NicFab Newsletter
Issue 4 | January 20, 2026
Privacy, Data Protection, AI, and Cybersecurity
Welcome to issue 4 of the weekly newsletter dedicated to privacy, data protection, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and ethics. Every Tuesday you will find a curated selection of the most relevant news from the previous week, with a focus on European regulatory developments, case law, enforcement and technological innovation.
In this issue
- Italian Privacy Authority
- EDPS: TechSonar on Agentic AI
- European Commission
- European Parliament
- Council of the EU
- Court of Justice EU
- Digital Markets & Platform Regulation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Cybersecurity
- Tech & Innovation
- AI Act in Pills – Part 3
- Upcoming Events
- Analytical Commentary
ITALIAN DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Italian DPA: Board Member Guido Scorza Resigns
The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) announced the resignation of Guido Scorza from his position as a member of the Authority’s Board, effective January 17, 2026. Scorza’s departure represents a significant change in the composition of Italy’s privacy regulatory body.
The resignation follows closely after the Authority issued a statement on January 16, 2026, expressing “full confidence in the judiciary” and asserting the Board’s determination to demonstrate its non-involvement in unspecified contested matters. This suggests the resignation may be connected to ongoing judicial proceedings, though the specific nature of these matters remains unclear from the available information.
Italian DPA Expresses Confidence in Judicial Process
The Italian Data Protection Authority’s Board issued a public statement on January 16, 2026, declaring full confidence in the magistrature and expressing certainty in being able to demonstrate its non-involvement in contested facts. The statement appears to be in response to judicial proceedings involving the Authority, though specific details of the allegations or investigation were not disclosed.
This development highlights the importance of maintaining institutional integrity within data protection authorities and demonstrates the Italian DPA’s commitment to transparency during what appears to be a period of legal scrutiny.
Italian DPA Updates Procedures for Revenge Porn and Cyberbullying
The Italian Data Protection Authority has published updated informational pages and reporting procedures for both revenge porn and cyberbullying incidents, dated January 12, 2026. These resources provide guidance for individuals seeking to report violations and understand their rights under Italian data protection law.
The publication of these specialized procedures reflects the ongoing efforts by data protection authorities to address emerging digital harms and provide clear pathways for victims to seek redress. These updates demonstrate the Authority’s proactive approach to tackling contemporary privacy violations in the digital sphere.
Source - Revenge Porn | Source - Cyberbullying
EDPS - EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
TechSonar Podcast: When AI Agents Think and Act for Us
January 12, 2026 - The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has published a new episode of the TechSonar podcast series dedicated to Agentic AI, artificial intelligence systems capable of reasoning, planning, and making decisions autonomously.
The episode, hosted by Klaudia Wozniak with guest Andy Goldstein, addresses crucial questions for personal data protection:
- What happens to control and accountability when AI reasons and decides for us?
- Does Agentic AI really need access to large amounts of personal data?
- To what extent do biases influence the decisions of autonomous AI systems?
The discussion explores the emerging risks as these autonomous systems coordinate increasingly complex activities, learning and interacting with their surrounding environment. The episode is part of the TechSonar 2025-2026 series analyzing six technological trends: agentic AI, AI companions, automated proctoring, AI-driven personalized learning, coding assistants, and confidential computing.
Upcoming EDPS Events
January 28, 2026 - Data Protection Day 2026: Reset or refine?
Conference jointly organized by the Council of Europe and EDPS to celebrate the signing of Convention 108, the first binding treaty on privacy protection in the digital age.
February 12, 2026 - Data takes flight: Navigating privacy at the airport
Conference organized by EDPS and EDPB Trainees on personal data protection in the context of air travel.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The European Democracy Shield: Strengthening Democratic Resilience
The European Commission has advanced its European Democracy Shield (EDS) initiative, as outlined in a joint communication published on November 12, 2025, with the High Representative. This comprehensive framework aims to protect European democracies against increasingly sophisticated threats, including information space interference and hybrid attacks targeting electoral processes and democratic institutions. Source
The EDS represents a significant regulatory development in the Commission’s efforts to safeguard democratic processes, addressing concerns about foreign interference and disinformation campaigns that could undermine the integrity of EU democratic systems. Legal professionals should note the potential implications for data protection and cybersecurity frameworks as this initiative develops.
Revision of air passenger rights: state of play
In 2013, the European Commission proposed a series of amendments to EU passenger rights regulations, covering compensation for denied boarding, cancellations, and long delays, as well as protections for passengers with reduced mobility. The proposals include clarifications on “extraordinary circumstances,” the introduction of re-routing rights after long delays, a ban on no-show penalties, and improvements in the handling of tarmac delays and complaint procedures.
Despite these regulatory developments, enforcement and awareness of rights remain limited, highlighting the challenges in effectively implementing European consumer protection legislation in the air transport sector.
Source: EU Parliament
Source: EU Commission
European Cohesion Fund 2028-2034
On July 16, 2025, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation establishing the European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural Development, Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Prosperity and Security for the period 2028-2034. This proposal is part of the extensive package on the EU’s next long-term budget—the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034.
The Commission argues that the proposal would bring greater flexibility, simplicity, and better value for money, representing a significant reorganization of European financial resources with implications for governance and regulatory compliance at the national and regional levels.
Cooperation in research and innovation
The European Commission has invited researchers, innovators, and National Contact Points to participate in initiatives supporting cooperation in research and innovation with Azerbaijan and Moldova. These initiatives include Proposal Writing Camps and expert consultations, representing the EU’s commitment to extending scientific and technological cooperation with third countries.
Such cooperation programs can have significant implications for data and technology transfer, requiring particular attention to regulatory compliance aspects relating to data protection and cybersecurity.
Source - Azerbaijan | Source - Moldova
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Commission Communication on European Open Digital Ecosystems
The European Commission has released a new communication titled “Towards European Open Digital Ecosystems,” addressing the Parliament, Council, and relevant committees. This communication, published on January 16, 2026, appears to be part of the broader digital strategy framework and likely outlines policy directions for fostering open digital environments within the EU.
While specific details of the communication are not yet available, this initiative aligns with ongoing EU efforts to strengthen digital sovereignty and promote interoperability across digital platforms and services. Legal practitioners should monitor this development for potential regulatory implications affecting digital service providers and data processing frameworks.
European Democracy Shield Special Committee Report
Tomas Tobé, rapporteur for the European Democracy Shield Special Committee (EUDS), will present his draft report containing findings and recommendations on January 21, 2026. This special committee focuses on protecting democratic processes and institutions from various threats, including those potentially involving digital manipulation and information security.
The report’s findings may have significant implications for cybersecurity regulations, data protection measures, and legal frameworks governing electoral integrity. Given the increasing intersection of technology and democratic processes, this report could inform future legislative initiatives addressing AI governance, platform regulation, and cyber threat mitigation.
Electoral Act Ratification Challenges
Following the plenary vote on January 14, 2026, rapporteur Borja Giménez Larraz (EPP, ES) will address press questions regarding obstacles to ratifying and implementing the European Electoral Act. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs is overseeing this process, which encounters significant implementation hurdles.
These challenges may impact the legal framework governing European elections, potentially affecting data processing requirements, voter privacy protections, and digital campaign regulations. Legal practitioners specializing in electoral law and data protection should closely monitor these developments for their implications on compliance requirements and cross-border electoral processes.
Global Europe Instrument Restructuring
The European Parliament’s analysis reveals that the Commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 Global Europe instrument introduces a comprehensive restructuring of EU external financing architecture. The proposal establishes new geographic pillars, a global pillar, and flexible mechanisms while integrating multiple existing instruments covering development cooperation and external action.
This restructuring emphasizes strategic alignment with internal EU policies, particularly migration control, while balancing mutual interests with partner countries. Legal practitioners should note the potential implications for cross-border data transfers, international cooperation frameworks, and compliance requirements for organizations operating across EU external relations programs.
Parliament’s Future Institutional Reflection
EP Vice-President Victor Negrescu announced the establishment of a reflection group on Parliament’s institutional future, responding to what he described as a moral and ethical crisis affecting core European values including truth and democracy. This initiative, recently approved by Parliament’s Bureau, will examine institutional adaptations needed to address contemporary challenges.
The reflection group’s work may influence future governance frameworks, transparency requirements, and institutional accountability mechanisms. Given the increasing role of technology in democratic processes, this initiative could yield recommendations affecting digital governance, AI oversight, and data protection within EU institutions.
COUNCIL OF THE EU
Artificial Intelligence: Council Paves the Way for the Creation of AI Gigafactories
The Council of the European Union has given its final approval to the amended EuroHPC regulation, marking a significant step in Europe’s artificial intelligence infrastructure development. This regulatory advancement facilitates the establishment of AI gigafactories across the EU, positioning the bloc to compete more effectively in the global AI landscape.
The approval represents a crucial legal framework for scaling AI computing capabilities within European borders, potentially impacting data processing requirements and cross-border data flows. Legal practitioners should monitor implementation details as this development may influence AI governance frameworks and compliance obligations under existing data protection legislation.
EU-Mercosur Agreement Signing Ceremony
President António Costa participated in the signing ceremony of the EU-Mercosur agreements in Asunción, Paraguay on January 17, 2026. This comprehensive trade agreement establishes new legal frameworks governing commercial relationships between the European Union and the Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay).
The agreement encompasses various regulatory harmonization aspects that may affect data transfer mechanisms, digital trade provisions, and cybersecurity standards between the regions. Legal professionals should anticipate potential implications for cross-border data flows and privacy compliance requirements as implementation progresses.
Restrictive Measures Against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad Extended
The Council has decided to prolong existing restrictive measures against entities and individuals who support, facilitate, or enable violent actions by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad for another year. This extension maintains the legal framework for asset freezes, travel bans, and other sanctions measures.
The decision reinforces the EU’s approach to combating terrorism financing and may have implications for financial institutions’ compliance obligations regarding customer due diligence and transaction monitoring. Organizations operating in affected jurisdictions should review their sanctions compliance programs to ensure alignment with the extended measures.
Economic and Financial Affairs Council Meeting
The Council has announced upcoming meetings including the Eurogroup meeting on January 19 and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council on January 20, 2026. These sessions will address various economic and financial regulatory matters affecting EU member states.
While specific agenda items relating to digital finance, cybersecurity regulations, or data protection frameworks have not been detailed in the available information, these meetings typically address regulatory developments that may impact financial services’ technology and privacy compliance requirements.
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU
Online Gambling: Damage to Players Deemed to Occur in Country of Residence
The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a significant ruling on January 15, 2026, in case C‑77/24, establishing important jurisdictional principles for online gambling disputes. The Court held that in cases involving online gambling services offered without proper licensing in the player’s state, the player may typically invoke the law of their country of residence when taking action against foreign service provider executives.
The Court’s decision clarifies that damage in such cases is deemed to have occurred in the place where the player habitually resides, providing legal clarity for cross-border gambling disputes. This ruling emerged from a controversy between an Austrian citizen and the administrators of a foreign company, establishing precedent for similar transnational gambling-related litigation.
Agricultural SMEs: Aid Reduction Excluded Without Available Coverage
The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued conclusions on January 15, 2026, in joined cases C‑52/25 and C‑53/25, proposing an interpretation of Article 25, paragraph 9, of Regulation No. 702/2014 concerning aid to agricultural SMEs affected by adverse weather conditions comparable to natural disasters. The regulation provides for a 50% reduction in compensation except for beneficiaries with adequate insurance coverage.
According to the Advocate General’s opinion, this reduction should not be applied in cases where adequate insurance coverage is not available to the agricultural enterprises. This interpretation would provide important protections for agricultural SMEs in situations where insurance markets fail to offer sufficient coverage options for weather-related risks.
DIGITAL MARKETS & PLATFORM REGULATION
EU Considers Independent Tech Regulator Amid US Political Pressure
Brussels is reviving discussions about establishing an independent European tech regulator, separate from existing EU institutions, in response to mounting political pressure from Washington. The proposal comes as the EU faces challenges in implementing and enforcing its digital laws while dealing with repeated political attacks from the White House.
The initiative reflects long-standing ambitions among EU legislators to create a well-resourced regulatory body with enhanced powers to address violations by U.S. technology companies. This development suggests a potential shift toward more aggressive enforcement of European digital regulations, particularly as transatlantic tensions over tech governance continue to escalate.
Cryptocurrency Market Regulation Faces Congressional Setbacks
The cryptocurrency industry’s legislative agenda encountered significant obstacles as negotiations around the CLARITY Act faced disruption in January 2026. The legislation was intended to establish fundamental legal frameworks for crypto market operations in the United States, including defining how digital assets would be regulated and establishing operational parameters for the industry.
Coinbase’s involvement appears to have complicated the political dynamics surrounding the bill’s progression through Senate negotiations. The setback represents a significant challenge for the crypto industry, which had viewed the CLARITY Act as a crucial step toward regulatory certainty in the U.S. market.
Anthropic Commits $1.5 Million to Python Foundation for Open Source Security
AI company Anthropic has announced a two-year partnership with the Python Software Foundation (PSF), contributing $1.5 million specifically focused on Python ecosystem security enhancements. This investment addresses critical infrastructure security concerns in open source software that underpins much of the technology sector.
The funding comes at a strategic time, particularly following the PSF’s decision to withdraw from an NSF grant application in October. The partnership highlights the growing recognition among major tech companies of the importance of securing open source software foundations that form the backbone of digital infrastructure.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
European HPC Regulation Amendment
The Council of the European Union has amended Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 concerning the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking through Council Regulation (EU) 2026/150, dated January 16, 2026. This regulatory update reflects the EU’s continued focus on strengthening its high-performance computing capabilities, which are increasingly critical for AI development and deployment.
The amendment underscores the intersection between AI advancement and regulatory frameworks, particularly as European institutions seek to maintain technological sovereignty while ensuring compliance with existing data protection and AI governance standards. Source
Online Disinformation and Democratic Threats
UK Labour MP Emily Thornberry has raised significant concerns about the impact of AI-driven disinformation on British democracy. Her warnings specifically highlight Iranian bot farms promoting Scottish nationalism and biased algorithms that misrepresent London’s safety profile, indicating how AI systems can be weaponized for political manipulation.
Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, emphasizes that UK politics is “constantly suffering” from online disinformation campaigns, with some allegedly promoted by foreign actors including references to Donald Trump’s involvement. This raises critical questions about the need for stronger regulatory frameworks to address AI-powered disinformation and protect democratic processes. Source
Privacy-Conscious AI Alternative
Moxie Marlinspike has launched Confer, a privacy-focused alternative to mainstream AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude. The platform is specifically designed to prevent user conversations from being utilized for training purposes or advertising, addressing growing concerns about data exploitation in AI systems.
This development reflects increasing demand for AI solutions that prioritize user privacy and data protection, potentially setting new standards for how AI companies handle personal data and comply with privacy regulations. Legal professionals should note this trend toward privacy-by-design AI systems as it may influence future regulatory expectations. Source
Grok AI Ban Circumvention in Southeast Asia
Malaysia’s attempt to ban X’s Grok AI tool due to its capability to generate “grossly offensive and nonconsensual manipulated images” has proven ineffective, with users easily bypassing restrictions through VPNs and DNS modifications. The AI tool itself acknowledged the circumvention, stating the “DNS block in Malaysia is pretty lightweight.”
This case illustrates the enforcement challenges faced by regulators attempting to control AI tools that can create harmful content, including non-consensual explicit imagery. The incident highlights the technical limitations of geographic AI bans and raises questions about the effectiveness of current regulatory approaches in addressing AI-generated harmful content across jurisdictions. Source
OpenAI’s Human Agency Framework
OpenAI has published perspectives on AI’s role in expanding human agency, focusing on how artificial intelligence can address capability gaps to unlock productivity and growth opportunities for individuals, businesses, and nations. The company frames this as “AI for self empowerment,” emphasizing the technology’s potential to enhance rather than replace human capabilities.
From a regulatory standpoint, this positioning may influence how AI governance frameworks evaluate the balance between technological advancement and human oversight requirements. The emphasis on human agency could support arguments for regulatory approaches that preserve human control while enabling AI innovation. Source
Critical Perspective on AI Industry Sustainability
Technology commentator Cory Doctorow has published a critical analysis suggesting that AI companies face inevitable failure, describing AI as “asbestos in the walls of our tech society” installed by monopolistic practices. His commentary raises fundamental questions about the long-term viability of current AI business models and their societal integration.
Doctorow’s analysis suggests that regulatory intervention targeting the root causes of AI market concentration may be necessary. This perspective is particularly relevant for legal professionals considering antitrust implications and the potential need for structural reforms in the AI industry to address monopolistic behaviors and their consequences. Source
CYBERSECURITY
Google’s Gmail Decision Raises User Privacy Concerns
Google has made a significant decision affecting hundreds of millions of Gmail users, prompting security experts to recommend users consider alternative email providers. While the specific details of Google’s decision are not fully outlined in the available information, the advisory suggests potential implications for user privacy and data security.
The recommendation for users to obtain new email addresses indicates this may involve changes to Gmail’s privacy policies, data handling practices, or security features that could impact user control over their personal communications and data.
Police Surveillance Technology Spending Under Scrutiny
Law enforcement agencies have invested millions of dollars in shadowy phone-tracking software, raising transparency and accountability concerns within the cybersecurity and privacy community. The lack of disclosure regarding how these surveillance tools are being deployed presents significant legal and constitutional questions about citizen privacy rights and law enforcement oversight.
This development highlights the ongoing tension between public safety objectives and privacy protections, particularly regarding the use of advanced tracking technologies without clear public accountability measures or judicial oversight frameworks.
Security Expert Troy Hunt’s Weekly Industry Update
Cybersecurity researcher Troy Hunt has published his latest weekly update addressing current industry developments, including observations about AI-generated content responses and solar system security implementations. Hunt’s commentary touches on the growing challenge of distinguishing legitimate security discussions from automated responses, which has implications for professional cybersecurity communications.
The update, sponsored by Report URI, emphasizes the importance of real-time security monitoring and breach prevention tools, highlighting ongoing efforts to combat rogue JavaScript and other web-based security threats that organizations face.
TECH & INNOVATION
Mandiant Releases Credential Cracking Tools to Accelerate Microsoft Protocol Deprecation
Google’s cybersecurity subsidiary Mandiant has released new tools capable of cracking credentials within 12 hours, specifically targeting an outdated Microsoft security protocol. The release represents a strategic move by the security firm to demonstrate vulnerabilities in legacy systems and accelerate the retirement of protocols that pose security risks to enterprise environments.
This development carries significant implications for organizations relying on older authentication mechanisms, particularly in light of regulatory frameworks requiring adequate cybersecurity measures. The tool’s public availability may prompt faster migration timelines for enterprises seeking to maintain compliance with data protection standards and avoid potential security incidents that could trigger breach notification requirements.
AI Workflow Integration Platform Offers Multi-Model Comparison Capabilities
A new AI tool platform, 1min.AI, is offering businesses the ability to compare outputs from multiple large language models including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok through a single interface. The Advanced Business Plan provides organizations with streamlined access to various AI models, potentially addressing workflow efficiency challenges in AI adoption across enterprise environments.
For legal and privacy professionals, this type of multi-platform AI tool raises important considerations regarding data processing agreements, cross-border data transfers, and vendor management compliance. Organizations utilizing such services must ensure appropriate data processing agreements are in place with each underlying AI provider and that their data governance frameworks account for the complexity of multi-vendor AI tool ecosystems.
AI ACT IN PILLS - Part 3
Article 5: Prohibited Artificial Intelligence Practices
Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act) defines the artificial intelligence practices considered unacceptable and therefore absolutely prohibited in the European Union. These represent the “red lines” that no AI system can cross.
Prohibited Practices (Art. 5, par. 1):
a) Subliminal and Manipulative Techniques
AI systems that employ subliminal or deliberately manipulative techniques to distort a person’s behavior, causing or risking significant harm.
b) Exploitation of Vulnerabilities
Systems that exploit vulnerabilities due to age, disability, or social or economic situation to materially distort behavior, with significant harm.
c) Public Social Scoring
Social scoring systems by public authorities leading to prejudicial or unfavorable treatment in unrelated or disproportionate contexts.
d) Individual Criminal Risk Assessment
Systems for assessing the risk of a person committing crimes based solely on profiling or personality traits (excluding assessments that support human evaluation based on objective facts).
e) Untargeted Scraping of Facial Images
Creation or expansion of facial recognition databases through untargeted scraping of images from the internet or CCTV footage.
f) Emotion Recognition at Work and School
Systems for inferring emotions in workplaces and educational institutions, except for medical or safety reasons.
g) Sensitive Biometric Categorization
Systems that categorize persons based on biometric data to infer race, political opinions, trade union membership, religious beliefs, sex life, or sexual orientation.
h) “Real-time” Remote Biometric Identification
Use of “real-time” remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes, except for strictly limited exceptions (search for victims, prevention of imminent terrorist threats, localization of suspects of serious crimes).
Exceptions for Law Enforcement (Art. 5, par. 2-3)
The use of real-time remote biometric identification is permitted only with prior judicial or independent administrative authorization, and must be proportionate and strictly necessary.
Penalties
Violation of Article 5 carries the most severe penalties under the AI Act: up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover.
In the next installment: Article 9 - The Risk Management System
Upcoming Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 21, 2026 | Press Conference EUDS Rapporteur Tomas Tobé - European Parliament |
| January 28, 2026 | Data Protection Day 2026: Reset or refine? - EDPS/CoE |
| February 12, 2026 | “Data takes flight: Navigating privacy at the airport” - EDPS/EDPB |
Conclusion
This week has been marked by significant institutional developments across Europe, revealing both structural tensions and the ongoing challenge of maintaining regulatory coherence in an increasingly complex digital and geopolitical landscape.
The most striking development comes from Italy, where Guido Scorza’s resignation from the Italian Data Protection Authority’s collegiate body on January 17th signals potential internal turmoil within one of Europe’s most influential privacy regulators. The Italian DPA’s terse statement expressing “full confidence in the judiciary” and asserting its ability to demonstrate “extraneousness to contested facts” suggests serious allegations may be at play. This development is particularly concerning given the critical role national DPAs play in GDPR enforcement across the single market. The timing is especially unfortunate as privacy authorities face mounting pressure to demonstrate effectiveness amid increasing scrutiny of their enforcement capabilities and independence.
The European Court of Justice’s ruling on online gambling jurisdiction (Case C‑77/24) provides a fascinating glimpse into how EU courts are adapting traditional legal concepts to digital realities. The decision that damage from unauthorized online gambling occurs in the player’s country of residence, regardless of where the operator is established, represents a significant expansion of jurisdictional reach. This ruling has implications far beyond gambling, potentially establishing precedent for how consumer harm is localized in cross-border digital services. The principle could influence future cases involving social media platforms, fintech services, and other digital offerings where the locus of harm is disputed.
Meanwhile, the week’s political developments reveal growing institutional stress within the EU framework. The joint statements by Presidents Costa and von der Leyen regarding Greenland appear to be responding to external pressure, likely from the United States, highlighting how geopolitical tensions are increasingly constraining European policy autonomy. The European Parliament’s focus on the European Democracy Shield Special Committee and electoral reform hurdles suggests internal recognition that EU democratic institutions may not be adequately equipped to handle contemporary challenges.
Perhaps most significant for the technology sector is the renewed discussion around establishing an independent EU tech regulator. The Politico report highlighting this debate as “Washington’s worst nightmare” captures the growing transatlantic tension over digital governance. The proposal for a standalone regulator, independent of Brussels institutions and specifically empowered to enforce violations by US companies, represents a potential paradigm shift in how the EU approaches technology regulation. Current enforcement mechanisms, distributed across national authorities and various Commission directorates, have proven inadequate to the scale and speed required for effective digital market oversight.
The Coinbase controversy surrounding the CLARITY Act demonstrates how private sector lobbying can derail broader regulatory frameworks, even in supposedly favorable political environments. The crypto industry’s political capital appears to be fragmenting just as regulatory clarity seemed within reach, suggesting that even well-resourced industries struggle to maintain unified positions when specific commercial interests diverge from broader sectoral goals.
The EU-Mercosur agreement signing ceremony, while seemingly unrelated to digital policy, actually represents another piece of the broader puzzle of European strategic autonomy. Trade agreements increasingly include digital provisions, data flow arrangements, and technology transfer terms that will shape the regulatory landscape for years to come. The Council’s emphasis on this agreement signals European determination to diversify economic partnerships amid growing US pressure.
From an enforcement perspective, the week reveals a troubling pattern of regulatory fragmentation. The Italian DPA crisis, the calls for a new tech regulator, and the gambling jurisdiction ruling all point to a system struggling to maintain coherence across multiple jurisdictions and regulatory domains. National authorities are facing internal pressures, European institutions are being challenged by external forces, and the private sector is increasingly able to play different jurisdictions against each other.
The implications for legal practitioners are significant. Cross-border enforcement actions are becoming more complex as jurisdictional rules evolve. Privacy compliance strategies must account for potential instability within national authorities. Technology clients need to prepare for potentially more aggressive and centralized European enforcement mechanisms.
Looking forward, several critical questions emerge: Will the Italian DPA crisis spread to other national authorities, undermining the distributed enforcement model that underpins GDPR implementation? Can the EU establish a truly independent tech regulator without triggering massive retaliation from trading partners? And perhaps most fundamentally, are current European institutional structures adequate to the challenge of regulating global technology platforms while maintaining democratic legitimacy and legal coherence?
The answers to these questions will likely determine whether European digital sovereignty remains an aspiration or becomes a regulatory reality.
📧 Edited by Nicola Fabiano
Lawyer - Fabiano Law Firm
🌐 Studio Legale Fabiano: https://www.fabiano.law
🌐 Blog: https://www.nicfab.eu
🌐 DAPPREMO: www.dappremo.eu
Partnership
Follow us on Telegram 👉 @nicfabnews