Digital standards Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

EPO places AI and quality at the centre of SACEPO discussions

The European Patent Office used the 58th meeting of the Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO to discuss patent quality, AI and the digital transformation of the European patent system.

The annual Main SACEPO meeting brought together users of the patent system to review the EPO’s Quality Action Plan 2026, legal changes, the Unitary Patent system and activities of the EPO Observatory and IP Lab.

A key focus was the use of AI to support the patent-granting process. The EPO said AI tools are intended to help examiners improve efficiency, consistency and completeness, while all patent decisions remain under human responsibility.

Participants also discussed progress on quality measures, stakeholder feedback and continued investment in examiner expertise, quality assurance and user engagement.

The meeting reviewed the EPO’s transition to a paperless patent-granting process, planned for April 2027, as well as updates to MyEPO services and DOCX filing.

Discussions also covered recent legal changes, the operational development of the Unitary Patent system, patent validation agreements, implementation of the WIPO treaty on genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and new activities from the EPO Observatory on Patents and Technology.

Why does it matter?

The meeting shows how AI is becoming part of the everyday infrastructure of patent administration. For patent offices, AI can support searches, classification, workflows and consistency, but legal certainty still depends on human responsibility and procedural safeguards. The EPO’s approach also reflects a wider shift towards fully digital public services in intellectual property, where automation, quality control and user trust need to develop together.

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

Google Cloud urges changes to EU tech sovereignty plans

Google Cloud has urged EU policymakers to revise parts of the European Commission’s Tech Sovereignty Package, arguing that some proposed cloud sovereignty measures could unintentionally isolate the European digital market.

In a policy statement, Giorgia Abeltino, Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy for Google Cloud in EMEA, said Europe requires significant investment in digital infrastructure to strengthen competitiveness, security and technological sovereignty. She said the EU is considering how to expand its digital footprint across chips, cloud adoption, and AI data infrastructure.

Google Cloud said it supports the Commission’s emphasis on openness, partnerships and fair competition, particularly measures aimed at interoperability and reducing vendor lock-in. It welcomed measures on interoperability, efforts to address vendor lock-in, an open source strategy for the public sector, and faster data centre deployment.

However, the company said certain elements of the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act should be changed to avoid unintended market isolation. Google Cloud said trusted global partners should be able to continue supporting Europe’s security and scaling goals under an open framework.

The company said its vision of technological sovereignty is based on verifiable technical controls, customer choice and continued investment in European digital infrastructure. It pointed to its sovereign cloud services, including standard public cloud configurations with European data boundaries, independently operated regional cloud services, and air-gapped solutions for sensitive public-sector operations.

Google Cloud also highlighted partnerships with European companies, including S3NS in France; Thales, Schwarz Group, and T-Systems in Germany; PSN in Italy; Clarence in Luxembourg; and Telefónica in Spain. It said these partnerships support operational resilience and jurisdictional controls under existing national tech sovereignty frameworks.

The company said the S3NS offering in France has been qualified under SecNumCloud 3.2. It also said Clarence and S3NS, together with Mistral, offer services approved by the EU Directorate-General for Digital Services for use by EU institutions with sovereign cloud needs.

Google Cloud also raised concerns about the proposed Union Assurance Levels within the Cloud and AI Development Act. It said harmonising sovereignty criteria across Member States is useful, but argued that the proposed criteria could limit or exclude global providers regardless of the security safeguards they offer.

The company said EU rules should allow technical approaches to sovereign control rather than relying too heavily on geographic criteria. The company cited its Cloud External Key Manager as an example of a technical sovereignty mechanism that allows customers to retain control of encryption keys outside Google’s infrastructure.

Google Cloud also called for the Cloud and AI Development Act to follow a more balanced approach similar to the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act. The company said trusted non-EU partners should be able to operate as EU-origin under clear conditions, backed by trade rules and safeguards.

The company also backed the package’s goal of promoting interoperability and reducing vendor lock-in. It said tech sovereignty should increase user choice and argued for reforms allowing users to move software licences freely, ensuring fair pricing for legacy software, and guaranteeing that software runs equally well on any cloud platform.

Google Cloud said physical compute infrastructure is central to digital tech sovereignty. It welcomed the ambitions of Chips Act 2.0 and the proposed €30 billion investment in European semiconductor research and development, but said Europe also needs regulatory conditions that attract large-scale compute infrastructure investment.

The company said it operates 13 European cloud regions and has recently invested in Germany, Belgium, and Sweden. It welcomed proposed special project status for data infrastructure projects to streamline permitting, grid access, and power purchase agreements.

Google Cloud said fast-track permitting should prioritise highly sustainable infrastructure projects. It also called for national sustainability criteria to align with the upcoming EU-wide rating scheme and said acceleration zones should not artificially restrict where new data centres can be built.

The company said Europe has an opportunity to build a resilient, competitive and open digital future. It said global innovation and European values can be advanced together through open source software, sovereign cloud partnerships and collaboration with European policymakers and regional partners.

Why does it matter?

The debate highlights a central challenge in Europe’s digital policy agenda: how to strengthen technological sovereignty without undermining openness, competition and access to global innovation. As the EU seeks greater control over critical digital infrastructure, cloud services and AI capabilities, policymakers must decide whether sovereignty should be defined primarily by ownership and geography or by technical safeguards and operational control.

The outcome could have significant implications for the future European cloud and AI market. Rules governing sovereign cloud services, data infrastructure and assurance standards will influence investment decisions, public-sector procurement, competition among providers and Europe’s ability to develop advanced AI capabilities. The discussion also reflects broader tensions between strategic autonomy and international technology partnerships that are increasingly shaping digital policy worldwide.

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

European Commission opens applications for RAISE AI research advisory board

The European Commission has opened applications for the RAISE High-Level Academic Advisory Board, inviting leading researchers in AI and AI-enabled science to help shape Europe’s future AI research agenda.

The advisory board will support the implementation of the EU’s AI in Science Strategy and provide independent scientific guidance on the development of RAISE (Resource for AI Science in Europe).

RAISE was launched in 2025 under Horizon Europe to strengthen European leadership in both fundamental AI research and the application of AI across scientific disciplines.

The Commission is seeking academics with expertise in AI research or experience applying AI in fields such as medicine, climate science and advanced materials. Board members will provide strategic recommendations on research priorities, governance structures, benchmarks and framework conditions needed to accelerate AI-enabled scientific discovery.

Through RAISE, the EU aims to bring together leading researchers, computational resources, data and funding within a coordinated ecosystem that supports scientific excellence and strengthens Europe’s position in global AI research and innovation.

Why does it matter?

The initiative reflects growing recognition that AI is becoming a foundational tool for scientific discovery across disciplines ranging from healthcare and climate research to materials science and physics. Governments are increasingly investing in AI research infrastructure to ensure that researchers have access to the computing power, data and expertise needed to remain globally competitive.

The advisory board also highlights Europe’s ambition to play a larger role in shaping the future of AI-enabled science. By coordinating talent, infrastructure and funding through initiatives such as RAISE, the EU aims to strengthen both its scientific capacity and its position in the global race for AI innovation.

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

Humanists UK urges government to adopt human-centred AI principles

Humanists UK has urged the UK government to place human dignity, democratic oversight and human flourishing at the centre of AI governance.

The call followed a House of Lords debate on the impact of AI on human relationships and society, during which peers discussed the ethical, social and regulatory challenges raised by rapidly advancing AI systems.

Humanists UK pointed out to the government the Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values, adopted by Humanists International in 2025. The declaration argues that AI should support human judgement, the common good, democratic governance, transparency, autonomy and protection from harm.

Lord Michael Cashman, a patron of Humanists UK and member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, urged the government not to ‘reinvent the wheel’ and said the declaration already sets out principles relevant to AI governance.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones said the debate showed a convergence of values across different traditions, including the need for democratic oversight, transparency and safeguards to ensure AI serves human beings rather than replacing them.

Responding for the government, Digital Economy Minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra said AI is already changing the economy, public services and human relationships. She said the government’s responsibility is to ensure that the transformation strengthens rather than diminishes the fabric of society.

Humanists UK said it has written to Baroness Lloyd and shared a copy of the Luxembourg Declaration.

Why does it matter?

The story reflects the growing role of civil society, religious groups and ethical movements in AI governance debates. While it does not signal a new UK policy, it shows how discussions on AI safety are broadening beyond technical risk to include human dignity, democratic accountability, transparency, autonomy and the public interest. Such value-based frameworks may influence how governments frame future AI regulation, assurance and safeguards.

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

Yale proposal targets transparency gap in AI development

Researchers at Yale’s Digital Ethics Center have proposed a copyleft-style licensing framework intended to increase transparency around generative AI models trained on open-source software.

The proposal, called the Contextual Copyleft AI License, would adapt principles from free and open-source software licensing to generative AI. Under the model, AI systems trained on open-source code could be treated as derivative works, requiring developers to make key information about model architecture and training data freely available.

The researchers argue that such a framework could give open-source software developers more control over how their code is used in AI development. They also say it could encourage more genuinely open AI models and reduce ‘open washing’, where systems are marketed as open despite keeping important components closed.

The proposal comes amid wider debates over AI transparency, copyright and the role of open-source software in the development of generative AI. The researchers conclude that the approach may be legally feasible under current copyright law, provided that training AI models on open-source software is not treated as fair use.

The study also notes that open generative AI models can create risks because they may be used to generate deceptive or harmful content. The researchers argue that licensing approaches need to work alongside regulatory safeguards, including rules designed to limit manipulative or deceptive uses of AI.

Why does it matter?

The proposal addresses a central transparency gap in AI development: many generative AI systems rely on open-source software but do not disclose enough about how that software is used, which data is involved, or how the resulting models work. If similar licensing approaches gained traction, they could reshape debates over AI openness, developer rights, copyright and accountability. The proposal also shows how open-source governance tools are being reconsidered for AI systems whose risks and dependencies differ from traditional software.

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

Netherlands requires one-click cancellation button for online purchases

The Netherlands has announced that online retailers and providers of online services will be required to include a clear cancellation button on their websites from 19 June 2026. The measure is intended to make it easier for consumers to exercise their right of withdrawal during the statutory 14 day cooling off period.

Under the new rules, customers will be able to cancel a purchase or service through a dedicated online button rather than completing a form or contacting customer services. The cancellation button will serve as an additional withdrawal mechanism and will not replace the standard withdrawal form.

After selecting the button, customers will need to confirm that they wish to cancel their purchase or service. Businesses will then be required to send a confirmation message acknowledging receipt of the cancellation request. This is in line with the right of withdrawal under the EU Consumer Rights Directive.

The requirements will apply to online retailers, providers of digital services such as online courses and coaching programmes, and sellers operating through social media platforms. The measure has been approved by the Dutch parliament.

Why does it matter?

The measure reflects a broader European effort to strengthen consumer protection in digital markets. While consumers already have the right to withdraw from many online purchases within a statutory cooling-off period, exercising that right can sometimes involve complex procedures or interactions with customer support.

By requiring a clear and accessible cancellation option, the Netherlands aims to reduce friction in the withdrawal process and improve transparency for consumers. The initiative also reflects growing regulatory attention to user experience and consumer rights in digital commerce, particularly in areas such as subscriptions, online services and social media-based sales.

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

Anthropic forced to disable Fable 5 after US directive

Anthropic has disabled access to Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 after receiving a US government export control directive citing national security authorities.

The company said the directive requires it to suspend access to the models by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. Anthropic said the practical effect is that it must remove access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all customers to ensure compliance. Access to its other models is not affected.

According to Anthropic, it received the directive on 12 June at 5:21 p.m. ET. The company said the order did not provide specific details of the national security concern, but that it understands the government believes it has become aware of a method for bypassing, or jailbreaking, Fable 5.

Anthropic said it reviewed a demonstration of the technique being used to identify a small number of previously known minor vulnerabilities. The company argued that those vulnerabilities appeared relatively simple and could also be identified by other publicly available models without requiring a bypass.

Anthropic said Fable 5 had been red-teamed before launch by its internal teams, the US government, the UK AI Safety Institute and third-party organisations. The company said no tester had found a universal jailbreak capable of broadly bypassing the model’s safeguards.

The company said it is complying with the directive but disagrees that a narrow potential jailbreak should justify recalling a commercial model. It also argued that applying such a standard across the industry could effectively halt new frontier model deployments.

Anthropic said governments should be able to block unsafe AI deployments through a transparent and technically grounded statutory process, but said the current action does not meet those principles. The company said it is working to restore access as soon as possible.

Why does it matter?

The case shows how national security and export-control powers can directly affect access to frontier AI systems after deployment. It raises a major governance question: when should governments be able to suspend access to advanced models, and what evidence, transparency and due-process safeguards should apply? The dispute also highlights the growing tension between frontier AI safety, commercial deployment, cross-border access and government intervention in dual-use technologies.

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

EU AI Board reviews AI Act implementation and tech sovereignty agenda

The EU AI Board held its eighth meeting to review progress on AI Act implementation and discuss wider priorities in the EU’s AI strategy.

The meeting took place under the chairmanship of the Cypriot Presidency of the EU Council. The presidency also announced that Moldova had been granted observer status on the AI Board.

The European Commission presented its Tech Sovereignty Package, with a focus on the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act and its role in strengthening AI innovation, competitiveness and technological sovereignty in Europe.

The Board also reviewed the final version of the voluntary Code of Practice on labelling and marking AI-generated content. The code sets out practical steps to help providers and deployers of generative AI systems meet transparency obligations under the AI Act, which will apply from 2 August 2026.

Further discussions focused on the AI Act’s implementation architecture. The Commission presented the recently appointed Scientific Panel and AI Act Advisory Forum, which will support the Commission and the AI Board. Members also discussed progress in establishing national market surveillance authorities and endorsed additional documents prepared by an AI Board subgroup, which are expected to be published shortly.

Why does it matter?

The meeting shows the EU moving from AI Act adoption towards practical implementation. The discussion links several important pieces of the EU AI governance architecture: voluntary transparency tools, expert advisory bodies, national market surveillance authorities and broader industrial policy through the Tech Sovereignty Package. Together, these elements will shape how AI rules are coordinated, interpreted and enforced across the EU.

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

Canada introduces Safe Social Media Act targeting online harms and AI chatbots

Canada has introduced the Safe Social Media Act, legislation that would establish new online safety requirements for social media platforms and certain AI chatbot services. Bill C-34 aims to make regulated services more accountable for addressing online harms before they occur.

The Safe Social Media Act would create a new legislative and regulatory framework through the proposed Digital Safety Act. Regulated services would be required to identify, assess and mitigate risks on their platforms, implement safety-by-design features, make user guidelines easily accessible, provide tools such as blocking and reporting mechanisms, and publish Digital Safety Plans.

The bill would prohibit children under the age of 16 from holding social media accounts. Social media services could seek an exemption if they demonstrate that sufficient safeguards for children are in place.

The Safe Social Media Act is organised around three core duties: a Duty to Protect Children, a Duty to Act Responsibly and a Duty to Make Certain Content Inaccessible. Social media services would be required to assess and mitigate risks associated with seven categories of harmful content, including child sexual victimisation, content inducing a child to self-harm, cyberbullying, hatred, violence, terrorism or violent extremism, and intimate content shared without consent.

Regulated social media services would also be required to make certain content inaccessible to users in Canada, including content that sexually victimises a child or revictimises a survivor, and intimate content communicated without consent, including sexualised deepfakes. The government said these categories can cause substantial and lasting harm even when a single item is shared.

Under the proposed legislation, AI chatbot services would be subject to a tailored Duty to Act Responsibly. The proposed requirements include mitigating the risk that chatbots communicate harmful content, being transparent about reporting thresholds in crisis situations, and reducing the risk of harmful chatbot behaviour.

The legislation would establish an independent Digital Safety Commission of Canada responsible for enforcing the framework, assessing compliance, conducting audits and inspections, issuing compliance orders and imposing administrative monetary penalties. The Commission would also handle certain complaints, develop guidance and support research on online safety best practices.

Why does it matter?

The Safe Social Media Act reflects a growing international shift towards preventative online safety regulation. Rather than focusing solely on the removal of illegal content after it appears, the proposed framework would require platforms and AI services to assess risks proactively and implement measures designed to reduce harm before it occurs.

The inclusion of AI chatbot services is particularly notable, as governments worldwide are increasingly examining the safety implications of generative AI systems. If adopted, the legislation could position Canada among the first countries to apply a comprehensive online safety framework that combines platform accountability, child protection measures and AI-specific obligations under a single regulatory regime.

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

EU publishes the final Code for labelling AI-generated content

The European Commission has published the final Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content, offering practical guidance for providers and deployers preparing to comply with transparency obligations under the EU AI Act.

The code is voluntary, but the underlying transparency obligations in Article 50 of the AI Act will apply from 2 August 2026. The Commission said the code is intended to help organisations implement those obligations in a consistent, practical and proportionate way.

The framework covers two main areas. Providers of generative AI systems are guided on marking and detecting AI-generated or manipulated audio, image, video and text content, including through machine-readable solutions where technically feasible. Deployers are guided on labelling deepfakes and AI-generated or manipulated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest.

Under the AI Act, users must also be informed when they are interacting with interactive AI systems, such as chatbots. The transparency requirements are intended to help people recognise when content has been generated or altered by AI and to reduce the risk of deception and manipulation.

The Commission has also published a set of the EU icons that deployers may use to label certain AI-generated content. The code does not replace the AI Act or future Commission guidelines on Article 50, which are expected before the transparency obligations begin to apply.

The Commission and the AI Board will now assess the code’s adequacy. If assessed positively, providers and deployers who sign the code may use its measures to help demonstrate compliance with the AI Act’s transparency rules.

Why does it matter?

The code is an important step in turning the AI Act’s transparency provisions into operational practice. Labelling and machine-readable marking rules could shape how platforms, AI providers, media organisations and other deployers handle synthetic text, images, audio and video. The measures are especially relevant for public-interest information, where undisclosed AI-generated or manipulated content can affect trust, elections, journalism and public debate.

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