The European Union has imposed sanctions on three Russian nationals for their alleged role in cyberattacks targeting Estonia in 2020. Nikolay Korchagin, 28, Vitaly Shevchenko, 28, and Yuriy Denisov, 45—suspected operatives of the cyber division of Russia’s GRU military intelligence service—are accused of breaching classified Estonian government networks and stealing sensitive data.
According to the Council of the EU, the attacks compromised thousands of confidential documents, including business secrets, health records, and other critical information. In September 2024, Estonia publicly attributed the attack to Unit 29155, marking the first time the country formally identified a state-backed cyber operation.
‘Both a national and an international investigation that included 10 countries showed that Russia aimed to damage national computer systems, obtain sensitive information and strike a blow against our sense of security,’ Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna stated at the time.
As part of the sanctions, Korchagin, Shevchenko, and Denisov face an asset freeze, a prohibition on EU individuals and businesses providing them with funds, and a travel ban barring them from entering or transiting through the EU territory.
The move follows a similar decision by the US government in September last year. The US Department of Justice indicted members of Unit 29155 and placed a $10 million bounty for information aiding prosecution. The indictment primarily focused on the WhisperGate cyberattack—a data-wiping operation targeting Ukraine ahead of Russia’s 2022 invasion. Korchagin and Denisov were specifically named in the US sanctions, while Shevchenko was labelled an ‘associated individual’ by the State Department.
Last year, the EU’s credibility in cyber sanctions was undermined when a clerical error in a formal sanctions notice mistakenly identified the wrong Russian intelligence agency responsible for a series of cyberattacks. Additionally, Bart Groothuis, a Dutch MEP and former Ministry of Defence employee, noted that the EU’s response remains fragmented, particularly in comparison to coordinated actions taken by the US and UK.
Google has appealed to the EU’s top court to overturn a record 4.3-billion-euro antitrust fine imposed seven years ago, arguing that the penalty punished the company for its innovation. The fine was originally levied by the European Commission, which accused Google of using its Android operating system to suppress competition by forcing manufacturers to pre-install Google Search, Chrome, and the Google Play store on devices. While the fine was later reduced to 4.1 billion euros by a lower court, Google maintains that its actions fostered competition, not hindered it.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Google lawyer Alfonso Lamadrid stated that the Commission failed to meet its legal obligations and relied on errors in law. Lamadrid defended Google’s agreements with phone manufacturers, insisting they were not anti-competitive, but rather beneficial to the market. The case centres on whether the European Commission acted appropriately in its investigation and decision to reshape markets through such penalties.
The judges of the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union will make a final ruling in the coming months, with no further opportunity for appeal. In addition to this case, Google remains under scrutiny by EU regulators for its advertising business, with another major decision expected later this year.
The European Commission has invited major social media platforms, including Facebook, TikTok, and X, to participate in a “stress test” on 31 January to assess their efforts in combating disinformation ahead of Germany‘s election next month. The test is part of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires companies to implement measures mitigating risks on their platforms. Similar tests were successfully conducted for the European Parliament elections last year.
EU spokesperson Thomas Regnier explained that the exercise would involve various scenarios to evaluate how platforms respond to potential challenges under the DSA. Senior compliance officers and specialists from companies such as Microsoft, LinkedIn, Google, Snap, and Meta have been invited to collaborate with German authorities in the closed-door session.
TikTok has confirmed its participation, while other platforms have yet to comment. The initiative underscores the European Union‘s commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability from tech giants in safeguarding democratic processes during elections.
Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is once again under fire by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) over its ad-free subscription service. Introduced in 2023, the fee-based option offered European users the ability to opt out of personalised ads, with a subsequent price cut of 40% implemented later that year. However, BEUC claims these changes are merely superficial and fail to address deeper concerns about fairness and compliance with EU consumer and privacy laws.
BEUC’s Director General, Agustin Reyna, criticised Meta for not providing users with a fair choice, alleging that the company still pressures users into accepting its behavioural advertising system. Reyna called on consumer protection authorities and the European Commission to investigate Meta’s practices urgently, emphasising the need for decisive action to safeguard users’ rights. The consumer group also accused Meta of misleading practices, unclear terms, and failing to minimise data collection while restricting services for users who decline data processing.
In response, a Meta spokesperson defended the company’s approach, arguing that its November 2023 updates go beyond EU regulatory requirements. Despite these assurances, EU antitrust regulators have raised concerns, accusing Meta of breaching the Digital Markets Act. They claim the ad-free service forces users into a binary choice, sparking broader concerns about how the tech giant balances profit with consumer protection.
As pressure mounts, Meta faces growing scrutiny over its compliance with EU laws, with regulators weighing potential measures to address BEUC’s allegations and ensure fair treatment for European users.
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies: transformative forces in modern economies
Blockchain is a digital ledger technology that records transactions securely, transparently, and immutable. It functions as a decentralised database, distributed across a network of computers, where data is stored in blocks linked together in chronological order. Each block contains a set of transactions, a timestamp, and a unique cryptographic hash that connects it to the previous block, forming a continuous chain.
The decentralised nature of blockchain means that no single entity has control over the data, and all participants in the network have access to the same version of the ledger. This structure ensures that transactions are tamper-proof, as altering any block would require changing all subsequent blocks and gaining consensus from the majority of the network. Cryptographic techniques and consensus mechanisms, such as proof of work or proof of stake, secure the blockchain, verifying and validating transactions without the need for a central authority.
Initially introduced as the underlying technology for Bitcoin in 2009, blockchain has since evolved to support a wide range of applications beyond cryptocurrencies. It enables smart contracts—self-executing agreements coded directly onto the blockchain—and has found applications in industries such as finance, supply chain management, healthcare, and voting systems. Blockchain’s ability to provide transparency, enhance security, and reduce the need for intermediaries has positioned it as a transformative technology with the potential to reshape the way information and value are exchanged globally. Cryptocurrency is a form of digital or virtual currency that relies on cryptography for security and operates on decentralised networks, typically powered by blockchain technology. Unlike traditional currencies issued and regulated by governments or central banks, cryptocurrencies are not controlled by any central authority, which makes them resistant to censorship and manipulation.
At its core, cryptocurrency functions as a digital medium of exchange, allowing individuals to send and receive payments directly without the need for intermediaries like banks. Transactions are recorded on a blockchain, ensuring transparency, immutability, and security. Each user has a unique digital wallet containing a private key, which grants them access to their funds, and a public key, which serves as their address for receiving payments.
Cryptocurrencies often rely on consensus mechanisms like proof of work or proof of stake to validate transactions and maintain the integrity of blockchain. Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency, was launched by an anonymous entity known as Satoshi Nakamoto, to create a decentralised and transparent financial system. Since then, thousands of cryptocurrencies have emerged, each with its own unique features and use cases, ranging from smart contracts on Ethereum to stablecoins designed to minimise price volatility.
Cryptocurrencies can be used for various purposes, including online payments, investments, remittances, and decentralised finance. While they offer benefits such as lower transaction fees, financial sovereignty, and global accessibility, they also face challenges like regulatory uncertainty, price volatility, and scalability issues. Despite these challenges, cryptocurrencies have become a transformative force in the global economy, driving innovation and challenging traditional financial systems.
Regulation necessity
The need for cryptocurrency regulation arises from the rapid growth and widespread adoption of digital assets, which present both opportunities and risks for individuals, businesses, and governments. While cryptocurrencies offer numerous benefits, such as financial inclusion, decentralised finance, and cross-border transactions, their unique characteristics also create challenges that necessitate oversight to ensure the integrity, stability, and safety of financial systems.
One primary reason for regulation is to protect consumers and investors. The crypto market is highly volatile, with prices often experiencing extreme fluctuations. This instability exposes investors to significant risks, and the lack of oversight has led to numerous cases of fraud, scams, and Ponzi schemes. Regulation can establish safeguards, such as requiring exchanges to implement transparency, security measures, and fair practices, which help protect users from financial losses.
Another critical driver for regulation is the need to combat illicit activities. The pseudonymous nature of cryptocurrencies can make them attractive for money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and other illegal purposes. By enforcing Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements, regulators can minimise these risks and ensure that digital assets are not exploited for unlawful activities.
Regulation is also necessary to enhance market stability and confidence. The crypto space has seen incidents such as exchange hacks, sudden bankruptcies, and the collapse of major projects, which have caused significant disruptions and undermined trust in the ecosystem. Regulatory frameworks can help ensure the resilience and security of the infrastructure supporting cryptocurrencies, fostering a more stable environment.
Furthermore, as cryptocurrencies increasingly integrate into the global economy, regulation is vital to maintain financial stability. Unregulated digital assets could potentially disrupt traditional economic systems, challenge monetary policies, and create systemic risks. By introducing clear rules for the interaction between cryptocurrencies and traditional finance, regulators can prevent market manipulation and mitigate risks to the broader economy.
Finally, regulatory clarity can encourage legitimacy and adoption. A well-regulated crypto market can attract institutional investors, foster innovation, and create opportunities for businesses while addressing the concerns of sceptics and governments. Clear and consistent regulatory frameworks can also ensure fair competition and enable the crypto industry to coexist with traditional financial systems.
Cryptocurrency regulation is necessary to protect users, prevent misuse, stabilise markets, safeguard economies, and promote broader adoption. Striking the right balance is essential to supporting innovation while addressing risks, enabling cryptocurrencies to realise their full potential as a transformative financial tool.
The future of crypto regulation worldwide
Global crypto regulation is a complex and evolving landscape, as governments and regulatory bodies around the world approach the issue with varying degrees of acceptance, restriction, and oversight. Cryptocurrencies, by their nature, operate on decentralised networks that transcend borders, making regional or national regulation a challenging task for policymakers. Governments worldwide are introducing rules to govern digital assets, with organisations like the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) emphasising the need for consistent global standards. IOSCO has outlined 18 key recommendations for managing crypto and digital assets, while the WEF’s Pathways to the Regulation of Crypto-Assets provides an overview of recent regulatory developments and highlights the necessity of international alignment in overseeing this rapidly evolving industry.
Although regulatory discussions around crypto assets have been ongoing for years, recent crises, including the collapse of crypto-friendly banks and platforms like FTX, have heightened the urgency for clear rules. These incidents have accelerated the drive for stricter accounting and reporting standards.
Some countries have adopted pro-crypto stances, recognising the technology’s potential for economic growth and innovation. These nations often implement clear regulatory frameworks that encourage blockchain development and crypto adoption while addressing risks such as fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. For instance, countries like Switzerland, Singapore and El Salvador have established themselves as crypto-friendly hubs by offering favourable regulatory environments that support blockchain startups and initial coin offerings (ICOs).
Conversely, other nations take a more restrictive approach, either banning cryptocurrencies outright or imposing strict controls. Many countries have implemented comprehensive bans on cryptocurrency trading and mining, citing concerns over financial stability, capital flight, and environmental impacts. Some governments are cautious about the use of cryptocurrencies in illicit activities such as money laundering and terrorism financing, leading to calls for stricter KYC and AML requirements. At the international level, organisations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) have introduced guidelines aimed at harmonising cryptocurrency regulations across borders. These guidelines focus on combating financial crimes by requiring cryptocurrency exchanges and service providers to implement measures such as customer identification and transaction reporting. In addition to regulating existing cryptocurrencies, many central banks are exploring the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) These government-backed digital currencies aim to provide the benefits of cryptocurrencies, such as faster payments and increased financial inclusion, while maintaining centralised control and regulatory oversight.
Overall, global cryptocurrency regulation is dynamic and fragmented, reflecting the varying priorities and perspectives of different jurisdictions. While some countries embrace cryptocurrencies as tools for innovation and financial empowerment, others prioritise control and risk mitigation. The future of crypto regulation is likely to involve a blend of international cooperation and national-level policymaking, as regulators strive to strike a balance between fostering innovation and addressing the challenges posed by this transformative technology.
Let us examine a few examples of regulations.
US cryptocurrency regulation progress
The United States has made slow but steady progress toward establishing a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies. Legislative efforts like the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act aim to define when cryptocurrencies are classified as securities or commodities and clarify regulatory oversight. Although these bills have yet to gain significant traction, they lay the foundation for future advancements in crypto regulation.
However, Donald Trump’s incoming administration has pledged to position the US as a global leader in cryptocurrency innovation. Plans include creating a Bitcoin strategic reserve, revitalising crypto mining, and pursuing deregulation. The expected nomination of cryptocurrency advocate Paul Atkins as SEC chair has fueled optimism within the industry, raising hopes for a more collaborative and forward-thinking approach to digital asset regulation.
While deregulation is a priority, the sector still requires new rules to address its complexities. Key areas for clarification include defining when crypto assets qualify as securities under the Howey test and refining enforcement strategies to focus on fraud prevention without stifling innovation. Addressing the treatment of secondary crypto trading under securities laws could further enhance the competitiveness of US-based exchanges and keep crypto projects in the country.
By balancing deregulation with essential safeguards, the incoming administration could foster an environment of growth and innovation while ensuring compliance and investor protection. The groundwork being laid today may help shape a thriving future for the US cryptocurrency landscape.
Russia strengthens crypto rules
Russia has taken a significant step in regulating cryptocurrency by introducing new rules aimed at integrating digital assets into its financial system while maintaining economic stability. As of 11 January 2025, the Bank of Russia requires contracts involving digital rights—such as cryptocurrencies, tokenised securities, and digital tokens—used in foreign trade to be registered with authorised banks. This applies to import contracts exceeding RUB 3 million and export contracts over RUB 10 million, underscoring the country’s intent to balance oversight with operational efficiency in international trade.
The regulations also mandate residents to provide detailed documentation on crypto transactions tied to these contracts. These include records of digital asset transfers or receipts used as payments, along with information on related foreign exchange operations. This level of scrutiny is designed to enhance transparency and mitigate risks, reflecting Russia’s broader goal of establishing a secure and efficient framework for digital assets.
While the move could promote wider adoption of cryptocurrencies by offering regulatory clarity, it also imposes additional compliance obligations on businesses and investors. As digital assets gain prominence in the global economy, Russia aims to leverage their potential while ensuring they are used responsibly within its financial system.
The Bank of Russia’s initiative represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of the nation’s digital financial landscape. Market participants will need to adapt to these changes and navigate the new regulatory environment as Russia positions itself at the forefront of crypto regulation.
China’s complex crypto landscape
China has had a complicated relationship with cryptocurrency, once holding the largest market for Bitcoin transactions globally before a crackdown began in 2017. Despite these regulatory restrictions, the blockchain industry in China remains a leader, with over 5,000 blockchain-related companies. China’s government continues to restrict domestic cryptocurrency trading and initial coin offerings (ICOs), citing concerns over volatility, anonymous transactions, and lack of centralised control. However, major blockchain companies like Binance and Huobi remain influential, and China still leads in blockchain projects globally.
Legally, China does not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender. Instead, it considers them virtual commodities. Since 2013, the government has implemented several regulations aimed at restricting cryptocurrency trading and protecting investors. These regulations include a ban on domestic cryptocurrency exchanges, and ICOs, as well as the participation of financial institutions in cryptocurrency activities. Although the country has not passed comprehensive cryptocurrency legislation, the government has consistently emphasised that trading virtual currencies carries risks for individuals.
China has also addressed the taxation of cryptocurrency profits. Income generated from trading virtual currencies is subject to individual income tax, specifically categorised under ‘property transfer income.’ Tax authorities require individuals to report the purchase price and taxes, with the government stepping in to determine prices if proof is not provided. The approach demonstrates China’s ongoing control over cryptocurrency activities within its borders.
Despite the regulatory restrictions, China’s blockchain sector remains robust and influential. The government is clearly focused on managing the risks associated with digital currencies while fostering blockchain innovation, which is likely to continue to influence global cryptocurrency trends.
EU’s comprehensive crypto framework
At the forefront of regulatory efforts is the European Union, which unveiled its comprehensive regulatory framework known as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Act (MiCA) in 2020. After nearly three years of development, MiCA was approved by the European Parliament in April 2023, with the enactment date set for 30 December 2024. The MiCA framework aims to create legal clarity and consistency across the EU, streamlining the regulatory approach to crypto assets. Before MiCA, crypto firms in the EU had to navigate a complex landscape of varying national regulations and multiple licensing requirements, but the new legislation provides a unified licensing structure, which will apply across all 27 member states.
MiCA applies to all crypto assets that fall outside traditional EU financial regulations, covering everything from electronic money tokens (EMTs) and asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) to other types of crypto assets. These assets are defined based on how they function and are backed. EMTs, for example, are digital assets backed by a single fiat currency, while ARTs are pegged to a basket of assets. MiCA does not automatically apply to non-fungible tokens (NFTs) unless they share characteristics with other regulated assets. Additionally, decentralised applications (dApps), decentralised finance (DeFi) projects, and decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) may not be fully subject to MiCA, unless they do not meet the criteria for decentralisation.
Businesses that offer crypto-asset services, known as crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), are at the heart of MiCA’s regulatory scope. These include entities involved in cryptocurrency exchanges, wallet services, and crypto trading platforms. Under MiCA, CASPs will need to obtain authorisation to operate across the EU, with a unified process that eliminates the need for multiple licenses in each country. Once authorised, these businesses can offer services across the entire EU, provided they comply with requirements around governance, capital, anti-money laundering, and data protection.
MiCA also introduces important provisions for stablecoins, particularly fiat-backed stablecoins, which must be backed by a 1:1 liquid reserve. However, algorithmic stablecoins—those that do not have explicit reserves tied to traditional assets—are banned. Issuers of EMTs and ARTs will be required to obtain authorisation and provide whitepapers, outlining the characteristics of the assets and the risks to prospective buyers. MiCA’s regulations are designed to protect consumers, reduce market manipulation, and ensure that crypto activities remain secure and transparent.
This regulatory shift is expected to reshape the crypto landscape in the EU, offering businesses and consumers clearer protections and encouraging market integrity. As MiCA comes into effect in 2025, its impact is likely to reverberate beyond Europe, as other nations look to adopt similar frameworks for managing digital assets.
Japan’s evolving crypto regulations
Japan is considering lighter regulations for cryptocurrency intermediaries that are not crypto exchanges. The Financial Services Agency (FSA) recently proposed this to the Financial System Council, following Japan’s early cryptocurrency regulation after the Mt. Gox hack. Currently, crypto intermediaries such as apps or wallets that connect users to exchanges must register as crypto asset exchange service providers (CAESPs), but many do not handle customer funds directly.
To reduce the regulatory burden, the FSA is exploring a system where intermediaries would register, provide user information, follow advertising restrictions, and potentially be liable for damages. They might also be required to maintain a security deposit, with exchanges absorbing liability for affiliated intermediaries. This proposal aims to create a more flexible regulatory framework for crypto-related businesses that do not operate exchanges.
Brazil’s new crypto market law
In late 2022, the National Congress approved a bill regulating the cryptocurrency market, focusing on areas like competition, governance, security, and consumer protection. The Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) will oversee its implementation. While there was no specific crypto regulation before, the new law will require companies, including exchanges, to obtain licenses, register with the Brazilian National Registry of Legal Entities (CNPJ), and report suspicious activities to the Council for Financial Activities Control (COAF).
The regulation mandates KYC (Know Your Customer) and KYT (Know Your Transaction) practices to combat money laundering. It also aligns with the Penal Code of Brazil, enforcing penalties for fraud and crimes. Notably, exchanges must separate client assets from company assets, a provision not yet included in the law but proposed by the Brazilian Association of Cryptoeconomics (ABCripto).
The law was set to take effect between May and June 2023, with full implementation, including licensing rules, expected by 2025. While the decentralised nature of the global crypto market presents challenges, the new regulatory framework aims to offer greater security and attract more investors to the growing Brazilian crypto market.
UK push for crypto regulation
The United Kingdom has taken significant steps to regulate digital currencies, mandating that any company offering such services must obtain proper authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This regulation is part of a broader effort to establish a clear and secure framework for digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and digital tokens, within the UK financial ecosystem. One area of particular focus is stablecoins, which are digital currencies pegged to stable assets, such as the US dollar or the British pound. Stablecoins have garnered attention for their potential to revolutionise the payments sector by offering faster and cheaper transactions compared to traditional payment methods.
The Bank of England has proposed new regulations specifically targeting stablecoins to maximise their benefits while addressing potential risks. These proposed rules aim to strike a balance between encouraging innovation in digital payments and ensuring the financial system’s stability. The regulations are designed to ensure that stablecoins do not pose risks to consumer protection or the integrity of the financial market, particularly in terms of preventing money laundering and illicit financial activities.
This move highlights the UK’s proactive approach to digital asset regulation, aiming to foster a secure environment where cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies can thrive without undermining the broader financial infrastructure. The efforts also underscore the UK’s commitment to consumer protection, ensuring that individuals and businesses engaging with digital currencies are properly safeguarded. With this comprehensive regulatory approach, the UK is positioning itself as a leader in the integration of digital currencies into traditional finance, setting a precedent for other nations exploring similar regulatory frameworks.
Kenya΄s crypto regulation attempt
Kenya’s journey with cryptocurrency regulation has evolved from scepticism to a more open stance as the government recognises its potential benefits. Initially, in the early 2010s, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin were viewed with caution by the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK), citing concerns over volatility, fraud, and lack of consumer protection. This led to a public warning against the use of virtual currencies in 2015. However, the growing global interest in digital currencies, including in Kenya, continued, with nearly 10% of Kenyans owning cryptocurrency by 2022, driven by factors such as financial inclusion and the appeal of blockchain technology.
A turning point for Kenya came in 2018, when the government set up a task force to explore blockchain and the potential of AI, building on the success of mobile money services like M-Pesa. By 2023, the country began assessing money laundering risks associated with virtual assets, signalling a shift in attitude toward cryptocurrencies. By December 2024, the government introduced a draft National Policy on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), outlining a regulatory framework to guide the development of the market.
The proposed regulations include licensing requirements for cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet providers, as well as measures to prevent money laundering and countering and terrorist financing. Consumer protection and cybersecurity are also central to the framework, ensuring that users’ funds and personal data are safeguarded. The draft regulations are open for public consultation until 24 January 2025, with the government seeking input from industry players, consumer groups, and the public.
Kenya’s path from opposition to embracing cryptocurrency reflects a broader trend towards digital financial innovation. By creating a balanced regulatory environment, Kenya hopes to position itself as a leader in Africa’s digital financial revolution, fostering economic growth and financial inclusion, much like the success it achieved with M-Pesa.
The need for a global approach
As we already explained, the international nature of cryptocurrency markets presents unique regulatory challenges. Cross-border activities increase the risk of fraud and investor harm, highlighting the necessity of consistent global standards. The WEF emphasises that international collaboration is “not just desirable but necessary” to maximise the benefits of blockchain technology while mitigating risks.
Differences in market maturity, regulatory capacity, and regional priorities complicate alignment. However, organisations such as IOSCO or the Financial Stability Board (FSB) stress the role of international bodies and national regulators in fostering a unified regulatory framework. A global approach would not only enhance consumer protections but also create an environment conducive to innovation, ensuring the responsible evolution of cryptocurrency markets.
As the crypto ecosystem evolves, governments and international organisations are working to balance innovation and regulation. By addressing the challenges posed by digital assets through comprehensive, coordinated efforts, the global community aims to create a stable and secure financial environment in the digital age.
A new report from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) highlights progress in tackling unjustified geo-blocking in the EU but calls for stronger enforcement and expanded regulations. Geo-blocking, which restricts online access to goods and services based on nationality or location, was targeted by a 2018 regulation aimed at ensuring fairer treatment in the EU Single Market. However, the ECA found that inconsistent enforcement has left many consumers unprotected.
The report reveals significant disparities in penalties for non-compliance, ranging from minor fines of €26 in some countries to €5 million or even criminal liability in others. These gaps, combined with limited awareness among consumers and traders about available support, have undermined the regulation’s effectiveness. Key exemptions for sectors like audiovisual services—such as streaming platforms and TV distribution—are also causing frustration, with calls to broaden the regulation’s scope during its 2025 review.
Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, the ECA member responsible for the audit, warned that geo-blocking continues to restrict consumer choices and fuel dissatisfaction. In response, the European Commission has welcomed the findings, signalling potential reforms, including stricter enforcement mechanisms and exploring ways to address challenges tied to copyright practices. The Commission has committed to factoring the report into its upcoming evaluation of the regulation.
Major tech platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, have pledged to strengthen efforts to combat online hate speech under an updated European Union code of conduct. The revised framework, part of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), mandates stricter measures to reduce illegal and harmful content online.
Companies will collaborate with public and non-profit experts to monitor their responses to hate speech notifications, aiming to review at least two-thirds within 24 hours. Advanced detection tools and transparency regarding recommendation systems will also play key roles in reducing the reach of harmful content before removal.
The EU plans to track compliance closely, requiring platforms to provide country-specific data on hate speech classifications, including race, gender identity, and religion. These measures align with broader efforts to ensure accountability in tech governance.
EU officials emphasised that adherence to the revised code will influence regulatory enforcement under the DSA, marking a significant step in the battle against online hate.
Major tech companies, including Meta’s Facebook, Elon Musk’s X, YouTube, and TikTok, have committed to tackling online hate speech through a revised code of conduct now linked to the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Announced Monday by the European Commission, the updated agreement also includes platforms like LinkedIn, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitch, expanding the coalition originally formed in 2016. The move reinforces the EU’s stance against illegal hate speech, both online and offline, according to EU tech commissioner Henna Virkkunen.
Under the revised code, platforms must allow not-for-profit organisations or public entities to monitor how they handle hate speech reports and ensure at least 66% of flagged cases are reviewed within 24 hours. Companies have also pledged to use automated tools to detect and reduce hateful content while disclosing how recommendation algorithms influence the spread of such material.
Additionally, participating platforms will provide detailed, country-specific data on hate speech incidents categorised by factors like race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Compliance with these measures will play a critical role in regulators’ enforcement of the DSA, a cornerstone of the EU’s strategy to combat illegal and harmful content online.
The European Commission has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China, accusing the country of ‘unfair and illegal’ practices regarding worldwide royalty rates for European standard essential patents (SEPs). According to the Commission, China has empowered its courts to set global royalty rates for the EU companies, particularly in the telecoms sector, without the consent of the patent holders.
The case focuses on SEPs, which are crucial for technologies like 5G, used in mobile phones. European companies such as Nokia and Ericsson hold many of these patents. The Commission claims that China’s actions force European companies to reduce their royalty rates globally, providing Chinese manufacturers with unfairly low access to European technologies.
The European Union has requested consultations with China, marking the first step in WTO dispute resolution. If a resolution is not reached within 60 days, the EU can request the formation of an adjudicating panel, which typically takes about a year to issue a final report. This case is linked to a previous EU dispute at the WTO concerning China’s anti-suit injunctions, which restrict telecom patent holders’ ability to enforce intellectual property rights in courts outside China.
Progress on the EU Cybersecurity Certification Scheme (EUCS), stuck in a deadlock since 2019, remains uncertain as discussions are unlikely to advance in the first half of 2025. Despite efforts by Poland, which is leading the EU ministerial meetings until July, disagreements over sovereignty requirements continue to stall the process. The EUCS aims to help companies demonstrate that their ICT solutions meet cybersecurity standards for the EU market but has faced resistance, particularly from France, which wants to preserve its certification system, SecNum Cloud.
The European Cybersecurity Certification Group (ECCG) from ENISA has yet to provide an opinion on the scheme, with its next meeting possibly taking place in February. Poland plans to prioritise cybersecurity during its presidency, hosting key events like an informal telecom minister meeting in March and a conference on ENISA standardisation, though industry groups remain sceptical about a breakthrough.
Lobbyists, including the global software industry group BSA, have criticised the delays. They argue that cybersecurity standards should focus on technical protections rather than political considerations and have urged the Commission to adopt the scheme quickly to strengthen Europe’s cybersecurity resilience.
Further complicating matters, the EU Cybersecurity Act (CSA), which underpins ENISA’s authority to create certification schemes, is under evaluation but has not yet been revised. Of the three certification schemes proposed since 2019, only one has been adopted, with another for 5G still in progress. New EU Commissioner Henna Virkkunen has pledged to improve the adoption process for cybersecurity certification schemes as part of her mission to bolster Europe’s technological sovereignty and security.
