Jurisdiction Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

DIGITALEUROPE urges changes to EU AI Act rules for industry

European industry representatives are urging policymakers to reconsider parts of the EU AI Act, arguing that the current framework could impose significant compliance costs on companies developing AI tools for industrial and medical technologies.

According to Cecilia Bonfeld-Dahl, director-general of DIGITALEUROPE, manufacturers of high-tech machines, medical devices, and radio equipment are already subject to strict product safety regulations. Adding AI-specific requirements could create unnecessary administrative burdens for companies already heavily regulated. She argues that policymakers should aim for balanced AI regulation that encourages innovation while maintaining safety standards.

Industry groups warn that classifying certain AI systems as high-risk under Annex I of the AI Act could be particularly costly for smaller firms. DIGITALEUROPE estimates that a company with around 50 employees developing an AI-based product could incur initial compliance costs of €320,000 to €600,000, followed by annual expenses of up to €150,000. According to the organisation, such costs could reduce profits significantly and discourage smaller companies from pursuing AI innovation.

Manufacturing and medical technology sectors across Europe employ millions of workers and increasingly rely on AI to improve product performance and safety. Industry representatives argue that many applications, such as AI systems used to enhance industrial equipment safety or improve medical devices, already operate under established regulatory frameworks. These existing frameworks could be adapted rather than introducing additional layers of regulation.

The broader regulatory landscape is also contributing to concerns among technology companies. Over the past six years, the EU has introduced nearly 40 new technology-related regulations, some of which overlap or impose similar compliance requirements. DIGITALEUROPE estimates that compliance with the AI Act could cost companies approximately €3.3 billion annually, while cybersecurity and data-sharing regulations add further financial obligations.

Industry leaders warn that rising compliance costs could affect investment in AI development across Europe. Current estimates suggest that the EU accounts for about 7.5% of global AI investment, significantly behind the United States and China.

DIGITALEUROPE has called on the EU institutions to consider postponing parts of the AI Act’s implementation timeline to allow further discussion on how high-risk AI systems should be defined. Supporters of this approach argue that additional consultation could help ensure the regulatory framework protects consumers while also enabling European companies to compete globally in the rapidly evolving AI sector.

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

Telegram faces global outages as Russia slows service

Users of the messaging app Telegram have experienced outages in multiple regions over the past 24 hours, with the largest volume of complaints coming from Russia. Reports from the US, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway suggest the issues could be global.

Difficulties primarily affected the mobile app, with users reporting login issues, messaging delays, and limited access to features. In Russia, outages result from traffic slowdowns by Roskomnadzor, with similar restrictions affecting WhatsApp.

Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, has criticised the Russian government’s actions, arguing that authorities aim to push citizens towards a state-controlled alternative, the ‘Max’ messenger.

Despite Telegram overtaking WhatsApp in Russia with over 95 million active users, Max has now surpassed 100 million users, showing the Kremlin’s growing influence over digital communications.

Russian authorities have stated that Telegram must comply with local laws, moderate content, and consider data localisation to avoid further restrictions. Durov has reaffirmed the platform’s commitment to protecting user privacy and upholding freedom of speech.

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

UK watchdog demands stronger child safety on social platforms

The British communications regulator Ofcom has called on major technology companies to enforce stricter age controls and improve safety protections for children using online platforms.

The warning targets services widely used by young audiences, including Facebook, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

Regulators said that despite existing minimum age policies, large numbers of children under the age of 13 continue to access platforms intended for older users.

According to Ofcom research, more than 70 percent of children aged 8 to 12 regularly use such services.

Authorities have asked companies to demonstrate how they will strengthen protections and ensure compliance with minimum age requirements.

Platforms must present their plans by 30 April, after which Ofcom will publish an assessment of their responses and determine whether further regulatory action is necessary.

The regulator also outlined several key areas requiring improvement.

Companies in the UK are expected to implement more effective age-verification systems, strengthen protections against online grooming and ensure that recommendation algorithms do not expose children to harmful content.

Another concern involves product development practices.

Ofcom warned that new digital features, including AI tools, should not be tested on children without adequate safety assessments. Platforms are required to evaluate potential risks before launching significant updates.

The measures are part of the UK’s broader regulatory framework introduced under the Online Safety Act, which aims to reduce exposure to harmful online material.

The law requires platforms to prevent children from accessing content linked to pornography, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, while limiting the promotion of violent or abusive material in recommendation feeds.

Ofcom indicated that enforcement action may follow if companies fail to demonstrate meaningful improvements. Regulators argue that stronger safeguards are necessary to restore public trust and ensure that digital platforms prioritise child safety in their design and operation.

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

EU competition regulators expand scrutiny across the entire AI ecosystem

Competition authorities in the EU are broadening their oversight of the AI sector, examining every layer of the technology’s value chain.

Speaking at a conference in Berlin, Teresa Ribera explained that regulators are analysing the full ‘AI stack’ instead of focusing solely on consumer applications.

According to the competition chief, scrutiny extends beyond visible AI tools to the systems that support them. Investigations are assessing underlying models, the data used to train those models, as well as cloud infrastructure and energy resources that power AI systems.

Regulatory attention has already reached the application layer.

The European Commission opened an investigation in 2025 involving Meta after concerns emerged that the company could restrict competing AI assistants on its messaging platform WhatsApp.

Following regulatory pressure, Meta proposed allowing rival AI chatbots on the platform in exchange for a fee. European regulators are now assessing the proposal to determine whether additional intervention is necessary to preserve fair competition in rapidly evolving digital markets.

Authorities have also examined concentration risks across other parts of the AI ecosystem, including the infrastructure layer dominated by companies such as Nvidia.

Regulators argue that effective competition oversight must address the entire technology stack as AI markets expand quickly.

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

EU privacy watchdogs warn over US plans to expand traveller data collection

European privacy authorities have raised concerns about proposed changes to the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation that could require travellers to the US to disclose extensive personal information, including social media activity.

The European Data Protection Board, which coordinates national data protection authorities across the EU, sent a letter to the European Commission asking whether the institution plans to intervene or respond to the updated requirements.

A proposal that would apply to visitors entering the US through the visa-waiver programme for short stays of up to 90 days.

Under the proposed changes, travellers may be required to provide details about their social media accounts covering the previous five years.

Authorities could also request personal data about family members, including addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth, information that privacy regulators argue is unrelated to travel authorisation.

Watchdogs also questioned how EU citizens could exercise their data protection rights once such information is transferred to US authorities, particularly regarding storage periods and potential misuse.

Parallel negotiations between the EU and the US have also attracted attention.

Discussions around a potential Enhanced Border Security Partnerships framework could allow US authorities to seek access to biometric databases held by European countries, including facial scans and fingerprint records.

European privacy regulators warned that such measures could raise significant concerns regarding fundamental rights and personal data protection for travellers from the EU.

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

Deepfakes in campaign ads expose limits of Texas election law

AI-generated political advertisements are becoming increasingly visible in Texas election campaigns, highlighting gaps in existing laws designed to regulate deepfakes in political messaging.

Texas was the first state in the United States to adopt legislation restricting the use of deepfakes in campaign advertisements. However, the law applies only to state-level races. It does not cover federal contests, including the US Senate race that has dominated advertising spending in Texas and featured several AI-generated campaign ads.

Some lawmakers and experts warn that the growing use of AI-generated political content could complicate election campaigns. During recent primary contests, campaign advertisements featuring manipulated or synthetic images of political figures circulated widely across media platforms.

State Senator Nathan Johnson, who has proposed legislation to strengthen the state’s rules regarding deepfakes, said the rapid evolution of AI technology makes the issue increasingly urgent. Johnson argues that voters should be able to make decisions based on accurate information rather than manipulated media.

The current Texas law, adopted in 2019, contains several limitations. It only applies to video content, requires proof of intent to deceive or harm a candidate, and covers material distributed within 30 days of an election. Critics say these restrictions make the law difficult to enforce and limit its practical impact.

Lawmakers from both parties attempted to address some of these issues during the most recent legislative session. Proposed reforms included removing the 30-day restriction, requiring clear disclosure when AI is used in political advertising, and allowing candidates to pursue legal action to block misleading ads. Although both chambers of the Texas legislature passed versions of the legislation, the proposals ultimately failed to become law.

Supporters of stricter regulation argue that the rapid advancement of generative AI tools is making it harder to distinguish synthetic media from authentic content. Some political leaders warn that increasingly realistic deepfakes could eventually influence election outcomes.

Others, however, caution that regulating political content raises constitutional concerns. Some lawmakers argue that many AI-generated political ads resemble satire or parody, forms of political speech protected by the First Amendment.

At the federal level, regulation of congressional campaign advertising falls under the Federal Election Commission’s authority. In 2024, the agency declined to begin a formal rulemaking process on AI-generated political ads, leaving states and policymakers to continue debating how to address the emerging issue.

Experts warn that as AI tools continue to improve, distinguishing authentic political messaging from deepfakes and other forms of synthetic content will likely become more complex.

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

Anthropic lawsuit gains Big Tech support in AI dispute

Several major US technology companies have backed Anthropic in its lawsuit challenging the US Department of Defence’s decision to label the AI company a national security ‘supply chain risk’.

Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft have filed legal briefs supporting Anthropic’s attempt to overturn the designation issued by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Anthropic argues the decision was retaliation after the company declined to allow its AI systems to be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons.

In court filings, the companies warned that the government’s action could have wider consequences for the technology sector. Microsoft said the decision could have ‘broad negative ramifications for the entire technology sector’.

Microsoft, which works closely with the US government and the Department of Defence, said it agreed with Anthropic’s position that AI systems should not be used to conduct domestic mass surveillance or enable autonomous machines to initiate warfare.

A joint amicus brief supporting Anthropic was also submitted by the Chamber of Progress, a technology policy organisation funded by companies including Google, Apple, Amazon and Nvidia. The group said it was concerned about the government penalising a company for its public statements.

The brief described the designation as ‘a potentially ruinous sanction’ for businesses and warned it could create a climate in which companies fear government retaliation for expressing views.

Anthropic’s lawsuit claims the government violated its free speech rights by retaliating against the company for comments made by its leadership. The dispute escalated after Anthropic declined to remove contractual restrictions preventing its AI models from being used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons.

The company had previously introduced safeguards in government contracts to limit certain uses of its technology. Negotiations over revised contract language continued for several weeks before the disagreement became public.

Former military officials and technology policy advocates have also filed supporting briefs, warning that the decision could discourage companies from participating in national security projects if they fear retaliation for voicing concerns. The case is currently being heard in federal court in San Francisco.

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

AI and quantum computing reshape the global cybersecurity landscape

Cybersecurity risks are increasing as digital connectivity expands across governments, businesses and households.

According to Thales Group, a growing number of connected devices and digital services has significantly expanded the potential entry points for cyberattacks.

AI is reshaping the cybersecurity landscape by enabling attackers to identify vulnerabilities at unprecedented speed.

Security specialists increasingly describe the environment as a contest in which defensive systems must deploy AI to counter adversaries using similar technologies to exploit weaknesses in digital infrastructure.

Security concerns also extend beyond large institutions. Connected devices in homes, including smart cameras and speakers, often lack robust security protections, increasing exposure for individuals and networks.

Policymakers in Europe are responding through measures such as the Cyber Resilience Act, which will introduce mandatory security requirements for connected products sold in the EU.

Long-term risks are also emerging from advances in quantum computing.

Experts warn that powerful future machines could eventually break widely used encryption systems that currently protect communications, financial data and government networks, prompting organisations to adopt quantum-resistant security methods.

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

EU lawmakers call for stronger copyright safeguards in AI training

The European Parliament has adopted a report urging policymakers to establish a long-term framework protecting copyrighted works used in AI training.

These recommendations aim to ensure that creative industries retain transparency and fair treatment as generative AI technologies expand.

Among the central proposals is the creation of a European register managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office. The database would list copyrighted works used to train AI systems and identify creators who have chosen to exclude their content from such use.

Lawmakers in the EU are also calling for greater transparency from AI developers, including disclosure of the websites from which training data has been collected. According to the report, failing to meet transparency requirements could raise questions about compliance with existing copyright rules.

The recommendations have received mixed reactions from industry stakeholders.

Organisations representing creators argue that stronger safeguards are necessary to ensure fair remuneration and legal clarity, while technology sector groups caution that additional requirements could create complexity for companies developing AI systems.

The report is not legally binding but signals the political direction of ongoing European discussions on copyright and AI governance.

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

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!