Europe prides itself on being a world leader in animal protection, with legal frameworks requiring member states to pay regard to animal welfare standards when designing and implementing policies. However, under REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — the EU’s cornerstone regulation on chemical safety, hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a ‘last resort’. With REACH’s first major revamp in almost 20 years forthcoming, lawmakers now face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive a genuine transformation of chemical regulation.  When REACH was introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago, it outlined a bold vision to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals, while simultaneously driving a transition toward modern, animal-free testing approaches. In practice, however, companies are still required to generate extensive toxicity data to bring both new chemicals and chemicals with long histories of safe use onto the market. This has resulted in a flood of animal tests that could too often be dispensed, especially when animal-free methods are just as protective (if not more) of human health and the environment.  > Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, > despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a > ‘last resort’. Despite the last resort requirement, some of the cruelest tests in the books are still expressly required under REACH. For example, ‘lethal dose’ animal tests were developed back in 1927 — the same year as the first solo transatlantic flight — and remain part of the toolbox when regulators demand ‘acute toxicity’ data, despite the availability of animal-free methods. Yet while the aviation industry has advanced significantly over the last century, chemical safety regulations remain stuck in the past.   Today’s science offers fully viable replacement approaches for evaluating oral, skin and fish lethality to irritation, sensitization, aquatic bioconcentration and more. It is time for the European Commission and member states to urgently revise REACH information requirements to align with the proven capabilities of animal-free science.   But this is only the first step. A 2023 review projected that animal testing under REACH will rise in the coming years in the absence of significant reform. With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally bring chemical safety into the 21st century by removing regulatory obstacles that slow the adoption of advanced animal-free science.   If REACH continues to treat animal testing as the default option, it risks eroding its credibility and the values it claims to uphold. However, animal-free science won’t be achieved by stitching together one-for-one replacements for legacy animal tests. A truly modern, European relevant chemicals framework demands deeper shifts in how we think, generate evidence and make safety decisions. Only by embracing next-generation assessment paradigms that leverage both exposure science and innovative approaches to the evaluation of a chemical’s biological activity can we unlock the full power of state-of the-art non-animal approaches and leave the old toolbox behind.  > With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a > choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally > bring chemical safety into the 21st century. The recent endorsement of One Substance, One Assessment regulations aims to drive collaboration across the sector while reducing duplicate testing on animals, helping to ensure transparency and improve data sharing. This is a step in the right direction, and provides the framework to help industry, regulators and other interest-holders to work together and chart a new path forward for chemical safety.   The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public trust. In 2021, the European Parliament urged the Commission to develop an EU plan to replace animal testing with modern scientific innovation. But momentum has since stalled. In the meantime, more than 1.2 million citizens have backed a European Citizens’ Initiative calling for chemical safety laws that protect people and the environment without adding new animal testing requirements; a clear indication that both science and society are eager for change.   > The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out > animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public > trust. Jay Ingram, managing director, chemicals, Humane World for Animals (founding member of AFSA Collaboration) states: “Citizens are rightfully concerned about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to on a daily basis, and are equally invested in phasing out animal testing. Trust and credibility must be built in the systems, structures, and people that are in place to achieve both of those goals.”  The REACH revision can both strengthen health and environmental safeguards while delivering a meaningful, measurable reduction in animal use year on year.  Policymakers need not choose between keeping Europe safe and embracing kinder science; they can and should take advantage of the upcoming REACH revision as an opportunity to do both.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

President Donald Trump promised that a wave of emergency tariffs on nearly every nation would restore “fair” trade and jump-start the economy. Eight months later, half of U.S. imports are avoiding those tariffs. “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs,” Trump said in April when he rolled out global tariffs based on the United States’ trade deficits with other countries, “I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies.” But in the time since the president gave that Rose Garden speech announcing the highest tariffs in a century, enormous holes have appeared. Carveouts for specific products, trade deals with major allies and conflicting import duties have let more than half of all imports escape his sweeping emergency tariffs. Some $1.6 trillion in annual imports are subject to the tariffs, while at least $1.7 trillion are excluded, either because they are duty-free or subject to another tariff, according to a POLITICO analysis based on last year’s import data. The exemptions on thousands of goods could undercut Trump’s effort to protect American manufacturing, shrink the trade deficit and raise new revenue to fund his domestic agenda. In September, the White House exempted hundreds of goods, including critical minerals and industrial materials, totaling nearly $280 billion worth of annual imports. Then in November, the administration exempted $252 billion worth of mostly agricultural imports like beef, coffee and bananas, some of which are not widely produced in the U.S. — just after cost-of-living issues became a major talking point out of Democratic electoral victories — on top of the hundreds of other carveouts. “The administration, for most of this year, spent a lot of time saying tariffs are a way to offload taxes onto foreigners,” said Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative under Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term, who now works at the Progressive Policy Institute, a D.C.-based think tank. “I think that becomes very hard to continue arguing when you then say, ‘But we are going to get rid of tariffs on coffee and beef, and that will bring prices down.’ … It’s a big retreat in principle.” The Trump administration has argued that higher tariffs would rebalance the United States’ trade deficits with many of its major trading partners, which Trump blames for the “hollowing out” of U.S. manufacturing in what he evoked as a “national emergency.” Before the Supreme Court, the administration is defending the president’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact the tariffs, and Trump has said that a potential court-ordered end to the emergency tariffs would be “country-threatening.” In an interview with POLITICO on Monday, Trump said he was open to adding even more exemptions to tariffs. He downplayed the existing carveouts as “very small” and “not a big deal,” and said he plans to pair them with tariff increases elsewhere. Responding to POLITICO’s analysis, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The Trump administration is implementing a nuanced and nimble tariff agenda to address our historic trade deficit and safeguard our national security. This agenda has already resulted in trillions in investments to make and hire in America along with over a dozen trade deals with some of America’s most important trade partners.” To date, the majority of exemptions to the “reciprocal” tariffs — the minimum 10 percent levies on most countries — have been for reasons other than new trade deals, according to POLITICO’s analysis. The White House also pushed back against the notion that November’s cuts were made in an effort to reduce food prices, saying that the exemptions were first outlined in the September order. The U.S. granted subsequent blanket exemptions, regardless of the status of countries’ trade negotiations with the Trump administration, after announcing several trade deals. Following the exemptions on agricultural tariffs, Trump announced on Monday a $12 billion relief aid package for farmers hurt by tariffs and rising production costs. The money will come from an Agriculture Department fund, though the president said it was paid for by revenue from tariffs (by law, Congress would need to approve spending the money that tariffs bring in). In addition to the exemptions from Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, more than $300 billion of imports are also exempted as part of trade deals the administration has negotiated in recent months, including with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and more recently, Malaysia, Cambodia and Brazil. The deal with Brazil removed a range of products from a cumulative tariff of 50 percent, making two-thirds of imports from the country free from emergency tariffs. For Canadian and Mexican goods, Trump imposed tariffs under a separate emergency justification over fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migrants. But about half of imports from Mexico and nearly 40 percent of those from Canada will not face tariffs because of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. Last year, importers claimed USMCA exemptions on $405 billion in goods; that value is expected to increase, given that the two countries are facing high tariffs for the first time in several years. The Trump administration has also exempted several products — including autos, steel and aluminum — from the emergency reciprocal tariffs because they already face duties under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The imports covered by those tariffs could total up to $900 billion annually, some of which may also be exempt under USMCA. The White House is considering using the law to justify further tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and several other industries. For now, the emergency tariffs remain in place as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump exceeded his authority in imposing them. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s use of emergency authority was unlawful — a decision the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld in August. During oral arguments on Nov. 5, several Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism that the emergency statute authorizes a president to levy tariffs, a power constitutionally assigned to Congress. As the rates of tariffs and their subsequent exemptions are quickly added and amended, businesses are struggling to keep pace, said Sabine Altendorf, an economist with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “When there’s uncertainty and rapid changes, it makes operations very difficult,” Altendorf said. “Especially for agricultural products where growing times and planting times are involved, it’s very important for market actors to be able to plan ahead.” ABOUT THE DATA Trump’s trade policy is not a straightforward, one-size-fits-all approach, despite the blanket tariffs on most countries of the world. POLITICO used 2024 import data to estimate the value of goods subject to each tariff, accounting for the stacking rules outlined below. Under Trump’s current system, some tariffs can “stack” — meaning a product can face more than one tariff if multiple trade actions apply to it. Section 232 tariffs cover automobiles, automobile parts, products made of steel and aluminum, copper and lumber — and are applied in that order of priority. Section 232 tariffs as a whole then take priority over other emergency tariffs. We applied this stacking priority order to all imports to ensure no double-counting. To calculate the total exclusions, we did not count the value of products containing steel, aluminum and copper, since the tariff would apply only to the known portion of the import’s metal contentand not the total import value of all products containing them. This makes the $1.7 trillion in exclusions a minimum estimate. Goods from Canada and Mexico imported under USMCA face no tariffs. Some of these products fall under a Section 232 category and may be charged applicable tariffs for the non-USMCA portion of the import. To claim exemptions under USMCA, importers must indicate the percentage of the product made or assembled in Canada or Mexico. Because detailed commodity-level data on which imports qualify for USMCA is not available, POLITICO’s analysis estimated the amount that would be excluded from tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports by applying each country’s USMCA-exempt share to its non-Section 232 import value. For instance, 38 percent of Canada’s total imports qualified for USMCA. The non-Section 232 imports from Canada totaled around $320 billion, so we used only $121 billion towards our calculation of total goods excluded from Trump’s emergency tariffs. Exemptions from trade deals included those with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, Cambodia and Malaysia. They do not include “frameworks” for agreements announced by the administration. Exemptions were calculated in chronological order of when the deals were announced. Imports already exempted in previous orders were not counted again, even if they appeared on subsequent exemption lists.

BRUSSELS — Cheap packages entering the EU will be charged a tax of €3 per item from next July, the bloc’s 27 finance ministers agreed on Friday. The deal effectively ends the tax-free status for packages worth less than €150. The flat tax will apply for each different type of item in a package. If one package contains 10 plushy toys, the duty is applied once. But if the shipment also contains a charging cable, another €3 is added. The flood of untaxed and often unsafe goods prompted the European Commission to propose a temporary solution for the packages under €150 a month ago. This “de minimis” rule allows exporters like Shein and Temu to send products directly to consumers, often bypassing scrutiny. The EU has already received more packages in the first nine months of 2025 than in the entire previous year, when the counter hit 4.6 billion. French Finance Minister Roland Lescure called it “a literal invasion of parcels in Europe last year,” which would have hit “7, 8, 9 billion in the coming years if nothing was done.” An EU official told POLITICO earlier this month that at some airports, up to 80 percent of such packages arriving don’t comply with EU safety rules. This creates a huge workload for customs officials, a growing pile of garbage, and health risks from unsafe toys and kitchen items. EU countries have already agreed to formally abolish the de-minimis loophole, but taxing all items based on their actual value and product type will require more data exchange. That will only be possible once an ambitious reform of the bloc’s Customs Union, currently under negotiation, is completed by 2028. The €3 flat tax is the temporary solution to cover the period until then. The rising popularity of web shops like Shein and Temu, which both operate out of China is fueling this flood. France suspended access to Shein’s online platform this month. This €3 EU-wide tax will be distinct from the so-called handling fee that France has proposed as a part of its national budget to relieve the costs on customs for dealing with the same flood of packages. Klara Durand and Camille Gijs contributed to this report.

LONDON — Britain’s Trade Secretary Peter Kyle told POLITICO he is “not in the business of criticizing other countries” amid President Trump’s plan to require tourists to the United States to hand over their social media data. According to a proposal by the Trump administration published Wednesday, visitors to the U.S. — including from Britain — would have to submit five years of social media activity before being allowed through the border. The plans, which come shortly before hundreds of thousands of football fans are expected to travel to the U.S. to watch their teams compete in the World Cup this summer, have generated concern among some European politicians. “Every country takes very seriously the way that it protects its borders and makes sure that it has a grip on people who come into the country that are aligned with its own values and principles,” Kyle said when asked if he was worried about the plans. “I’m not in a business of criticizing other countries in the way that they do it, because we are certainly taking it very seriously for our own country.” Kyle spoke to POLITICO in California as part of a visit to advance trade talks and drum up investment alongside U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall. Both Kendall and Kyle previously expressed criticism of Trump on social media before entering government. Kendall said “the American government is rightly passionate about freedom of speech and will follow its own values and principles there.”

BRUSSELS — European banks and other finance firms should decrease their reliance on American tech companies for digital services, a top national supervisor has said. In an interview with POLITICO, Steven Maijoor, the Dutch central bank’s chair of supervision, said the “small number of suppliers” providing digital services to many European finance companies can pose a “concentration risk.” “If one of those suppliers is not able to supply, you can have major operational problems,” Maijoor said. The intervention comes as Europe’s politicians and industries grapple with the continent’s near-total dependence on U.S. technology for digital services ranging from cloud computing to software. The dominance of American companies has come into sharp focus following a decline in transatlantic relations under U.S. President Donald Trump. While the market for European tech services isn’t nearly as developed as in the U.S. — making it difficult for banks to switch — the continent “should start to try to develop this European environment” for financial stability and the sake of its economic success, Maijoor said. European banks being locked in to contracts with U.S. providers “will ultimately also affect their competitiveness,” Maijoor said. Dutch supervisors recently authored a report on the systemic risks posed by tech dependence in finance. Dutch lender Amsterdam Trade Bank collapsed in 2023 after its parent company was placed on the U.S. sanctions list and its American IT provider withdrew online data storage services, in one of the sharpest examples of the impact on companies that see their tech withdrawn. Similarly a 2024 outage of American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike highlighted the European finance sector’s vulnerabilities to operational risks from tech providers, the EU’s banking watchdog said in a post-mortem on the outage. In his intervention, Maijoor pointed to an EU law governing the operational reliability of banks — the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) — as one factor that may be worsening the problem. Those rules govern finance firms’ outsourcing of IT functions such as cloud provision, and designate a list of “critical” tech service providers subject to extra oversight, including Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Microsoft and Oracle. DORA, and other EU financial regulation, may be “inadvertently nudging financial institutions towards the largest digital service suppliers,” which wouldn’t be European, Maijoor said. “If you simply look at quality, reliability, security … there’s a very big chance that you will end up with the largest digital service suppliers from outside Europe,” he said. The bloc could reassess the regulatory approach to beat the risks, Maijoor said. “DORA currently is an oversight approach, which is not as strong in terms of requirements and enforcement options as regular supervision,” he said. The Dutch supervisors are pushing for changes, writing that they are examining whether financial regulation and supervision in the EU creates barriers to choosing European IT providers, and that identified issues “may prompt policy initiatives in the European context.” They are asking EU governments and supervisors “to evaluate whether DORA sufficiently enhances resilience to geopolitical risks and, if not, to consider issuing further guidance,” adding they “see opportunities to strengthen DORA as needed,” including through more enforcement and more explicit requirements around managing geopolitical risks. Europe could also set up a cloud watchdog across industries to mitigate the risks of dependence on U.S. tech service providers, which are “also very important for other parts of the economy like energy and telecoms,” Maijoor said. “Wouldn’t there be a case for supervision more generally of these hyperscalers, cloud service providers, as they are so important for major parts of the economy?” The European Commission declined to respond.

The discussion surrounding the digital euro is strategically important to Europe. On Dec. 12, the EU finance ministers are aiming to agree on a general approach regarding the dossier. This sets out the European Council’s official position and thus represents a major political milestone for the European Council ahead of the trilogue negotiations. We want to be sure that, in this process, the project will be subject to critical analysis that is objective and nuanced and takes account of the long-term interests of Europe and its people. > We do not want the debate to fundamentally call the digital euro into question > but rather to refine the specific details in such a way that opportunities can > be seized. We regard the following points as particularly important: * maintaining European sovereignty at the customer interface; * avoiding a parallel infrastructure that inhibits innovation; and * safeguarding the stability of the financial markets by imposing clear holding limits. We do not want the debate to fundamentally call the digital euro into question but rather to refine the specific details in such a way that opportunities can be seized and, at the same time, risks can be avoided. Opportunities of the digital euro:  1. European resilience and sovereignty in payments processing: as a public-sector means of payment that is accepted across Europe, the digital euro can reduce reliance on non-European card systems and big-tech wallets, provided that a firmly European design is adopted and it is embedded in the existing structures of banks and savings banks and can thus be directly linked to customers’ existing accounts. 2. Supplement to cash and private-sector digital payments: as a central bank digital currency, the digital euro can offer an additional, state-backed payment option, especially when it is held in a digital wallet and can also be used for e-commerce use cases (a compromise proposed by the European Parliament’s main rapporteur for the digital euro, Fernando Navarrete). This would further strengthen people’s freedom of choice in the payment sphere. 3. Catalyst for innovation in the European market: if integrated into banking apps and designed in accordance with the compromises proposed by Navarrete (see point 2), the digital euro can promote innovation in retail payments, support new European payment ecosystems, and simplify cross-border payments. > The burden of investment and the risk resulting from introducing the digital > euro will be disproportionately borne by banks and savings banks. Risks of the current configuration: 1. Risk of creating a gateway for US providers: in the configuration currently planned, the digital euro provides US and other non-European tech and payment companies with access to the customer interface, customer data and payment infrastructure without any of the regulatory obligations and costs that only European providers face. This goes against the objective of digital sovereignty. 2. State parallel infrastructures weaken the market and innovation: the European Central Bank (ECB) is planning not just two new sets of infrastructure but also its own product for end customers (through an app). An administrative body has neither the market experience nor the customer access that banks and payment providers do. At the same time, the ECB is removing the tried-and-tested allocation of roles between the central bank and private sector. Furthermore, the Eurosystem’s digital euro project will tie up urgently required development capacity for many years and thereby further exacerbate Europe’s competitive disadvantage. The burden of investment and the risk resulting from introducing the digital euro will be disproportionately borne by banks and savings banks. In any case, the banks and savings banks have already developed a European market solution, Wero, which is currently coming onto the market. The digital euro needs to strengthen rather than weaken this European-led payment method. 3. Risks for financial stability and lending: without clear holding limits, there is a risk of uncontrolled transfers of deposits from banks and savings banks into holdings of digital euros. Deposits are the backbone of lending; large-scale outflows would weaken both the funding of the real economy – especially small and medium-sized enterprises – and the stability of the system. Holding limits must therefore be based on usual payment needs and be subject to binding regulations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken e.V. , Schellingstraße 4, 10785 Berlin, Germany * The ultimate controlling entity is Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken e.V. , Schellingstraße 4, 10785 Berlin, Germany More information here.

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

BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.

LONDON — Scandal-hit Japanese tech firm Fujitsu has lost its grip on a lucrative contract to keep running Great Britain’s post-Brexit border with Northern Ireland, following mounting public pressure, two people with knowledge of the bidding process have told POLITICO. The firm at the center of the Post Office scandal — which saw faulty data from Fujitsu’s Horizon software lead to wrongful theft and fraud convictions of hundreds of innocent Post Office workers — had spearheaded a consortium bid for the £370 million contract to continue running the Trader Support Service (TSS), as reported earlier this year. The contract was awarded to another consortium late last month, according to the two people cited above. The 10-day cooling-off period after the contract was awarded ends on Tuesday. The Fujitsu-led consortium, which includes Liz Truss ally Shanker Singham’s firm Competere, has raked in more than £500 million since 2020 developing and operating the platform, which helps firms navigate the complicated post-Brexit customs arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. While a new supplier will be taking control of TSS, Fujitsu retains the intellectual property rights to a core part of the existing platform, four people with knowledge of the process — including those cited above — confirmed. This means the new system will have to be built from scratch.  All of those cited in this story were granted anonymity to speak freely. There have been calls for Fujitsu to be stripped of its public contracts while sub postmasters affected by the scandal await full compensation. In August, more than 32 MPs and 44 peers wrote to U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, urging him to block the firm from bidding for control of the TSS platform. In October, the government accepted all but one of the recommendations from Wyn Williams’ inquiry into the scandal, published in July, which concluded that at least 13 people may have taken their own lives after being accused of wrongdoing.  There has also been public scrutiny over the running of TSS. Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds told lawmakers earlier this year he was investigating industry concerns about the service. “We are concerned to hear reports that the Trader Support Service is not providing a good quality of service,” cross-party peers on the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee wrote in an October report. Meanwhile, a report by the Federation of Small Businesses found current support relating to the Windsor Framework — including the TSS — was “falling short of expectations,” with 78 percent of Northern Irish businesses surveyed rating it as either “very poor” or “poor.” A spokesperson for HMRC, which awarded the contract, said: “We follow government procurement rules when awarding contracts, ensuring value for money for taxpayers. All bids underwent a robust evaluation and assurance process, and we will confirm the award in due course.” Fujitsu and Competere did not respond to requests for comment.

BRUSSELS — Meta has formally committed to offering EU users a new “third alternative” for advertising on Facebook and Instagram, as it seeks to resolve a high-stakes investigation under the Digital Markets Act. The European Commission announced on Monday that, following a dialogue, the Facebook parent would introduce a “hybrid approach” whereby users can opt for a free service driven by less personalized data. This new model is intended to break the binary choice currently facing users: either consent to full tracking or pay for a subscription. “This is very positive news for consumers in the EU,” said Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier, noting that the new option — described as a gray zone between full consent and a paywall — is slated for rollout in January 2026. A Meta spokesperson acknowledged the Commission’s statement while defending the economic importance of its data practices. “Personalized ads are vital for Europe’s economy,” the spokesperson said. The main EU consumer lobby group gave a guarded welcome. “We will be very closely analysing what Meta puts out in January, given that it has failed since November 2023 to provide consumers with a fair choice on ads that complies with the law,” said Agustín Reyna, director-general of the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC). The Commission has been in discussions with Meta ever since it issued the U.S. firm with a €200 million fine in April for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act, which regulates large online platforms. The Commission will now watch closely to monitor the changes, said Regnier, adding that the case is not yet closed. This story has been updated.