Is the EU’s deregulation for tech in the room with us?
The EU talks simplification, not deregulation. Despite promises to cut red tape, major digital laws like the GDPR and AI Act are likely to remain largely untouched. Cosmetic tweaks and harmonization are the focus, while new regulatory layers resurface under fresh labels.
Much has been said about the European Commission’s plans for simplification and cutting red tape. Following Mario Draghi’s report on competitiveness, the European Commission’s political guidelines for 2024–2029 outlined plans for simplification. Some European founders have cheerfully welcomed these efforts on social media, often misinterpreting the Commission’s plans as a “review of the GDPR,” “review of the AI Act,” and more.
The Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis pledged bi-annual reports on simplification efforts, the European Commission aims to reduce administrative burdens for European businesses by 25–35% by 2030 and all Commissioners will have to bring their share to the table. We've closely followed the first four simplification omnibuses, the latest of which introduced only cosmetic changes to General Data Protection.
Recently, Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen stated that 'simplification will not mean deregulation.' In the meantime, any delays in new additions to the European digital rulebook are often labeled as 'deregulation' by some media outlets - in our opinion, unfairly.
Recently, at the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (TTE) Council, the Deputy Minister from Czechia proposed a two-year delay in the AI Act’s implementation - a suggestion to which Henna Virkkunen wasn’t as dismissive. Yet, the most important development for AI developers this summer - the General Purpose AI Code of Practice - despite many delays, is still planned for adoption by August 2025.
No deregulation at sight
It’s safe to say that, currently, the European Commission does not appear to be planning any major changes - not even close to what could be called 'deregulation' - in many legislative areas critical to the digital economy, be it the GDPR, the AI Act, or others.
One doesn’t need to read much between the lines to see that, in areas like the Data Strategy rulebook, the Commission will focus on harmonizing implementation across Member States and making cosmetic changes to reporting requirements.
That’s not a bad goal, since many European businesses face fragmented rules that make scaling within Europe costly and nerve-wracking.
Yet, much of the Single Market effort’s success will depend on Member States’ ambition and willingness to go beyond their traditional modus operandi. The EU seems to have many carrots and few sticks to encourage Member States to adopt necessary reforms.
As an illustration, since 2023, the Commission has stopped aggregating Member State results under the DESI Index - in the past, we were able to see a consolidated index that made politicians feel more accountable to their countrymen. Now, we can only compare different sections. Too many feelings have been hurt.
Double standards: a focus on harmonized implementation for some, a complete revamp of recently adopted rules, and an additional layer of regulation for others
The principle of ‘focus on implementation rather than reopening difficult subjects’ does not seem to apply in areas where the Commission has been unsuccessful in the past.
One of the most notable examples is the so-called ‘network fees’ for content service platforms (CSPs). During the last mandate, the proposal received a cold welcome from many Member States, as it aimed to introduce network fees that would benefit internet service providers (ISPs). The idea has already been reincarnated in the White Paper on the EU’s digital infrastructure needs as ‘IP interconnection dispute resolution mechanisms’. Member State representatives have already explicitly said ‘no’ to the idea at December’s Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, yet it is likely to resurface once the Commission’s consultation on the Digital Networks Act is completed.
Another notable example is the push for restrictions on personalized advertising. Back when the Digital Services Act was being discussed, heavy restrictions didn’t make it through - yet the same idea is now resurfacing on the sidelines of the upcoming Digital Fairness Act. Many advertisers, SMEs, and industry players have criticized the proposal, urging the Commission to focus instead on better implementation of existing consumer protection and data management rules. However, the Commission sees this as a ‘regulatory gap’ that needs to be addressed and appears comfortable introducing yet another layer of regulation here.
