s architecture, the DSA is the lex generalis and is supposed to be supplemented by the specific legislation, i.e. lex specialis. How they interplay, however, is not always easy to answer.

—

The study will help clarify the consistency of the current legal framework that presents some contradictions, i.e. conflicting goals.

—

At the same time, the Commission is working on the adoption of the guidelines on the protection of minors (Art. 28 DSA) - see the WMF’s feedback https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14352-Protection-of-minors-guidelines/F3496424_en - and the delegated act on data access (Art. 40 DSA) - here the WMF’s submission https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13817-Delegated-Regulation-on-data-access-provided-for-in-the-Digital-Services-Act/F3498877_en .

===END===