Competition regulation Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

Writers publish protest book to challenge AI use of copyrighted works

Thousands of writers have joined a symbolic protest against AI companies by publishing a book that contains no traditional content.

The work, titled “Don’t Steal This Book,” lists only the names of roughly 10,000 contributors who oppose the use of their writing to train AI systems without their permission.

An initiative that was organised by composer and campaigner Ed Newton-Rex and distributed during the London Book Fair. Contributors include prominent authors such as Kazuo Ishiguro, Philippa Gregory and Richard Osman, along with thousands of other writers and creative professionals.

Campaigners argue that generative AI systems are trained on vast collections of copyrighted material gathered from the internet without authorisation or compensation.

According to organisers, such practices allow AI tools to compete with the creators whose works were used to develop them.

The protest arrives as the UK Government prepares an economic assessment of potential copyright reforms related to AI. Proposals under discussion include allowing AI developers to use copyrighted material unless rights holders explicitly opt out.

Many writers and artists oppose that approach and demand stronger copyright protections. In parallel, the publishing sector is preparing a licensing initiative through Publishers’ Licensing Services to provide AI developers with legal access to books while ensuring authors receive compensation.

The dispute reflects a growing global debate over how copyright law should apply to generative AI systems that rely on massive datasets to develop chatbots and other digital tools.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Moltbook founders join Meta’s AI research lab

Meta Platforms has acquired Moltbook, a social networking platform designed for AI agents. The deal brings co-founders Matt Schlicht and Ben Parr into Meta’s AI research division, the Superintelligence Labs, led by Alexandr Wang.

Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed, and the founders are expected to start on 16 March.

Moltbook, launched in January, allows AI-powered bots to exchange code and interact socially in a Reddit-like environment. The platform has sparked debate on AI autonomy and real-world capabilities, highlighting growing competition among tech giants for AI talent and technology.

Industry figures have offered differing views on the platform’s significance. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman called Moltbook a potential fad but acknowledged its underlying technology hints at the future of AI agents.

Meanwhile, Anthropic’s chief product officer, Mike Krieger, noted that most users are not ready to grant AI full autonomy over their systems.

The platform’s growth also highlighted security risks. Cybersecurity firm Wiz reported a vulnerability that exposed private messages, email addresses, and credentials, which was resolved after the owners were notified.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Dutch court increases pressure on Meta over non-profiling social media feeds

A court in the Netherlands has increased potential penalties against Meta after ruling that changes to social media timelines must be implemented urgently.

The decision raises the potential fine for non-compliance from €5 million to €10 million if required adjustments are not applied to Facebook and Instagram feeds.

Judges at the Amsterdam Court of Appeals said users must be able to select a timeline that does not rely on profiling-based recommendations.

The ruling follows a legal challenge from the digital rights organisation Bits of Freedom, which argued that users who switched away from algorithmic feeds were automatically returned to them after navigating the platform or reopening the application.

The court concluded that the automatic resetting mechanism represents a deceptive design practice known as a ‘dark pattern’.

Such practices are prohibited under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which requires large online platforms to provide greater transparency and user control over recommendation systems.

Judges acknowledged that Meta had already introduced several technical changes, although not all required measures were fully implemented. The company must ensure that the non-profiling timeline option remains active once selected, rather than reverting to algorithmic recommendations.

The dispute also highlights regulatory tensions within the European framework. Before turning to the courts, Bits of Freedom submitted a complaint to Coimisiún na Meán, the national authority responsible for overseeing Meta’s compliance with the EU rules.

According to the organisation, the lack of progress from regulators encouraged legal action in Dutch courts.

Meta indicated that the company intends to challenge the decision and pursue further legal proceedings. The case could become an important test of how the Digital Services Act is enforced against major online platforms across Europe.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Blockchain and AI security central to US cyber framework

The US National Cyber Strategy emphasises support for emerging technologies, including blockchain, cryptocurrencies, AI, and post-quantum cryptography. The strategy highlights the importance of securing digital infrastructure while advancing technological leadership.

The strategy rests on six pillars, including modernising federal networks, protecting critical infrastructure, and advancing secure technology. Specific sections reference cryptocurrencies and blockchain, noting the need to safeguard digital systems from design to deployment.

Financial systems, data centres, and telecommunications networks are identified as key components of the broader cybersecurity framework. The strategy also stresses collaboration with private-sector technology companies and research institutions to foster innovation and strengthen protections.

AI plays a central role, with measures to secure AI data centres and deploy AI-driven tools for network defence. The plan avoids direct crypto rules but signals greater integration of blockchain and cryptography into national digital infrastructure.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU faces challenges in curbing digital abuse against women

Researchers and policymakers are raising concerns about how new technologies may put women at risk online, despite existing EU rules designed to ensure safer digital spaces.

AI-powered tools and smart devices have been linked to incidents of harassment and the creation of non-consensual sexualised imagery, highlighting gaps in enforcement and compliance.

The European Commission’s Gender Equality 2026–2030 Strategy noted that women are disproportionately targeted by online gender-based violence, including harassment, doxing, and AI-generated deepfakes.

Investigations into tools such as Elon Musk’s Grok AI and Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses have drawn attention to how digital platforms and wearable technologies can be misused, even where legal frameworks like the Digital Services Act (DSA) are in place.

Experts emphasise that while the EU’s rules offer a foundation to regulate online content, significant challenges remain. Advocates and lawmakers say enforcement gaps let harmful AI functions like nudification persist.

Commissioners have stressed ongoing cooperation with tech companies and upcoming guidelines to prioritise flagged content from independent organisations to address gender-based cyber violence.

Authorities are also monitoring new technologies closely. In the case of wearable devices, regulators are considering how users and bystanders are informed about recording features.

Ongoing discussions aim to strengthen compliance under existing legislation and ensure that digital spaces become safer and more accountable for all users.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU considers stronger child protection in Digital Fairness Act

Capitals across the EU are being asked to discuss how stronger child protection measures should be incorporated into the upcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA).

The initiative comes as policymakers attempt to address growing concerns about how online platforms expose minors to harmful content, manipulative design practices, and unsafe digital environments.

According to a document circulated during Cyprus’s Council presidency of the European Union, member states are expected to debate which concrete safeguards should be introduced as part of the broader consumer protection framework.

Officials are exploring whether new rules should require platforms to adopt stricter safeguards when designing digital services used by children.

The discussions are part of the European Union’s broader effort to strengthen digital governance and consumer protection across online platforms. Policymakers are increasingly focusing on how platform design, recommendation algorithms, and monetisation models may affect younger users.

The proposals could complement existing EU regulations targeting large digital platforms, while expanding protections specifically focused on minors.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI legal advice case asks whether ChatGPT crosses legal boundaries

A newly filed lawsuit against OpenAI raises a key issue: Does allowing generative AI systems like ChatGPT to provide legal advice violate laws that bar the unauthorised practice of law (UPL)? UPL means providing legal services, such as drafting filings or giving advice, without the required legal qualifications or a state licence.

The case claims an individual used ChatGPT to prepare legal filings in a dispute with Nippon Life Insurance, prompting the company to argue OpenAI should be held responsible for the outcome.

The lawsuit claims ChatGPT helped the user challenge a settled legal dispute. As a result, the company had to spend additional time and resources responding to filings produced with ChatGPT. The claim alleges tortious interference with a contract, which is the unlawful disruption of an existing agreement between two parties by causing one of the parties to breach or alter it.

Ultimately, this disrupted another party’s contractual relationship. The suit also claims unauthorised practice of law and abuse of the judicial process, which means using the legal system improperly to gain an advantage. It argues OpenAI should be liable because ChatGPT operates under its control. The dispute centres on whether AI systems should analyse disputes and offer legal advice like a lawyer.

Advocates argue the tools could widen access to legal advice. They could make legal support more accessible and affordable for those who cannot easily hire a lawyer. However, US legal frameworks restrict the provision of legal advice to licensed lawyers. The rules are designed to protect consumers and ensure professional accountability.

Critics argue that limiting legal advice to licensed lawyers preserves an expensive monopoly and hinders access to justice. AI-driven legal tools highlight this tension over the future of legal services.

The outcome of this lawsuit will likely hinge on whether AI-generated responses constitute intentional legal advice and if OpenAI can be held liable for such outputs. Even if it fails, the case foregrounds the broader debate about granting generative AI a legitimate role in legal guidance.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI copyright warning as 5 major risks outlined in UK Lords report

Concerns about AI copyright are rising after a House of Lords committee report. The report warns that unlicensed use of creative works for AI training threatens the UK’s creative industries.

Large AI systems rely on vast amounts of human-created content, often used without clear consent or compensation. Such developments have intensified debates around AI copyright protections.

The committee argues that the key issues are not the copyright framework itself, but the widespread unlicensed use of protected works and AI developers’ lack of transparency.

The lack of clarity prevents rightsholders from knowing whether their works are being used or from enforcing their rights, raising critical questions about the practical application of AI copyright rules.

The report urges the government to reject the proposed commercial text and data mining exception, introduce stronger protections against unauthorised digital replicas, and safeguard against AI outputs that imitate a creator’s style, voice, or identity.

The committee also calls for legal transparency in AI training data, backing the development of a licensing market, and standards for rights-reservation, data provenance, labelling AI-generated content, and support for UK-governed AI models within a robust AI copyright framework.

Baroness Keeley, committee chair, warned: ‘Our creative industries face a clear and present danger from uncredited and unremunerated use of copyrighted material to train AI models.

Photographers, musicians, authors, and publishers are seeing their work fed into AI models, which then produce imitations that take employment and earning opportunities from original creators.’

Keeley added: ‘AI may contribute to our future economic growth, but the UK creative industries create jobs and economic value now.

In 2023, the creative industries delivered £124 billion of economic value to the UK, and this is set to grow to £141 billion by 2030. Watering down the protections in our existing copyright regime to lure the biggest US tech companies is a race to the bottom that does not serve UK interests. We should not sacrifice our creative industries for the AI jam tomorrow.’

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU and Canada begin negotiations on a digital trade agreement

The European Commission and Canada have launched negotiations on a new Digital Trade Agreement to strengthen the rules governing cross-border digital commerce.

The initiative was announced in Toronto by the EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and Canadian International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu.

An agreement that will expand the digital dimension of the existing Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which has already increased trade in goods and services between the two partners.

Officials say the new negotiations aim to create clearer rules for businesses and consumers engaging in cross-border digital transactions.

Proposals under discussion include promoting paperless trade systems, recognising electronic signatures and digital contracts, and prohibiting customs duties on electronic transmissions.

The agreement between the EU and Canada will also seek to prevent protectionist practices such as unjustified data localisation requirements or forced transfers of software source code.

European officials argue that the negotiations reflect a broader effort to develop international standards for digital trade governance while preserving governments’ ability to regulate emerging challenges in the digital economy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Job losses study by Anthropic reveals 0 evidence of AI driven unemployment

A new Anthropic report finds AI has not yet caused significant job losses, introducing ‘observed exposure’ to measure actual workplace AI use.

Researchers combined language model capabilities with workplace data to identify occupations at risk of disruption. Although AI can perform many tasks, its actual adoption remains much lower across most industries, which is a main finding of the study.

Even in highly digital professions, only a fraction of potential automation results from AI use. For instance, computer and mathematics occupations rank among the most AI-exposed groups. Despite AI’s capability to assist with many tasks, it currently covers only about 33% of them in these fields.

Across the broader economy, many roles experience little or no impact from AI, which represents a key finding. About 30% of workers are in jobs such as cooking, bartending, mechanics, and lifeguarding, where physical tasks dominate, and measured AI exposure is almost zero.

The report also finds no clear evidence that AI adoption has increased unemployment or caused a spike in job losses since generative AI tools began spreading widely in 2022. Rather than triggering sudden job losses, researchers suggest labour-market effects emerge gradually, through slower hiring, shifting skill requirements, and changes in job composition.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!