Competition regulation

Hungary prepares rollback of crypto penalties

Hungary is preparing a significant shift in its digital asset policy after newly appointed Science and Technology Minister Zoltán Tanács announced plans to dismantle restrictive measures imposed by the previous government. The proposed changes would remove criminal penalties for unauthorised crypto services, marking a clear reversal in national regulatory direction.

The earlier framework, introduced in July 2025, tightened oversight of crypto activity and led several firms to scale back services in the country due to increased compliance pressure. The incoming policy direction frames those measures as politically driven rather than market-supportive, signalling a shift toward regulatory easing and improved competitiveness.

Alongside crypto reform, authorities are also reassessing cybersecurity auditor obligations linked to the EU’s NIS2 directive, a regulatory structure designed to strengthen digital infrastructure resilience. The changes could affect roughly 4,000 Hungarian companies approaching a 30 June compliance deadline, adding urgency to the policy review.

Hungary’s broader digital strategy appears to be aligning more closely with EU-wide standards such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, which aims to harmonise rules across member states. The government is also reportedly drawing inspiration from Estonia’s digital governance model, seeking a more innovation-friendly regulatory environment while maintaining alignment with the EU.

Why does it matter?

If Hungary follows through, the shift could improve regulatory predictability across Central Europe, support the return of fintech and crypto firms, and increase competitive pressure on jurisdictions that continue to apply stricter or less consistent crypto rules.

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

Unlicensed crypto exchanges to be barred from EU under MiCA rules

Crypto-asset service providers operating under national transitional regimes must obtain MiCA authorisation or stop serving the EU clients when the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation transitional period ends on 1 July 2026.

The European Securities and Markets Authority has said the transitional period will expire across the EU on that date. Under MiCA, crypto-asset service providers that were operating legally before 30 December 2024 could continue providing services until 1 July 2026, or until they were granted or refused authorisation, whichever came first.

ESMA has urged firms and national supervisors to ensure an orderly transition, with a focus on timely authorisation, client protection, and market integrity. Providers that do not obtain MiCA authorisation will need to stop unauthorised activities, wind down services, or transfer clients where appropriate.

Applications still under review do not, by themselves, give firms the right to continue operating after the deadline. Firms that continue offering crypto-asset services without authorisation risk enforcement action under national law.

The end of the transition marks a major shift from fragmented national registration regimes towards a single EU-wide licensing framework for crypto-asset service providers. MiCA authorisation allows firms to passport services across the EU, while also subjecting them to common requirements on governance, consumer protection, market integrity, prudential safeguards, and supervision.

Some member states shortened or did not fully apply the transitional regime, meaning certain national markets have already moved more quickly towards MiCA-only authorisation. From 1 July, however, the transitional period ends across the EU.

Why does it matter?

The deadline marks the point at which MiCA becomes the effective gateway to the EU crypto market. Firms that previously operated under national regimes will need full authorisation or lose access to the EU clients. In the short term, that could lead to service disruptions, client migrations, or consolidation among crypto providers. In the longer term, it strengthens the EU’s shift towards a single regulatory framework for digital asset platforms.

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

EU court annuls Meta Marketplace designation

The General Court of the European Union has annulled the European Commission’s decision designating Meta as a gatekeeper for Marketplace under the Digital Markets Act, while upholding the company’s designation for Messenger.

The case concerned the Commission’s 5 September 2023 decision designating Meta as a gatekeeper for several core platform services, including Facebook, Messenger, and Marketplace. Meta challenged the decision in part, contesting the classification of Messenger and Marketplace as important gateways under the DMA.

The General Court upheld the Commission’s assessment of Messenger, finding that the service is a number-independent interpersonal communications service distinct from Facebook. The court said Messenger is available through standalone applications, can be used independently of Facebook, and includes tools that allow businesses to engage with users.

The court also found that the Commission did not have to count only Messenger users who were not also Facebook users when assessing whether the quantitative threshold under the DMA was met. It also said the Commission was not required to open a market investigation in the absence of sufficiently substantiated arguments from Meta calling the DMA presumptions into question.

For Marketplace, the court found that the Commission erred in law by relying only on data from the three years preceding designation without taking account of changes made at the end of July 2023. Those changes limited the number of listings that could be published per user and led to the disappearance of the criterion used by the Commission to identify business users.

The court also found that the Commission had not provided sufficient reasoning for classifying Marketplace as an online intermediation service. It said the Commission failed to provide a concrete analysis of the July 2023 changes or to explain their effect on whether Marketplace-enabled business users could offer goods and services to consumers.

As a result, the decision was annulled only to the extent that it designated Meta as a gatekeeper for Marketplace. Meta’s Messenger designation remains in place.

Why does it matter?

The judgement is an important test of how the EU courts will review Digital Markets Act gatekeeper designations. It confirms that the Commission can rely on DMA presumptions where companies do not provide sufficiently substantiated counterarguments, as seen with Messenger. But it also shows that the Commission must properly assess relevant changes and provide sufficient reasoning when classifying a service as a core platform service, as the Marketplace annulment demonstrates.

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

UK publishers gain control over Google AI search content

Online publishers in the UK will be able to prevent their content from appearing in Google’s AI-generated search features without losing visibility in traditional search results, following new requirements introduced by the Competition and Markets Authority.

The measures are part of the CMA’s conduct requirements for Google’s search services under the UK’s digital markets competition regime. They are intended to give news organisations and other publishers greater control over how their content is used in AI-powered search products such as AI Overviews and AI Mode.

Publishers have argued that AI-generated summaries can reduce website traffic by providing users with key information directly in search results, limiting the need to visit original articles. Until now, opting out of Google’s AI features could also affect visibility in standard search results, creating a difficult choice for organisations that rely on search traffic to reach readers and generate revenue.

Under the new requirements, Google must give UK website owners more control over how their content and links appear in AI search features. Google will test new tools with selected UK sites before wider rollout, allowing publishers to opt out of AI-generated search features while remaining visible in traditional search results.

Google will also be required to provide clearer attribution and links to the publisher when publisher content appears in AI-generated results. The CMA said the measures are designed to improve transparency, support fairer dealing between publishers and Google, and help users understand where information in AI search results comes from.

The regulator described the measure as a world-first for Google’s search services. Further announcements concerning Google’s search business are expected from the CMA in the coming weeks.

Why does it matter?

The decision addresses one of the central tensions created by AI search: search engines can summarise publishers’ content while reducing users’ incentive to click through to the sources. By separating AI search opt-outs from traditional search visibility, the CMA aims to give publishers greater, more meaningful control without forcing them to sacrifice reach. The case could shape how other regulators approach attribution, content use, traffic diversion, and bargaining power between AI platforms and publishers.

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

UK CMA targets AI search content use in new Google conduct requirements

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has imposed a new conduct requirement on Google Search under the country’s digital markets competition regime. The measure is designed to give publishers greater control over how their content is used and to improve transparency for users.

Under the new requirement, publishers will be able to prevent their content from being used in Google’s AI-powered search features, including AI Overviews. The CMA said the measure is intended to strengthen publishers’ ability to negotiate content licensing and usage agreements with Google.

Google will also be required to provide clearer attribution for publisher content used in AI-generated search results through prominently visible links. Following consultation feedback, publishers will also be able to opt out of having their content used to fine-tune Google’s AI models.

The CMA said it will continue monitoring Google’s AI-related changes to search and may introduce additional measures if competition concerns persist. Google will have up to nine months to implement the requirements and must publish regular compliance reports as the rollout progresses in the UK.

Why does it matter?

The decision highlights growing regulatory scrutiny of how AI-powered search systems use third-party content. As search engines increasingly generate answers directly within search results, publishers have raised concerns about attribution, traffic losses and the use of their content for AI training.

The UK’s approach could influence broader debates about the relationship between AI platforms, publishers and competition policy, particularly as regulators seek to balance innovation with transparency and fair commercial practices.

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

OECD examines national security limits in competition enforcement

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has published a policy paper examining how national security considerations are increasingly influencing competition enforcement across a growing range of sectors.

The report highlights the impact of geopolitical developments, technological change, and stronger attention to economic security, resilience, and technological capability. National security issues are increasingly intersecting with competition policy in areas such as energy, telecommunications, and advanced technologies.

The paper explores how competition authorities should address these concerns while maintaining their established legal and analytical responsibilities. It argues that security concerns should be assessed by competition authorities only where they can be expressed as competition-relevant effects under established competition law tools.

Concerns that fall outside the analytical remit of competition authorities should instead be assessed by governments or specialised bodies, according to the OECD.

The paper proposes an analytical framework to distinguish between national security concerns that can be examined through competition law and those that require separate institutional assessment.

Drawing on cross-jurisdictional experience, the OECD examines how national security considerations can arise in assessments of competitive constraints, merger control, coordinated conduct, unilateral conduct, and remedy design.

The paper concludes that preserving clear institutional roles, legal predictability, analytical boundaries, and effective enforcement will become increasingly important as national security considerations continue to shape economic policymaking.

Why does it matter?

The paper reflects a growing tension in competition policy: governments increasingly view sectors such as energy, telecommunications, and advanced technologies through a national security lens, but competition authorities still need clear legal boundaries. OECD’s framework aims to prevent competition enforcement from becoming a catch-all tool for broader security or industrial policy concerns, while still allowing authorities to consider security-related issues when they have measurable competition effects.

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

European Commission fines Temu €200 million under DSA

The European Commission has imposed a €200 million fine on Temu after finding that the online marketplace breached obligations under the Digital Services Act by failing to properly assess and mitigate systemic risks linked to illegal products sold to consumers in the EU.

According to the Commission, Temu’s 2024 risk assessment did not meet DSA requirements because it relied on general information about the wider e-commerce sector rather than evidence specific to its own platform. Regulators also found that the company significantly underestimated the likelihood that the EU consumers would encounter illegal or unsafe products.

The investigation drew on mystery shopping exercises and information from customs and market surveillance authorities. Findings included chargers that failed basic safety requirements and baby toys that contained chemicals above legal limits or presented choking hazards.

Regulators also criticised Temu for failing to sufficiently assess how recommender systems and influencer promotion programmes could contribute to the spread of illegal products on the platform.

Temu must now submit a detailed action plan explaining how it will address the shortcomings identified by the Commission. The plan will be reviewed with the European Board for Digital Services before implementation requirements are set. Failure to comply could lead to additional penalties under the DSA.

The decision is part of a wider Commission investigation into Temu, including issues related to potentially addictive design, recommender systems, and data access for researchers.

Why does it matter?

The fine marks one of the most significant enforcement actions under the Digital Services Act against a major online marketplace. It shows that the DSA is being used not only to address illegal content, but also to require platforms to assess and reduce consumer safety risks linked to illegal and unsafe goods. The case reinforces the EU’s focus on proactive risk management by very large online platforms, including how marketplace design, recommendations, and influencer promotion can amplify the reach of harmful products.

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

Financial institutions adopt stricter monitoring than crypto exchanges

A Chainalysis analysis of crypto compliance monitoring shows that transaction surveillance standards across financial institutions and crypto firms have tightened significantly since 2020.

The report says nearly half of organisations onboarded in 2026 now operate at alerting standards that would have placed them among the top 10% for alerting strictness in 2020. Chainalysis said newer entrants are launching with more aggressive Know Your Transaction monitoring configurations, reflecting the maturation of digital asset compliance frameworks.

According to the analysis, traditional financial institutions generally apply stricter detection thresholds than crypto exchanges. Financial institutions set lower dollar-detection floors for both illicit and non-illicit categories, meaning they are alerted for smaller sums and apply a more conservative monitoring approach.

The gap is particularly visible in indirect exposure to non-illicit flows. Chainalysis said crypto exchanges set average alerting minimums of USD 950, compared with USD 150 for traditional financial institutions. For illicit funds, both groups apply tighter thresholds, with exchanges setting alerts from USD 100 and financial institutions from USD 55.

The report also highlights a persistent gap between direct and indirect exposure monitoring. Direct exposure refers to funds arriving immediately from a known illicit source, while indirect exposure covers funds that pass through intermediary addresses before arriving at the final destination. Chainalysis said direct monitoring has become more standardised, but indirect exposure thresholds often remain 10 to 20 times higher than direct thresholds in categories such as ransomware, fraud shops, scams, darknet markets, and sanctioned jurisdictions.

Regional differences also remain. Chainalysis said direct exposure monitoring is broadly uniform across regions, while indirect exposure thresholds vary more significantly. EMEA organisations generally apply the strictest and most concentrated thresholds, while APAC organisations show more lenient and varied configurations.

Chainalysis said the findings show a compliance sector in transition, with stronger direct exposure monitoring but continuing inconsistency in how organisations treat indirect risk.

Why does it matter?

The findings point to a maturing crypto compliance environment, especially as traditional financial institutions expand into digital assets. However, the persistent gap in indirect exposure shows that illicit actors may still find room to exploit inconsistent monitoring practices. As funds move through intermediary wallets and cross-regional networks, calibration of indirect risk controls is becoming a key issue for regulatory defensibility, counterparty due diligence, and institutional trust in digital asset markets.

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

European Union reviews platform power in third annual Digital Markets Act report

The European Commission has published its first formal review of the Digital Markets Act, assessing how the regulation is affecting large online platforms and digital market competition across the European Union.

The review says the DMA has already produced visible changes in some areas, including greater user choice through third-party app stores and prompts allowing users to select browsers or search engines. However, it also points to continuing challenges in implementation and enforcement.

Enforcement has become a central part of the assessment. In April 2025, Apple was fined €500 million for blocking developers from directing users to cheaper purchasing options, while Meta was fined €200 million over its ‘consent or pay’ model. Both companies are appealing the decisions.

The Commission also highlighted ongoing compliance and procedural difficulties. According to the review, investigations are taking around twice as long as the 12-month target, while legal procedures are being used to slow compliance.

The assessment raises broader questions about whether the DMA should eventually cover fast-growing areas such as AI tools and cloud platforms. The review presents the regulation as an evolving framework whose long-term impact will depend on consistent enforcement and adaptation to new market realities.

Why does it matter?

The review indicates that the Digital Markets Act is transitioning from establishing rules to a more challenging phase of enforcement. Initial changes suggest that the law is starting to influence the behaviour of platforms. However, delays, appeals, and uncertainties regarding AI and cloud services demonstrate that the European Union’s digital competition framework will need to continuously adapt as the power of platforms shifts into new areas of the digital economy.

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

UK expands regulatory and infrastructure plans for digital finance

The Bank of England plans to publish draft rules for systemic stablecoins in June, as part of the UK’s broader digital asset regulatory framework.

Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden outlined the plans during the City Week conference in London.

According to officials, regulators are reviewing earlier proposals following industry feedback related to compliance and market impact. The proposals may include limits on overall stablecoin issuance and requirements for banks issuing stablecoins through separate legal entities.

Authorities are also considering branding requirements intended to distinguish stablecoins from insured bank deposits.

Breeden also referred to growing institutional interest in tokenised financial markets and distributed ledger-based settlement systems.

Several financial institutions, including HSBC, Euroclear, and London Stock Exchange Group, are expected to participate in the UK’s digital securities sandbox later this year.

Alongside private-sector initiatives, the Bank of England is also upgrading its Real-Time Gross Settlement infrastructure and exploring pilot projects involving tokenised government debt instruments. Authorities additionally aim to extend settlement operating hours toward near-continuous availability by the early 2030s.

Why does it matter? 

The UK’s push to regulate stablecoins and support tokenized finance highlights how major economies are increasingly competing to become leading hubs for digital financial innovation.

Decisions taken by the Bank of England could influence how traditional banking, payments, and capital markets evolve globally as governments and institutions move toward blockchain-based financial infrastructure.

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