The European Commission has tasked the EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) with developing a cybersecurity certification scheme for the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) wallets. That move aims to standardise and comprehensively secure digital identity wallets across EU member states.
ENISA will create harmonised requirements to support national certification schemes, involving the establishment of reference standards, procedures, and specifications crucial for security and privacy protection. The certification process will align with the Cybersecurity Act and ensure that EUDI Wallets are secure, protecting users’ privacy and personal data while allowing cross-border usability throughout the EU.
The European Digital Identity Framework, effective since May, requires EU member states to start providing EUDI Wallets within two years of adopting their implementing acts. The EC concluded its collection of input on the cybersecurity certification scheme earlier this month, with feedback highlighting the importance of preventing excessive consumer data sharing. ENISA will consider existing certification schemes, such as the European Cybersecurity Certification Scheme on Common Criteria while developing the new framework.
Why does it matter?
ENISA’s ongoing collaboration with the eIDAS Expert Group and the Certification Subgroup, alongside recommendations from its Digital Identity Standards report and current EUDI Wallet pilot projects, will significantly influence the development of the certification scheme, ensuring a robust and trustworthy digital identification system across Europe.
Demetris Skourides, the Chief Scientist, spoke at the Learning Innovation Summit 2024, stressing the significance of ethical AI development. He emphasised the EU AI Act’s role in establishing trustworthy AI systems that focus on ethics, transparency, and accountability. Skourides advocated for AI’s application in education, pointing out its ability to personalise learning, automate tasks, and enhance teaching environments.
He praised rapid AI advancements in Cyprus, with more than 50 companies leveraging the technology across key industries like healthcare and finance. Skourides highlighted the country’s commitment to upholding the EU AI Act, ensuring that AI systems meet the highest standards of accountability and ethics. The Chief Scientist also noted how Cyprus could generate new job opportunities through this AI revolution.
The potential for AI to transform education was a central theme. Skourides discussed the benefits of adaptive learning platforms, which can tailor lessons to individual students’ strengths, enabling each learner to reach their full potential. He urged educators to embrace AI, foreseeing a shift from rote memorisation to fostering creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration in the classroom.
Finally, Skourides called for a balanced approach to AI development. By equipping future generations with digital skills and ensuring that ethics remain central, AI’s power can be harnessed to drive both economic growth and innovation. He reaffirmed his commitment to advancing AI in education and collaborating with industry leaders to create an empowering learning environment.
The European Commission is taking significant steps to ensure Apple aligns its practices with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). That initiative involves specifying the actions Apple must undertake to enhance interoperability with other products, marking a pivotal moment as it represents the first formal use of this DMA tool to engage with the tech giant.
The move reflects the Commission’s commitment to fostering a competitive digital market within the EU, particularly in light of ongoing discussions regarding Apple’s role in this landscape. To this end, the Commission has initiated two key proceedings focused on interoperability issues concerning Apple’s iOS operating system.
The first aims to simplify the connection process for non-Apple devices, such as smartwatches and headphones, enabling them to work seamlessly with iPhones and iPads. That includes enhancing features like Bluetooth pairing and notifications. The second proceeding examines how Apple interacts with developers seeking interoperability, aiming to establish a fair and efficient process that encourages innovation while addressing potential privacy and security concerns.
The European Commission has established a clear timeline for these proceedings, setting a six-month deadline for investigations into Apple’s compliance with the DMA. Should Apple fail to meet the specified requirements, the Commission may impose fines or restrictions on the company’s operations in certain regions or technology sectors. Moreover, it follows a previous mandate requiring Apple to address competition concerns related to access to near-field communication (NFC) technology for contactless payments, highlighting the company’s ongoing scrutiny.
Several tech companies, including Meta and Spotify, have criticised the European Union for what they describe as inconsistent decision-making on data privacy and AI. A collective letter from firms, researchers, and industry bodies warned that Europe risks losing competitiveness due to fragmented regulations. They urged data privacy regulators to deliver clear, harmonised decisions, allowing European data to be utilised in AI training for the benefit of the region.
The companies voiced concerns about the unpredictability of recent decisions made under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Meta, known for owning Facebook and Instagram, recently paused plans to collect European user data for AI development, following pressure from EU privacy authorities. Uncertainty surrounding which data can be used for AI models has become a major issue for businesses.
Tech firms have delayed product releases in Europe, seeking legal clarity. Meta postponed its Twitter-like app Threads, while Google has also delayed the launch of AI tools in the EU market. The introduction of Europe’s AI Act earlier this year added further regulatory requirements, which firms argue complicates innovation.
The European Commission insists that all companies must comply with data privacy rules, and Meta has already faced significant penalties for breaches. The letter stresses the need for swift regulatory decisions to ensure Europe can remain competitive in the AI sector.
European antitrust regulators will not take action against Microsoft’s acquisition of staff from AI startup Inflection, including its co-founders, following the withdrawal of requests from seven European Union countries. These countries dropped their requests for the European Commission to investigate, due to a recent court ruling that limits the regulator’s ability to examine mergers below the EU’s revenue threshold.
The court ruling has been viewed by some as a correction against regulatory overreach. The European Commission, in response, stated it would not pursue the case further. Despite this, the Commission acknowledged the Microsoft-Inflection deal as a merger due to its restructuring of Inflection’s business focus towards AI development.
The agreement between Microsoft and Inflection represents a significant market shift. Under the EU’s merger rules, it is considered a concentration, reflecting the ongoing transformations in the AI industry.
The Dutch competition regulator, the Netherlands Authority of Consumers and Markets (ACM), has called for more authority to investigate corporate deals independently. This comes after the European Union’s antitrust regulators decided not to take action against Microsoft’s acquisition of AI startup Inflection’s staff.
The EU’s decision to not investigate further comes after the initial 7 Member states who complained about Microsoft sweeping up of Inflection’s staff, decided to drop their complaints, leaving the Commission with no decision in this matter.
ACM expressed concerns over potential negative impacts of such deals on Dutch consumers and businesses but lacks the power to fully assess or prevent market dominance in these cases. The regulator’s chairman, Martijn Snoep, emphasised the need for new investigative powers to better assess acquisitions and their effects.
ACM is pushing for the ability to refer acquisitions with broader European implications to the European Commission, enabling better oversight of deals that might otherwise go unexamined.
As the EU finalises its groundbreaking AI Act, major technology firms are lobbying for lenient regulations to minimise the risk of multi-billion dollar fines. The AI Act, agreed upon in May, is the world’s first comprehensive legislation governing AI. However, the details on how general-purpose AI systems like ChatGPT will be regulated remain unclear. The EU has opened the process to companies, academics, and other stakeholders to help draft the accompanying codes of practice, receiving a surge of interest with nearly 1,000 applications.
A key issue at stake is how AI companies, including OpenAI and Stability AI, use copyrighted content to train their models. While the AI Act mandates companies to disclose summaries of the data they use, businesses are divided over how much detail to include, with some advocating for protecting trade secrets. In contrast, others demand transparency from content creators. Major players like Google and Amazon have expressed their commitment to the process, but there are growing concerns about transparency, with some accusing tech giants of trying to avoid scrutiny.
The debate over transparency and copyright has sparked a broader discussion on the balance between regulation and innovation. Critics argue that the EU’s focus on regulation could stifle technological advancements, while others stress the importance of oversight in preventing abuse. Former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi recently urged the EU to improve its industrial policy to compete with China and the US, emphasising the need for swift decision-making and significant investment in the tech sector.
The finalised code of practice, expected next year, will not be legally binding but will serve as a guideline for compliance. Companies will have until August 2025 to meet the new standards, with non-profits and startups also playing a role in drafting. Some fear that big tech firms could weaken essential transparency measures, underscoring the ongoing tension between innovation and regulation in the digital era.
Google’s advertising business has faced renewed scrutiny in the EU, with a recent proposal to sell its advertising marketplace, AdX, being rejected by European publishers. The tech giant offered the sale to resolve an antitrust investigation by the EU, which accuses Google of favouring its services. The investigation followed complaints from the European Publishers Council, and the European Commission has since charged Google with anti-competitive practices.
Publishers dismissed Google’s offer as insufficient, arguing that the sale of AdX alone would not address the broader conflicts of interest due to Google’s dominance across the entire adtech supply chain. These industry insiders suggest that more drastic measures may be needed to curb Google’s influence, but the EU has not yet demanded such extensive divestments.
Google, meanwhile, maintains that the Commission’s claims are based on a misinterpretation of the competitive nature of the advertising sector. Despite facing similar antitrust trials in the US over its advertising technology, the company continues to defend its business practices, where authorities have called for selling its Ad Manager product.
AdX, which allows publishers to auction unsold ad space to advertisers in real time, has become a key component in the ongoing investigation. The EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager previously suggested Google divest additional tools to resolve the issue. However, experts believe the Commission may first issue a simpler ruling to halt Google’s current practices before escalating to demands for asset sales.
With advertising contributing to 77% of Google’s $237.85 billion revenue in 2023, the company’s dominant position in digital advertising remains a central point of contention in the EU and globally.
Qualcomm faced another legal setback in the EU as the continent’s second-highest court largely upheld an EU antitrust fine, reducing it slightly to €238.7 million ($265.5 million) from the original €242 million. The fine, imposed by the European Commission in 2019, stemmed from Qualcomm’s practice of selling chipsets below cost between 2009 and 2011—a tactic known as predatory pricing—aimed at driving British competitor Icera, now part of Nvidia, out of the market.
Qualcomm argued that the chipsets in question only accounted for a small fraction (0.7%) of the market, making it unlikely they could have effectively blocked competitors. However, the General Court in Luxembourg dismissed most of the company’s claims, apart from a minor point regarding the fine’s calculation, which led to a slight reduction.
The ruling marks another chapter in Qualcomm’s legal battles with the EU. While the company can appeal on legal grounds to the EU Court of Justice, it has already experienced mixed results in the European courts. In 2021, Qualcomm overturned a separate €997 million fine, which had been levied for paying Apple billions to exclusively use its chips in iPhones and iPads from 2011 to 2016.
For now, the EU’s watchdog continues to pursue antitrust enforcement in the tech sector, with Qualcomm remaining a key target in its efforts to curb anti-competitive behaviour.
Google secured a significant victory on Wednesday, overturning a €1.49 billion ($1.66 billion) fine imposed by the European Commission in 2019. The fine, levied over antitrust violations, accused Google of abusing its dominance in online search advertising by restricting websites from using advertising brokers other than its AdSense platform. These practices, deemed illegal by the Commission, were said to have spanned from 2006 to 2016.
The General Court of Luxembourg, while agreeing with most of the European Commission’s findings, annulled the hefty fine. The judges ruled that the Commission had not fully considered all factors, particularly the duration of the unfair contractual clauses, which played a critical role in overturning the penalty. Despite the annulment, the ruling upheld many of the Commission’s assessments, but the financial punishment did not hold.
The fine was one of three that have cost Google a combined total of €8.25 billion in antitrust penalties, triggered by complaints from rivals such as Microsoft. Google noted that it had already revised the contracts in question in 2016 before the Commission’s decision.
The legal victory for Google comes just a week after it lost a separate case involving a €2.42 billion fine for unfairly promoting its price comparison service. While the battle over its advertising practices may have seen a favourable outcome, the tech giant’s ongoing legal challenges in Europe reflect the broader scrutiny facing major digital platforms across the continent.
