The Europe Forum opened with remarks highlighting the scale and urgency of Europe’s evolving digital policy agenda. It was emphasised that while Europe has set clear objectives – improving competitiveness, simplifying an increasingly complex rulebook and strengthening security, resilience and sovereignty – the real challenge lies in ensuring that new and revised regulations are genuinely future-proof.
A series of practical issues illustrated the tension between policy ambition and market reality. High energy costs versus relatively low connectivity prices raised concerns about Europe’s competitive position, while debates around merger control, market consolidation and consumer impact underscored the complexity of balancing investment incentives with market fairness. Similarly, proposals on spectrum allocation, satellite authorisation and increased centralisation at EU level prompted questions about whether greater harmonisation would drive efficiency or create new challenges.
The keynote address that followed presented these issues within a broader strategic shift by the European Commission. The focus is on simplifying rules without undermining core principles, strengthening the single market and advancing technological sovereignty. Initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act (DNA), AI infrastructure investment and the wider tech sovereignty package are central to enabling innovation, reducing fragmentation and ensuring Europe remains competitive in a rapidly changing global digital landscape.
EU economic growth
The first panel session focused on the relationship between regulatory simplification, economic growth and the EU Digital Omnibus package. The discussion considered the central question of whether simplification can genuinely enhance Europe’s competitiveness while maintaining high standards in areas such as data protection and cybersecurity.
Opening remarks from industry voices emphasised that simplification is not about removing regulation but making it coherent and workable. One speaker highlighted the growing burden of overlapping and sometimes contradictory rules, noting that companies must navigate extensive reporting requirements and fragmented compliance processes. While the omnibus package was welcomed as a positive step, it was seen as limited in scope and insufficiently ambitious to address deeper structural issues across the broader digital regulatory framework.
From a global business perspective, concerns were raised about the pace of reform and the gap between policy ambition and implementation. Europe’s fragmented market and regulatory environment were cited as barriers to scaling and investment, particularly compared to the US and China.
From a regulator’s perspective, widespread ‘regulatory fatigue’ was an acknowledged issue and it was stressed that simplification must focus on better, more coherent regulation rather than deregulation.
The Digital Networks Act – progress report
This panel debate explored the proposed DNA as a central pillar of Europe’s digital strategy aimed at deepening the single market, reducing fragmentation and strengthening investment and resilience. While there was broad support for these objectives, speakers debated whether the proposals go far enough and whether they strike the right balance between ambition and practicality.
From the European Commission’s perspective, the DNA is designed to enable scale and simplify cross-border operations through measures such as a ‘passporting’ approach, while avoiding excessive bureaucracy. Industry voices, including telecoms operators, welcomed progress in areas such as spectrum policy and investment incentives but argued that the framework still falls short in supporting innovation and reducing operational complexity, pointing to outdated rules around open internet regulation.
Content providers highlighted Europe’s strong track record in delivering high-quality, affordable connectivity under existing rules, cautioning against disruptive interventions.
Regulators stressed the broader strategic context, framing the DNA as part of Europe’s economic and geopolitical agenda. They underlined the need to balance competition with sustainable investment, while preserving national expertise and regulatory independence.
The European Media Board
This session opened the media-focused portion of the forum with a keynote conversation reflecting on the first year of the newly established European Media Board and its role in implementing the European Media Freedom Act. The speaker outlined significant early achievements, including the development of foundational governance structures, a multi-annual strategy and coordinated workstreams addressing political advertising, the protection of minors and media ownership transparency. Central to the board’s mandate is ensuring the consistent application of EU media rules across member states while safeguarding pluralism, editorial independence and trust in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.
Discussion highlighted the growing complexity of the media ecosystem, particularly the rise of influencers and digital platforms. The speaker emphasised the need for transparency in commercial content and stronger media literacy, noting that younger audiences often trust online personalities without recognising underlying commercial incentives. Regulation alone, she argued, is insufficient; a multi-stakeholder approach involving platforms, parents, educators and civil society is essential.
AVMSD revision
The panel examined how the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive may need to evolve as the Commission reviews its effectiveness and considers possible revision. Three themes dominated. The first was the “level playing field” between broadcasters, on-demand services, video-sharing platforms and influencers. Speakers noted that influencers are already being addressed in practice, but argued that clearer guidance may still be needed, particularly around advertising disclosure and the distinction between user-generated and commercial content. The second was the protection of minors, where participants debated whether the AVMSD should become more specific about harmful content, while avoiding unnecessary overlap with the Digital Services Act. The third was prominence: not just whether European works are available, but whether they can actually be found in algorithm-driven environments.
Online safety and the protection of minors
The session on online safety and the protection of minors examined how to better safeguard children in an increasingly complex digital environment. The discussion highlighted both the progress made and the significant challenges that remain.
Speakers emphasised that the regulatory landscape has evolved considerably, with a ‘safety by design’ approach placing responsibility on platforms to assess risks, implement safeguards and protect children from harmful content and interactions. However, panellists stressed that these frameworks are still in the early stages, requiring time, enforcement and cultural change to be fully effective.
A recurring theme was fragmentation. While many countries are exploring age restrictions or social media bans, inconsistent approaches risk creating regulatory complexity and weak incentives for compliance. Collaboration, both within regions and globally, is essential to developing coherent standards.
Despite ongoing concerns, including emerging risks linked to AI, participants pointed to growing political will, technological tools and shared commitment as a foundation for meaningful progress.
The perspective from DG Connect
This address opened with a strong emphasis on the strategic importance of cybersecurity and connectivity in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment. The speaker framed Europe’s digital agenda, particularly initiatives such as the proposed Cybersecurity Act and Digital Networks Act, as central not only to competitiveness, but also to security and resilience.
Connectivity is now critical infrastructure and underpins all sectors, from healthcare to energy. It is therefore a growing target for hybrid threats, including cyber attacks, sabotage and espionage. In response, the European Commission is seeking to strengthen protections across ICT supply chains, including reducing dependence on ‘high-risk suppliers’, and is introducing a more coordinated, technology-neutral regulatory framework.
A key priority is harmonisation across member states to avoid fragmentation, alongside improved certification processes to ensure products are secure by design. The proposed ‘single entry point’ for incident reporting aims to reduce the administrative burden by allowing companies to report once across multiple regulatory regimes.
Digital sovereignty
The panel opened with a broad framing of digital sovereignty as a central issue shaped by geopolitical tension, technological dependency and Europe’s ambition to strengthen its digital autonomy. While the European Commission’s emerging policy agenda signals a push towards independence, speakers repeatedly stressed the complexity of achieving the right balance between sovereignty, openness and competitiveness.
Industry representatives highlighted that supply chains, infrastructure and services are deeply interdependent, making overly protectionist approaches both impractical and potentially harmful. Sovereignty, they argued, should not mean isolation, but rather the ability to make informed choices, supported by interoperability, diversified suppliers and resilient infrastructure.
Other speakers emphasised that digital sovereignty extends beyond data control to include investment in networks, data centres, energy and innovation. Trust built through reliability, security and long-term relationships is critical, particularly for business customers with complex requirements.
AI governance
This panel opened with a reflection on the evolving debate around the EU’s AI Act, noting earlier criticism of its product-safety-based approach and ongoing tensions between legal certainty and flexibility. Since then, attention has shifted toward simplification and the proposed AI omnibus, set against a broader competitiveness agenda.
A key theme was implementation. Ireland’s ‘distributed model’ was presented as a pragmatic approach, assigning oversight to existing sectoral regulators while establishing a central AI office for coordination and support. This reflects a belief that effective AI regulation requires domain-specific expertise, though it also raises concerns about consistency and fragmentation.
Panellists emphasised that risks extend beyond high-profile cases to issues such as mental health impacts, misinformation and the concentration of power in AI systems. There were calls for a broader “taxonomy of harms” and stronger obligations on those deploying AI, not just developing it.
The Digital Fairness Act
In this session the panel explored the emerging shape of the EU’s proposed Digital Fairness Act within the broader 2030 Consumer Agenda, highlighting both uncertainty and a divergence of views. With no draft text yet available, discussion centred on whether new legislation is needed at all, or whether existing frameworks, such as the Digital Services Act and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, should first be fully implemented and enforced.
Regulators emphasised practical challenges, pointing to gaps in areas such as protection of minors and inconsistent coverage across platforms. They also stressed the difficulty of enforcing broad, principles-based rules in court, arguing for clearer, more prescriptive measures in certain areas such as age verification and harmful design practices.
Industry representatives, however, warned against regulatory overlap and complexity. They argued that the EU already has a dense rulebook and that the priority should be simplification and consistent enforcement across the single market.
Consumer advocates took a contrasting position, arguing that current laws are outdated and insufficiently clear for the digital environment. They highlighted growing harms and pointed to legal uncertainty and fragmented national responses as evidence that reform is needed.
Privacy and data protection
The final session of the forum shifted focus to the EU’s proposed digital omnibus reforms, particularly amendments to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive.
The Commission framed the proposal as a targeted simplification exercise, rather than a reopening of the GDPR, aiming to reduce the regulatory burden and provide greater legal clarity, particularly for businesses struggling with complex and overlapping obligations.
On several technical changes – such as extended breach notification timelines and standardised reporting – there was broad agreement that these measures would ease compliance without undermining protection. However, more contentious elements emerged around core definitions and rights.
The European Data Protection Supervisor and board challenged the claim that changes were merely ‘targeted’, arguing that revisions to fundamental concepts, such as the definition of personal data, risked unintended consequences and lacked sufficient impact assessment. Concerns were also raised about legal clarity, with critics suggesting some proposals could increase uncertainty.
This reported was drafted using ChatGPT.
and then