LONDON — On the face of it, the new MI6 chief’s first speech featured many of the same villains and heroes as those of her predecessors. But in her first public outing Monday, Blaise Metreweli, the first female head of the U.K.’s foreign intelligence service, sent a strong signal that she intends to put her own stamp on the role – as she highlighted a wave of inter-connected threats to western democracies. Speaking at MI6’s HQ in London, Metreweli, who took over from Richard Moore in October, highlighted a confluence of geo-political and technological disruptions, warning “the frontline is everywhere” and adding “we are now operating in a space between peace and war.” In a speech shot through with references to a shifting transatlantic order and the growth of disinformation, Metreweli made noticeably scant  reference to the historically close relationship with the U.S. in intelligence gathering — the mainstay of the U.K.’s intelligence compact for decades. Instead, she highlighted that a “new bloc and identities are forming and alliances reshaping.” That will be widely seen to reflect an official acknowledgement that the second Donald Trump administration has necessitated a shift in the security services towards cultivating more multilateral relationships. By comparison with a lengthy passage on the seriousness of the Russia threat to Britain, China got away only with a light mention of its cyber attack tendencies towards the U.K. — and was referred to more flatteringly as “a country where a central transformation  is  taking place this century.” Westminster hawks will note that Metreweli — who grew up in Hong Kong and  so knows the Chinese system close-up — walked gingerly around the risk of conflict in the  South China Sea and Beijing’s espionage activities targeting British politicians – and even its royals. In a carefully-placed line, she reflected that she was  “going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour.” Moore, her predecessor, was known for that approach, which delighted those who enjoyed a plain-speaking MI6 boss giving pithy analysis of global tensions and their fallout, but frustrated some in the Foreign Office who believed the affable Moore could be too unguarded in his comments on geo-politics. The implicit suggestion from the new chief was that China needs to be handled differently to the forthright engagement with “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist” Russia. The reasons may well lie in the aftermath of a bruising argument within Whitehall about how to handle the recent case of two Britons who were arrested for spying for China, and with a growth-boosting visit to Beijing by the prime minister scheduled for 2026. Sources in the service suggest the aim of the China strategy is to avoid confrontation, the better to further intelligence-gathering and have a more productive economic relationship with Beijing. More hardline interpreters of the Secret Intelligence Service will raise eyebrows at her suggestion that the “convening power” of the service would enable it to “ defuse tensions.” But there was no doubt about Metreweli’s deep concern at the impacts of social-media disinformation and distortion, in a framing which seemed just as worried about U.S. tech titans as conventional state-run threats:  “We are being contested from battlefield to boardroom — and even our brains — as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other.” Declaring that “some  algorithms become as powerful as states,” seemed to tilt at outfits like Elon Musk’s X and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta-owned Facebook. Metreweli warned that “hyper personalized tools could become a new vector for conflict and control,” pushing their effects on societies and individuals  in “minutes not months – my service must operate in this new context too.” The new boss used the possessive pronoun, talking about “my service” in her speech several times – another sign that she intends to put a distinctive mark of the job, now that she has, at the age of just 48,  inherited the famous green-ink pen in which the head of the service signs correspondence.  Metreweli is experienced operator in war zones including Iraq who spent a secondment with MI5, the domestic intelligence service, and won the job in large part because of her experience in the top job via MI6’s science and technology “Q”  Branch. She clearly wants to expedite changes in the service – saying agents must be as fluent in computer coding as foreign languages. She is also expected to try and address a tendency in the service to harvest information, without a clear focus on the action that should follow – the product of a glut of intelligence gathered via digital means and AI. She  was keen to stress that the human factor is at the heart of it all — an attempt at reassurance for spies and analysts wondering if they might be replaced by AI agents as the job of gathering intelligence in the era of facial recognition and biometrics gets harder.  Armed with a steely gaze Metreweli speaks fluent human, occasionally with a small smile. She is also the first incumbent of the job to wear a very large costume jewelry beetle brooch on her sombre navy attire. No small amount of attention in Moscow and Beijing could go into decoding that.

BRUSSELS — European politicians expressed cautious praise as Brussels slapped a €120 million fine on Elon Musk’s X on Friday, despite American fury over the decision.  The reaction from national diplomats and lawmakers illustrated broad support as the EU finally crossed a Rubicon and issued its first fine under the EU’s rule book to rein in social media platforms, more than two years after it started its enforcement effort.  The divide between the reaction from European capitals and U.S. Vice President JD Vance — who slammed the move before it was announced — sets up a clash that is set to persist as Brussels turns its attention to more enforcement decisions under the Digital Services Act (DSA), and will likely spill into ongoing transatlantic trade talks. Friday’s decision “sends an important signal that the Commission is determined to enforce the DSA,” said Karsten Wildberger, Germany’s digital minister, during a meeting of EU ministers in Brussels. Polish Digital Minister Dariusz Standerski applauded it as a sign of “strong leadership.” After French President Emmanuel Macron last week expressed outspoken criticism of the EU for slow-walking the conclusions, his digital minister, Anne Le Hénanff, said Friday: “France fully supports this decision … which sends a clear message to all platforms.” She later described it as a “magnificent announcement.” Washington meanwhile was quick out of the gate to slam the move from Brussels, with Vance chiming in half a day before the fine was announced to describe it as a penalty “for not engaging in censorship.” He repeated the U.S. mantra of the past year that the EU’s DSA amounts to censorship and restricted speech. “Once again, Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company,” said Brendan Carr, the chair of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in reaction to the decision. “Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations.” “The only substantial meaningful fines that have been imposed so far have been against American companies,” Andrew Puzder, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, told Bloomberg Television. “So at some point, if you’re an American company, you’ve gotta sit back and say, look, am I being targeted here?” Asked for a response, the White House directed POLITICO to Vance’s earlier post. Much of the praise in Europe focused on the assessment that the EU didn’t bow to U.S. pressure, neither on the actual fine nor the enforcement steps — even if the move was seen as long overdue. “The Commission held the line,” said Felix Kartte, currently a special adviser to the European Commission.   “It’s important that the EU does not cave to pressure,” said Marietje Schaake, a former MEP and former Commission adviser.  “I am very pleased to see that the Commission is taking serious steps against the intolerable practices we encounter from some of the major tech platforms. Let’s have more of that!” said Danish digital minister Caroline Stage Olsen.  Several European Parliament lawmakers joined the praise but warned this is only the beginning, noting this is the first of several outstanding probes under the DSA, including others against X. Friday’s decision only concerned X’s transparency obligations; X still faces open probes over the spread of illegal content and information manipulation.  In total, 10 investigations into large platforms including Amazon, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are still up in the air. “This is an important start, but not a breakthrough,” said German Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese. “As long as the Commission fails to rule on the algorithms, the central level of manipulation remains untouched.”   French liberal lawmaker Sandro Gozi urged that “this long overdue decision must mark a step change,” while Danish Social Democrat Christel Schaldemose said she wanted “far greater transparency” on how the Commission enforces the DSA.  Speaking to reporters Friday, Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen stressed repeatedly that this is only part of the investigation into X. Acknowledging the criticisms that the EU has been slow to reach this point, she promised that the next decisions would come quicker.   Other observers criticized the size of the X penalty. A fine of €120 million is seen as relatively modest compared to the €2.95 billion fine that Google got for antitrust issues under the bloc’s sister digital law, the Digital Markets Act.   “120m is no deterrent to X,” said Cori Crider, executive director at the Future of Technology Institute. “Musk will moan in public — in private, he will be doing cartwheels.”   “Yes, the fine may seem small,” acknowledged Kartte. The DSA law says fines will take into account “the nature, gravity, duration and recurrence of the infringement” and cannot exceed 6 percent of a company’s annual global turnover.  Commission officials refused to give a clear answer on how they came to the €120 million figure when pressed. A senior official repeatedly said the fine is “proportionate” to the infringement. But how it was calculated can’t be “drilled down to a simple economic formula,” they said. The official said the Commission has found three entities behind X; X Holdings Companies, xAI and Elon Musk “at the top.”   The fine is “for a breach committed by X” but “addressed to the entire corporate structure,” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters.   Based on estimates of company values, that means the upper threshold could have reached as high as €5.9 billion.

BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen hasn’t even published her plans to overhaul the EU’s digital laws yet and already the European Parliament is signaling: This shall not pass.   Political groups to the left of von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party are coming out against draft proposals for a digital omnibus legislation that reveal how the EU executive is looking to loosen privacy rules, amend its artificial intelligence law, and overhaul data legislation to the benefit of industry — not least American tech giants.   In letters to the European Commission, political groups from center to left barreled into the draft reforms, calling them “extremely worrying,” asking the executive to “reverse course,” and slamming it for what they see as a capitulation to U.S. demands. The backlash puts von der Leyen in a bind. She could opt to change her proposals ahead of the formal presentation next Wednesday, or else she’ll have to seek votes on the far right — yet again — to pass a key part of her political platform. The EPP is already expected to lean on right-wing support to pass its green rules simplification legislation on Thursday due to a lack of support in the center. The Commission also backed down on its budget plans to avert a rebellion of centrist groups in the Parliament, POLITICO reported Sunday.  The digital omnibus draft proposals, obtained by POLITICO last week, showed how the EU executive is looking to ease rules on AI firms under the flagship General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It’s looking to create exceptions for AI companies that would allow them to legally process data linked to people’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data to train and operate their tech, and also wants to redefine categories of personal data, which would relieve swaths of data from the privacy protections they currently enjoy. The proposals also envision tweaks to the EU’s landmark AI law, like delays on fines for watermarked content and exemptions for small businesses. The drafts drew the ire of the center and the left in the Parliament in recent days. Such outcries are exceptional: Parliament groups often refrain from taking a position until a proposal is formally presented. The Greens group, liberal Renew and Socialists and Democrats have all drawn up letters slamming the Commission. The Greens addressed von der Leyen and the Commission’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen, asking them to “reverse course and focus on actual simplification” of tech laws, in a letter shared with POLITICO.   Alexandra Geese, a prominent German member of the Greens group, said the Commission’s plans would “dismantle the protection of European citizens for the benefit of U.S. tech giants.” She said “the Commission should focus on real simplification and streamlining of definitions rather than bending their knee to the U.S. administration.”  The Renew group voiced “strong opposition to certain changes” and called some of the draft tweaks “extremely worrying.” “We would strongly ask you to remove and reconsider those proposed changes before presenting the official proposals,” the group wrote in its letter to von der Leyen and key commissioners, shared with POLITICO. The Greens addressed von der Leyen and the Commission’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen, asking them to “reverse course and focus on actual simplification” of tech laws, in a letter shared with POLITICO.  | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Italian S&D MEP Brando Benifei, the Parliament’s lead negotiator on the AI Act, said he was “deeply skeptical of reopening the AI Act before it’s fully in force and without impact assessment.” Two dozen lawmakers from The Left, the Greens and S&D also backed a written question drawn up by French left-wing MEP Leïla Chaibi that will be filed this week. It follows the EU executive’s reportedly “engaging” with the Donald Trump administration in the lead-up to the omnibus proposal. In it, lawmakers said: “The European Commission’s apparent willingness to yield to pressure from the White House in this way raises serious concerns about the European Union’s digital sovereignty.”  The S&D came out swinging in a letter on Tuesday, warning the Commission that they’ll oppose “any attempt” to weaken the foundations of the EU’s privacy framework that would “lower the level of personal data protection, or narrow the GDPR’s scope.” The group said Europe’s digital laws at large have “inspired international partners and positioned Europe as a normative power in global tech governance.” RIGHT TO THE RESCUE?  Von der Leyen’s EPP hasn’t yet issued a united statement about the draft digital simplification plans.   Finnish center-right lawmaker Aura Salla — who previously led Meta’s Brussels lobbying office — said earlier she would “warmly” welcome the proposal “if done correctly,” as it could bring legal certainty for AI companies.  The center right, which holds the most seats in the Parliament, could seek support to its right with the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) and Patriots for Europe. Piotr Müller, a Polish ECR member, welcomed the Commission’s draft texts: “After years of excessive legislation that has stifled progress, it is five to midnight: We need ambitious deregulation now.” Further to the right, French lawmaker Sarah Knafo from the ESN said it would be a “breath of fresh air for our businesses,” lamenting that “Europe has locked itself into absurd over-regulation in the technology sector, which stifles all innovation.” On the issue of privacy, though, some right-wing lawmakers could turn against the draft idea. The right has previously defended personal privacy and personal freedoms over industry’s interests in some legislative fights. “We need to let our tech players move forward, while remaining vigilant about sovereignty and control over our data,” Knafo said.  Lawmakers on both the left and right will be under fire from powerful privacy lobbyists. Civil society campaigners have sounded the alarm in recent days after the drafts leaked. The Commission is “secretly trying to overrun everyone else in Brussels,” Max Schrems, founder of Austrian privacy group Noyb and a prominent European privacy campaigner, said previously. The proposals also have to make their way through the Council of the EU, where countries are equally divided on whether to touch privacy rules.  Documents seen by POLITICO show that at least four countries — Estonia, France, Austria and Slovenia — are firmly against any rewrite of the GDPR. Germany, usually seen as one of the most privacy-minded countries, came out in favor of big changes to help AI blossom. 

BRUSSELS — European Union officials are ready to sacrifice some of their most prized privacy rules for the sake of AI, as they seek to turbocharge business in Europe by slashing red tape.  The European Commission will unveil a “digital omnibus” package later this month to simplify many of its tech laws. The executive has insisted that it is only trimming excess fat through “targeted” amendments, but draft documents obtained by POLITICO show that officials are planning far-reaching changes to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to the benefit of artificial intelligence developers.   The proposed overhaul will come as a boon to businesses working with AI, as Europe scrambles to stay economically competitive on the world stage. But touching the flagship privacy law — seen as the “third rail” of EU tech policy — is expected to trigger a massive political and lobbying storm in Brussels. “Is this the end of data protection and privacy as we have signed it into the EU treaty and fundamental rights charter?” said German politician Jan Philipp Albrecht, who as a former European Parliament member was one of the chief architects of the GDPR. “The Commission should be fully aware that this is undermining European standards dramatically.” Brussels’ shift on privacy comes as it frets over Europe’s waning economic power. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi namechecked the General Data Protection Regulation as holding back European innovation on artificial intelligence in his landmark competitiveness report last year. European privacy regulators have already been spoiling Big Tech’s AI party in recent years. Meta, X and LinkedIn have all delayed rollouts of artificial intelligence applications in Europe after interventions by the Irish Data Protection Commission. Google is facing an inquiry by the same regulator and was previously forced to pause the release of its Bard chatbot. Italy’s regulator has previously imposed temporary blocks on OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Chinese DeepSeek over privacy concerns. Those same tech giants are racing ahead in the U.S., without an equivalent blanket privacy law barring them from feeding AI with citizens’ data. UNLEASH THE LOBBYISTS The General Data Protection Regulation’s initial drafting in 2012-2016 triggered one of the biggest lobbying efforts Brussels has ever seen. Since taking effect in 2018, the EU has steered clear of amending it, fearing it would reignite the vicious lobbying war.  In past months, Commission officials have sought to preempt worries that it was overhauling the privacy rulebook. It insisted that its simplification proposals wouldn’t touch the underlying principles of the GDPR.  Now that draft plans are out, civil society campaigners have begun sounding the alarm. The Commission is “secretly trying to overrun everyone else in Brussels,” said Max Schrems, founder of Austrian privacy group Noyb — and Europe’s infamous privacy campaigner who was behind court cases that brought down major data transfer deals with the United States in the past. “This disregards every rule on good lawmaking, with terrible results,” he said. “Is this the end of data protection and privacy as we have signed it into the EU treaty and fundamental rights charter?” said German politician Jan Philipp Albrecht. | Heiko Rebsch/picture alliance via Getty Images One line of attack from privacy groups is to poke holes in what they say is a rushed omnibus process. While the GDPR took years to negotiate, public consultation on the digital omnibus only ended in October. The Commission has not prepared impact assessments to accompany its proposals, as it says the changes are only targeted and technical. The Commission’s tunnel vision on the AI race has resulted in a “poorly drafted ‘quick shot’ in a highly complex and sensitive area,” said Schrems. LOOSENING PRIVACY RULES The draft proposal obtained by POLITICO shows how far the European Commission is willing to go to placate industry on AI. Draft changes would create new exceptions for AI companies that would allow them to legally process special categories of data (like a person’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data) to train and operate their tech. The Commission is also planning to reframe the definition of such special category data, which are afforded extra protections under the privacy rules.   Officials also want to redefine what constitutes as personal data, saying that pseudonymized data (where personal details have been obscured so a person can’t be identified) might not always be subject to the GDPR’s protections, a change that reflects a recent ruling from the EU’s top court. Finally, it wants to reform Europe’s pesky cookie banner rules by inserting a provision into the GDPR that would give website and app owners more legal grounds to justify tracking users beyond simply obtaining their consent. The draft proposal could still change before the Commission officially unveils its plans on Nov. 19. Once presented, the omnibus package has to pass muster with EU countries and lawmakers, who are already sharply divided on whether to touch privacy protections.   But Finnish center-right lawmaker Aura Salla said she would “warmly” welcome the proposal “if done correctly,” as it could bring legal certainty for AI companies. | Alexis Haulot/European Parliament Documents seen by POLITICO show that Estonia, France, Austria and Slovenia are firmly against any rewrite of the General Data Protection Regulation. Germany — usually seen as one of the most privacy-minded countries — on the other hand is pushing for big changes to help AI. In the European Parliament, the issue is expected to divide groups. Czech Greens lawmaker Markéta Gregorová said she is “surprised and concerned” that the GDPR is being reopened. She warned that Europeans’ fundamental rights “must carry more weight than financial interests.”  But Finnish center-right lawmaker Aura Salla — who previously led Meta’s Brussels lobbying office — said she would “warmly” welcome the proposal “if done correctly,” as it could bring legal certainty for AI companies. Salla emphasized that the Commission will have to “ensure it is European researchers and companies, not just third country giants that gain a competitive edge from our own rules.” 

A message from Brussels to Google: Would you break yourself up, please? The search giant faces an early November deadline to say how it intends to comply with a European Commission decision in September, which found that it had illegally maintained its grip on the infrastructure that powers online advertising. With a €2.95 billion fine in the rearview mirror, the Commission and Google find themselves in an unprecedented standoff as Brussels contemplates the once unthinkable: a structural sell-off of part of a U.S. company, preferably voluntary, but potentially forced if necessary. The situation is “very unusual,” said Anne Witt, a professor in competition law at EDHEC Business School in Lille, France. “Structural remedies are almost unprecedented at the EU level,” Witt added. “It’s really the sledgehammer.” In its September decision, the Commission took the “unusual and unprecedented step,” per Witt, to ask Google to design its own remedy — while signaling, if cautiously, that anything short of a sale of parts of its advertising technology business would fall foul of the EU antitrust enforcer. “It appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief, said at the time. As the clock counts down to the deadline for Google to tell the Commission what it intends to do, the possibility of a Brussels-ordered breakup of an American tech champion is unlikely to go unnoticed in Washington, even as the Donald Trump administration pursues its own case against the search giant. (Google accounts for 90 percent of the revenues of Alphabet, the $3.3 trillion technology holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.) Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Google has said that it will appeal the Commission’s decision, which in its view requires changes that would hurt thousands of European businesses. “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, its vice president and global head of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post in September. PARALLEL PROBES The proposal for a voluntary break up of Google marks the culmination of a decade of EU antitrust enforcement in digital markets in which “behavioral” fixes achieved little, and a unique alignment in both timing and substance between the U.S. and the EU of their parallel probes into the firm’s ad tech empire. “It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that there would be a case in the U.S.  and a sister case in Europe that had a breakup as a potential outcome,” said Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Tech Institute, which is advocating for a break-up. The Commission formally launched the investigation into Google’s ad tech stack in 2021, following a drumbeat of complaints from news organizations that had seen Google take control of the high-frequency exchanges where publishers and advertisers agree on the price and placement of online ads.  Google’s control of the exchanges, as well as infrastructure used by both sides of the market, was like allowing Goldman Sachs or Citibank to own the New York Stock Exchange, declared the U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit in 2023. It also created a situation in which cash-strapped news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic saw Google eating an increasing share of revenues from online advertising — and ultimately posing a threat to journalism itself. “This is not just any competition law case — this is about the future of journalism,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Green member of the European Parliament. “Publishers don’t have the revenue because they don’t get traffic on their websites, and then Google’s algorithm decides what information we see,” she said. The plight of publishers proved hefty on the other side of the Atlantic too. In April, the federal judge overseeing the U.S. government’s case against Google ruled that the search giant had illegally maintained its monopoly over parts of the ad tech market.   A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges. | Nurphoto via Getty Images The Virginia district court held a two-week trial on remedies in September. The Trump administration has advocated a sale of the exchanges and an unwinding of Google’s 2008 merger with DoubleClick, through which it came to dominate the online ad market. Judge Leonie Brinkema will hear the government’s closing arguments on Nov. 17 and is expected to issue her verdict in the coming months. STARS ALIGN Viewed by Google’s critics, it’s the ideal set of circumstances for the Commission to push for a muscular structural remedy. “If you cannot go for structural remedies now, when the U.S. is on the same page, then you’re unlikely to ever do it,” said Crider. The route to a breakup may, however, be both legally and politically more challenging. Despite the technical alignment, and a disenchantment with the impact that past fines and behavioral remedies have had, the Commission still faces a “big hurdle” when it comes to the legal test, should it not be satisfied with Google’s remedy offer, said Witt. The U.S. legal system is more conducive to ordering breakups, both as a matter of law — judges have a wide scope to remedy a harm to the market — and in tradition, said Witt, noting that the U.S. government’s lawsuits to break up Google and Meta are rooted in precedents that don’t exist in Europe. Caught in the middle is Google, which should file its proposed remedies within 60 days of being served notice of the Commission decision that was announced on Sept. 5. A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges, and therefore with the notion that structural remedies are necessary. The firm is expected to lodge its appeal in the coming days. While Google has floated asset sales to the Commission over the course of the antitrust investigation, only to be rebuffed by Brussels, the firm does not intend to divest the entirety of its ad tech stack, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. Ultimately, what happens in Brussels may depend on what happens in the U.S. case. While a court-ordered divestiture of a chunk of Google’s ad tech business is conceivable, U.S. judges have shown themselves to be skeptical of structural remedies in recent months, said Lazar Radic, an assistant law professor at IE University in Madrid, who is affiliated with the big tech-friendly International Center for Law and Economics. “Behavioral alternatives are still on the table,” said Radic, of the U.S. case. The Commission will likely want to align itself with the U.S. should the Virginia court side with the Department of Justice, said Damien Geradin, legal counsel to the European Publishers Council — of which POLITICO parent Axel Springer is a member — that brought forward the case. Conversely, if the court opts for a weaker remedy than is being proposed, the Commission will be obliged to go further, he said. “This is the case where some structural remedies will be needed. I don’t think the [European Commission] can settle for less,” said Geradin.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Friday accused Meta and TikTok of breaching the bloc’s landmark social media regulation. The EU executive said Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and TikTok all failed in their obligations to give researchers access to data from their platforms. The two Meta platforms also failed on three obligations to empower users in flagging illegal content and challenging moderation decisions, it said. The platforms now have the right to reply to the Commission’s allegations under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Should they fail to convince the EU executive, they risk fines of up to 6 percent of annual global revenue. “We disagree with any suggestion that we have breached the DSA, and we continue to negotiate” with the Commission on these issues, Meta spokesperson Ben Walters said. 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,” he said. TikTok spokesperson Paolo Ganino said the firm was “reviewing the European Commission’s findings, but requirements to ease data safeguards place the DSA and [General Data Protection Regulation] in direct tension. If it is not possible to fully comply with both, we urge regulators to provide clarity on how these obligations should be reconciled.” Ganino added it had “made substantial investments in data sharing and almost 1,000 research teams have been given access to data through our Research Tools to date.” The moves are part of ongoing efforts to enforce the bloc’s digital rules. Meta is the second American platform to be accused of breaking the rules: Elon Musk’s X was accused of doing so more than a year ago, in July 2024. China’s Temu and AliExpress have also been accused of breaches. The EU executive opened its investigation into Meta in April last year and expanded it in May. TikTok’s probe started in February 2024, and was extended twice in April and in December (with the April section closed after TikTok agreed to pull the product in question from Europe). None of the findings have so far led to fines. Friday’s findings said Facebook and Instagram didn’t make a system to allow users to flag illegal content sufficiently user-friendly, and also that the companies designed the interface deceptively. The platforms also made a difficult interface to use in order to challenge content moderation decisions, the Commission said. Several other parts of the probes remain open, including on how the platforms protect minors and their role in election manipulation. The Trump administration has launched repeated attacks on the EU’s DSA law, calling it “Orwellian” and accusing the bloc of censorship.

The Dutch data protection watchdog has warned voters not to ask artificial intelligence chatbots for voting advice ahead of the country’s general election next week. “AI chatbots give a highly distorted and polarized image of the Dutch political landscape in a test,” the data protection watchdog warned in a study published on Tuesday. “We warn not to use AI chatbots for voting advice, because their operations are not transparent and verifiable,” Monique Verdier, vice-chair of the authority, said in a statement. She called upon the chatbot developers to “prevent that their systems are being used for voting advice.” Dutch voters elect a new parliament next Wednesday. The Dutch data protection authority ran an experiment on how parties were portrayed in voting advice across four different chatbots, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, Elon Musk’s Grok and French Mistral AI’s Le Chat. The authority set up profiles that matched different political parties (based on vetted Dutch voting-aid tools), after which it asked the chatbots to give voting advice for these profiles. Voter profiles on the left and progressive side of the spectrum “were mostly directed to the GreenLeft-Labor” party led by former European Commission Executive Vice President Frans Timmermans, while voters on the right and conservative side “were mostly directed to the PVV,” the far-right party led by Geert Wilders that is currently leading in the polls. Centrist parties were hardly represented in the voting advice, even though these parties were represented equally in the voter profiles fed to the chatbots. OpenAI, Google and Mistral have all signed up to the EU’s code of practice for the most complex and advanced AI models, while Grok’s parent company xAI has signed up to parts of it. Under the code, these companies commit to address risks stemming from their models, including risks to fundamental rights and society. The Dutch authority argued that chatbots giving voting advice could be classified as a high-risk system under the EU’s AI Act, for which a separate set of rules will start to apply from mid-next year.

BRUSSELS — Fresh European Union rules intended to improve transparency around online advertisements have sparked a wave of criticism, as major platforms shut down political ads instead of complying. Campaigners say the law will cause a harmful loss of information after it triggered companies including Google, Meta and Microsoft to implement a blackout on political advertising. Politicians on both sides of the aisle said it could be detrimental to democratic debate. The Commission said it is aware of the serious concerns and is continuing talks with Big Tech companies to mitigate the unintended impacts. At the heart of the EU’s attempt is a bid to curb political manipulation and foreign interference during elections. The new law on Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising, which kicked in on Friday, brings new restrictions and transparency requirements for paid political ads. Since the law was agreed, Google, Meta and Microsoft have all opted to stop showing political ads in the EU altogether. “Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates will lose an affordable channel to reach voters, while large, well-followed accounts remain largely unaffected,” said liberal Slovak EU lawmaker Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová. “That shift risks narrowing who can be heard and makes campaigning harder for newcomers.” She said that by axing political advertising, platforms are “taking the easier route,” which she regards as “a worrying signal” of tech firms refusing to seek compromises with rule makers. Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide information on what election, referendum or legislative process the ad is linked to, how much it cost and details on any targeting techniques used.  In announcing their decisions, Google said the definition of political advertising is too broad, while Meta criticized targeted ad restrictions that ignore the “benefits [of personalized ads] to advertisers and the people they want to reach.” Polish hard-right member of the European Parliament Piotr Müller said the rules are an example of over-regulation gone wild. “The political market will be consolidated, with large, well-known parties having the resources to meet the new requirements. This undermines pluralism and freedom of public debate,” he said. Others think the blackout will benefit fringe politicians with more extreme views, to the detriment of those with moderate messaging.  “You cannot get 50 million views for boring policy videos. If your politicians do not have social media rizz, I think it disadvantages them now,” said Sam Jeffers, executive director and co-founder of WhoTargetsMe, a non-profit that tracks online campaigning. Jeffers added that researchers risk losing access to political history as they lose visibility over data on the ads. “Seven years of historical data is gone” from Google’s political advertising library, he said, as it no longer includes the EU as a supported region. In announcing their decisions, Google said the definition of political advertising is too broad. | Wallace Woon/EPA “That for me was quite a chilling interpretation of this law,” he said, expressing concern that the same might happen to Meta’s database. Google said in response that ads that would previously have been shown on its dedicated EU political ads transparency database will remain publicly available in its main advertising pages, subject to retention policies. Google’s Ads library still contains information on at least some political ads, POLITICO found, but it seems to be mostly restricted to the previous year — which would be in line with the EU’s Digital Services Act requirements. The available information is also not as extensive as for other jurisdictions, and excludes for example the amount of money spent on ads.  BEYOND POLITICS Companies have criticized a lack of guidance and clarity from the EU executive. The Commission published guidelines on the law this week, just two days before it took effect.   Based on the definition of political advertising, Meta also blocked “social issue” ads, while Microsoft won’t run “issue-based advertising.” That could include ads about climate change, migration, social justice and human rights initiatives or any “politically sensitive or socially divisive issue,” Microsoft said. The law’s definition covers anything meant to influence the outcome of an election, referendum, vote or legislative process — which could include campaigns by charities and civil society. Small organizations that are “essential” to EU democracy will see their campaign and fundraising options limited, said Eoin Dubsky, senior campaign manager for advocacy group Eko.   The Commission only clarified this week that awareness or fundraising campaigns by NGOs shouldn’t always be considered political ads. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert defended the law, underlining in a comment for this article that it “does not ban political advertising.” Lammert said Google and Meta are “private companies and their commercial decisions on the services and products they choose to offer are theirs to make,” but that the Commission is also aware of serious concerns from civil society about the impact. A group of civil society organizations have written open letters to Meta and Google, calling for the companies to reconsider their decisions to block political ads in the EU. Based on the definition of political advertising, Meta also blocked “social issue” ads, while Microsoft won’t run “issue-based advertising.” | Olivier Hoslet/EPA The Commission’s Lammert said it is in contact with stakeholders and national governments to “assess the possible impact of Meta’s commercial decision,” and will continue discussions with both companies on the topic. It will also hold talks in 2026 to “learn from the experiences at that point and draw insights as necessary.” For some, the furore is an unwelcome distraction as the EU grapples with enforcing other regulations — most notably its Digital Services Act to regulate content on social media platforms, which already includes requirements on advertising transparency. The Commission should focus on tackling “toxic algorithms that push propaganda ahead of facts” and bombard users with “outrageous content” rather than “information they actually want,” said German Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese.

A TikTok deal between the U.S. and China will give Americans six of the seven board seats and control over the popular social media app’s algorithm, the White House said on Saturday. “This deal means that TikTok will be majority-owned by Americans in the United States,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News Saturday morning. “There will be seven seats on the board that controls the app in the United States, and six of those seats will be Americans.” Leavitt also said in the interview that the “algorithm will also be controlled by America as well,” but did not provide any further details. An agreement between America and China over the Chinese-owned app’s content algorithm has been a key element of negotiations, as lawmakers increasingly grew concerned in the past several years that China could push anti-American propaganda through the app. A bipartisan group of lawmakers passed a law in 2024 to ban the app, which the Supreme Court upheld in January. Trump has flouted that ban by issuing continuous extensions while negotiations over the ownership continue. Earlier this week, Trump further suspended any potential ban until Dec. 16 after his administration said a “framework” for a deal was reached. China in recent weeks has indicated that it had no plans to hand over the algorithm for the app to America in a deal. The White House on Friday indicated that a deal between Washington and Beijing to sell the Chinese-owned app to a U.S.-based owner was finalized, and only needed to be signed. But the two countries seem to be at odds on a proposed deal to force Chinese company ByteDance to sell the company following a call between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In a post to Truth Social on Friday, Trump said he’d had “a very productive call” with Xi on multiple issues and “appreciate[s] the TikTok approval” — seemingly referring to a deal on the app. But in its first read out after the call, the Chinese government made no reference to a deal, instead, reiterating its longheld position on allowing TikTok negotiations to continue. Leavitt added that tech company Oracle — which is led by Larry Ellison, a prominent Trump ally — would be responsible for the app’s data and security. “All of the details have already been agreed upon,” she said. “Now we just need this deal to be signed.”