BRUSSELS — A fresh proposal by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to reform digital laws on Wednesday was welcomed by lawmakers on the right but shunned on the left. It signals a possible repeat of a pivotal parliamentary clash last week in which von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party sided with the far right to pass her first omnibus proposal on green rules — sidelining the centrist coalition that voted the Commission president into office last year. The EU executive on Wednesday presented plans to overhaul everything from its flagship General Data Protection Regulation to data rules and its fledgling Artificial Intelligence Act. The reforms aim to help businesses using data and AI, in an effort to catch up with the United States, China and other regions in the global tech race. Drafts of the plans obtained by POLITICO caused an uproar in Brussels in the past two weeks, as everyone from liberal to left-leaning political groups and privacy-minded national governments rang the alarm. Von der Leyen sought to extend an olive branch with last-minute tweaks to her proposal, but she’s still a long way away from center-left groups. The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, Greens and The Left all slamming the plans in recent days. Tom Vandendriessche, a Belgian member of the far-right Patriots for Europe group, said the GDPR is not “untouchable,” and that there needs to be simplification “to ensure our European companies can compete again.” He added: “If EPP supports that course, we’re happy to collaborate on that.” Charlie Weimers a Swedish member of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists, welcomed the plan for “cleaning up overlapping data rules, cutting double reporting and finally tackling the cookie banner circus.” Weimers argued von der Leyen could go further, saying it falls short of being “the regulatory U-turn the EU actually needs” to catch up in the AI race. Those early rapprochements on the right are what Europe’s centrists and left fear most. The digital omnibus “should not be a repetition of omnibus one,” German Greens lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky told reporters on Wednesday. Lagodinsky warned EPP leader Manfred Weber that “there should be no games with anti-democratic and anti-European parties.” BIG REFORMS, SMALL CONCESSIONS The Commission’s double-decker digital omnibus package includes one plan to simplify the EU’s data-related laws (including the GDPR as well as rules for nonpersonal data), and another specifically targeting the AI Act. A Commission official, briefing reporters without being authorized to speak on the record, said the omnibus’ impact on the GDPR was subject to “intense discussion” internally in the run up to Wednesday’s presentation, after its rough reception from some parliament groups and privacy organizations. Much in the EU executive’s final text remained unchanged. Among the proposals, the Commission wants to insert an affirmation into the GDPR that AI developers can rely on their “legitimate interest” to legally process Europeans’ data. That would give AI companies more confidence that they don’t always have to ask for consent. It also wants to change the definition of personal data in the GDPR to allow pseudonymized data — where a person’s details have been obscured so they can’t be identified — to be more easily processed. The omnibus proposals also aim to reduce the number of cookie banners that crop up across Europe’s internet. To assuage privacy concerns, Commission officials scrapped a hotly contested clause that would have redefined what is considered “special category” data, like a person’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data, which are afforded extra protections under the GDPR. The new cookie provision will also contain an explicit statement that website and app operators still need to get consent to access information on people’s devices. SEEKING POLITICAL SUPPORT The final texts will now be scrutinized by the Parliament and Council of the European Union. Von der Leyen’s center-right EPP welcomed the digital simplification plans as a “a critical boost for Europe’s industrial competitiveness.” Parliament’s group of center-left Socialists and Democrats came out critical of the reforms. Birgit Sippel, a prominent German member of the group, said in a statement the Commission “wants to undermine its own standards of protection in the area of data protection and privacy in order to facilitate data use, surveillance, and AI tools ‘made in the U.S.’” On the EPP’s immediate left, the liberal Renew group cited “important concerns” about the final texts but said it was “delighted” that the Commission backtracked on changing the definition of sensitive data, one idea in the leaked drafts that triggered a backlash. Renew said it would “support changes in the digital omnibus that will make life easier for our European companies.” If von der Leyen goes looking for votes for her digital omnibus among far-right groups, she will find support but it might not be a united front. German lawmaker Christine Anderson of the Alternative for Germany party, part of the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations group, warned the digital omnibus could end up boosting “the ability to track and profile people.” Weaker privacy rules would “enable enhanced surveillance architecture,” she said, adding her party had “always opposed” such changes. “On these issues, we find ourselves much closer to the groups on the left in the Parliament,” she said. Pieter Haeck contributed reporting.

COPD affects over 390 million people, including more than 36 million in Europe, and is poised to be the leading cause of hospital admissions over the next decade worldwide.1,2,3 In Europe, countries such as Ireland, Romania and Denmark have among the highest hospital admission rates for people with COPD, representing significant costs for health systems.4 Meanwhile, countries like Norway and Germany spend the most per patient on COPD management.5 Awareness is rising, and more stakeholders are taking a proactive approach to address the growing burden of COPD. However, it remains an underestimated and under-resourced disease. Innovation in COPD offers significant opportunities for more proactive patient care, where exacerbations and hospitalizations could be prevented. By investing in the latest wave of healthcare innovation and prioritizing preventative methods, the growing economic and patient burden of COPD can be mitigated. Understanding the patient burden To truly understand COPD, it’s critical to recognize its impact on patients. For most, COPD means a daily struggle with breathlessness, persistent coughing and increased fatigue as their lung function gradually deteriorates. These symptoms can severely limit their ability to do everyday tasks such as walking the dog, climbing stairs or even carrying groceries, impacting their quality of life and overall well-being.6 This, in turn, can lead to considerable financial burden for people affected by this condition due to limitations on workplace and home productivity, and the costs of medical treatment, impacting the EU’s competitiveness.6 And the picture gets worse when patients experience exacerbations. The patient cost of COPD exacerbations, and resulting hospitalizations, is equally profound. Tragically, one in ten patients hospitalized for COPD will die during their stay.7 About one in four will not live to see another year,8 and half will succumb to the disease within five years.9  But even before these dire outcomes, the impact of COPD is felt in the diminished quality of life, frequent sick leave and increasing disability that patients endure between exacerbations, creating dependencies within families and adding to the emotional and financial strain. > Tragically, one in ten patients hospitalized for COPD will die during their > stay.7 About one in four will not live to see another year,8 and half will > succumb to the disease within five years.9 For individuals who recover, each exacerbation inflicts irreversible damage, significantly degrading lung function, increasing disability and severely impacting quality of life. This leads to a greater reliance on healthcare services over time, creating a vicious cycle of health decline. The disease also takes an immense emotional toll on families and caregivers, who stand witness to their loved one’s devastating disease progression and often bear the care burden. In the Netherlands, caregivers of COPD patients with exacerbations provide up to 14 hours of informal care weekly.10 In Spain, it’s estimated that over 220,000 caregivers are needed to support those with COPD-related disabilities.11 > Since my diagnosis with COPD, the biggest challenge for my wife and I is the > uncertainty. I wake up every morning wondering if this will be a good day or a > bad day. Will I be able to go about my usual activities or face a debilitating > exacerbation? Durham, person living with COPD Currently, resources are often concentrated on managing advanced disease, missing the crucial opportunity for earlier and more effective intervention through disease-specific programs and early detection. Prioritizing prevention is essential to improving outcomes for patients and alleviating pressure on already strained health systems. A proactive shift toward prevention and sustained disease management is urgently needed. Hospitalizations and the growing financial burden on health systems Global COPD expenditures are projected to reach €3.7 trillion by 2050, with 45-70% of these costs linked to managing exacerbations. Comparatively, EU governments spent €1.25 trillion on healthcare overall in 2023, implying an increasing cost burden related to COPD in the coming years.12,13,14 Remarkably, approximately 70 percent of the total costs associated with treating COPD stem directly from hospital stays.15 Collaborative efforts such as the Joint Action on Chronic Respiratory Diseases (JARED) and the MEP Lung Health Group are crucial for driving policy changes and improving COPD management across the EU. > Policymakers increasingly see COPD as a driver of hospital admissions: 41 > percent now rank it among the top three causes of hospital admissions in their > country behind only heart disease and stroke — a sharp rise from 8 percent in > 2022.16 Although this awareness is rising, so are the costs. In Europe, the estimated annual medical cost of COPD ranges from €1,963 to over €10,701 per person among adults aged 45 years and older, depending on disease severity. COPD-related hospitalizations are 2-3 times more expensive than other disease-related hospitalizations.17,18,19 This is primarily driven by longer stays, higher rates of intensive care unit use, a greater need for post-discharge support, and increased risk of readmissions, reflecting the complex and resource-intensive nature of managing exacerbations. Current COPD management focuses on symptom control, often overlooking the critical need to reduce exacerbations and hospitalizations. Prioritizing early intervention and prevention: A call to action While the challenges posed by COPD are significant, there is an opportunity to take decisive action. By implementing concerted, consistent and coordinated efforts to tackle COPD in a systemic way, we can mitigate its impact and improve patient outcomes. We can lead in this area, setting a standard for proactive COPD management and demonstrating the value of investing in early intervention and prevention.   To address the multifaceted patient and health system costs of COPD, a shift toward proactive strategies is essential. There are already promising initiatives of such strategies being implemented across Europe, such as national lung health programs that emphasize early diagnosis in primary care settings and integrated vaccination programs for at-risk adults, demonstrating that progress is within reach through collaboration and shared learning. Complementing these systemic efforts, patient engagement is a crucial component in effective COPD management. When patients are engaged and actively involved in their care, they are better equipped to recognize worsening symptoms and seek timely help. Tools like the COPD Exacerbation Recognition Tool play a vital role by increasing patient awareness of early signs and empowering them to respond quickly, potentially reducing the severity of flare-ups and avoiding costly hospitalizations.20 Shifting the system from reactive crisis care toward proactive, preventative approaches and early intervention is what ultimately may keep more people out of hospital. A lot of progress has been made on prioritizing the ongoing burden of COPD, but there is more to do. It’s time that we rethink our approach to care and ask ourselves, what more can we do to truly support patients and national healthcare systems? At GSK, we believe in working across the healthcare ecosystem and with governments to learn from one another, support new innovation, and build a system that prioritizes early intervention and prevention of unnecessary exacerbations and hospitalizations. It is our collective responsibility to act now. This should be seen not just as a medical imperative, but as a strategic investment in healthy populations and economic stability. November 2025 NP-GBL-CPU-WCNT-250002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Boers E, Barrett M, Su JG, et al. Global Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Through 2050. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Dec 1;6(12):e2346598. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46598. 2. Benjafield A, Tellez D, Barrett M, et al. An estimate of the European prevalence of COPD in 2050. European Respiratory Journal 2021;58(suppl 65):OA2866; doi: DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2021.OA2866. 3. Khakban, Amir et al. “The Projected Epidemic of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalizations over the Next 15 Years. A Population-based Perspective.” American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine vol. 195,3 (2017): 287-291. doi:10.1164/rccm.201606-1162PP. Accessed April 2025. 4. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Health at a glance: Europe 2022. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en 5. Rehman, M., et al. (2021). Cost analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review. Health Economics Review, 11 : 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-021-00329-9. 6.WHO. Fact Sheet: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Accessible at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease-(copd) [last accessed October 2025] 7. Sin DD. Should COPD stand for “comorbidity-related obstructive pulmonary disease”? Eur Respir J. 2015;46(4):901-2. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01112-2015 8. Serra-Picamal X, Roman R, Escarrabill J, et al. Hospitalizations due to exacerbations of COPD: A big data perspective. Respir Med. 2018;145:219-225. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2018.01.008 9. Suissa S, Dell’Aniello S, Ernst P. Long-term natural history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: severe exacerbations and mortality. Thorax. 2012;67(11):957–963. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-201518.  10. Melles, M.C., et al. “The cost impact of informal care for patients with COPD and exacerbations in the Netherlands.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 211, no. Abstracts, May 2025, https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.2025.211.abstracts.a3256. 11. PMC, Europe. Europe PMC, europepmc.org/article/PMC/4334315. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025. 12. Chen S, Kuhn M, Prettner K, et al. The global economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for 204 countries and territories in 2020-50: a health-augmented macroeconomic modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11(8):e1183-e1193. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00217-6 13. Koff PB, Min SJ, Freitag TJ, et al. 2021. Impact of Proactive Integrated Care on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis 8(1): 100-16 14. Government Expenditure on Health – Statistics Explained – Eurostat, ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_health. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025. 15. Hunter LC, Lee RJ, Butcher I, et al. Patient characteristics associated with risk of first hospital admission and readmission for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) following primary care COPD diagnosis: a cohort study using linked electronic patient records. BMJ Open. (2016) 6:e009121. 16. Ipsos (2025) Data on file: Global Policymakers’ Perspectives on COPD | Survey of Attitudes and Perceptions – Wave 2 Final Report (conducted on behalf of Global Allergy and Airways Patient Platform). 17. Rehman AU, Hassali MAA, Muhammad SA, et al. The economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Europe: results from a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:181–94. 18. Agarwal D. COPD generates substantial cost for health systems. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11:e1138-9. 19. Løkke A, Lange P, Lykkegaard J, et al. Economic Burden of COPD by Disease Severity – A Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021;16:603-613. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S295388 20. Jones PW et al. (2022). The Development of a COPD Exacerbation Recognition Tool (CERT) to Help Patients Recognize When to Seek Medical Advice. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 17, 213‑222. DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S337644. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A major five-year effort to build a technology base for Europe free of U.S. influence foundered amid conflicting national strategies and powerful corporate lobbying. As Europe’s leaders once again discuss tackling American tech dependence, those involved in the project to build a European cloud warn against repeating past mistakes. The Gaia-X initiative was “a crushing failure, a colossal waste of time, and just as many years gained for the hyperscalers — in other words, an industrial disaster,” said Yann Lechelle, a former CEO of French cloud champion Scaleway and one of the founding members of the initiative who quit in frustration in 2021, describing it as the “best decision ever.” The industry-led project was born in 2019 from a Franco-German drive to forge a “European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century” — a rallying cry that brought German and French companies together with top political backing to create a data infrastructure. The endgame goal of Gaia-X, named after the Greek goddess of Earth, was to “establish data sovereignty in Europe” and “counteract monopolistic tendencies.” As political momentum once again swings behind digital sovereignty, leaders will gather in Berlin on Tuesday to talk about how to become less dependent on foreign-owned technology. POLITICO spoke to both current and former Gaia-X officials, both on and off the record, about the lessons they learned that could prove valuable. Those conversations illuminated an initiative that failed to help Europe’s own digital ecosystem take root because it was weighed down by politics, bureaucracy and the interference of precisely the American and Chinese tech titans it was meant to challenge. Despite a fast-growing market for cloud computing services that underpin the internet, the global share of European cloud providers has continued to fall, dwarfed by the dominance of Amazon, Microsoft and Google. One of Gaia-X’s initial success stories, called Agdatahub, which was touted as a triumph for farming data, went bankrupt last year. “I joined Gaia-X because I believed in the original mission. I left Gaia-X because I didn’t believe it was going in the original direction,” said its former CEO, Francesco Bonfiglio. FRANCO-GERMAN DIVIDES Misalignment among the founding companies on the mission of Gaia-X became apparent early on, consistent with the traditional divergence in Paris and Berlin over tech sovereignty. In Paris, sovereignty was about backing local champions and breaking reliance on the U.S., while Berlin focused on protecting Europe without severing important trade ties. “The influence of political happenings inside the association was evident. Sometimes they were clashing,” said Bonfiglio, describing how it pitted a “historically more protectionist” France against a “fluctuating” Germany. American cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba, are all members of Gaia-X. | Jonas Roosens/Getty Images Everybody “interpreted” Gaia-X as they wanted to, he said. The former CEO described how this divergence in expectations and a lack of a “clear or common” definition of sovereignty — let alone a shared understanding of what it would take to get there — made his task extremely difficult. “France turned it into a very political issue, whereas the Germans treated it more as a technical matter,” said another founding member of Gaia-X, who is still part of the initiative and was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The interests were at odds from day one, founding member Lechelle recalled, which was part of the reason the initiative would never deliver “the fantasy of a European cloud Airbus.” The Germans came on board with the idea to create data sovereignty, by shielding the data of their citizens and industries from foreign snooping and legal control, he said, adding: “Atlanticist as they may be, they were totally fine with the idea of depending on Microsoft.” Meanwhile, the French pushed a more self-serving vision, hoping to see Europe become self-reliant, from infrastructure all the way to software. That’s how the mission to create a “federated cloud infrastructure” came to life. But that “staggering complexity” would soon turn into an “unmanageable mess,” said Lechelle. Current CEO Ulrich Ahle, who joined in 2023, pushed back — saying Gaia-X is far from a “failure.” It has united the industry — both large and small players — around tangible deliverables, such as federated data spaces and compliance labels, he said. “At the beginning, some people thought that Gaia-X would be the European hyperscaler as the competition to Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba and so on,” he said, but in fact, “it is more about creating a way to handle data in a European way.” “The results we’re providing and the real business benefits these interoperable data spaces are creating are more and more visible,” he said, highlighting the example of a data space based on Gaia-X standards that French energy company EDF will use to securely coordinate the construction of new nuclear sites. BACK-DOOR LOBBYING As Gaia-X grew and set out to define Europe’s blueprint for secure data sharing, it opened its doors to industry participants from beyond Europe in a bid to push new standards on the global stage. While board seats remained reserved for EU companies and industry groups, alarm bells grew louder that the project was being hijacked by the very players it was meant to take on. Those firms “steered the entire roadmap,” Lechelle said, throwing money and people at it. “The committees were drowning. They [global players] had the capacity, the bandwidth, but we were already underwater … Americans have full-time lobbyists and massive budgets. Their job is basically to derail any initiative they don’t like.” American cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba, are all members of Gaia-X. In 2021, the annual summit in Milan was sponsored by Huawei and Alibaba, prompting backlash. Some interviewees expressed criticism that the European industry associations and companies on the board were representing the interests of business partners abroad. “I was struggling against many, many forces that were trying to dilute the rules of verification, dilute the efforts,” said Bonfiglio, stressing he was “the CEO of a consensus-based organization where consensus couldn’t be achieved most of the time.” Bonfiglio said he didn’t regret opening up the initiative to foreign players. “The problem is not America vs. Europe,” he said, but “trust” or lack thereof. Letting non-EU providers in was supposed to force them to become more transparent, he argued. “You think you’re good, show us what you have,” was his mantra at the time, he said. He now acknowledges the unavoidable influence of corporate giants in the cloud space. “You don’t need Microsoft, Amazon and Google on the board, because they would be represented by people sitting on the board from European companies. It’s an indirect lobby,” he said. The current member of the association interviewed for this story said the bylaws of Gaia-X should be changed to kick out industry associations from the board, as they play into the hands of tech giants. In response, Gaia-X’s Ahle said that “the strategic directions are given and the strategic decisions are taken in the board of directors.” He touted the initiative’s top-tier certification label — which excludes non-EU companies — as proof that it took decisions that went against U.S. interests. This was something “members like Amazon, Google and Microsoft didn’t like at all,” yet it happened. WHERE NOW As leaders prepare to meet at the high-profile summit in Berlin to debate how far to go in pivoting away from Big Tech, several of the people interviewed for this piece cautioned against repeating past mistakes. While European countries have not yet aligned on a common definition of digital sovereignty — something many see as crucial for real progress — there are signs that Paris and Germany are closer on positioning than they were five years ago. “I admit, I struggled with the term [digital sovereignty] before. I didn’t think it was necessary, but the global situation has changed so dramatically that we Europeans now have to become more sovereign,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday. At the summit, Merz said, “We’ll explore all the possibilities, together with industry representatives, of what we can do not only to become more independent from China, but also, for example, less dependent on the U.S., less dependent on the Big Tech companies. We want to catch up, we want to improve.” Friedrich Merz said, “We’ll explore all the possibilities, together with industry representatives, of what we can do not only to become more independent from China, but also, for example, less dependent on the U.S.” | Harald Tittel/Getty Images And yet — with Germany this month celebrating Google’s decision to invest more than €5 billion in building data centers in the country, a move that Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil described as “exactly what we need right now” — the reality of corporate interests may be hard to address. For Bonfiglio, the lesson from Gaia-X is that ”it is obvious that everybody sitting in the boardroom of an association with such a big and impactful objective tries to protect the interests of their own company.” While Gaia-X may have missed its shot at delivering on its big, original ambitions, Lechelle insists the upcoming Franco-German summit is “a chance to put a finger on the sore spots.” In the meantime, “those who wanted to maintain the status quo have won.”

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. 

NEWPORT, Wales — Road signs around Newport still refer to this sprawling former industrial site as a radiator factory. But soon, it will generate a different kind of heat. Microsoft has chosen this area of South Wales — once the world’s steel capital — to build hulking new data centers. Five buildings, covering an area larger than three football pitches, are springing up to meet what the company describes as “exploding demand” for artificial intelligence compute power.  For Microsoft, the area’s industrial heritage is precisely why it’s investing. Newport’s legacy of heavy-duty factories means it has the infrastructure needed for energy-intensive data centers. But doubts over whether Britain can supply enough energy to keep up with demand from data centers are an urgent problem for the government’s AI ambitions. The government’s former AI adviser Matt Clifford has warned that without energy and planning reform, new data center projects and the billions of pounds of investment they bring are at risk.  Britain’s industrial electricity prices are 60 percent higher than the average of countries in the International Energy Agency, and waits for a grid connection can stretch to a decade.  “We had the biggest AI funders in the world lining up to invest tens of billions into our infrastructure if only we could sort out our energy mess,” Clifford said at an event about his time in No.10. U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens, Donald Trump’s point man in London, is also watching closely, calling Britain’s energy costs the country’s “chief obstacle” to growth. “If there are not major reforms to U.K. energy policy, then the U.K.’s position as a premier destination in the global economy is vulnerable,” Stephens warned a business gathering in London. A TALL ORDER The Newport project will need 80MW of energy – enough to power a small town – but the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) predicts the country needs to boost its total data center capacity five-fold by 2035, from 1.8GW to 9.6GW. That expansion will mean data centers’ power total demand will treble over the same period, according to NESO, the body which manages U.K. electricity demand. A spokesperson for the DSIT said it was looking at “bespoke options” to support data centers’ energy demands, adding: “The work of our AI Energy Council — bringing together regulators, energy companies and tech firms — will ensure we can do that using responsible, sustainable sources.” AI Minister Kanishka Narayan told a conference for AI researchers in London in October that there was “no better place to build” than Britain, arguing its combination of talent, access to capital and large public markets is unmatched. Investors aren’t so sure.  “People aren’t willing to pay a premium on U.K. power rates to run their workloads here,” Mike Mattacola, international general manager at AI infrastructure company CoreWeave said at the same conference. “We need to fix that.” SELLING THE SHOVELS It’s not just energy prices that are the problem. The boss of Hitachi Energy U.K., which is working with the National Grid to upgrade Britain’s power network, warned that the grid is the biggest hurdle to Britain’s AI ambitions. Laura Fleming said data centers should be at “the heart” of the country’s energy planning, but added: “I’m still not sure whether as the U.K. we have sufficiently planned for this.”  More than half all applications for a grid connection are now made by data centers, according to the National Grid. Energy regulator Ofgem is trying to get a grip of things, grumbling that amid the “credible data center projects” applying for a grid connection, they want to get rid of “less viable projects that may crowd out those with genuine merit.” Power providers, meantime, are lining up to find the opportunities in this uncertainty. Two hundred miles to the north of Newport, the U.K.’s largest power station is offering itself as one solution. Drax Power Station burns wood pellets imported from North America and wants to build data centers hooked up to its four biomass terminals.  Richard Gwilliam, director of future operations, revealed that Drax has already held talks with hyperscalers and plans to bring a data center online in the early 2030s. He hoped the 2.6-gigawatt power station could offer “big scale stuff” to the market. Gwilliam also said the existing connections gave biomass a trump card to play in the data center race. SQUARING THE CIRCLE The rush for power is also clashing with Britain’s net zero ambitions. The most in-demand energy source for data centers is still fossil fuels, specifically gas. National Gas said it has had inquiries from five big data center projects since last November, equivalent to 2.5GW worth of energy capacity, or twice the capacity of Britain’s biggest nuclear power station, Sizewell B.  Its chief commercial officer, Ian Radley, argued gas provided customers with “the flexibility and capacity they need to enable the Government’s strategic AI ambitions.”  But environmental groups point out that the surge in carbon emissions from new data centers have not been factored in to the  U.K.’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, which sets out a path for the government to hit legally-binding climate goals up to 2037.  “It’s unclear how the government intends to square the circle of encouraging a construction frenzy of new, highly polluting data centers while not overshooting the binding climate targets they need to meet,” said Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at campaign group Foxglove. This tension is also being played out at the AI Energy Council, a body the government formed in January to bring AI and energy companies together, but which has only met twice.  It is co-chaired by two ministers with different priorities. Ed Miliband, as energy secretary, needs to cut Britain’s emissions to zero by 2050, while Technology Secretary Liz Kendall needs to turn AI’s promises of investment and growth, particularly to left-behind areas, into a reality.  The government has pushed the idea AI Growth Zones — huge data center campuses on former industrial land, which already have grid connections and will get fast-tracked through planning — as a solution. One has already been announced in Northumberland, but a decision on a second, planned for Teesside in north-east England, has been delayed until the end of this year by Miliband, whose department has to make a call on whether to greenlight plans for a hydrogen plant on the same site, which could preclude data centers being built there. “There is a large fight going on inside of government where Ed Miliband seems to have set himself up against not just the prime minister, but a number of secretaries of state,” Houchen told POLITICO during Conservative Party Conference in October.  THE NUCLEAR OPTION Long term, the government is betting on a cleaner, but more expensive energy source — nuclear, specifically small modular reactors. Michael Jenner, CEO of nuclear firm Last Energy UK, said they had received dozens of enquiries from data center builders and argued that the green credentials of nuclear was an ace card it could play against rival bids from gas companies.   “If you’re thinking about building data centers in South Wales, which a lot of people are, you have a problem with the authorities because they don’t want new gas there,” he said.  In September, EDF Energy announced plans to work with American company Holtec International building a crop of data centers next to small modular nuclear reactors at a disused coal plant in Nottinghamshire.  The Tony Blair Institute, which is influential with government ministers, has argued nuclear has a “unique” advantage when it comes to data centers. It also believes the country should scale back its net zero plans in favor of reducing energy costs to attract data center investment.  “Cheap, firm power is … not a ‘nice to have’ but a prerequisite for attracting AI-driven growth,” it argued in a report last month. Gas, meanwhile, should be part of that energy mix, the Institute recommended in July. Firms represented at the AI Energy Council have urged ministers to green-light greater use of gas turbines in the short term. The clock is ticking. Gas, nuclear, renewables or even wooden pellets — ministers willing on an AI revolution need to make decisions fast.  

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.” 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission said it is “not empowered to take action” amid concerns about the appointment of a former tech lobbyist to Ireland’s privacy regulator. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties — a non-profit transparency campaign group — on Tuesday filed a complaint calling on the Commission to launch an inquiry into how Niamh Sweeney was appointed to co-lead the Irish Data Protection Commission. Citing reporting from POLITICO, the complaint alleges the appointment process “lacked procedural safeguards against conflicts of interest and political interference.” It’s the first formal challenge to the decision after Sweeney took up her role as one of three chief regulators at Ireland’s top data regulator this month. Her prior experience as a lobbyist for Facebook and WhatsApp reignited concerns that the regulator is too close to Big Tech. In response to the complaint, Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier said that “it is for the member states to appoint members to their respective data protection authorities.” The Commission “is not involved in this process and is not empowered to take action with respect to those appointments,” Mercier told a daily press briefing Tuesday. He emphasized that countries do need to respect requirements set out in EU law — that the appointment process must be “transparent,” and that those appointed should “have the qualifications, the experience, the skills, in particular in the protection of personal data, required to perform their duties and to exercise their powers.” The complaint asked the Commission to look into the appointment as part of its duties to oversee the application of EU law, claiming these responsibilities had not been met by Ireland. Sweeney was appointed by the Irish government on the advice of the Public Appointments Service, the authority that provides recruitment services for public jobs, which has previously expressed its full confidence in the process.

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.

A corporate lawyer who has worked for Big Tech played a key role in picking a former lobbyist for Facebook and WhatsApp as one of Europe’s most powerful privacy regulators. Niamh Sweeney will take up her role as one of three chief regulators at Ireland’s powerful Data Protection Commission (DPC) next week. Her previous experience as a lobbyist for Facebook and WhatsApp has reignited concerns that Ireland’s top data regulator is too close to Big Tech. Now, new details about her appointment process seen by POLITICO show that a lawyer representing tech giants at a prominent law firm in Ireland was a member of a small panel that picked Sweeney. The inclusion of that lawyer on the panel triggered a conflict of interest complaint by a candidate that competed with her for the job earlier this year. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner enforces Europe’s mighty General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on many of the world’s largest technology companies, including Meta, X, Google, TikTok and others that have their European headquarters in Ireland. For years, the Irish authority has faced criticism for being too soft on tech giants, with critics pointing to Ireland’s heavy reliance on Big Tech for its domestic economy. After the GDPR took effect in 2018, it took years before the DPC started imposing sizable fines on tech giants. Commissioners at the Irish DPC are appointed by the Irish government on the advice of the Public Appointments Service, the authority that provides recruitment services for public jobs. The authority is known as publicjobs. In a confidential letter dated May 14 and seen by POLITICO, publicjobs said it had assembled a selection panel of five people to pick the newest privacy chief. According to the letter, that panel included consultant Shirley Kavanagh as chair, Department of Justice Deputy Secretary Doncha O’Sullivan, the head of Ireland’s ComReg communications watchdog Garrett Blaney, publicjobs recruitment specialist Louise McEntee, and Leo Moore, a partner at law firm William Fry. Moore heads the firm’s technology group. He has advised domestic and multinational companies, including “several ‘Big Tech’ and social media companies,” the law firm’s own website states. The law firm advised Microsoft in a landmark court case where U.S. authorities wanted to access data on Irish servers, it said in a 2016 press release. Irish media also reported that the firm had advised the Irish government in a case in which the government pushed back on collecting almost €14 billion in back taxes from Apple. Moore did not respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment. William Fry did not provide a comment in time for publication. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner enforces Europe’s mighty General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on many of the world’s largest technology companies, including Meta, X, Google, TikTok and others that have their European headquarters in Ireland. | Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images The chair of the panel, Kavanagh, has previously worked in senior leadership roles in the pharma, financial services, retail and public sectors, including with Inizio, Axa, Primark and Ireland’s central bank, she stated on her website. The site said she has also worked with “technology companies” as a “coach and senior team facilitator.” Kavanagh declined POLITICO’s request for comment, directing questions to the publicjobs service and the Irish justice department. REVOLVING DOOR COMPLAINT Sweeney is set to take office Oct. 13 alongside co-Commissioners Des Hogan and Dale Sunderland. The DPC switched to having three top commissioners after former Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon (who carried out the role alone) left office in 2024. Sweeney worked as Facebook’s head of public policy in Ireland from 2015-2019, then as EMEA director of public policy for WhatsApp until 2021, followed by a year working as head of communications for financial technology firm Stripe. She was a director at lobby firm Milltown Partners until this summer, her LinkedIn page showed. Sweeney’s appointment as co-commissioner raised concerns among privacy activists when it was announced in September. Austrian privacy group Noyb described it as Ireland’s “kissing US Big Tech’s backside” and said it left companies like Meta to regulate themselves. A candidate competing with Sweeney for the commissioner role submitted a complaint about the process in April, publicjobs’ May letter seen by POLITICO showed. The complainant’s name was redacted from the documents. The complainant questioned the inclusion of tech lawyer Moore on the panel that selected the former Meta official. They alleged that Moore had a conflict of interest given his role “as a corporate lawyer who represents clients whose business practices are regulated by the very agency this role oversees,” according to the letter, which responded to the complaint. Publicjobs in the letter defended the independence and expertise of the board that it had assembled and said it was “assured that Mr Moore’s professional role was not considered to conflict with his role on the Board.” The complainant also argued that no member of the panel had enough technological expertise to make a fair assessment of applications.   In the letter, publicjobs highlighted the “extensive” expertise of Moore in data protection and cybersecurity. GOVERNMENT STANDS BY APPOINTMENT Publicjobs said in the letter that it found “no evidence that the Board convened was inappropriate, or incapable of assessing candidates against the key requirements of the role in question.”  In a written comment to POLITICO, a spokesperson for publicjobs said the authority has “full confidence in the composition, independence, expertise and qualifications of the chosen Assessment Board” to recruit a third data protection commissioner, and that the complaint submitted about the competition had been “fully addressed” by the service’s review process.     A corporate lawyer who has worked for Big Tech played a key role in picking a former lobbyist for Facebook and WhatsApp as one of Europe’s most powerful privacy regulators. | Samuel Boivin/Getty Images They said publicjobs works to ensure assessment boards for senior roles are “balanced, diverse and not conflicted, with all panelists required to complete a confidentiality agreement and a conflict-of-interest form.” Boards at this level are approved by the service’s Chief Executive Margaret McCabe and Head of Recruitment Talent Strategy Michelle Noone, the spokesperson added. A spokesperson for Ireland’s Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration told POLITICO the ministry is “fully satisfied with the appointment process.” The Irish Data Protection Commission declined to comment, saying it was not involved in the appointment process. Blaney declined to comment, directing POLITICO to publicjobs and Ireland’s justice department. McEntee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

LONDON — Meta will let users in the United Kingdom choose whether to pay for a monthly fee instead of seeing personalized ads on its platforms in an overhaul to its advertising model. Over the coming weeks, Facebook and Instagram users in the U.K. will receive a notification giving them the option to pay £2.99 a month (or £3.99 if done though Apple or Google’s operating systems) for “no ads,” Meta said. Users who don’t pay will continue to see ads, but will “still be able to control their ads experience” using existing settings, Meta said, adding that while it continues to “believe in an ad-supported internet,” the new offer gives U.K. users more control over their data. The move follows a legal challenge settled with the tech giant by campaigner Tanya O’Carroll, who argued that Meta’s targeted advertising constitutes “direct marketing” and it must therefore give users the right to object under U.K. law. The U.K.’s data protection watchdog, the Information Commissioner’s Office, backed O’Carroll in the case. Following the ruling, Meta said it would consider extending a subscription model, which it already offers in the European Union, to the U.K. Dubbed ‘pay or consent,’ the model has proven controversial among privacy advocates. But the ICO concluded this year that it does not contravene U.K. data protection laws if consent is “freely given,” such as by setting an “appropriate fee.” An ICO spokesperson said it welcomed Meta’s announcement but would continue to monitor its roll out and the broader impact of ‘pay or consent’ models. “This moves Meta away from targeting users with ads as part of the standard terms and conditions for using its Facebook and Instagram services, which we’ve been clear is not in line with U.K. law,” they said. Meta said the decision followed “extensive engagement” with the ICO, including over the cost of U.K. subscriptions, which will be a little over half what the company currently charges in Europe (EU users can pay €5.99 a month for ad-free services). The ICO’s “constructive approach” differed from the approach of EU regulators, Meta said, adding that they “continue to overreach by requiring us to provide a less personalized ads experience that goes beyond what the law requires, creating a worse experience for users and businesses.” “In contrast, the U.K.’s more pro-growth and pro-innovation regulatory environment allows for a clearer choice for users, while ensuring our personalized advertising tools can continue to be engines of growth and productivity for companies up and down the country.”