Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europe is testing how far it’s willing to go — at home and abroad. In this episode of EU Confidential, host Sarah Wheaton talks to Jonathan Haidt, author of the best-selling “The Anxious Generation.” His research is inspiring social media bans for kids in countries including France and Australia, even as tech companies and some researchers strongly contest his conclusions. Alongside him is MEP Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová and POLITICO tech reporter Eliza Gkritsi, who is reporting on EU deliberations on protecting teens’ mental health. Later, Sarah is joined by POLITICO’s Nick Vinocur and trade reporter Camille Gijs, who was on the ground in New Delhi for the signing of the EU–India trade and defense agreement — dubbed by Ursula von der Leyen the “mother of all deals.”

BRUSSELS — The fight between Brussels and Washington over tech rules is officially high politics — and shows no sign of stopping in 2026.  Last week the United States sanctioned a former top European Commission official, alleging he was a “mastermind” of the bloc’s content moderation law. The travel ban was a sign the Trump administration is ramping up its attacks on what it calls Europe’s censorship regime.  The pressure puts Brussels between a rock and a hard place.  EU leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron and European Parliament lawmakers dismissed the U.S. move as intimidation and even suggested considering counteraction, ramping up calls for Brussels to hold its ground and reduce the EU’s reliance on U.S. technology.  It suggests that U.S. pressure on the EU’s tech rules is now a full-blown transatlantic dispute of its own, rather than just a sideshow to trade talks, and requires an appropriate response. “The real response must be political,” said Italian Social Democrat lawmaker Brando Benifei, the European Parliament’s lead on relations with the U.S., in response to the American sanctions.  “Our sleepwalking leaders must wake up, because there’s no time left.” While the Commission condemned the U.S. move, its President Ursula von der Leyen offered a muted response, highlighting only the importance of freedom of speech in a post on X. ONLY THE START The U.S. move to impose a travel ban on Frenchman Thierry Breton, who served as the EU’s internal market chief from 2019 to 2024 and led the drafting of the Digital Services Act, marked an acceleration in the U.S. campaign against the EU’s tech rules.  Breton has borne the brunt of criticism over the EU’s tech rules, particularly following his public spat with U.S. President Donald Trump’s one-time ally, X owner Elon Musk. The tech billionaire appears to be back in the president’s good books after a bitter falling-out over the summer. A letter Breton sent in August 2024 to warn Musk ahead of an upcoming livestream featuring then-presidential candidate Trump was repeatedly shared by Trump loyalists after Breton was sanctioned.  Another four individuals were sanctioned, including two from German NGO HateAid, which Berlin’s regulators have said is a “trusted” organization to flag illegal content like hate speech.   The U.S. had previously mainly threatened the EU over its tech rules, or invoked them when the EU demanded concessions from Washington such as lower steel and aluminum tariffs in early December. But after the Commission crossed the Rubicon in early December and imposed its first-ever Digital Services Act fine on Musk’s X, Washington responded with the travel bans.  The EU executive has repeatedly said its enforcement of the DSA is not political, yet Washington insists it is nothing but.  Threats of travel restrictions from the U.S. have been trickling in since the summer, but the Commission has declined to say how it plans to protect its officials.  Both sides still have room — and face internal calls to escalate — in what is now a full-blown transatlantic dispute over the limits of free speech.  Just earlier this month, when the U.S. announced its intention to require social media disclosures from people hoping to enter the country on temporary visas, Commission chief spokesperson Paula Pinho insisted these were only plans and declined to comment on how it would protect its staff working on the DSA.  Pressured by journalists about the impact on staff working on digital rules, she said tech spokesperson Thomas Regnier had no plans to visit the U.S.  Still, the sanctions announced by the State Department may be only a warning shot.  The measures announced last week targeted a former Commission official, not someone currently in office. The U.S. still has many other tools in its arsenal, which U.S. politicians say it should use.  Missouri Republican Senator Eric Schmitt called for the use of Magnitsky sanctions, which are financial measures that can cause significant operational headaches including asset freezes and barring U.S. entities from trading with sanctioned entities.  While they are normally reserved for serious human rights violations like war crimes or the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the Trump administration has already used them to go after another person deemed to be a modern agent of censorship.  In July, the Treasury and State departments announced Magnitsky sanctions against Brazilian Judge Alexandre de Moraes, including for suppressing “speech that is protected under the U.S. Constitution.”  De Moraes has drawn the same criticism as EU officials from the Trump administration and its allies, including Musk.  COUNTERACTION The Commission also faces heat from the other side, with EU country leaders and European Parliament lawmakers demanding a more political response to the situation.  The EU’s tech rules have been a regular topic of debate at the Parliament’s plenary sessions, and several lawmakers have indicated the U.S. travel restrictions could be on the agenda for the January session.  German Greens lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky said the EU should not rule out considering some sort of counteraction.  “Europe must respond. It must raise pressure in the trade talks and consider measures against senior tech executives who actively support the U.S. administration agenda,” he said in a statement shared with POLITICO.  Breton himself accused the EU institutions of being “very weak” in an interview with TF1. Just before the break, in a rare joint address, MEPs from four political groups called for stronger action against U.S. Big Tech companies.  “The small fine against X is a good beginning, but it comes definitely too late, and it’s absolutely not enough,” said German Greens MEP Alexandra Geese. The socialists have tried to kick off a special inquiry committee to figure out if the Commission is strong enough in enforcing the DSA, although support from other groups is lacking.  The Commission has yet to announce its decisions on the meatier part of its DSA probe into X and other platforms.  Others see the U.S. sanctions as another warning to reduce reliance on U.S. technology and build up the EU’s own technological capacity.  “Lovely, but not enough,” Aurore Lalucq, a French MEP and chair of the economic affairs committee, quipped in response to the Commission’s condemnation of the U.S. sanctions.  “We need to build our independence now. It starts with our payment systems, a sovereign cloud, and an industrial policy for digital infrastructure and social networks.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive move to block states from regulating artificial intelligence is splitting the tech lobby — and steering its frustration squarely toward David Sacks, the president’s top AI adviser. Sacks, a San Francisco-based investor, largely wrote the executive order Trump signed last week that throws the legal and financial power of the federal government against state AI laws. A controversial move even within the GOP, it was a major win for Sacks, who also acted as its biggest promoter within the White House. Standing next to Trump last Thursday as the president signed the order, Sacks touted its importance. “You’ve got 50 states running in 50 different directions — it just doesn’t make sense,” he said. “We’re creating a confusing patchwork of regulation, and what we need is a single federal standard.” Tech companies largely agree with that view. But they and their lobbyists worry the order — and Sacks’ bulldozing style — have set their interests back by creating new friction in Congress, and derailing a national strategy that recently notched a big win in California. More than half a dozen people closely involved with the issue in Washington told POLITICO that Sacks undercut the tech industry’s effort on Capitol Hill to craft a more permanent federal solution on state AI rules, instead ramming through unilateral action that could turn AI law into a national political fight. “He’s made it a lot harder,” said Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, an organization pressing Washington for new rules on AI. “Thanks to the preemption fights, you have kids’ safety groups, you have Republican governors, Republican [attorneys general], you have Marjorie Taylor Greene denouncing it. It’s become a thing,” said Carson. “And that’s all because of, really, their efforts just to jam everyone.” Carson’s organization, funded by progressive groups like the Omidyar Foundation, is generally seen as opposed to the tech lobby. But in interviews for this article, numerous people in and around the AI industry said they agree with his claim that Sacks’ order undercuts the congressional effort to preempt state AI rules — and given its tenuous legal status, may not even protect them from state rules in the meantime. “Businesses don’t like uncertainty, OK?” said Bilal Zuberi, founder and managing partner at venture capitalist firm Red Glass Ventures. “And this is an uncertain future for any EO.” The escalating concern about Sacks’ strategy — especially his approach to Congress — shows how the hard-charging, maximalist ethos of the tech billionaires surrounding Trump continues to clash with the cautious give-and-take that has historically led to major legislative wins in Washington. In a statement to POLITICO, a senior White House official framed the executive order as a strategic play to spur Capitol Hill into action. “As the President said, if Congress didn’t act, he would,” said the official, granted anonymity to discuss the administration’s strategy candidly. The official called the order “a big step forward for AI in the United States from facing a patchwork of regulations” — but also said that the administration still wants to work with Congress and that it “incorporated significant feedback in the last few weeks” on the order. TWO WINS, AND A QUICK BACKLASH Sacks is an Elon Musk confidant who had spent little time in Washington before snagging a top White House job overseeing AI and crypto policy. His work as a Silicon Valley investor has also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. He serves as a special government employee, a distinction that caps his work at 130 days over a year-long period. He has previously notched two major wins in Washington, helping push through a pro-crypto law and weakening restrictions on microchip sales to China, which benefited the California chipmaking giant Nvidia. But on state AI laws, Sacks’ push for an executive order interrupted the political momentum that industry had been building for a compromise approach. Most notably, Big Tech had hashed out a victory in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an AI safety law largely supported by the industry, its Democratic critics and pro-business Republicans. Many in the AI lobby had hoped to ride that current into Washington with a new strategy to cut a deal for a federal law that both Democrats and Republicans could support. But that era of good feelings ended when Trump signed the order last week, threatening to deploy the Department of Justice directly against California and other states moving to regulate AI, some of them Republican-led. Within minutes of the order’s signing, Newsom shot back: “President Trump and Davis [sic] Sacks aren’t making policy — they’re running a con.” Other Democrats also piled on, with some on Capitol Hill pledging to introduce bills that would repeal the order. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said Monday that his state “has a right” to regulate AI and predicted Florida “would be well positioned to be able to prevail” in any legal challenge. Carson said the order is “only going to embolden a lot of people more on the other side of this question, Republicans included, to do something.” “Do you think Gavin Newsom is going to say, ‘I’m not going to push AI?’ Carson asked. “He may be more eager to do it now than ever.” WHAT WENT WRONG The political breakdown threatens to further undermine the tech lobby’s preferred approach to blocking state AI laws — a deal, passed by Congress, that could bring skeptical lawmakers on board by preempting state regulations in exchange for new federal rules on kids’ safety and frontier AI models. An effort to craft such a deal and insert it into a must-pass defense bill fizzled earlier this month. In looking at what went wrong, six people familiar with the negotiations — industry representatives, AI experts and others involved in talks on Capitol Hill — identified the White House’s aggressive and uncompromising posture. And they pinned that approach largely on Sacks, who the Trump administration has entrusted with the AI acceleration portfolio in Washington. Like many others in this report, these people were granted anonymity to speak candidly about sensitive discussions on a top industry priority. “This was the best opportunity, possibly in the entire Trump administration, to get [state AI] preemption done,” said one person familiar with the defense-bill negotiations. “Most people thought a compromise on policy would be necessary to make it happen. David was unwilling to make that compromise, so we are where we are — and for now, preemption is on life support.” A Trump administration official also told POLITICO that there is “frustration” at multiple agencies over Sacks’ effort to “rush” state AI preemption. Sacks “was very successful in the private sector, [but] he doesn’t understand how government works,” said another person familiar with talks around the AI preemption push. “He doesn’t understand how to build coalitions. He doesn’t understand how to concede on minor things in order to get a win, and he just tries to bulldoze everybody.” A WINDOW OPENS — AND SLAMS SHUT Since AI began its meteoric recent growth, Congress has done little either to rein in the technology or promote it. States, however, have stepped into that gap: Legislators in both parties have introduced AI bills in all 50 states, and this year adopted dozens of new laws in states as diverse as California, Texas, New York and Utah. The industry has been pushing for a moratorium on state laws until a streamlined national regime can be put in place. This summer, a Republican attempt in Washington to insert such a provision into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act crashed and burned in a 99-to-1 Senate vote. In the wake of that failure, tech lobbyists began pulling together the contours of a deal on preemption that they believed could attract Democrats and some concerned Republicans on Capitol Hill. The tech lobby would get its ban on most state AI laws, while Democrats and tech-skeptical Republicans would receive new child safety protections as well as rules on frontier AI models. The defense bill eventually emerged as the most likely vehicle for that compromise. “Right before Thanksgiving, there really was, in an odd way, an aperture for negotiation,” said one top representative for the AI industry. But that representative, as well as other people familiar with the preemption talks, said Sacks’ reluctance to pressure House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) or other lawmakers to compromise helped sink a major opportunity for the AI sector. In fast-moving legislative maneuvers like this one, the White House often plays a key role by pressing Congress to compromise. But people familiar with the talks said Sacks had little interest in granting concessions to Democrats or skeptical Republicans — preferring instead to jam Congress by unilaterally preempting state rules with an executive order. The industry representative said the message Sacks delivered to Congress — that Republicans shouldn’t negotiate, but instead just ram preemption through — caused the effort to fizzle out. “He has been probably more intransigent, with people saying to him, ‘No, David, we actually have a chance here,’” the representative said. “‘It’s so hard to pass bills in Washington. We actually have a moment. Let’s just go and figure this out.’” Several people stressed that the failure to preempt state AI laws via the defense bill wasn’t Sacks’ alone. They said Scalise was already wary of a compromise on state AI preemption, as were influential AI safety groups and some Democratic lawmakers. A senior official in Scalise’s office said the House majority leader was open to some kind of a defense-bill compromise on preemption, but that key Democrats failed to engage. Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, disputed that characterization, telling POLITICO that her office “had talks all summer” about preemption and “even met with David Sacks.” “We were like, here’s what we need to do,” Cantwell said in early December. “And then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, comes this push to put it in the [defense bill].” One person familiar with the defense-bill negotiations said Sacks and the White House could have pressed both sides to make a deal — but chose instead to pull away from Congress and pursue an executive order. “Everyone was looking for leadership here,” the person said. “We’re in one of those situations where we’re asking, ‘Who’s in charge?’” AN UNWELCOME ORDER If Sacks’ reluctance to compromise weakened the congressional effort to find common ground on preemption, his drafting of a new executive order — one that mostly circumvents Congress and promises to turn state preemption into a court battle — finished it off earlier this month. Multiple people said they believed Sacks saw the order as leverage over Congress, and expected it would force the hand of AI-skeptical lawmakers to approve state preemption. “I think his calculus was, ‘We should show that we’re going to take action unless Congress does,’” said one AI policy expert familiar with the negotiations. But the plan backfired. In late November, a draft of the order leaked — and its brute-force approach sparked a flood of public pushback from Democratic legislators and state governors, including Republicans. The AI expert said the draft order caused both sides to “dig in their corners, double down on the positions they were holding.” It was a predictable outcome for Washington veterans, who had believed that any White House attempt to strongarm Congress would sabotage a compromise. The executive order signed by Trump last Thursday is meant to help industry by limiting states’ ability to regulate AI. But most tech lobbyists believe the order is on shaky legal ground, providing scant relief from state rules even as it puts a congressional compromise further out of reach. “I welcome the consistency of having one single rulebook,” said Dorna Moini, CEO of Gavel, an AI and automation suite for lawyers. “But the reality is that the uncertainty isn’t reduced. It’s whiplash, and now there is this chaos as to whether the preemption is going to be valid.” “This needs to be done by Congress,” said one tech lobbyist last Thursday, predicting legal challenges to actions taken under the executive order. After POLITICO contacted the White House for this report, two tech firms reached out to praise one aspect of the order, its call for Congress to preempt state AI laws. “The EO helps underscore the urgency of getting this done correctly,” said Luther Lowe, head of public policy at San Francisco-based venture capitalist firm Y Combinator. Lowe expressed a desire to “work with Congress to make sure this is done correctly.” In a statement, Chris Lehane, head of global affairs at OpenAI, said his company is “aligned with the Executive Order’s clear language about the need for federal legislation to establish a national framework as an important step towards helping to set up the much needed federal legislation in 2026.” Neither Lowe nor Lehane addressed the meat of the executive order, which directs federal agencies to target states that pass AI laws. CAN THE WHITE HOUSE GET TO ‘YES’? A handful of lobbyists and industry-friendly experts defended Sacks for this report. “I’m not worried about Sacks’ chops in terms of his ability to navigate Congress and get things done,” said Collin McCune, head of government affairs at venture capitalist firm Andreessen Horowitz, which has close ties to the Trump White House. McCune noted that Sacks “pushed through an incredibly complicated, historic crypto bill — that was his first thing out of the gate.” But others are now wondering if Sacks has become a liability in the AI industry’s quest to preempt state AI rules. And if Sacks refuses to bless a viable legislative deal on preemption, some say he should be sidelined. “He either does have to go, or he has to do the world’s biggest PR campaign,” said one person familiar with the preemption talks in Washington. “He will have to do a real tour across town, and really change his attitude in a way that would surprise me if he were able to pull it off.” There are some early signs that Sacks may moderate his take-no-prisoners approach to a state AI moratorium. Sacks recently convened a special meeting with GOP governors and staff where he sought to assuage their concerns that the executive order would undermine states’ ability to protect kids online, according to one person familiar with the conversation. The final order was slightly softened from its earlier draft, including a carveout that lets states regulate AI’s impact on kids. And at the signing ceremony for the order, Sacks pledged to “work with Congress” to “define [a] framework” for AI. Still, many in industry remain unconvinced that Sacks — or Trump — are ready to compromise. At a White House holiday party earlier this week, the president indicated that he hopes Congress will codify his executive order on state AI laws. “But even if we can’t, it’s good for three years and two months,” Trump added. As the new year approaches, the AI industry is watching the White House closely. “Can they reach a deal on a legislative framework, and can they keep the aperture for a deal open?” the top industry representative asked. “Or does the administration continue to do things that poison the well?” Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Lawmakers in the European Parliament have called on the institution to change its travel booking software amid fears their travel plans could be spied on or disrupted by U.S. government interests, in a letter obtained by POLITICO. In a stark sign of growing unease about American tech reliance, 64 lawmakers are pressing President Roberta Metsola to ditch the chamber’s travel-booking provider, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, after it was acquired by American Express Global Business Travel in September. The lawmakers argue that the new U.S. ownership puts lawmakers at risk of foreign snooping, as CWT has access to the “most sensitive information,” including their “passport details, credit card data, travel arrangements and their exact whereabouts at any given moment,” and could put them at the mercy of American sanctions. CWT last month canceled travel bookings for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, who was due to speak at the Parliament in Strasbourg because of U.S. sanctions, according to an internal email seen by POLITICO. “The use of CWT for our travel arrangements exposes MEPs and Parliament staff to the real and present danger of U.S. sanctions, which have already been weaponized against European officials in the past,” the letter warns. “Such measures are not merely theoretical; they are a direct threat to the operational independence and dignity of our institution.” Signatories of the letter include Andreas Schwab from the center-right European People’s Party; Tiemo Wölken, Laura Ballarín Cereza and Aurore Lalucq from the Socialists and Democrats; Helmut Brandstätter, Christophe Grudler, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin and Sandro Gozi from the liberal Renew group; Alexandra Geese and Nela Riehl from the Greens; and Leila Chaibi from The Left. The internal email said the Parliament is working to contract an alternative Belgian travel booking provider it can use for sanctioned individuals. A spokesperson for the Parliament told POLITICO: “A structural solution is in place for such situations, allowing the necessary arrangements to be made without any delay.” “As a matter of policy, and in compliance with applicable law, American Express Global Business Travel does not comment on our clients,” a spokesperson for the company said. Organizations across Europe are growing increasingly wary of the risks of years of reliance on U.S. tech, as the EU also tries to boost its own economic competitiveness. Alarm bells have been ringing about the possibility that the White House could weaponize the EU’s dependence on U.S. technology, in particular through sanctions. In a previous request reported by POLITICO, a cross-party group including several of the same lawmakers urged the European Parliament to phase out U.S. technology — most notably Microsoft — in favor of European alternatives. “In these turbulent times, when even old friends can turn into foes and their companies into a political tool, we cannot afford this level of dependence on foreign tech, let alone continue funneling billions of taxpayers’ money abroad,” that group said last month. The International Criminal Court has moved to replace Microsoft Suite with the German solution OpenDesk amid concerns that a new wave of U.S. sanctions could paralyze the organization’s day-to-day operations. “It is just unacceptable that MEPs could be prevented from fulfilling their parliamentary duties due to a decision by the U.S. administration to sanction them,” centrist lawmaker Anna Stürgkh told Metsola during a session of the Parliament on Monday, pressing Metsola “to make sure that the sovereignty of this house is ensured.” The Parliament’s spokesperson said that the “institution’s services ensure that all IT solutions comply with the EU legal obligations and protect user privacy.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed reporting.

The Trump administration is forming a coalition to counter China’s dominant control of critical minerals and emerging power as a center of AI and other tech sectors. The administration plans to launch the coalition of partners with the signing Friday of the Pax Silica Declaration, uniting Singapore, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Israel in a collaboration intended to address deficits in critical mineral access edging out China’s massive investment in its critical minerals and tech sector. The administration is actively looking to enlist other countries to join the group. The initiative underscores the degree to which the Trump administration considers China’s near monopoly in rare earths – minerals that are critical to civilian and military applications – and dominance of other parts of the global supply chain, as a significant threat. Beijing has wielded its dominance of the sector through export restrictions intended to hit back against the Trump administration’s aggressive tariff policy on Chinese imports. The declaration also reflects U.S. concern about China’s massive investment in artificial intelligence and quantum computing that could give it a competitive edge in the 21st century economy. “It’s an industrial policy for an economic security coalition and it’s a game changer because there is no grouping today where we can get together to talk about the AI economy and how we compete with China in AI,” Helberg said. “By aligning our economic security approaches, we can start to have cohesion to basically block China’s Belt and Road Initiative — which is really designed to magnify its export-led model — by denying China the ability to buy ports, major highways, transportation and logistics corridors.” Helberg said that the Trump administration aims to expand the coalition from the initial five countries that sign the declaration to include more allies and partners with mineral, technological and manufacturing resources. The signing of the declaration kicks off the administration’s one-day Pax Silica Summit, which will include officials from the European Union, Canada, the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates. The summit will feature discussions about cooperation in areas such as advanced manufacturing, mineral refining and logistics. “This grouping of countries will be to the AI age what the G7 was to the industrial age,” Helberg said. “It commits us to a process by which we’re going to cooperate on aligning our export controls, screening of foreign investments, addressing anti-dumping but with a very proactive agenda on securing choke points in the global supply chain system.”

LONDON — Australia hopes its teenage social media ban will create a domino effect around the world. Britain isn’t so sure.  As a new law banning under-16s from signing up to platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok comes into force today, U.K. lawmakers ten thousand miles away are watching closely, but not jumping in. “There are no current plans to implement a smartphone or social media ban for children. It’s important we protect children while letting them benefit safely from the digital world, without cutting off essential services or isolating the most vulnerable,” a No.10 spokesperson said Tuesday. Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents.  While England’s children’s commissioner and some MPs are supportive of a ban, neither the poll-topping Reform UK or opposition Conservative Party are pushing to mirror moves down under.  “We believe that bans are ineffective,” a Reform UK spokesperson said.  Even the usually Big Tech skeptic lobby groups have their doubts about the Australian model — despite strong public support to replicate the move in the U.K. Chris Sherwood, chief executive of the NSPCC, which has led the charge in pushing for tough regulation of social media companies over the last decade, said: “We must not punish young people for the failure of tech companies to create safe experiences online.  “Services must be accountable for knowing what content is being pushed out on their platforms and ensuring that young people can enjoy social media safely.” Andy Burrows, who leads the Molly Rose Foundation campaign group, argues the Australian approach is flawed and will push children to higher-risk platforms not included in the ban.  His charity was set up in 2018 in the name of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 while suffering from “depression and the negative effects of online content,” a coroner’s inquest concluded.  Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images “The quickest and most effective response to better protect children online is to strengthen regulation that directly addresses product safety and design risks rather than an overarching ban that comes with a slew of unintended consequences,” Burrows said.  “We need evidence-based approaches, not knee-jerk responses.” AUSSIE RULES Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. But insists: “We cannot control the ocean, but we can police the sharks.” She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.  “Parents shouldn’t have to fight billion-dollar companies to keep their kids safe online — the responsibility belongs with the platforms,” Inman Grant told Australia’s Happy Families podcast.  But the move does come with diplomatic peril. Inman Grant has not escaped the attention of the White House, which is pressuring countries to overturn tech regulations it views as unfairly targeting American companies.  U.S. congressman and Trump ally Jim Jordan has asked Inman Grant to testify before the Judiciary Committee he chairs, accusing her of being a “zealot for global [content] takedowns.” She hit back last week, describing the request as an example of territorial overreach.  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. It was the first to bring in a news media bargaining code to force Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers, and was the first major economy to rule out changing laws to let AI companies train on copyrighted material without permission. The U.K. has also upset the White House with its existing online safety measures, and the Trump administration said earlier this year it is monitoring freedom of speech concerns in the U.K. Australia is used to facing down the Big Tech lobby, explains Daniel Stone, who advised the ruling Labor Government on tech policy. “Julie has the benefit of knowing the [political] cabinet is fully supportive of her position,” he said. “It defines what’s permissible across the whole system.”  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images “If there is a lesson for the U.K., it is that you don’t have a strong regulator unless you have a strong political leader with a clear and consistent agenda,” Stone adds.  “Australia has its anxieties, too, about pushing U.S. tech companies, but they carry themselves with confidence,” said Stone. “You have to approach Trump from a position of strength.”  Rebecca Razavi, a former Australian diplomat, regulator and visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, agrees. “The thinking is, we’re a mid-sized economy and there’s this asymmetry with tech platforms dominating, and there’s actually a need to put things in place using an Australian approach to regulation,” she said.  Other countries, including Brazil, Malaysia and some European countries are moving in a similar direction. Last month the European Parliament called for a continent-wide age restriction on social media.  SLOW DOWN Others are biding their time.  The speed at which Australia’s social media ban was approved by parliament means that many of its pitfalls have not been explored, Razavi cautioned.  The legislation passed through parliament last December in 19 days with cross-party and wide public support. “It was really fast,” she said. “There was a feeling that this is something that parents care about. There’s also a deep frustration that the tech companies are just taking too long to make the reforms that are needed.”  But she added: “Some issues, such as how it works in practice, with age verification and data privacy are only being addressed now.”  Lizzie O’Shea, a human rights lawyer and founder of campaign group Digital Rights Watch, agreed. “There was very little time for consultation and engagement,” she said. “There has then subsequently been a lot of concerns about implementation. I worry about experimenting on particularly vulnerable people.”  For now, Britain and the world is watching to see if Australia’s new way to police social media delivers, or becomes an unworkable knee-jerk reaction. 

LISBON — Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission should continue to enforce its digital rules with an iron fist despite the outcry from U.S. officials and big tech moguls, co-chair of the Greens in the European Parliament Bas Eickhout told POLITICO. As Green politicians from across Europe gather in the Portuguese capital for their annual congress, U.S. top officials are blasting the EU for imposing a penalty on social media platform X for breaching its transparency obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s content moderation rule book. “They should just implement the law, which means they need to be tougher,” Eickhout told POLITICO on the sidelines of the event. He argued that the fine of €120 million is “nothing” for billionaire Elon Musk and that the EU executive should go further. The Commission needs to “make clear that we should be proud of our policies … we are the only ones fighting American Big Tech,” he said, adding that tech companies are “killing freedom of speech in Europe.” The Greens have in the past denounced Meta and X over their content moderation policies, arguing these platforms amplify “disinformation” and “extremism” and interfere in European electoral processes. Meta and X did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication. Meta has “introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU,” a Meta spokesperson said at the end of October. Tech mogul Musk said his response to the penalty would target the EU officials who imposed it. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the fine is “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” and accused the move of “censorship.” “It’s not good when our former allies in Washington are now working hand in glove with Big Tech,” blasted European Green Party chair Ciarán Cuffe at the opening of the congress in Lisbon. Eickhout, whose party GreenLeft-Labor alliance is in negotiations to enter government in the Netherlands, said “we should pick on this battle and stand strong.” The Commission’s decision to fine X under the EU’s Digital Services Act is over transparency concerns. The Commission said the design of X’s blue checkmark is “deceptive,” after it was changed from user verification into a paid feature. The EU’s executive also said X’s advertising library lacks transparency and that it fails to provide access to public data for researchers as required by the law.  Eickhout lamented that European governments are slow in condemning the U.S. moves against the EU, and argued that with its recent national security strategy, the Americans have made clear their objective is to divide Europe from within by fueling far-right parties. “Some of the leaders like [French President Emmanuel] Macron are still desperately trying to say that that the United States are our ally,” Eickhout said. “I want to see urgency on how Europe is going to take its own path and not rely on the U.S. anymore, because it’s clear we cannot.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission plans to wrap several of its investigations into Big Tech under the bloc’s content moderation law soon, tech chief Henna Virkkunen said Friday. That’s likely to enrage officials in Washington, several of whom said that they consider U.S. companies are being unfairly targeted by Brussels. The European Commission on Friday slapped a €120 million fine on Elon Musk’s X for not complying with transparency obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It was the first-ever fine under the law that makes platforms liable for content moderation. “In the coming months, there will be more decisions coming,” Virkkunen told reporters after a meeting of EU digital affairs ministers in Brussels. “With most of the investigations, we already have published the preliminary findings, and after that, the next step is to encourage those online platforms to comply with our rules,” she said. If they don’t, a non-compliance decision — which could include a fine — would follow. While European politicians expressed cautious praise for the X decision on Friday, the Trump administration reacted with fury. “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X. “The days of censoring Americans online are over.” When asked by POLITICO to respond to the accusation that the EU is unfairly targeting American companies, Virkkunen said that of 10 platforms under formal investigation under the DSA, only three are U.S. companies. French President Emmanuel Macron said last week he felt Brussels was “afraid” of tackling U.S. Big Tech and that an “American offensive” had cowed the European Commission. In a press briefing earlier in the day, Virkkunen said that in the case of X, it had taken too long to go from preliminary findings to a final decision. “I agree that it took a very long time, especially from the preliminary findings, because the preliminary findings on this topics [were] already published in summer 2024,” she said.

French President Emmanuel Macron said Brussels is too slow in its handling of probes into American Big Tech companies due to U.S. pressure over the EU’s digital laws. “We have cases that have been before the Commission for two years. It’s much too slow,” Macron said Friday in reference to the EU’s content moderation rule book, the Digital Services Act (DSA). The debate around the matter is “not gaining momentum,” Macron told a local town hall event in the Vosges region, and “many in the Commission and member states are afraid to pursue it because there’s an American offensive against the application of directives on digital services and markets.” Macron promised to push for action at the EU level, adding: “We have a geopolitical battle to fight. This is not Russian interference, it is clearly American because these platforms do not want us to bother them.” Macron’s remarks follow a week that saw renewed pressure from the U.S. over the EU’s two tech rulebooks, the DSA and the Digital Markets Act. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick urged EU ministers on Monday to “reconsider” the rulebooks in exchange for lower U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs, in line with the American playbook of treating the EU’s tech rules as a bargaining chip in a transatlantic trade war. The rules have been a target for the U.S. administration and tech executives ever since President Donald Trump returned to office. Both the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, and her competition colleague, Teresa Ribera, came out against the U.S. pressure this week, with the latter accusing Washington of “blackmail.” The European Commission is also under pressure from European Parliament lawmakers, with the Socialists and Democrats group moving to set up an inquiry committee to investigate the EU’s enforcement of digital rules. Responding to Macron’s remarks, European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said: “We have been very clear since the very beginning: We are fully behind our digital legislation and are enforcing it.” He argued that “some cases take a bit more time than others, because the DSA investigations are broad.” “The Commission services are building solid cases, because we have to win them in court,” he said. The EU has investigations open under the DSA into X, Meta, AliExpress, Temu and TikTok. The probes could lead to fines of 6 percent of a company’s annual global turnover, but none have been levied so far.

BRUSSELS — Platforms including Meta and TikTok will be held liable for financial fraud for the first time under new rules agreed by EU lawmakers in the early hours of Thursday. The Parliament and Council agreed on the package of rules after eight hours of negotiations to strengthen safeguards against payment fraud. The deal adds another layer of EU regulatory risk for U.S. tech giants, which have lobbied the White House to confront Brussels’ anti-monopoly and content moderation rules. “This is a big win. A big, big step forward. We are coming from a reality where platforms are not liable under any law,” Morten Løkkegaard, the Danish Renew MEP who shepherded part of the package through Parliament, told POLITICO. “It is a historical moment.” Social media has become rife with financial scams, and MEPs pushed hard to hold both Big Tech and banks liable during legislative negotiations. EU governments, meanwhile, believed banks should be held responsible if their safeguards aren’t strong enough. As a compromise, lawmakers agreed that banks should reimburse victims if a scammer, impersonating the bank, swindles them out of their money, or if payments are processed without consent. But social media companies will have to compensate banks if it’s clear that they failed to remove an online scam that had been reported. Some MEPs had called for more amid concerns that EU consumer safeguards on social platforms have proven insufficient. “Especially, as AI and social-engineering fuel an unprecedented rise in scams,” said Lithuanian Greens lawmaker Virginijus Sinkevičius. The new rules build on the EU’s Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, which respectively limit the spread of illegal content and prevent large online platforms, such as Google, Amazon and Meta, from overextending their online empires. Breaching the DSA and DMA can come with huge fines, triggering pushback from the tech sector and U.S. President Donald Trump, who has accused the EU of discriminating against American companies. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has threatened to keep 50 percent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminum unless the EU loosens its digital rules. Thursday’s deal triggered immediate criticism from the tech industry. “This convoluted framework undermines simplification efforts and conflicts with the Digital Services Act’s ban on general monitoring — ignoring multiple studies warning it will be counterproductive,” said CCIA Europe Policy Manager Leonardo Veneziani, whose trade body represents Amazon, Google, Meta and Apple. “Instead of protecting consumers, today’s outcome sets a dangerous precedent and shifts responsibility away from those best placed to prevent fraud,” he said.