The European Commission has confirmed it will again delay publishing guidance on high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act. The guidelines were due by 2 February 2026, but will now follow a revised timeline.
According to Euractiv, the document is intended to clarify which AI systems fall into the high-risk category and therefore face stricter obligations. Officials said more time is needed to incorporate significant stakeholder feedback.
The delay marks the second missed deadline and adds to broader implementation setbacks surrounding the EU AI Act. Several member states have yet to designate national enforcement bodies, complicating oversight preparations.
Brussels is also considering postponing the application of high-risk rules through a digital simplification package. Parliament and Council appear supportive of moving the August deadline back by more than a year, easing pressure on companies awaiting guidance.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
X Corp., owned by Elon Musk, has filed an appeal with the General Court of the European Union against a €120 million fine imposed by the European Commission for breaching the Digital Services Act. The penalty, issued in December, marks the first enforcement action under the 2022 law.
The Commission concluded that X violated transparency obligations and misled users through its verification design, arguing that paid blue checkmarks made it harder to assess account authenticity. Officials also cited concerns about advertising transparency and researchers’ access to platform data.
Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy, said deceptive verification and opaque advertising had no place online. The Commission opened its probe in December 2023, examining risk management, moderation practices, and alleged dark patterns.
X Corp. argued that the decision followed an incomplete investigation and a flawed reading of the DSA, citing procedural errors and due-process concerns. It said the appeal could shape future enforcement standards and penalty calculations under the regulation.
The EU is also assessing whether X mitigated systemic risks, including deepfaked content and child sexual abuse material linked to its Grok chatbot. US critics describe DSA enforcement as a threat to free speech, while EU officials say it strengthens accountability across the digital single market.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A draft data-sharing agreement between the EU and the US Department of Homeland Security would allow automated decisions about European travellers to continue under certain conditions, despite attempts to tighten protections.
The text permits such decisions when authorised under domestic law and relies on safeguards that let individuals request human intervention instead of leaving outcomes entirely to algorithms.
A deal designed to preserve visa-free travel would require national authorities to grant access to biometric databases containing fingerprints and facial scans.
Negotiators are attempting to reconcile the framework with the General Data Protection Regulation, even though the draft states that the new rules would supplement and supersede earlier bilateral arrangements.
Sensitive information, including political views, trade union membership and biometric identifiers, could be transferred as long as protective conditions are applied.
EU countries face a deadline at the end of 2026 to conclude individual agreements, and failure to do so could result in suspension from the US Visa Waiver Program.
A separate clause keeps disputes firmly outside judicial scrutiny by requiring disagreements to be resolved through a Joint Committee instead of national or international courts.
The draft also restricts onward sharing, obliging US authorities to seek explicit consent before passing European-supplied data to third parties.
Further negotiations are expected, with the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs preparing to hold a closed-door review of the talks.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Governments across the EU have withdrawn the revised definition of personal data from the GDPR omnibus package, softening earlier proposals that had prompted strong resistance from regulators and civil society.
A decision that signals a preference for maintaining the original scope of the General Data Protection Regulation instead of reopening sensitive debates that risked weakening long-standing protections.
Greater attention is now placed on the forthcoming pseudonymisation guidelines prepared by the European Data Protection Board. These guidelines are expected to shape how organisations interpret key safeguards, offering practical direction instead of altering the legal definition of personal data.
The updated prominence given to the guidance reflects a broader trend within the Council towards regulatory clarity rather than legislative redesign.
The compromise text also maintains links with the wider review of the ePrivacy Directive, keeping future updates aligned with existing digital-rights rules.
Member states appear increasingly cautious about reopening foundational privacy concepts, opting to strengthen enforcement through guidance and implementation rather than altering core definitions in law.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Italy has warned that digital addiction among teenagers is rising sharply, as health authorities link excessive social media and gaming use to family and educational challenges. Officials say bans alone will not resolve the issue.
According to Italy’s National Institute of Health, about 100,000 young people aged 15 to 18 are at risk of social media addiction. A further 500,000 are estimated to suffer from gaming disorder, recognised by the World Health Organisation as a medical condition.
A survey by digital ethics group Social Warning found that 77 percent of Italian teenagers consider themselves addicted to their devices. However, many say they lack the tools or support to change their behaviour.
Research by ‘Con i Bambini’, which funds projects tackling educational poverty in Italy, links digital dependency to isolation and strained parental relationships. The organisation says legislative measures can protect minors but cannot replace structured education and family support.
The debate extends across the EU. The European Parliament has called for a minimum age of 16 for social media platforms, while France, Italy, and Spain are considering national restrictions. Experts argue that prevention and digital literacy must complement regulation.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Institutions, researchers, and media organisations in the EU are intensifying efforts to use AI to counter disinformation, even as concerns grow about the wider impact on media freedom and public trust.
Confidence in journalism has fallen sharply across the EU, a trend made more severe by the rapid deployment of AI systems that reshape how information circulates online.
Brussels is attempting to respond with a mix of regulation and strategic investment. The EU’s AI Act is entering its implementation phase, supported by the AI Continent Action Plan and the Apply AI Strategy, both introduced in 2025 to improve competitiveness while protecting rights.
Yet manipulation campaigns continue to spread false narratives across platforms in multiple languages, placing pressure on journalists, fact-checkers and regulators to act with greater speed and precision.
Within such an environment, AI4TRUST has emerged as a prominent Horizon Europe initiative. The consortium is developing an integrated platform that detects disinformation signals, verifies content, and maps information flows for professionals who need real-time insight.
Partners stress the need for tools that strengthen human judgment instead of replacing it, particularly as synthetic media accelerates and shared realities become more fragile.
Experts speaking in Brussels warned that traditional fact-checking cannot absorb the scale of modern manipulation. They highlighted the geopolitical risks created by automated messaging and deepfakes, and argued for transparent, accountable systems tailored to user needs.
European officials emphasised that multiple tools will be required, supported by collaboration across institutions and sustained regulatory frameworks that defend democratic resilience.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Derived from the Latin word ‘superanus’, through the French word ‘souveraineté’, sovereignty can be understood as: ‘the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order’ – Britannica. Digital sovereignty, specifically European digital sovereignty, refers to ‘Europe’s ability to act independently in the digital world’.
In 2020, the European Parliament already identified the consequences of reliance on non-EU technologies. From the economic and social influence of non-EU technology companies, which can undermine user control over their personal data, to the slow growth of the EU technology companies and a limitation on the enforcement of European laws.
Today, these concerns persist. From Romanian election interference on TikTok’s platform, Microsoft’s interference with the ICC, to the Dutch government authentication platform being acquired by a US firm, and booming American and Chinese LLMs compared to European LLMs. The EU is at a crossroads between international reliance and homegrown adoption.
The issue of the EU digital sovereignty has gained momentum in the context of recent and significant shifts in US foreign policy toward its allies. In this environment, the pursuit of the EU digital sovereignty appears as a justified and proportionate response, one that might previously have been perceived as unnecessarily confrontational.
In light of this, this analysis’s main points will discuss the rationale behind the EU digital sovereignty (including dependency, innovation and effective compliance), recent European-centric technological and platform shifts, the steps the EU is taking to successfully be digitally sovereign and finally, examples of European alternatives
Rationale behind the move
The reasons for digital sovereignty can be summed up in three main areas: (I) less dependency on non-EU tech, (ii) leading and innovating technological solutions, and (iii) ensuring better enforcement and subsequent adherence to data protection laws/fundamental rights.
(i) Less dependency: Global geopolitical tensions between US-China/Russia push Europe towards developing its own digital capabilities and secure its supply chains. Insecure supply chain makes Europe vulnerable to failing energy grids.
More recently, US giant Microsoft threatened the International legal order by revoking US-sanctioned International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s Microsoft software access, preventing the Chief Prosecutor from working on his duties at the ICC. In light of these scenarios, Europeans are turning to developing more European-based solutions to reduce upstream dependencies.
(ii) Leaders & innovators: A common argument is that Americans innovate, the Chinese copy, and the Europeans regulate. If the EU aims to be a digital geopolitical player, it must position itself to be a regulator which promotes innovation. It can achieve this by upskilling its workforce of non-digital trades into digital ones to transform its workforce, have more EU digital infrastructure (data centres, cloud storage and management software), further increase innovation spending and create laws that truly allow for the uptake of EU technological development instead of relying on alternative, cheaper non-EU options.
(iii) Effective compliance: Knowing that fines are more difficult to enforce towards non-EU companies than the EU companies (ex., Clearview AI), EU-based technological organisations would allow for corrective measures, warnings, and fines to be enforced more effectively. Thus, enabling more adherence towards the EU’s digital agenda and respect for fundamental rights.
Can the EU achieve Digital Sovereignty?
The main speed bumps towards the EU digital sovereignty are: i) a lack of digital infrastructure (cloud storage & data centres), ii) (critical) raw material dependency and iii) Legislative initiatives to facilitate the path towards digital sovereignty (innovation procurement and fragmented compliance regime).
i) lack of digital infrastructure: In order for the EU to become digitally sovereign it must have its own sovereign digital infrastructure.
In practice, the EU relies heavily on American data centre providers (i.e. Equinix, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services) hosted in the EU. In this case, even though the data is European and hosted in the EU, the company that hosts it is non-European. This poses reliance and legislative challenges, such as ensuring adequate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data when it is in transit to the US. Given the EU-US DPF, there is a legal basis for transferring EU personal data to the US.
However, if the DPF were to be struck down (perhaps due to the US’ Cloud Act), as it has been in the past (twice with Schrems I and Schrems II) and potentially Schrems III, there would no longer be a legal basis for the transfer of the EU personal data to a US data centre.
Previously, the EU’s 2022 Directive on critical entities resilience allowed for the EU countries to identify critical infrastructure and subsequently ensure they take the technical, security and organisational measures to assure their resilience. Part of this Directive covers digital infrastructure, including providers of cloud computing services and providers of data centres. From this, the EU has recently developed guidelines for member states to identify critical entities. However, these guidelines do not anticipate how to achieve resilience and leave this responsibility with member states.
ii) Raw material dependency: The EU cannot be digitally sovereign until it reduces some of its dependencies on other countries’ raw materials to build the hardware necessary to be technologically sovereign. In 2025, the EU’s goals were to create a new roadmap towards critical raw material (CRM) sovereignty to rely on its own energy sources and build infrastructure.
Thus, the RESourceEU Action Plan was born in December 2025. This plan contains 6 pillars: securing supply through knowledge, accelerating and promoting projects, using the circular economy and fostering innovation (recycling products which contain CRMs), increasing European demand for European projects (stockpiling CRMs), protecting the single market and partnering with third countries for long-lasting diversification. Practically speaking, part of this plan is to match Europe and or global raw material supply with European demand for European projects.
iii) Legislative initiatives to facilitate the path towards digital sovereignty:
Tackling difficult innovation procurement: the argument is to facilitate its uptake of innovation procurement across the EU. In 2026, the EU is set to reform its public procurement framework for innovation. The Innovation Procurement Update (IPU) team has representatives from over 33 countries (predominantly through law firms, Bird & Bird being the most represented), which recommends that innovation procurement reach 20% of all public procurement.
Another recommendation would help more costly innovative solutions to be awarded procurement projects, which in the past were awarded to cheaper procurement bids. In practice, the lowest price of a public procurement bid is preferred, and if it meets the remaining procurement conditions, it wins the bid – but de-prioritising this non-pricing criterion would enable companies with more costly innovative solutions to win public procurement bids.
Alleviating compliance challenges: lowering other compliance burdens whilst maintaining the digital aquis: recently announced at the World Economic Forum by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU.inc would help cross-border business operations scaling up by alleviating company, corporate, insolvency, labour and taxation law compliance burdens. By harmonising these into a single framework, businesses can more easily grow and deploy cross-border solutions that would otherwise face hurdles.
Power through data: another legislative measure to help facilitate the path towards the EU digital sovereignty is unlocking the potential behind European data. In order to research innovative solutions, data is required. This can be achieved through personal or non-personal data. The EU’s GDPR regulates personal data and is currently undergoing amendments. If the proposed changes to the GDPR are approved, i.e. a broadening of its scope, data that used to be considered personal (and thus required GDPR compliance) could be deemed non-personal and used more freely for research purposes. The Data Act regulate the reuse and re-sharing of non-personal data. It aims to simplify and bolster the fair reuse of non-personal data. Overall, both personal and non-personal data can give important insight that research can benefit from in developing European innovative sovereign solutions.
European alternatives
European companies have already built a network of European platforms, services and apps with European values at heart:
Category
Currently Used
EU Alternative
Comments
Social media
TikTok, X, Instagram
Monnet (Luxembourg)
‘W’ (Sweden)
Monnet is a social media app prioritises connections and non-addictive scrolling. Recently announced ‘W’ replaces ‘X’ and is gaining major traction with non-advertising models at its heart.
Email
Microsoft’s Outlook and Google’s gmail
Tuta (mail/calendar), Proton (Germany), Mailbox (Germany), Mailfence (Belgium)
Replace email and calendar apps with a privacy focused business model.
Search engine
Google Search and DuckDuckGo
Qwant (France) and Ecosia (German)
Qwant has focused on privacy since its launch in 2013. Ecosia is an ecofriendly focused business model which helps plant trees when users search
Video conferencing
Microsoft Teams and Slack a
Visio (France), Wire (Switzerland, Mattermost (US but self hosted), Stackfield (Germany), Nextcloud Talk (Germany) and Threema (Switzerland)
These alternatives are end-to-end encrypted. Visio is used by the French Government
Writing tools
Microsoft’s Word & Excel and Google Sheets, Notion
Most of these options provide cloud storage and NexCloud is a recurring alternative across categories.
Finance
Visa and Mastercard
Wero (EU)
Not only will it provide an EU wide digital wallet option, but it will replace existing national options – providing for fast adoption.
LLM
OpenAI, Gemini, DeepSeek’s LLM
Mistral AI (France) and DeepL (Germany)
DeepL is already wildly used and Mistral is more transparent with its partially open-source model and ease of reuse for developers
Hardware
Semi conductors: ASML (Dutch) Data Center: GAIA-X (Belgium)
ASML is a chip powerhouse for the EU and GAIA-X set an example of EU based data centres with it open-source federated data infrastructure.
A dedicated website called ‘European Alternatives’ provides exactly what it says, European Alternatives. A list with over 50 categories and 100 alternatives
Conclusion
In recent years, the Union’s policy goals have shifted towards overt digital sovereignty solutions through diversification of materials and increased innovation spending, combined with a restructuring of the legislative framework to create the necessary path towards European digital infrastructure.
Whilst this analysis does not include all speed bumps, nor avenues towards the road of the EU digital sovereignty, it sheds light on the EU’s most recent major policy developments. Key questions remain regarding data reuse, its impact on data protection fundamental rights and whether this reshaping of the framework will yield the intended results.
Therefore, how will the EU tread whilst it becomes a more coherent sovereign geopolitical player?
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has opened formal proceedings against Shein under the Digital Services Act over addictive design and illegal product risks. The move follows preliminary reviews of company reports and responses to information requests. Officials said the decision does not prejudge the outcome.
Investigators will review safeguards to prevent illegal products being sold in the European Union, including items that could amount to child sexual abuse material, such as child-like sex dolls. Authorities will also assess how the platform detects and removes unlawful goods offered by third-party sellers.
The Commission will examine risks linked to platform design, including engagement-based rewards that may encourage excessive use. Officials will assess whether adequate measures are in place to limit potential harm to users’ well-being and ensure effective consumer protection online.
Transparency obligations under the DSA are another focal point. Platforms must clearly disclose the main parameters of their recommender systems and provide at least one easily accessible option that is not based on profiling. The Commission will assess whether Shein meets these requirements.
Coimisiún na Meán, the Digital Services Coordinator of Ireland, will assist the investigation as Ireland is Shein’s EU base. The Commission may seek more information or adopt interim measures if needed. Proceedings run alongside consumer protection action and product safety enforcement.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Concerns over privacy safeguards have resurfaced as the European Data Protection Supervisor urges legislators to limit indiscriminate chat-scanning in the upcoming extension of temporary EU rules.
The supervisor warns that the current framework risks enabling broad surveillance instead of focusing on targeted action against criminal content.
The EU institutions are considering a short-term renewal of the interim regime governing the detection of online material linked to child protection.
Privacy officials argue that such measures need clearer boundaries and stronger oversight to ensure that automated scanning tools do not intrude on the communications of ordinary users.
EDPS is also pressing lawmakers to introduce explicit safeguards before any renewal is approved. These include tighter definitions of scanning methods, independent verification, and mechanisms that prevent the processing of unrelated personal data.
According to the supervisor, temporary legislation must not create long-term precedents that weaken confidentiality across messaging services.
The debate comes as the EU continues discussions on a wider regulatory package covering child-protection technologies, encryption and platform responsibilities.
Privacy authorities maintain that targeted tools can be more practical than blanket scanning, which they consider a disproportionate response.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The EU Digital Identity Wallet is widely seen as a transformative step for cross-border digital services in Europe, yet experts warn that its success is far from guaranteed. While the initiative promises stronger privacy, improved security, and greater user control over personal data, adoption and governance challenges could undermine its potential.
Industry observers caution that large-scale digital identity projects rarely fail because of technical shortcomings. Instead, weak ecosystem buy-in, unclear commercial incentives and fragmented national implementation often derail progress.
If some member states deliver robust solutions while others lag, cross-border usability could suffer, weakening the wallet’s core objective of seamless European digital identity.
Concerns also extend to economic sustainability. Without clear business models for private-sector participants, innovation and long-term investment may slow. A wallet that exists only to meet regulatory requirements, rather than offering clear advantages over existing identity methods, risks low citizen adoption and limited integration by service providers.
Privacy design presents another complex trade-off. The wallet’s principle of unlinkability strengthens user protection, but it may complicate fraud detection and behavioural monitoring. Experts argue that trust in the system will depend on balancing privacy with practical security measures.
Ultimately, the EU Digital Identity Wallet’s future will hinge on coordinated governance, strong incentives and sustained commitment across the entire ecosystem.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
