Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives in Brussels on Tuesday with a clear message for EU regulators ahead of a looming review of Europe’s streaming rules: Don’t overcomplicate them. In an exclusive interview with POLITICO, Sarandos said Netflix can live with regulation — but warned the EU not to fracture the single market with a patchwork of national mandates as officials prepare to reopen the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. “It doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production,” Sarandos said. He also warned regulators are underestimating YouTube as a direct competitor for TV viewing, too often treating it like a social media platform with “a bunch of cat videos” than a massive streaming rival. Sarandos’ effort to win over European regulators comes soon after the collapse of Netflix’s bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — but Sarandos maintained that the political dynamics around the deal only “complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes.” He added that there was no political interference in the deal, and he shrugged off President Donald Trump’s demand to remove Susan Rice, a former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, from the Netflix board. “It was a social media post,” Sarandos said. “It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What’s bringing you back to Brussels now? Well, we have ongoing meetings with regulators around Europe all the time. We have so much business in Europe, obviously, and so this has been on the books for quite a while. Can you give me a little bit of a sense of who you’re meeting with, and what is the focus? I think one of the things to keep in mind is that we’ve become such an important part, I’d think, of the European audiovisual economy. We’ve spent, in the last decade, over $13 billion in creating content in Europe. It makes us one of the leading producers and exporters of European storytelling. First of all, we’ve got a lot of skin in the game in Europe, obviously. We work with over 600 independent European producers. We created about 100,000 cast and crew jobs in Europe from our productions. So we talk to folks who are interested in all the elements of that — how to keep it, how to maintain it, how to grow it and how to protect it. In terms of regulation in the EU, Netflix is governed by a directive here. The commission is looking to reopen that this year. There seems to be a sense here from regulators that the current rules don’t create a level playing field between the broadcasters, the video on demand, the video sharing, and so they may look to put more requirements on that. How steeped in the details are you there? And how would Netflix react to more rules put on Netflix at this moment? Well, first and foremost, we comply with all the rules that apply to us in terms of how we’re regulated today. We have seen by operating around the world that those countries where they lean more into incentives than the strict regulatory scheme, that the incentives pay off. We’ve got multibillion dollar investments in Spain and the UK, where they have really leaned into attracting production through incentives versus regulatory mandates, so we find that that’s a much more productive environment to work in. But the core for me is that obviously they’re going to evolve the regulatory models, but as long as they remain simple, predictable, consistent — the single market, the benefit of the single-market is this — as long as these rules remain simple, predictable and consistent, it’s a good operating model. I think the more that it gets broken up by individual countries and individual mandates, you lose all the benefits of the single market. There’s a lot of talk in Brussels right now about simplification, getting rid of a lot of red tape. Do you think the rules that you’re governed by would benefit from a similar kind of effort to simplify, of pulling back on a lot of these patchwork of rules, even at the EU? Look, I think it doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production, so for me, having some stability is really important, and I understand that we’re in a dynamic market and a dynamic business, and they should reflect the current operating models that we’re in too. We want to work closely with the regulators to make sure that what they’re doing and what we’re doing kind of reflect each other, which is trying to protect the healthy work environment for folks in Europe. When you meet with regulators here, is there a message you’re going to be delivering to them or what do you want them to walk away with in terms of the bottom line for you in terms of your business at this moment in the EU? I think some things are well understood and other things I think are less so. I think our commitment to European production is unique in the world. Both in our original production but also in our investment in second right’s windows that we pre-invest in films that compel production. Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of film production is compelled by our licensing agreements as well beyond our original production. And the fact that we work with local European producers on these projects — I think there’s a misconception that we don’t. And the larger one is the economic impact that that brings to Europe and to the world with our original program strategy that supports so many, not just the productions themselves but even tourism in European countries. Think about President [Emmanuel] Macron pointing out that 38 percent of people who went to France last year cited “Emily in Paris” as one of the top reasons they went. We’ve seen that in other countries. We saw it in Madrid with the “Casa de Papel.” And so it’s one of those things where it really raises all boats across the economies of these countries. Regulators often focus on the competition between streaming services, but as you know very well, younger audiences are spending more time on platforms like YouTube. Do you think policymakers are underestimating that shift? Would you like to see that taken into account more in the regulatory landscape? One of the things that we saw in recent months with the Warner Brothers transaction is a real deep misunderstanding about what YouTube is and isn’t. YouTube is a straightforward direct competitor for television, either a local broadcaster or a streamer like Netflix. The connected television market is a zero-sum screen. So whichever one you choose, that’s what you’re watching tonight. And you monetize through subscription or advertising or both, but at the end of the day, it’s that choosing to engage in how you give them and how, and how that programming is monetized is a very competitive landscape and it includes YouTube. I think what happens is people think of YouTube as a bunch of cat videos and maybe some way to, to promote your stuff by putting it on there for free. But it turns out it is a zero-sum game. You’re going to be choosing at the expense of an RTL or Netflix. I think in this case it’s one of these things where recognizing and understanding that YouTube is in the same exact game that we are. Do you feel like you’re on different planes though, in the eyes of regulators at this moment? I don’t think that they see them as a direct competitor in that way. I think they think of that as an extension of social media. And the truth is when we talk about them as a competitor, we’re only talking about them on the screen. I’m not talking about their mobile usage or any of that. You know, about 55 percent of all YouTube engagement now is on the television through their app. So to me, that’s the thing to keep an eye on. As you get into this, it’s a pretty straightforward, competitive model and we think probably should have a level playing field relative to everybody else. Who do you view as Netflix’s main competitors today? Look, our competitive space is really the television screen. When people pick up the remote and pick what to watch, everyone is in that mix. We identified YouTube — this isn’t new for us — we identified YouTube as a competitor in the space 10 years ago, even before they moved to the television. And I think, for the most part, TikTok forced their hand to move to the television because they were kind of getting chased off the phone more or less by TikTok. I think that’s the other one that regulators should pay a lot of attention to is what’s happening with the rise of TikTok engagement as well. It’s not directly competitive for us, but it is for attention and time and to your point, maybe the next generation’s consumer behavior. Last question on regulation: With the EU looking at the rules again, there’s a tendency always to look to tinker more and more and do more. Is there a point at what regulation starts affecting your willingness to invest in European production? Well, like I said, those core principles of predictability and simplicity have really got to come into play, because I think what happens is, just like any business, you have to be able to plan. So, if you make a production under one set of regs and release it under another, it’s not a very stable business environment. The topic that dominated a lot of your attention in recent months was obviously the merger talks with Warner Brothers Discovery. I know you’ve said it didn’t work for financial reasons. I want to ask you a little bit about the political dynamics. How much did the political environment, including the Susan Rice incident, how much did that complicate the calculus in your mind? I think it complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes. I think for us it was always a business transaction, was always a well-regulated process in the U.S. The Department of Justice was handling it, everything was moving through. We were very confident we did not have a regulatory issue. Why would that be? It’s because it was very much a vertical transaction. I can’t name a transaction that was similar to this that has ever been blocked in history. We did not have duplicated assets. We did have a market concentration issue in the marketplace that we operate in. And I think that’s the feedback I was getting back from the DOJ and from regulators in general, which was, they understood that, but I do think that Paramount did a very nice job of creating a very loud narrative of a regulatory challenge that didn’t exist. But looking back to those early days of the merger discussions, did you have an appreciation for what might follow in terms of that complicated narrative? Yeah. Look, I think it opens up the door to have a lot of conversations that you wouldn’t have had otherwise, but that’s okay. A lot great things came out of it, the process itself. I would say in total, we had a price for where we thought this was good for our business. We made our best and final offer back in December and it was our best and final offer. So that’s all. But what came out a bit that’s positive is, we’ve had really healthy conversations with folks who we hardly ever talked to, theater operators, as a good example. I had a great meeting in February with the International Union of Cinemas, and the heads from all the different countries about what challenges they have, how we could be more helpful, or how they could be helpful to us too. I think we’ll come out of this with a much more creative relationship with exhibitions around the world. And by way of example, doing things that we haven’t done before. I don’t recommend testifying before the Senate again, but it was an interesting experience for sure. Probably a good learning experience. Hopefully not in the future for anything that you don’t want to be there for, but yes. Yeah, exactly. We’ve always said from the beginning, the Warner transaction was a nice-to-have at the right price, not a must-have-at-any-price. The business is healthy, growing organically. We’re growing on the path that we laid out several years ago and we didn’t really need this to grow the business. These assets are out there through our growth period and they’re going to be out there and for our next cycle growth as well and we’ve got to compete with that just like we knew we had to at the beginning. This was I think something that would fortify and maybe accelerate some of our existing models, but it doesn’t change our outcome. Are there regrets or things you might have wished you’d done differently? I mean honestly we took a very disciplined approach. I think we intentionally did not get distracted by the narrative noise, because we knew, we recognized what it was right away, which is just narrative noise. This deal was very good for the industry. Very good for both companies, Warner Brothers and Netflix. Our intent was obviously to keep those businesses operating largely as they are now. All the synergies that we had in the deal were mostly technologies and managerial, so we would have kept a big growth engine going in Hollywood and around the world. The alternative, which we’ve always said, is a lot of cutting. I think regulators in Europe and regulators in the U.S. should keep an eye on horizontal mergers. They should keep a close eye on [leveraged buyouts]. They typically are not good for the economy anywhere they happen. What were you preparing for in terms of the EU regulatory scrutiny with Warner Brothers? What was your read on how that might have looked? I think we’re a known entity in Europe. Keep in mind, like in Q4 of last year, we reported $3.5 billion or $3.8 billion in European revenues. So 18 percent year-on-year growth. The EU is now our largest territory. We’re a known entity there. The reason we didn’t take out press releases, we had meetings in Europe as we know everybody. We talked to the regulators, both at the EU and at the country level. And I do think that in many of the countries that we operate in, we’re a net contributor to the local economy, which I think is really important. We’ve got 12 offices across Europe with 2,500 people. So we’re members of the local ecosystem, we’re not outsiders. With President Trump, he demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from the board or pay the consequences. Did that cross a line for you in terms of political interference? It was a social media post, and we didn’t, no, it did not. It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media. So you didn’t interpret it as anything bigger than that. I mean, he does that one day, he could obviously weigh in on content the next day. How does somebody like you manage situations like that? I think it’s really important to be able to separate noise from signal, and I think a lot of what happens in a world where we have a lot of noise. There was so much attention to you going to the White House that day. And we didn’t learn until several days later that you didn’t actually have the meetings that were predicted. Before you arrived in Washington that day, had you already made the decision not to proceed? Not before arriving in Washington, but we knew the framework for if this, then that. So, yeah, I would say that it was interesting, but again, we don’t make a big parade about our meetings with government and with the regulators. I had a meeting on the books with the DOJ scheduled several weeks before, meeting with Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, scheduled several months before, unrelated to the Warner Brothers deal. And that was just the calendar that lined up that way. We didn’t know when Warner Brothers would make the statement about the deal. It’s all very dramatic, like it belongs on Netflix as a movie. There was paparazzi outside of the White House waiting for me when I came out. I’ve never experienced that before. Yeah, it’s a remarkable story. I would tell you, and I’m being honest with you, there was no political interference in this deal. The president is interested in entertainment and interested in deals, so he was curious about the mechanics of things and how things were going to go or whatever, but he made it very clear that this was under the DOJ. So it’s just like we all spun it up from the media? How do you explain it all? First of all, Netflix is clickbait. So people write about Netflix and it gets read. And that’s a pretty juicy story. And [Trump] said, and by the way, like I said, he makes statements sometimes that lead to the beliefs of things that do and sometimes that don’t materialize at all. But I found my conversations with him were 100 percent about the industry, protecting the industry. And I think it’s very healthy that the president of the United States speaks to business leaders about industries that are important to the economy. To what degree did the narrative or the fact that David Ellison had a relationship or seemed to have a relationship with people in Washington who were in power, that that might have swayed or changed the dynamic at the end with where Warner Brothers went though? I can’t speak to what their thinking is on it. I feel like for me, it’s very important to know the folks in charge, but I wouldn’t count on it if you’re doing something that is not in the best interest of the country or the economy. You talked with Trump in the past about entertainment jobs. Were there specific policies you’ve advocated to him or anything that he brought up on that point? He has brought up tariffs for the movie and television industry many times. And I’ve hopefully talked to him the way out of them. I just said basically the same thing I said earlier. I think that incentive works much better. We’re seeing it in the U.S. things like the states compete with each other for production incentives and those states with good, healthy incentive programs attract a lot of production, and you’ve seen a lot of them move from California to Georgia to New Jersey, kind of looking for that what’s the best place to operate in, where you could put more on the screen. And I do think that having the incentives versus tariffs is much better. Netflix is now buying Ben Affleck’s AI company. What areas do you see AI having the most potential to change Netflix’s workflow? My focus is that AI should be a creator tool. But with the same way production tools have evolved over time, AI is just a rapid, important evolution of these tools. It is one of those. And the idea that the creators could use it to do things that they could never do before to do it. Potentially, they could do faster and cheaper. But the most impact will be if they can make it better. I don’t think faster and cheaper matters if it’s not better. This is the most competitive time in the history of media. So you’ve gotta be better every time out of the gate. And faster and cheaper consumers are not looking for faster and cheaper, they’re looking for better. I do think that AI, particularly InterPositive, the company we bought from Ben, will help creators make things better. Using their own dailies, using their own production materials to make the film that they’re making better. Still requires writers and actors and lighting techs and all the things that you’d use to make a movie, but be able to make the movie more effective, more efficient. Being able to do pick up shots and things like this that you couldn’t do before. It’s really remarkable. It’s a really remarkable company. As AI improves, do you see the role of human voice actors shrinking at Netflix? What’s interesting about that is if you look at the evolution of tools for dubbing and subtitling, the one for dubbing, we do a lot of A-B tests that people, if you watch something and you don’t like it, you just turn it off. The one thing that we find to be the most important part of dubbing is the performance. So good voice actors really matter. Yeah, it’s a lot cheaper to use AI, but without the performance, which is very human, it actually runs down the quality of the production. Will it evolve over time? Possibly, but it won’t evolve without the cooperation and the training of the actual voice actors themselves too. I think what will happen is you’ll be able to do things like pick up lines that you do months and months after the production. You’ll be able to recreate some of those lines in the film without having to call everybody back and redo everything which will help make a better film. You’re in the sort of early stages of a push into video podcast. What have you learned so far about what works and what doesn’t? It’s really early. The main thing is we’ve got a broad cross-section of podcasts. It’s nowhere near as complete as other podcast outlets yet. But the things that we leaned into are the things that are working. We kind of figured they would. You’ve got true crime, sports, comedy, all those things that we do well in the doc space already. And I really am excited about things where people can develop and deepen the relationship with the show itself or the [intellectual property] itself. Our Bridgerton podcast is really popular, and people really want to go deeper and we want to be able to provide that for them. I think a video podcast is just the evolution of talk shows. We have tried to and failed at many talk shows over the years, and for the most part it’s because the old days of TV, when 40 million people used to tune in to the Tonight Show every night, [are over]. What’s happened now is that it’s much smaller audiences that tune into multiple shows in the form of a podcast every day. And then they come up to be way bigger than the 40 million that Johnny Carson used to get. They’re all individual, and it’s a deeper relationship than it is a broad one. So instead of trying to make one show for the world, you might have to make hundreds or thousands of shows for the whole world.

BUDAPEST — As Hungarians awoke to a sunny national day on March 15, a question overshadowed the celebrations: Who would draw the larger crowd to the streets of Budapest? Would it be incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, still a formidable force after 16 years of uninterrupted rule? Or Péter Magyar, a less prickly opposition wild card who is bidding to bring down Orbán’s government? With less than a month to go until the April 12 election — and with Magyar’s opposition Tisza party polling about 10 points ahead of Orbán’s Fidesz — the national day festivities offered both parties a final chance to show off their strength and sway public opinion as the campaign enters its final stretch. “Everything is ready for the biggest event ever,” Magyar had said the evening before. “This will be the day when size truly matters,” he added Sunday morning. Meanwhile, as followers started gathering after 9 a.m. to march for Orbán, the Fidesz-aligned Magyar Nemzet newspaper said that “the crowd is huge.” Small wonder, then, that the two sides disputed who had attracted the bigger crowd. The Fidesz “peace march” rally at Kossuth Square, next to the Hungarian Parliament building. | Max Griera/POLITICO Fidesz shared data from the Hungarian Tourism Agency, which reported that Orbán’s “peace march” had drawn 180,000 people to the opposition’s 150,000; the agency, which is controlled by the government, based its estimate on how many cell phones had been connected to antennas near the respective rallies. But people close to Tisza estimated for POLITICO that their party had mobilized 350,000 attendees. DEFENDING HUNGARY AGAINST BRUSSELS, KYIV Hungary’s March 15 national day commemorates its revolution and war of independence to escape the rule of Austria’s Habsburg monarchy from 1848-1849. Both parties used the occasion to drive home their campaign slogans and espouse patriotism and national identity. Orbán’s Fidesz has focused on the war in Ukraine and Iran, portraying itself as the party of security but avoiding domestic issues. Tisza has campaigned on a platform of complete regime change. The competing events both featured national anthems and folk songs, most prominently “Nemzeti Dal” by Sándor Petőfi — an iconic poem and a cornerstone of Hungarian literature that is widely credited with helping spark the Hungarian Revolution in 1848. And both Orbán and Magyar called on Hungarians to rise and defend the country just like they did in 1956 against the Soviet occupation — the former invoking Ukraine as the threat, the latter another Orbán government after 16 years of uninterrupted rule. Orbán addressed his supporters beside the parliament in Kossuth Square, where they had marched from the Buda quarter of the capital across the Danube River. “We will not be a Ukrainian colony,” was the motto on the placards protesters carried, a slogan that Orbán had echoed on social media the day before. Budapest is embroiled in a furious dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the cessation of Russian oil flows across Ukraine and a stalled €90 billion EU loan to fund Kyiv’s war effort. Orbán has framed his rival Magyar as a Brussels proxy who will do as the EU and Ukraine say. “I said no to the Soviets,” Orbán told the rally. “I said no to Brussels, to the war, and I’m standing before the vote now, together with you, saying no to the Ukrainians.” Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó took the stage to claim that Brussels, Kyiv and Berlin “want to bring Europe to war” and “want the money of Europeans to be given to the Ukrainians.” Near Kossuth Square, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Boulevard was at a standstill with dozens of buses still disgorging supporters from the countryside, who had been brought in to offset Budapest’s predominantly opposition voters. High school student Mikolt, 16, and her stay-at-home mother Daniela, 42, were arriving from the village of Eger in the northeast of the country. They said they supported Orbán because he is keeping Hungary out of the war in Ukraine and because he supports Christianity, the family and Hungarians. Tisza volunteers Balázs and Zsigmund on Andrássy Avenue before the march starts. | Max Griera/POLITICO Magyar is a “narcissist,” Daniela said, who “behaves like a wounded little child who no longer has any power” since leaving Fidesz in February 2024. “RUSSIANS GO HOME” A 20-minute walk away, the Tisza marchers were beginning to assemble. Volunteers Zsigmund and Balázs, both 18, agreed to talk with POLITICO, despite having received a caution from their team leader not to speak with media, as Orbán’s “propagandists” could use what they said against the party. Describing themselves as “patriots,” the two students are counting on Magyar to improve the country’s health care and education systems, which they said have been battered by years of misrule. “Orbán replaced skilled people with loyalists. Tisza has many professionals and they have a program, Fidesz hasn’t had a program for years,” Zsigmund said. For Balazs, who plans to study economics at a foreign university, the election is existential — he says he may not come back if Orbán wins. “I would prefer to come back, definitely, but let’s see what happens.” Once it gets going, the Tisza march fills the 2.5 kilometer-long Andrassy Avenue, heading for Heroes Square, where Magyar is due to speak at 17:00. On stage, the opposition leader promises to fix Hungary’s health care system, restore billions of euros in EU funding that has been frozen due to rule-of-law concerns regarding Orbán’s government, improve pensions and child support, boost the economy and fight corruption. Evoking Hungary’s “other” revolution — the 1956 uprising that killed 3,000 civilians — Magyar said Hungarians need to rise up again to regain their “freedom” and protect their rights. Framing the current government as an occupier that represses its “subjects,” he accused Orbán of allowing Russian agents in the country to meddle in the election. “Russians go home!” the crowd chanted, repeating: “It’s over!”

Anton, a 44-year-old Russian soldier who heads a workshop responsible for repairing and supplying drones, was at his kitchen table when he learned last month that Elon Musk’s SpaceX had cut off access to Starlink terminals used by Russian forces. He scrambled for alternatives, but none offered unlimited internet, data plans were restrictive, and coverage did not extend to the areas of Ukraine where his unit operated. It’s not only American tech executives who are narrowing communications options for Russians. Days later, Russian authorities began slowing down access nationwide to the messaging app Telegram, the service that frontline troops use to coordinate directly with one another and bypass slower chains of command. “All military work goes through Telegram — all communication,” Anton, whose name has been changed because he fears government reprisal, told POLITICO in voice messages sent via the app. “That would be like shooting the entire Russian army in the head.” Telegram would be joining a home screen’s worth of apps that have become useless to Russians. Kremlin policymakers have already blocked or limited access to WhatsApp, along with parent company Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Microsoft’s LinkedIn, Google’s YouTube, Apple’s FaceTime, Snapchat and X, which like SpaceX is owned by Musk. Encrypted messaging apps Signal and Discord, as well as Japanese-owned Viber, have been inaccessible since 2024. Last month, President Vladimir Putin signed a law requiring telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access at the request of the Federal Security Service. Shortly after it took effect on March 3, Moscow residents reported widespread problems with mobile internet, calls and text messages across all major operators for several days, with outages affecting mobile service and Wi-Fi even inside the State Duma. Those decisions have left Russians increasingly cut off from both the outside world and one another, complicating battlefield coordination and disrupting online communities that organize volunteer aid, fundraising and discussion of the war effort. Deepening digital isolation could turn Russia into something akin to “a large, nuclear-armed North Korea and a junior partner to China,” according to Alexander Gabuev, the Berlin-based director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. In April, the Kremlin is expected to escalate its campaign against Telegram — already one of Russia’s most popular messaging platforms, but now in the absence of other social-media options, a central hub for news, business and entertainment. It may block the platform altogether. That is likely to fuel an escalating struggle between state censorship and the tools people use to evade it, with Russia’s place in the world hanging in the balance. “It’s turned into a war,” said Mikhail Klimarev, executive director of the internet Protection Society, a digital rights group that monitors Russia’s censorship infrastructure. “A guerrilla war. They hunt down the VPNs they can see, they block them — and the ‘partisans’ run, build new bunkers, and come back.” THE APP THAT RUNS THE WAR On Feb. 4, SpaceX tightened the authentication system that Starlink terminals use to connect to its satellite network, introducing stricter verification for registered devices. The change effectively blocked many terminals operated by Russian units relying on unauthorized connections, cutting Starlink traffic inside Ukraine by roughly 75 percent, according to internet traffic analysis by Doug Madory, an analyst at the U.S. network monitoring firm Kentik. The move threw Russian operations into disarray, allowing Ukraine to make battlefield gains. Russia has turned to a workaround widely used before satellite internet was an option: laying fiber-optic lines, from rear areas toward frontline battlefield positions. Until then, Starlink terminals had allowed drone operators to stream live video through platforms such as Discord, which is officially blocked in Russia but still sometimes used by the Russian military via VPNs, to commanders at multiple levels. A battalion commander could watch an assault unfold in real time and issue corrections — “enemy ahead” or “turn left” — via radio or Telegram. What once required layers of approval could now happen in minutes. Satellite-connected messaging apps became the fastest way to transmit coordinates, imagery and targeting data. But on Feb. 10, Roskomnadzor, the Russian communications regulator, began slowing down Telegram for users across Russia, citing alleged violations of Russian law. Russian news outlet RBC reported, citing two sources, that authorities plan to shut down Telegram in early April — though not on the front line. In mid-February, Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadayev said the government did not yet intend to restrict Telegram at the front but hoped servicemen would gradually transition to other platforms. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said this week the company could avoid a full ban by complying with Russian legislation and maintaining what he described as “flexible contact” with authorities. Roskomnadzor has accused Telegram of failing to protect personal data, combat fraud and prevent its use by terrorists and criminals. Similar accusations have been directed at other foreign tech platforms. In 2022, a Russian court designated Meta an “extremist organization” after the company said it would temporarily allow posts calling for violence against Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine war — a decision authorities used to justify blocking Facebook and Instagram in Russia and increasing pressure on the company’s other services, including WhatsApp. Telegram founder Pavel Durov, a Russian-born entrepreneur now based in the United Arab Emirates, says the throttiling is being used as a pretext to push Russians toward a government-controlled messaging app designed for surveillance and political censorship. That app is MAX, which was launched in March 2025 and has been compared to China’s WeChat in its ambition to anchor a domestic digital ecosystem. Authorities are increasingly steering Russians toward MAX through employers, neighborhood chats and the government services portal Gosuslugi — where citizens retrieve documents, pay fines and book appointments — as well as through banks and retailers. The app’s developer, VK, reports rapid user growth, though those figures are difficult to independently verify. “They didn’t just leave people to fend for themselves — you could say they led them by the hand through that adaptation by offering alternatives,” said Levada Center pollster Denis Volkov, who has studied Russian attitudes toward technology use. The strategy, he said, has been to provide a Russian or state-backed alternative for the majority, while stopping short of fully criminalizing workarounds for more technologically savvy users who do not want to switch. Elena, a 38-year-old Yekaterinburg resident whose surname has been withheld because she fears government reprisal, said her daughter’s primary school moved official communication from WhatsApp to MAX without consulting parents. She keeps MAX installed on a separate tablet that remains mostly in a drawer — a version of what some Russians call a “MAXophone,” gadgets solely for that app, without any other data being left on those phones for the (very real) fear the government could access it. “It works badly. Messages are delayed. Notifications don’t come,” she said. “I don’t trust it … And this whole situation just makes people angry.” THE VPN ARMS RACE Unlike China’s centralized “Great Firewall,” which filters traffic at the country’s digital borders, Russia’s system operates internally. Internet providers are required to route traffic through state-installed deep packet inspection equipment capable of controlling and analyzing data flows in real time. “It’s not one wall,” Klimarev said. “It’s thousands of fences. You climb one, then there’s another.” The architecture allows authorities to slow services without formally banning them — a tactic used against YouTube before its web address was removed from government-run domain-name servers last month. Russian law explicitly provides government authority for blocking websites on grounds such as extremism, terrorism, illegal content or violations of data regulations, but it does not clearly define throttling — slowing traffic rather than blocking it outright — as a formal enforcement mechanism. “The slowdown isn’t described anywhere in legislation,” Klimarev said. “It’s pressure without procedure.” In September, Russia banned advertising for virtual private network services that citizens use to bypass government-imposed restrictions on certain apps or sites. By Klimarev’s estimate, roughly half of Russian internet users now know what a VPN is, and millions pay for one. Polling last year by the Levada Center, Russia’s only major independent pollster, suggests regular use is lower, finding about one-quarter of Russians said they have used VPN services. Russian courts can treat the use of anonymization tools as an aggravating factor in certain crimes — steps that signal growing pressure on circumvention technologies without formally outlawing them. In February, the Federal Antimonopoly Service opened what appears to be the first case against a media outlet for promoting a VPN after the regional publication Serditaya Chuvashiya advertised such a service on its Telegram channel. Surveys in recent years have shown that many Russians, particularly older citizens, support tighter internet regulation, often citing fraud, extremism and online safety. That sentiment gives authorities political space to tighten controls even when the restrictions are unpopular among more technologically savvy users. Even so, the slowdown of Telegram drew criticism from unlikely quarters, including Sergei Mironov, a longtime Kremlin ally and leader of the Just Russia party. In a statement posted on his Telegram channel on Feb. 11, he blasted the regulators behind the move as “idiots,” accusing them of undermining soldiers at the front. He said troops rely on the app to communicate with relatives and organize fundraising for the war effort, warning that restricting it could cost lives. While praising the state-backed messaging app MAX, he argued that Russians should be free to choose which platforms they use. Pro-war Telegram channels frame the government’s blocking techniques as sabotage of the war effort. Ivan Philippov, who tracks Russia’s influential military bloggers, said the reaction inside that ecosystem to news about Telegram has been visceral “rage.” Unlike Starlink, whose cutoff could be blamed on a foreign company, restrictions on Telegram are viewed as self-inflicted. Bloggers accuse regulators of undermining the war effort. Telegram is used not only for battlefield coordination but also for volunteer fundraising networks that provide basic logistics the state does not reliably cover — from transport vehicles and fuel to body armor, trench materials and even evacuation equipment. Telegram serves as the primary hub for donations and reporting back to supporters. “If you break Telegram inside Russia, you break fundraising,” Philippov said. “And without fundraising, a lot of units simply don’t function.” Few in that community trust MAX, citing technical flaws and privacy concerns. Because MAX operates under Russian data-retention laws and is integrated with state services, many assume their communications would be accessible to authorities. Philippov said the app’s prominent defenders are largely figures tied to state media or the presidential administration. “Among independent military bloggers, I haven’t seen a single person who supports it,” he said. Small groups of activists attempted to organize rallies in at least 11 Russian cities, including Moscow, Irkutsk and Novosibirsk, in defense of Telegram. Authorities rejected or obstructed most of the proposed demonstrations — in some cases citing pandemic-era restrictions, weather conditions or vague security concerns — and in several cases revoked previously issued permits. In Novosibirsk, police detained around 15 people ahead of a planned rally. Although a small number of protests were formally approved, no large-scale demonstrations ultimately took place. THE POWER TO PULL THE PLUG The new law signed last month allows Russia’s Federal Security Service to order telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said subsequent shutdowns of service in Moscow were linked to security measures aimed at protecting critical infrastructure and countering drone threats, adding that such limitations would remain in place “for as long as necessary.” In practice, the disruptions rarely amount to a total communications blackout. Most target mobile internet rather than all services, while voice calls and SMS often continue to function. Some domestic websites and apps — including government portals or banking services — may remain accessible through “whitelists,” meaning authorities allow certain services to keep operating even while broader internet access is restricted. The restrictions are typically localized and temporary, affecting specific regions or parts of cities rather than the entire country. Internet disruptions have increasingly become a tool of control beyond individual platforms. Research by the independent outlet Meduza and the monitoring project Na Svyazi has documented dozens of regional internet shutdowns and mobile network restrictions across Russia, with disruptions occurring regularly since May 2025. The communications shutdown, and uncertainty around where it will go next, is affecting life for citizens of all kinds, from the elderly struggling to contact family members abroad to tech-savvy users who juggle SIM cards and secondary phones to stay connected. Demand has risen for dated communication devices — including walkie-talkies, pagers and landline phones — along with paper maps as mobile networks become less reliable, according to retailers interviewed by RBC. “It feels like we’re isolating ourselves,” said Dmitry, 35, who splits his time between Moscow and Dubai and whose surname has been withheld to protect his identity under fear of governmental reprisal. “Like building a sovereign grave.” Those who track Russian public opinion say the pattern is consistent: irritation followed by adaptation. When Instagram and YouTube were blocked or slowed in recent years, their audiences shrank rapidly as users migrated to alternative services rather than mobilizing against the restrictions. For now, Russia’s digital tightening resembles managed escalation rather than total isolation. Officials deny plans for a full shutdown, and even critics say a complete severing would cripple banking, logistics and foreign trade. “It’s possible,” Klimarev said. “But if they do that, the internet won’t be the main problem anymore.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer has been throwing a little shade at fellow world leaders. The British prime minister ditched his buttoned-up public persona on Monday evening to poke fun at France’s Emmanuel Macron during a live recording of comedian Matt Forde’s podcast. Handed a pair of aviator sunglasses, similar to those worn by the French president during the World Economic Forum in Davos last week due to an eye health issue, Starmer put them on and jibed to audience laughter: “Bonjour.” The clip was posted on the PM’s TikTok feed with a message to Macron saying: “Talk to me, Goose” — a reference to the 1986 Tom Cruise film “Top Gun.” > @keirstarmer @Emmanuel Macron ♬ original sound – Keir Starmer Starmer told Forde that while he will consider wearing the specs to international summits, he will need his normal glasses back to be able to see in parliament. It’s not the first time Macron’s shades have raised eyebrows. “I watched him yesterday with those beautiful sunglasses. What the hell happened?” Donald Trump remarked during a speech at Davos. Starmer also disclosed that Trump regularly rings him on his mobile phone, rather than using official government communications. “Once I was in the flat with the kids cleaning pasta off the table after their dinner, and the phone goes and it’s Donald on the phone,” Starmer said. “Another time, I’d say most inconvenient, we’re halfway through the Arsenal-PSG game,” he added, referencing his love of the top-flight soccer team. In a more serious moment, Starmer defended his decision to travel to China this week, in the first trip to the country by a British prime minister since 2018. “If you’re a leader on the international stage, you are dealing with whoever is the leader in another country. I mean, it’s that simple,” he said.  

LONDON — British ministers have been laying the ground for Keir Starmer’s handshake with Xi Jinping in Beijing this week ever since Labour came to power. In a series of behind-closed-door speeches in China and London, obtained by POLITICO, ministers have sought to persuade Chinese and British officials, academics and businesses that rebuilding the trade and investment relationship is essential — even as economic security threats loom. After a “Golden Era” in relations trumpeted by Tory Prime Minister David Cameron, Britain’s once-close ties to the Asian superpower began to unravel in the late 2010s. By 2019, Boris Johnson had frozen trade and investment talks after a Beijing-led crackdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement. At Donald Trump’s insistence, Britain stripped Chinese telecoms giant Huawei from its telecoms infrastructure over security concerns. Starmer — who is expected to meet Xi on a high-stakes trip to Beijing this week — set out to revive an economic relationship that had hit the rocks. The extent of the reset undertaken by the PM’s cabinet is revealed in the series of speeches by ministers instrumental to his China policy over the past year, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and former Indo-Pacific, investment, city and trade ministers. Months before security officials completed an audit of Britain’s exposure to Chinese interference last June, ministers were pushing for closer collaboration between the two nations on energy and financial systems, and the eight sectors of Labour’s industrial strategy. “Six of those eight sectors have national security implications,” said a senior industry representative, granted anonymity to speak freely about their interactions with government. “When you speak to [the trade department] they frame China as an opportunity. When you speak to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, it’s a national security risk.”  While Starmer’s reset with China isn’t misguided, “I think we’ve got to be much more hard headed about where we permit Chinese investment into the economy in the future,” said Labour MP Liam Byrne, chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee. Lawmakers on his committee are “just not convinced that the investment strategy that is unfolding between the U.K. and China is strong enough for the future and increased coercion risks,” he said. As Trump’s tariffs bite, Beijing’s trade surplus is booming and “we’ve got to be realistic that China is likely to double down on its Made in China approach and target its export surplus at the U.K.,” Byrne said. China is the U.K.’s fifth-largest trade partner, and data to June of last year show U.K. exports to China dropping 10.4 percent year-on-year while imports rose 4.3 percent. “That’s got the real potential to flood our markets with goods that are full of Chinese subsidies, but it’s also got the potential to imperil key sectors of our economy, in particular the energy system,” Byrne warned. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Since the election, the Government has been consistently transparent about our approach to China – which we are clear will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism. “We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must, never compromising on our national security. We reject the old ‘hot and cold’ diplomacy that failed to protect our interests or support our growth.” While Zheng Zeguang’s speech was released online, the Foreign Office refused to provide Catherine West’s own address when requested at the time. | Jordan Pettitt/PA Images via Getty Images CATHERINE WEST, INDO-PACIFIC MINISTER, SEPTEMBER 2024 Starmer’s ministers began resetting relations in earnest on the evening of Sept. 25, 2024 at the luxury Peninsula Hotel in London’s Belgravia, where rooms go for £800 a night. Some 400 guests, including a combination of businesses, British government and Chinese embassy officials, gathered to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China — a milestone for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule. “I am honored to be invited to join your celebration this evening,” then Indo-Pacific Minister Catherine West told the room, kicking off her keynote following a speech by China’s ambassador to the U.K., Zheng Zeguang.  “Over the last 75 years, China’s growth has been exponential; in fields like infrastructure, technology and innovation which have reverberated across the globe,” West said, according to a Foreign Office briefing containing the speech obtained through freedom of information law. “Both our countries have seen the benefits of deepening our trade and economic ties.”  While London and Beijing won’t always see eye-to-eye, “the U.K. will cooperate with China where we can. We recognise we will also compete in other areas — and challenge where we need to,” West told the room, including 10 journalists from Chinese media, including Xinhua, CGTN and China Daily. While Zheng’s speech was released online, the Foreign Office refused to provide West’s own address when requested at the time. Freedom of information officers later provided a redacted briefing “to protect information that would be likely to prejudice relations.” DAVID LAMMY, FOREIGN SECRETARY, OCTOBER 2024 As foreign secretary, David Lammy made his first official overseas visit in the job with a two-day trip to Beijing and Shanghai. He met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Oct. 18, a few weeks before U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-election. Britain and China’s top diplomats discussed climate change, trade and global foreign policy challenges. “I met with Director Wang Yi yesterday and raised market access issues with him directly,” Lammy told a roundtable of British businesses at Shanghai’s Regent On The Bund hotel the following morning, noting that he hoped greater dialogue between the two nations would break down trade barriers. “At the same time, I remain committed to protecting the U.K.’s national security,” Lammy said. “In most sectors of the economy, China brings opportunities through trade and investment, and this is where continued collaboration is of great importance to me,” he told firms. Freedom of information officers redacted portions of Lammy’s speech so it wouldn’t “prejudice relations” with China.  Later that evening, the then-foreign secretary gave a speech at the Jean Nouvel-designed Pudong Museum of Art to 200 business, education, arts and culture representatives. China is “the world’s biggest emitter” of CO2, Lammy told them in his prepared remarks obtained by freedom of information law. “But also the world’s biggest producer of renewable energy. This is a prime example of why I was keen to visit China this week. And why this government is committed to a long-term, strategic approach to relations.” Shanghai continues “to play a key role in trade and investment links with the rest of the world as well,” he said, pointing to the “single biggest” ever British investment in China: INEOS Group’s $800 million plastics plant in Zhejiang. “We welcome Chinese investment for clear mutual benefit the other way too,” Lammy said. “This is particularly the case in clean energy, where we are both already offshore wind powerhouses and the costs of rolling out more clean energy are falling rapidly.” “We welcome Chinese investment for clear mutual benefit the other way too,” David Lammy said. | Adam Vaughan/EPA POPPY GUSTAFSSON, INVESTMENT MINISTER, NOVEMBER 2024 Just days after Starmer and President Xi met for the first time at the G20 that November, Poppy Gustafsson, then the British investment minister, told a U.K.-China trade event at a luxury hotel on Mayfair’s Park Lane that “we want to open the door to more investment in our banking and insurance industries.” The event, co-hosted by the Bank of China UK and attended by Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang and 400 guests, including the U.K. heads of several major China business and financial institutions, is considered the “main forum for U.K.-China business discussion,” according to a briefing package prepared for Gustafsson. “We want to see more green initiatives like Red Rock Renewables who are unlocking hundreds of megawatts in new capacity at wind farms off the coast of Scotland — boosting this Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030,” Gustafsson told attendees, pointing to the project owned by China’s State Development and Investment Group. The number one objective for her speech, officials instructed the minister, was to “affirm the importance of engaging with China on trade and investment and cooperating on shared multilateral interests.” And she was told to “welcome Chinese investment which supports U.K. growth and the domestic industry through increased exports and wider investment across the economy and in the Industrial Strategy priority sectors.” The Chinese government published a readout of Gustafsson and Zheng’s remarks. RACHEL REEVES, CHANCELLOR, JANUARY 2025 By Jan. 11 last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves was in Beijing with British financial and professional services giants like Abrdn, Standard Chartered, KPMG, the London Stock Exchange, Barclays and Bank of England boss Andrew Bailey in tow. She was there to meet with China’s Vice-Premier He Lifeng to reopen one of the key financial and investment talks with Beijing Boris Johnson froze in 2019. Before Reeves and He sat down for the China-U.K. Economic and Financial Dialogue, Britain’s chancellor delivered an address alongside the vice-premier to kick off a parallel summit for British and Chinese financial services firms, according to an agenda for the summit shared with POLITICO. Reeves was also due to attend a dinner the evening of the EFD and then joined a business delegation travelling to Shanghai where she held a series of roundtables. Releasing any of her remarks from these events through freedom of information law “would be likely to prejudice” relations with China, the Treasury said. “It is crucial that HM Treasury does not compromise the U.K.’s interests in China.” Reeves’ visit to China paved the way for the revival of a long-dormant series of high-level talks to line up trade and investment wins, including the China-U.K. Energy Dialogue in March and U.K.-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission (JETCO) last September. EMMA REYNOLDS, CITY MINISTER, MARCH 2025 “Growth is the U.K. government’s number one mission. It is the foundation of everything else we hope to achieve in the years ahead. We recognise that China will play a very important part in this,” Starmer’s then-City Minister Emma Reynolds told the closed-door U.K.-China Business Forum in central London early last March. Reeves’ restart of trade and investment talks “agreed a series of commitments that will deliver £600 million for British businesses,” Reynolds told the gathering, which included Chinese electric vehicle firm BYD, HSBC, Standard Chartered, KPMG and others. This would be achieved by “enhancing links between our financial markets,” she said. “As the world’s most connected international financial center and home to world-leading financial services firms, the City of London is the gateway of choice for Chinese financial institutions looking to expand their global reach,” Reynolds said. Ed Miliband traveled to Beijing in mid-March for the first China-U.K. Energy Dialogue since 2019. | Tolga Akmen/EPA ED MILIBAND, ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARY, MARCH 2025 With Starmer’s Chinese reset in full swing, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband traveled to Beijing in mid-March for the first China-U.K. Energy Dialogue since 2019. Britain’s energy chief wouldn’t gloss over reports of human rights violations in China’s solar supply chain — on which the U.K. is deeply reliant for delivering its lofty renewables goals — when he met with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, a British government official said at the time. “We maybe agree to disagree on some things,” they said. But the U.K. faces “a clean energy imperative,” Miliband told students and professors during a lecture at Beijing’s elite Tsinghua University, which counts Xi Jinping and former Chinese President Hu Jintao as alumni. “The demands of energy security, affordability and sustainability now all point in the same direction: investing in clean energy at speed and at scale,” Miliband said, stressing the need for deeper U.K.-China collaboration as the U.K. government reaches towards “delivering a clean power system by 2030.”  “In the eight months since our government came to office we have been speeding ahead on offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and [Carbon Capture, Usage, and Storage],” Britain’s energy chief said. “Renewables are now the cheapest form of power to build and operate — and of course, much of this reflects technological developments driven by what is happening here in China.”  “The U.K. and China share a recognition of the urgency of acting on the climate crisis in our own countries and accelerating this transition around the world — and we must work together to do so,” Miliband said, in his remarks obtained through freedom of information law. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, ECONOMIC SECURITY MINISTER, APRIL 2025 During a trip to China in April last year, then-Trade Minister Douglas Alexander met his counterpart to prepare to relaunch key trade and investment talks. The trip wasn’t publicized by the U.K. side. According to a Chinese government readout, the China-UK Joint Economic and Trade Commission would promote “cooperation in trade and investment, and industrial and supply chains” between Britain’s trade secretary and his Chinese equivalent. After meeting Vice Minister and Deputy China International Trade Representative Ling Ji, Minister Alexander gave a speech at China’s largest consumer goods expo near the country’s southernmost point on the island province of Hainan. Alexander extended his “sincere thanks” to China’s Ministry of Commerce and the Hainan Provincial Government “for inviting the U.K. to be the country of honour at this year’s expo.” “We must speak often and candidly about areas of cooperation and, yes, of contention too, where there are issues on which we disagree,” the trade policy and economic security minister said, according to a redacted copy of his speech obtained under freedom of information law. “We are seeing joint ventures and collaboration between Chinese and U.K. firms on a whole host of different areas … in renewable energy, in consumer goods, and in banking and finance,” Alexander later told some of the 27 globally renowned British retailers, including Wedgwood, in another speech during the U.K. pavilion opening ceremony. “We are optimistic about the potential for deeper trade and investment cooperation — about the benefits this will bring to the businesses showcasing here, and those operating throughout China’s expansive market.”

The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

BRUSSELS — Lawmakers in the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee have voted to go ahead and sue the European Commission for axing a proposal to regulate patent licensing. The JURI committee on Tuesday voted in favor of referring the Commission to the Court of Justice of the European Union for breaching EU law by withdrawing a proposal to regulate standard essential patents. The patents, for 4G and 5G networks used in mobile phones and connected cars, have been at the center of a long-running battle between the companies that own them and those that use them. European lawmakers have supported efforts to resolve the fight — and some accuse the EU executive of attacking democracy by killing off the initiative. President Roberta Metsola now needs to mandate the Parliament’s legal service to draft and file a case by Nov. 14, a Parliament official said, citing rules of procedure. If she intends to depart from JURI’s conclusions, she could also bring it to the Conference of Presidents or, in an unlikely scenario, submit it to a plenary vote, they added. Fourteen MEPs voted in favor of the action, against eight who opposed it, the official said. The vote was held behind closed doors.  The motion was spearheaded by German Social Democrat René Repasi, coordinator for the Committee on Legal Affairs and standing rapporteur for disputes involving the Parliament. “With today’s vote, we send a clear message: we will not stand by when the Commission oversteps its mandate,” Repasi said in an emailed statement following the vote. “The Commission’s right to withdraw a proposal, as was conducted with the Standard-Essential Patents (SEP) proposal, cannot be used as a political instrument to short-circuit Parliament’s work or to enforce a deregulation agenda from above. This is not in line with how the democratic processes in the European Union are meant to function.” Members of the European People’s Party, the center-right party allied to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, were instructed to vote against taking legal action. “Today’s vote reflects Parliament’s concern about the balance of powers between EU institutions, but we must be clear: This legal action will not bring back the withdrawn legislative proposal,” Adrián Vázquez Lázara, the EPP’s lead on the issue, told POLITICO.  While he acknowledged that the withdrawal of the SEP bill raised some question marks, Vázquez Lázara said that legal action was not the right solution. “What can be questioned, however, is the wording and justification used in this specific withdrawal, which raises legitimate concerns about institutional transparency and communication,” Vázquez Lázara said. “Those Members who wish to see the proposal revived should seek political and legislative avenues to achieve that goal, rather than resorting to institutional confrontation.” Patent implementers, which historically supported the regulation and range from carmakers to Big Tech companies and SMEs, cheered the move. “There is still hope for democracy and fairness in the EU legislature,” said Evelina Kurgonaite of the Fair Standards Alliance, which represents the patent users. “We thank MEP [Marion] Walsmann and other JURI members for their leadership in fighting for a fair chance at innovation for  businesses in Europe, especially SMEs.” The Commission declined to comment.

The “anonymous” location data of EU officials in Brussels is up for sale, according to a joint investigation by European media outlets. Three senior officials working for the EU were identified as part of an investigation into phone location data being sold by data brokers. Other phones were located in NATO sites and Belgian military bases. The European Commission has recognized the “worrying conclusions” of the investigation and, as a result, told investigating outlets that it has “issued new guidance to its staff regarding ad tracking settings on business and home devices, and has informed other Union entities.” The investigation was conducted by L’Echo, Le Monde, German public broadcasters (BR / ARD), Netzpolitik.org and BNR nieuwsradio. Journalists posed undercover as employees at a marketing company, and were able to obtain hundreds of millions of location data points from phones in Belgium through data brokers. Data brokers collect and sell aggregated databases of personal information, often gathered from mobile apps or online web trackers. The data is bundled and resold to advertisers, or even law enforcement and governments. Location data is supposed to be anonymous, but it can be used to paint a picture of someone’s daily movements, and combining a few anonymous data points together can lead to re-identifying a person. Investigating publications were able to use the data to figure out surnames, first names and lifestyle habits of at least five people who work or have worked for the EU, three of whom “hold positions of high responsibility.” Two confirmed that the data collected corresponded to their home, workplace and travel. Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is legal to collect this kind of data from mobile phone users if they consent, but users must be clearly informed about how their data will be used. The Google Play Store and Apple App Store have requirements for apps to disclose the information they gather, but analysis by investigating outlet Netzpolitik has revealed that some apps still gather information such as location data without disclosing this in their policies. A similar undercover investigation by Ireland’s public broadcaster in September spurred Ireland’s Data Protection Commission to suspend the activities of an Irish data broker. The Irish DPC has said it has also identified two data broker companies in other EU member countries, and is engaging with data protection authorities responsible for regulating them.

PARIS — Economy Minister Roland Lescure warned Monday he could stop Shein from selling its products of France after a consumer watchdog report accused the Chinese-founded fast-fashion platform of selling “sex dolls with childlike appearances.” “For terrorist acts, drug trafficking and child pornography, the government has the right to request banning access to the French market,” Lescure said. “These horrible items are illegal.” Over the weekend, France’s Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) issued a statement alleging that it had “found that the e-commerce site SHEIN was selling child-like sex dolls.” “Their description and categorization on the site leave little doubt as to the child pornographic nature of the content,” the statement added. Shein did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. Lescure said that he had filed a legal report on this matter and asked France’s digital regulator Arcom, which is responsible for regulating “very large” platforms like Shein under the European Digital Services Act, to look into the matter. France’s High Commissioner for Youth, Sarah El-Haïry, said Sunday that she would convene “all major platforms” to understand how such products are put on the market. In 2021, then-Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire order popular search engines and mobile app stores to delist another online marketplace, Wish, after several reports from the DGCCRF. Wish was reauthorized a year later. This article was first published by POLITICO in French and translated by Victor Goury-Laffont.

Alcohol has been enjoyed in societies for thousands of years, playing a role in celebrations and gatherings across the world. While misuse continues to cause harm, it’s encouraging to see that, according to World Health Organization data, trends are moving in the right direction. Consumers are better informed and increasingly aware of the benefits of moderation.   While Diageo is only relatively young — founded in 1997 — our roots run deep. Many of our brands date back centuries, some as far back as the 1600s. From iconic names such as Guinness and Johnnie Walker to modern innovations like Tanqueray 0.0, we are proud to continue that legacy by building and sustaining exceptional brands that resonate across generations and geographies. We want to be one of the best performing, most trusted and respected consumer products companies in the world — grounded in a strong sense of responsibility.  That means being transparent about the challenges, proactive in promoting responsible drinking, and collaborative in shaping the future of alcohol policy. We are proud of the progress made, but we know there is more to do. Lasting change requires a whole-of-society approach, bringing together governments, health experts, civil society and the private sector.   We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive positive change. Our brands are woven into cultural and social traditions around the world, and the industry contributes significantly to employment, local economies and public revenues. Recognizing this broader context is essential to shaping effective, proportionate and collaborative alcohol policies. Public-private collaboration brings together the strengths of different sectors, and these partnerships help scale impactful programs.  > We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that > recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive > positive change. Across markets, consumers are increasingly choosing to drink more mindfully. Moderation is a long-term trend — whether it’s choosing a non-alcoholic alternative, enjoying fewer drinks of higher quality, or exploring the choice ready-to-drink formats offer, people are drinking better, not more, something Diageo has long advocated. Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. One of the ways we’re leading in this space is through our expanding non-alcoholic portfolio, including the acquisition of Ritual Beverage Company in the US and our investment in Guinness 0.0. This growing diversity of options empowers individuals to choose what’s right for them, in the moment. Moderation is about choice, and spirits can also offer creative ways to moderate, such as mixing alcoholic and non-alcoholic ingredients to craft serves like the ‘lo-groni’, or opting for a smaller measure in your gin and tonic.  Governments are increasingly taking proportionate approaches to alcohol regulation, recognizing the value of collaboration and evidence-based policy. There’s growing interest in public-private partnerships and regulatory rationality, working together to achieve our shared goal to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. In the UK, underage drinking is at its lowest since records began, thanks in part to initiatives like Challenge 25, a successful public-private collaboration that demonstrates the impact of collective, targeted action.  > Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs that are measurable and scalable. Like our responsible drinking campaign, The Magic of Moderate Drinking, which is rolled out across Europe, and our programs such as Sober vs Drink Driving, and Wrong Side of the Road, which are designed to shift behaviors, not just raise awareness. In Ireland, we brought this commitment to life at the All Together Now music, art, food and wellness festival with the launch of the TO.0UCAN pub in 2024, the country’s first-ever non-alcoholic bar at a music festival. Serving Guinness 0.0 on draught, it reimagined the traditional Irish pub experience, offering a fresh and inclusive way for festival-goers to enjoy the full energy and atmosphere of the event without alcohol.  Another example comes from our initiative Smashed. This theatre-based education program, developed by Collingwood Learning and delivered by a network of non-government organizations, educates young people and helps them understand the dangers of underage drinking, while equipping them with the knowledge and confidence to resist peer pressure. Diageo sponsors and enables Smashed to reach millions of young people, teachers and parents across the globe, while ensuring that no  alcohol brands of any kind are mentioned. In 2008, we launched DRINKiQ, a first-of-its-kind platform to help people understand and be informed about alcohol, its effects, and how to enjoy it responsibly. Today, DRINKiQ is a dynamic, mobile-first platform, localized in over 40 markets. It remains a cornerstone of our strategy.  > Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs > that are measurable and scalable. In the UK, our partnership with the Men’s Sheds Association supports older men’s wellbeing through DRINKiQ. Most recently, this collaboration expanded with Mission: Shoulder to Shoulder, a nationwide initiative where Shedders are building 100 buddy benches to spark over 200,000 conversations annually. The campaign promotes moderation and connection among older men, a cohort most likely to drink at increasing or higher risk levels. Across all our partnerships, we focus on the right message, in the right place, at the right time. They also reflect our belief that reducing harmful drinking requires collective action.  Our message is simple: Diageo is ready to be a proactive partner. Let’s build on the progress made and stay focused on the shared goal: reducing harm. With evidence-based policies, strong partnerships and public engagement, we can foster a drinking culture that is balanced, responsible and sustainable. Together, we can make real progress — for individuals, communities and society as a whole.