Jul 2026· Journal of Common Market Studies· 1 citation· 9 references
Abstract
Is the European Union's (EU's) Digital Services Act (DSA) a bold reform of platform governance that needs to be scaled back? The EU's reputation for prioritising citizens' rights over companies' and market freedoms seems to suggest so. Recent criticism of EU digital policy from the United States is further fuelling this perception. However, an in‐depth study of the political debates preceding the DSA now suggests otherwise. It reveals that many options that would have enabled much more effective regulation of internet platforms, with a focus on protecting citizens and democracy, were discarded. When faced with choices involving the regulation of the digital economy, the EU has consistently opted for market freedom over more far‐reaching regulation in areas such as user tracking and profiling, platform exemption from publisher liability and tackling illegal and harmful content online. A realistic perception of the DSA suggests that this Act is merely the first step towards safeguarding democracy in the digital age and that further action is essential.
This paper examines the three principal legal frameworks governing platform liability for thirdparty content in the transatlantic digital economy: the European Union's Digital Services Act
(DSA), the notice-and-takedown regime of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Section 512, and the broad immunity conferred by Section 230 of the U.S. Communications
Decency Act (CDA), and extends the comparison to the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act,
India's intermediary guidelines, and Australia's social media minimum age regime. Drawing on
enforcement developments through December 2025, including the European Commission's first
DSA fine against X, preliminary findings against Meta and TikTok, the bipartisan Sunset Section
230 Act, the TAKE IT DOWN Act's notice-and-removal mandate, and the Third Circuit's
algorithm-focused ruling in Anderson v. TikTok, the paper argues that these regimes rest on
incompatible theories of platform responsibility. The DSA imposes affirmative, tiered due
diligence duties structured around systemic risk; the DMCA conditions a copyright-specific safe
harbor on procedural compliance with notice-and-takedown; and Section 230 provides close to
unconditional immunity for most other content-related claims, an immunity now under sustained
doctrinal and legislative pressure. The paper traces the doctrinal history of each regime, situates
the analysis within the academic literature on collateral censorship and risk-based governance,
surveys recent case law and enforcement actions across six jurisdictions, and considers the
pressures, legislative, judicial, and market-driven, that may push these regimes toward
convergence or deepen their divergence, concluding with practical implications for platforms
operating across jurisdictions.
Michael Ominyi· INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOC...· 0 citations
This article examines the EU's evolving narratives concerning the governance of digital technologies, focusing on the intersection of geopolitical challenges and internal policymaking through the lens of the strategic narratives approach. This compares two key EU narratives relating to digital policy: on the one hand, the narrative on ‘digital connectivity’ which advocates collaboration, engagement and market inclusion, and on the other hand, the more recent development of a defensive ‘digital sovereignty’ narrative emphasising the need for EU‐based digital industries, diversified supply chains and reduced reliance on external powers. Through an analysis of the official documents, strategy papers, public speeches and legislative initiatives on digital policy launched by the EU during the term of the first von der Leyen's Commission (2019–2024), we highlight how these two narratives evolved to coexist, determining the EU's unique approach to digital governance. The paper finds that both narratives may be less incompatible than one would think at first sight. They have transformed over time, in response to the increase in geopolitical competition, reaching a point of convergence in the mid‐2020s when the EU appeared to succeed in reconciling the contending aims of openness and autonomy in digital policy. The paper concludes with observations on the interplay between narrative constructions and the policymaking process and an outlook on the ongoing challenges confronting the EU.
Flavia Lucenti, Céleste Bonnamy, Thomas Christiansen et al.· Global Policy· 0 citations
The European Union has advanced its agenda towards regulatory simplification. At first glance, the Digital Omnibus can indeed be considered a recalibration of EU digital policy from a rights-based paradigm towards an approach increasingly shaped by competitiveness and efficiency. However, while the omnibus proposals raise legitimate concerns about the possible dilution of the Union’s constitutionally oriented approach, they do not merely represent a simplification effort and a retreat from regulation. This paper argues that the approach towards simplification has not reduced the path towards the regulatory expansion of European digital policy. While focusing towards simplification, the Union approach seems to increase risks for fundamental rights and legal certainty while continuing to expand its digital agenda, as in the case of the Digital Services Act. This dual movement, presented as a coupling of simplification and regulatory expansion, is likely to make European digital regulation even more convoluted, thus increasing risks for fundamental rights and legal certainty. By looking at the goals of European digital constitutionalism, which focuses on the reframing of rights and power in the algorithmic society, the paper contends that the EU’s priority should shift away from this dual track and should not rely on simplification as a way to address constitutional questions which would require a broader strategy as in the case of enforcement.
Giovanni De Gregorio, Hannah Ruschemeier· European Journal of Risk Reg...· 0 citations
This blog argues that, in India, this pursuit of digital sovereignty makes accountability more difficult, and explores the increasing reliance on voluntary, industry-led AI governance frameworks in place of binding regulation, and the expanding role of private actors in functions traditionally associated with the state through the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) model.
In November 2025, the European Commission made a substantive proposal to meaningfully water down existing EU digital legislation in relation to Artificial Intelligence (AI) as part of the Digital Omnibus package. This article specifically examines the Digital Omnibus package in relation to AI, and asks: What is the underlying socio-technical imaginary on AI embedded in the European Commission’s Digital Omnibus initial proposal? Situated within the broader proliferation of omnibus legislation in the EU, we argue that the Digital Omnibus is not merely a neutral legislative technique aimed at simplification, but a device for producing institutional imaginaries that reconfigure the normative foundations of EU digital governance. Hence, the Digital Omnibus package contributes to rearticulate what counts as a desirable European future and which democratic or rights-based costs become acceptable in its name. Our analysis exemplifies how the post-regulatory state operates not by formally dismantling the EU’s regulatory architecture, but by reconfiguring it from within. The Commission’s socio-technical imaginary normalises the data extractivist model according to which the EU can only join the “AI race” if it lowers its democratic and fundamental rights standards. It therefore operates as an instrument of accelerated technosolutionism that reshapes the constitutional balance between democracy, protection of rights, procedural integrity and industrial competitiveness.
Alejandro Flores Moleón, Á. Oleart· European Journal of Risk Reg...· 0 citations
The spread of disruptive technologies has fundamentally transformed B2C relationships, creating new opportunities as well as new forms of vulnerability. Digital platforms, algorithms and data-driven services have reshaped market dynamics and generated new power relations affecting states, businesses and individuals. In this context, the European Union occupies a distinctive position due to its economic weight and regulatory capacity, which increasingly exert global influence. This study examines how the European Union indirectly shapes technological development and global business models through law, with consumer protection, particularly in digital and financial markets, serving as a key instrument of geopolitical significance. It argues that EU regulatory frameworks, including the GDPR, DSA, DMA, DORA, the AI Act and PSD3/ PSR, not only structure the internal market but also compel global service providers to adapt, thereby producing effects beyond the Union’s borders. The analysis demonstrates that digital consumer protection extends beyond its classical function of individual rights protection. By addressing risks arising from algorithmic systems, data-driven influence and manipulative practices, it contributes to shaping market structures and establishing a distinctive European regulatory model. At the same time, in digital financial markets, consumer protection performs a stabilising function: by maintaining trust in financial systems, it supports the resilience and global position of the European Union. Methodologically, the study is based on doctrinal legal analysis combined with an interdisciplinary approach. It examines key EU legal instruments in consumer protection, digital regulation and financial law, and evaluates their cross-border and international effects. The paper concludes that the geopolitical significance of EU digital consumer protection lies not in its explicit objectives, but in its indirect effects: through ensuring a high level of consumer protection and internal market functioning, it contributes to shaping global market practices and strengthening the European Union’s regulatory influence.
A. Labancz· EU and Comparative Law Issue...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
