Jurisdiction Archives | Page 2 of 134 | Digital Watch Observatory

Publishers challenge OpenAI over alleged copyright infringement

Legal pressure is increasing on OpenAI as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster file a lawsuit accusing the company of large-scale copyright violations.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 copyrighted articles were allegedly used without authorisation to train large language models. Publishers also argue that AI-generated outputs can reproduce parts of their content, raising concerns about unauthorised distribution.

Additional claims focus on how AI systems retrieve and present information. The lawsuit argues that retrieval-augmented generation tools may rely on proprietary databases, potentially undermining publishers’ business models by reducing traffic to original sources.

Concerns are also raised about inaccurate outputs attributed to publishers, which could affect trust in established information providers. The case highlights ongoing tensions between AI development and intellectual property protections.

Growing legal disputes involving media organisations, including The New York Times, suggest that courts will play a key role in defining how copyrighted material can be used in AI training.

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

ECA Digital law raises pressure on Big Tech in Brazil

Brazil is set to enforce a new law aimed at strengthening protections for children online, marking a significant shift in how digital platforms are regulated in the country. The legislation, known as ECA Digital, introduces stricter rules for technology companies and will test whether stronger oversight can translate into real-world impact.

The law, which takes effect this week, allows authorities to impose warnings and fines of up to $10 million for violations. In severe cases, courts may order the suspension or banning of platforms operating in B razil. The measure was passed rapidly following public outrage over online content involving the sexualisation of minors.

ECA Digital builds on Brazil’s existing child protection framework and adapts it to the digital environment. It introduces obligations such as age verification, stricter content moderation, and mechanisms to remove harmful material involving minors without requiring a court order.

The law also targets platform design, requiring companies to limit features that may encourage compulsive use among children. This includes restrictions on excessive notifications, profiling for targeted advertising, and design elements that prolong user engagement.

Enforcement of ECA Digital will be led by Brazil’s data protection authority, ANPD, alongside a new screening centre within the Federal Police. However, implementation challenges remain, including limited regulatory capacity and the short timeline between the law’s approval and enforcement.

Experts say the law reflects a broader global trend, with dozens of countries considering similar measures. While technology companies have introduced tools such as age verification and parental controls, critics argue that bigger changes to platform design and content moderation are still needed.

Brazil’s experience may serve as a test case for how governments balance child protection, platform responsibility, and enforcement capacity. The effectiveness of ECA Digital will depend not only on its legal framework but also on how rigorously it is applied in practice.

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

xAI faces lawsuit over alleged misuse of AI image generation

Legal action has been filed against xAI in a US federal court, with plaintiffs alleging that its AI system Grok was used to generate harmful and explicitly manipulated images of minors.

The lawsuit claims that xAI failed to implement adequate safeguards to prevent the creation of such content, despite similar protections adopted by other AI developers.

According to the filing, the technology enabled the transformation of real images into explicit material without sufficient restrictions.

Plaintiffs seek to establish a class action, arguing that the company should be held accountable for both direct and third-party uses of its models. Legal arguments focus on whether responsibility extends to external applications built using the same underlying AI systems.

The case also highlights broader regulatory challenges surrounding AI-generated content, particularly the difficulty of preventing misuse when systems can modify real images. Questions around platform liability, safety standards, and enforcement are likely to shape future policy discussions.

Growing scrutiny of AI developers reflects increasing concern over how generative systems are deployed, especially in contexts involving sensitive or harmful content.

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

EU adopts cyber-related sanctions on companies based in China and Iran

The European Union imposed sanctions on two China-based companies and one Iranian company in connection with cyber operations targeting the EU member states. The Council’s official press release does not specify the underlying operations. The designated entities are Integrity Technology Group and Anxun Information Technology, both based in China, and Emennet Pasargad, based in Iran.

According to an EU statement, Integrity Technology is assessed to have facilitated the compromise of over 65,000 devices across six member states. Anxun is assessed to have provided offensive cyber capabilities targeting critical infrastructure, and two of the company’s co-founders have been individually designated for their roles in these operations.

Emennet is assessed to have a compromised digital advertising infrastructure to disseminate disinformation during the 2024 Paris Olympics.

The sanctions entail an asset freeze and a travel ban for the listed individuals. The EU citizens and entities are additionally prohibited from making funds available to the designated companies.

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

EU reviews X compliance proposal under Digital Services Act

X has submitted a compliance proposal to the European Commission outlining how it intends to modify its blue check verification system following regulatory concerns under the Digital Services Act.

The EU regulators concluded that the platform’s system allowed users to obtain verification simply by paying for a subscription without meaningful identity checks, potentially misleading users about the authenticity of accounts.

The Commission imposed a €120 million fine in December and gave the company 60 working days to propose corrective measures. Officials confirmed that X met the deadline for submitting a plan, which regulators will now assess.

The platform, owned by Elon Musk, must also pay the penalty while the Commission evaluates the proposed changes. The company has challenged the enforcement decision before the EU’s General Court.

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

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!