Guelphs and Ghibellines, 102 Brussels Edition (a View from the Ciompi)

Not Tagliacozzo, but Florence
 (IBA Annual Conference)

The Guelphs: the less conservative academics defending the Commission’s 102 Guidelines, presumptions and immediate adoption—the Brussels loyalists.

The Ghibellines: the more conservative academics and consultants challenging the 102 Guidelines in the name of """economics,""" legal certainty and procedural discipline.

Study on the impact of mergers reviewed by the Commission on innovation and markups

 EC, here.

Guidelines on the application of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings

 EC, here. Useful here.

CASE DMA.100193 - Alphabet - Online Search Engine - Google Search - Art. 6(5)

 Here. 

GC confirms: Edge not a DMA gatekeeper (?)

 GC, here. 

"German" Apple ATTF

 Here. 

Agentic AI: Technical Developments, Potential Impact on Consumers and Markets, and Regulatory Implications

 B. Jansen et al., here. 

Economic study on dynamic effects of mergers

 EC, here.

IA: Menace pour la culture? OUI

 Arte, ici.

Microsoft admits it “leverages” Windows to push Edge, Bing, Copilot; pulls moonie at regulators

 B. Lawson, here.

Vivaldi (and other browsers): interoperability request

 Here.

Does Digital Tying Need Its Own Test?

L. Chayavirabood, here.

Up the Stack: How AI’s Escape From the Commodity Trap Risks Enterprise Lock-in

A. Narayanan and A. Kapur, here.

Meta, some definite words from Santa Fe

 Here.

Digital sewer socialism

 C. Doctorow, here.

Google Search Data Sharing - Does Competition Law trump Privacy?

 monopoly report, here.

Paramount/Warner Bros Discovery

 CMA: nothing to see here, here.

Vivaldi: DMA Article 6(7) request to access the WebAPK Minting API

 Good luck, here.

"Le pouvoir d’intermédiation devient un pouvoir cognitif"

 Le Monde, ici.

US antitrust is not entirely dead: a coalition of progressive academics has filed an amicus brief in Google Search, which is about as close as legal academia gets to storming the barricades

 Here.

More briefs here, here and here.

Providing Open Source with Access Rights to Proprietary Platforms via Interoperability Regulation

 L. Lasota, here.

Another day, another CAT certification

 Here.

Antitrust as Anti-Oligarch Policy

 S. Vaheesan, here.

Broadcom: no prima facie

 Curia, here.

Social Media Evidence Library

 Here.

Urteil GEMA gegen SUNO

 Justiz Bayern, hier.

Alex Moore (Open Web Advocacy) – For A Better Web

 Vivaldi.com, here.

Regulating artificial intelligence: Between the EU Digital Markets Act and competition law

 Hausfeld, here.

Ecosia and Qwant launch German web index

 Heise.de, here.

„Wir sind eine digitale Kolonie der USA“

 Ecosia, bravo, here. 

Can AI Agents Be Aligned with Human Rights?

 Google, here. 

Landgericht Leipzig untersagt Meta die Sperrung von Werbekonten einer Konzertagentur

 Spirit Legal, here.

Google rivals line up seeking damages after record $1 billion EU fine

 Reuters, here.

Ecosia v. Google

 Bravo, hier.

Copyright Law Wasn’t Built for the AI Era. We Need ‘Learnright.'

 W. Malone, F. Pasquale, here.

Epic v. Google is settled: what's next

 Here.

"The parties are *advised*  that the Court will retain Professor Nancy L. Rose to assist the Court in monitoring Google’s compliance with the injunction'

She was instrumental in preventing a gigantic "Epic Fail" - ICYMI, but nothing can replace public enforcement in the public interest. 

Modern Economic Analysis and Antitrust Law: A Guide

 S. Salop, here.

From what I have seen, this "modern" economic analysis certainly moves beyond a narrow focus on price. It takes innovation, quality, variety, entry and dynamic effects much more seriously, and it is far more sceptical than the Chicago tradition of claims that monopoly necessarily promotes innovation.
Yet it still appears to remain fundamentally efficiency-based. Competition, diversity and market openness matter chiefly because they are expected to generate better welfare outcomes. This means that exclusion may still be justified if the dominant firm can show sufficiently large efficiencies and persuade the decision-maker that those efficiencies outweigh the loss of rivalry.
That is precisely where a much deeper change of paradigm is needed. The issue should not merely be whether a single gatekeeper can organise the market more efficiently than a plurality of competing actors. It should also be whether one private firm ought to possess the power to determine the entire structure of market access, the permissible forms of innovation and the conditions under which others may compete.
Contestability, diversity and independent routes to market should therefore not be treated simply as variables in an efficiency balance. They are constitutive elements of a competitive order. The objective should not be merely to maximise welfare within a market structure controlled by the incumbent, but to preserve the possibility of decentralised experimentation, rival forms of organisation and challenges to the incumbent’s model.
In that sense, this type of newish economic analysis is not yet the necessary paradigm shift. It offers a more sophisticated balancing exercise when what may be required is a structural presumption against private control over the architecture of competition itself.

The central distinction is between better balancing within the welfare paradigm and treating plurality, contestability and dispersed power as values that cannot be traded away for claimed efficiencies.

What is needed is a true modern (new) competition school, not just an incremental fixing of the same, inadequate economic paradigm. 

COMMUNIQUÉ SEPM SUR LE LANCEMENT D’AI OVERVIEWS ET D’AI MODE – LE SEPM CONSTATE UNE VIOLATION MANIFESTE DES ENGAGEMENTS DE GOOGLE

 Ici.

Une fuite en avant...

Time to oil the Anti-Coercion Instrument.

Digital and Technology Policy: National Sovereignty

 Baroness (!) Kidron, here.

DMA at work, seriously: Switching From iPhone to Android Just Got Easier With Android 17

 MacRumours, here.

The High Stakes Behind the EU’s €890M Google DMA Fine

 M. Kirkwood, here.

EU fines Google €890M for breaching Big Tech rulebook

 Politico.eu, here. 

Commission fines Google €890 million for breaches of the Digital Markets Act

 EC, here. 

"The Commission also takes note of Google's proposals on how it plans to apply the principles of the decision to AI Overviews and AI Mode, on which dialogue will continue in light of today's decision"  

This is broadly the direction anticipated here (no crystal ball, just common sense). The Commission has now placed AI Overviews and AI Mode explicitly within the Article 6(5) dialogue. It should move quickly. Google is already deploying these services through Search, and the underlying distribution issue is sufficiently clear. A specification proceeding would provide a timely opportunity to define the conditions governing their integration, prominence and access to users. The dialogue on this topic is already well underway, as the press release notes; allowing it to remain informal would merely give the architecture more time to harden. 

Commission approves Paramount's acquisition of Warner, subject to conditions

 EC, here. 

Lina Khan on AI and More

 Here. 

Expérience menée par l’Autorité pour illustrer le fonctionnement du commerce conversationnel

 Adlc, ici.

US Consumer Benefits of Unlocking Competition in App Distribution on Smartphones

 CAF, here.

UK's Bloomsbury among beneficiaries of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright lawsuit settlement

 Reuters, here. 

Too little, too late? 

Google's Fuite en Avant? A DMA Response Becomes Harder to Avoid

Google has announced that it is launching AI Overviews and AI Mode (together with other Gemini-based services) in France. While traditional search ranks alternatives, these AI services select sources, extract their information and construct the answer. AI Overviews places that answer above the other results. AI Mode allows the search to continue as a conversation within Google. Google increasingly controls both the route to information and the answer itself.

France had so far remained outside the rollout, apparently because of the unresolved dispute over press content and publisher choice. In 2024, the Autorité de la concurrence fined Google €250 million for breaches of commitments governing negotiations with publishers. Google now refers to constructive discussions with authorities and publishers. The new framework reportedly includes a separate opt-out, specific information on impressions generated by the AI services, and remuneration for publishers whose content is used. 

It remains unclear whether the framework fully meets the Autorité de la concurrence’s expectations, and further adjustments may follow. This looks less like a small victory than a unilateral attempt by Google to create facts on the ground in France. Google appears to have concluded that its revised arrangements are sufficient under the existing commitments, leaving the Autorité to assess them after deployment. Most importantly, this leaves Google’s chosen architecture intact, including the use of Google Search as the distribution infrastructure for its own AI services. 

A more impactful, low-hanging fruit is already on the Commission’s table: Article 6(5) DMA. The Commission has a pending non-compliance proceeding concerning preferential treatment within Google Search and issued preliminary findings in March 2025. That proceeding currently concerns Google’s own vertical services. On that (too long) existing front, we may soon see the non-compliance decision, probably accompanied by a rather large fine. AI Overviews and AI Mode raise the same distribution issue on a broader scale: whether Alphabet may use Google Search to give its own answer services privileged prominence and immediate access to users. A dedicated specification proceeding might, indeed, be particularly useful here: it could define the conditions under which Alphabet may integrate and promote AI Overviews and AI Mode within Google Search. The Commission has just completed two specification proceedings concerning Google, on Android interoperability and access to Search data. Whether it is prepared to open a third will indicate how seriously it intends to treat AI integration as a contestability problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wikimedia, the commons, and the new AI knowledge loop

 OpenFuture, here.

Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems

 EC, here.

Judge halts Paramount’s $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

 ArsTechnica, here.

IA agentique et protection des données personnelles : équation à inconnues multiples pour les utilisateurs

 CIAN, ici.

Comment Bigard, qui a avalé Charal et ses concurrents, dicte les règles de l’abattage aux éleveurs bovins

 Le Monde, ici.

YouTube may lose EU liability shield for videos on partnered channels

 Courthousenews, here.

Competitiveness of the Banking Sector and the Single Market in Banking

 EC, here.

Case DMA.100209 – SP – Alphabet – Article 6(11)

here. 

CASE DMA.100220 | Alphabet - OS - Google Android - Art. 6(7) – SP – AI

 Decision here.

Mental health of young people in a digital era

 EPRS, here.

AI and democracy: the right to resist optimization

 A. Tang, here.

Spaghetti Revolving Doors à la Meloni

The leadership of Italy’s Competition Authority has just been entrusted to a figure whose family background and institutional trajectory are deeply rooted in the Italian extreme right. Former Clearly Gottlieb, who has been representing Google & Co. 

Now we watch.

Agents d’IA : l’Autorité de la concurrence rend son avis sur le fonctionnement concurrentiel du secteur des agents d’intelligence artificielle

 Adlc, ici.

Program: The gaps in the prime minister’s big AI speech

 ABC, here.

Data Sovereignty Doesn’t Mean Data Isolationism

 L. Belli, here.

Tech's legal nemesis opens up on threat to Google's shield

 Future Media Podcast, here.

The Friends We’ve Made 2: Changes from the Draft

 J. Daum, here. 

Rapport de mission relatif au statut des productions de l’intelligence artificielle

 MdlC, ici.

Et si nous migrions des services cloud ? Le PEReN mène l’expérience

PEReN, ici.

Google is better at playing this game

 The Verge, here.

Like the Red Queen, the DMA in the AI age must run as fast as it can merely to remain in the same place.

Commission provides guidance to Google for AI interoperability on Android and sharing of Google Search data under the Digital Markets Act - EC, here.

Much tbd. Decisions not yet available, just a few thoughts for now.

The Article 6(7) specification proceeding may represent a transitional stage in DMA enforcement. The functional capabilities identified by the Commission—invocation, contextual awareness, the performance of actions and access to system resources—increasingly characterise the AI-assistant layer rather than the operating system as such. As AI assistants become the primary interface through which users access digital ecosystems, enforcement may therefore need to move from regulating operating-system interoperability to regulating AI assistants as core platform services in their own right.

Such a shift may already be possible under the existing DMA. Virtual assistants are expressly included among the categories of core platform services, and that concept could be interpreted functionally and in technologically neutral terms. This would be consistent with the General Court’s recent judgment in Apple, which rejected an understanding of a core platform service determined by the particular device or operating system through which it is provided, focusing instead on the common function performed by the service.

Should the Commission consider that interpretation legally uncertain, however, it should pursue the safer legislative route: initiating the procedures required to recognise generative and agentic AI assistants explicitly as a distinct category of core platform service. The DMA itself provides for investigations into new digital services and for periodic reconsideration of the existing CPS list, including through legislative proposals. Digital regulation cannot preserve its relevance by standing still. To borrow from the Red Queen, it must do all the running it can merely to remain in the same place; otherwise, the DMA risks becoming not the framework governing the emerging digital ecosystem, but an archaeological layer buried beneath it.

Publishing Has a Hologram Problem. And It’s Growing.

 LitHub, here.

Die Cyber-Spezialisten des Bundes kehren Microsoft den Rücken

 Republik.ch, hier.

Europe 2031 is a bet, not a forecast

 F. Kaltheuner, here.

Dark patterns in Windows are steering users to Edge: Mozilla-commissioned report

 The Register, here.

Artificial Intelligence markets: recent developments and competition issues

OECD, here.

Third-party app stores coming to Google Play next week as Epic settlement withdrawn

 ArsTechnica, here.

Pay for Half: A Better Remedy for Google Search

 A. Cooper et al., here.

DMA quartet against Google played soon?

 FT, here.

Epic/Google Settlement: so sprach Nancy Rose

 Here.

Rapport de la commission d’enquête sur nos vulnérabilités et dépendances numériques

 Assemblée nationale, ici.

EC decides to refer the acquisition of certain assets of SFR by Iliad to France

 Decision here. 

ZAK erlässt erstmalig Bescheide gegen KI-Angebote von Google und Perplexity

 Gut so, hier.

Finish (and perfect) the DMA job, Madam President

 

Publishers and Authors File Class Action Lawsuit Against Google for Willful Copyright Infringement to Develop Gemini AI Models

 Way to go, here.

Entwurf eines Zwölften (!) Gesetzes zur Änderung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen und anderer Gesetze (12. GWB-Novelle)

 Hier.

Reconciling AI Innovation With Copyright Values – Why Reliance on Individual Licences is not Enough

 M. Senftleben, here.

AI Office publishes frontier AI expert findings on EU competitiveness, sovereignty and security

 EU Experts, here.

DMA: Past, Present, and Future

Antitrust Insight, here. 

Generative AI Is an [Economic Efficiency and] Engineering Disaster

 A. Reisner, here. . 

Over The Edge 2.0: what independent researchers found about browser choice on Windows

 Mozilla, here.

Google and Epic give up fighting — third-party Android app stores are coming next week

 The Verge, here.

Little Tech Association

 Here. 

Special panel report: "Child Safety Online: Protecting and Empowering Minors in a Digital world"

 Here.

Countering the AI Arms Race: Lessons from Philanthropy

 MacArthur Foundation, here.

What kind of incentives are we creating for the future of journalism, entertainment, and original content

 C. Pedigo, here.

At Politico Tech Week I argued this isnthe type of questions useful economic thinking should deal with - forget Industrial Organization, which is mostly only a dangerous distraction. 

Alba on the General Court's recent ruling rejecting Apple's appeal on its designation decision

 Here.

Meta pulls new AI image feature after days of backlash

 BBC, here.

CREATED AND SCALED IN EUROPE

 EIC, here.

Dreading your next teaching semester in the AI age? AI-resilient pedagogy might help

 U. Chicago, Law School, here.

I subscribe to many of the points made here. 

However, devices are great to take notes. Condemning students to the use of pen and paper is anachronistic at best. I'd erect barricades to restore the right to use my pad and e-pen in the classroom!

The public deserves socially beneficial technology in return for its AI investment

 S. Wachter, here.

Instagram, Facebook failing EU's digital rules by hooking teens

 Euractiv, here.

Letter: Ireland should recuse itself from key EU negotiations

 FT, here.

Eine wettbewerbsorientierte Wirtschaftspolitik für die KI-Transformation

 Monopolkommission, hier.

Guidelines 02/2026 on Anonymisation

 EDPB, here.

Commission accepts binding commitments by SAP to address competition concerns about services for its popular business management software

 EC, here.

European “AI Maximalists” (and their Masters) Worry About EuroStack

 Eurostack, here.

For IO economists and consultants only? What could possibly go wrong?

Theories of dynamic harm

• Giulio Federico, Oxera, Project Director for the Study
• Chiara Fumagalli, Bocconi University
• Nancy Rose, MIT
• Michele Polo, Bocconi University
• Laurent Eymard, BRG

here.

Once Unimaginable, Publishers Are Preparing to Opt Out of Google Search

 AdWeek, here.

Towards digital autonomy

 ACM & Co., here.

A gatekeeper cannot transform a challenge to designation into a general anticipatory attack on the whole DMA regulatory regime.

 Yours, EU GC here. 

Also extremely interesting: "Since Apple has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and Coalition for App Fairness, in accordance with the form of order sought by them."

Top:  "the EU legislature intended to prevent the classification of a service under the DMA from varying according to the technological choices made by the gatekeeper" - technology neutrality. E.g., relevant legal question: does an AI assistant perform the function of a virtual assistant under the DMA?

Re EECC: hat the Court anticipated possible Apple's moves like a well-chosen national proceeding (before the BNetzA?) that generates a preliminary reference on Article 2(7) - eventually produce a CJEU ruling binding across both regimes?

L’ÉPILOGUE DE L’AFFAIRE APPLE DEVANT LA COUR DE CASSATION : UNE RECHERCHE D’ÉQUILIBRE DANS L’ENCADREMENT DES ÉCOSYSTÈMES NUMÉRIQUES

 H. Cowderoy, ici.

INTEROPERABILIDADE COMO VETOR CONCORRENCIAL: UM PARALELO ENTRE A LEI DO MERCADO DIGITAL DA UNIÃO EUROPEIAE A LEI BRASILEIRA DE SISTEMAS DE PAGAMENTOS

 N. Giacomazzo Viccari, aqui. 

The State of the AI Economy

 EV, EV

AI & Market Power

 Fellows of the European AI & Society Fund, here

Google Android: the Court of Justice upholds Google’s fine of around €4.1 billion

 CJEU, here.

Judging from the press release, this is a victory on every front. And, this time, quite literally without appeal. Whether EU competition law can still be rescued and made more effective is another matter, but it should at least put some courage back into our enforcers and policy makers!

Favourite sentence so far "This applies all the more where the conduct at issue does not lend itself to a quantitative, price-based analysis".

Least favourite: BEUC - The European Consumer Organisation should bear its own legal costs. If the EU is serious about civil society as part of its enforcement infrastructure the economics of standing before its courts deserve the same scrutiny as the substance argued there. The courts anchors liability in consumer harm (e.g., para. 414 on diversity of information sources) but their representatives see nothing of the €4.125 billion fine and have to bear their legal expenses?

Interestingly, the Stockholm/PriceRunner ruling invites Android claimants (rival search services, browser vendors, OEMs even?) to plead continuation past 2018. This could at least provide solid economic incentives to comply with the related DMA obligations - quickly. 

PriceRunner v. Google

Ruling here.

Purpose and pragmatism in the UK’s digital markets competition regime

 CMA  in the interregnum, here.

The internet is breaking up – and Europe is the only bloc that knows what to do about it

 Here.

Working With Giants

 J. Bryson, here.

EU praises open source for tech sovereignty — then backs W, a private for-profit microblogging platform

 A. Tauber, here.

Google and Apple’s Anti-DMA Lobbying Strategy Goes All-in on Security and Privacy

 G. Colville, here..

A public interest vision for EU tech policy

 Video, here.

Do the Merger Guidelines Need a Glossary?

 A. Van der Veer, here.

Pax Silica: Europe’s Innovation Prize to Trump's America?

Pax Silica is presented by the US State Department as its flagship initiative on AI and supply-chain security; the FT reports  the EU, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece have joined the US-led initiative.

It is hard to know whether this is merely the geopolitical equivalent of FIFA giving Donald Trump a Peace Prize, whereby EU's regret has already been scheduled. 

The defining move is the shift from digital sovereignty to “innovation sovereignty”. Join the American stack, rely on American compute, capital and frontier firms, and call the result sovereignty. In a competitive account, innovation should unsettle monopoly. Here, it's the alibi for the US to preserve it.

Having watched the EU make odd moves in digital policy for decades, I often assumed there was a sensible plan I was failing to see. It turned out it was rather the German (car, mostly) industry, opportunistic national politicians, and/or plain stupidity. Is this time different?

The Productive State

 Rebirth of the CMA? Here.

Designing Europe’s Search Data Sharing Rules for Competition in the AI Era

 A. Cooper et al., here.

The regulators' policy of very small steps, because it works so well.

 CADE, here.

AI, Privacy, and the Hidden Architecture of Harm from Inference

 I. Ogbogu, here.

Apple's WebKit performance tax leaves iOS browsers stuck in the slow lane, says Microsoft

 The Register, here.

Audition de Sébastien Soriano, directeur général de l’IGN

 Ici.

Google search data portability conduct requirement

 CMA, here.

Antitrust for EU Practitioners Without the Jet Lag

While Trump at the G7 Meeting just said in Macron's face "I'm the boss", cheerful atmosphere in sunny Brussels.

After twenty-four hours at the European Competition Forum, the first impressions are becoming sharper. The Forum, we learned, apparently began as a chat, with the European Commission also present, on a platform which one hopes was not itself the competition problem.

A second reason was more practical: the familiar pilgrimage to Washington to talk antitrust. At some point, someone apparently asked the obvious question: why not talk antitrust in Europe, without the jet leg? From that perspective, the Forum could become something the place (.Square") where antitrust practitioners from across the world come to discuss competition law not in Washington DC, but in Brussels. Or, as Executive Vice-President Ribera put it, in “the capital of the rule of law”.

At least yesterday and this morning, and this may change this afternoon or on the third day at the latest (when I will no longer be there), the panels followed a familiar pattern: competition authorities, some academics, companies, and possibly consultants, although not always clearly identified as such. Unsurprisingly, no one in the latter categories volunteered any possible conflicts of interest.

As for substance, frankly, there was little that a regular reader of this blog would not already know rather well. Antitrust received the usual beating: proceedings take at least seven years, while regulation is expected to be broader and faster. There was considerable praise for interoperability, including under the DMA. Unsurprisingly, once AI and interoperability entered the discussion, operating systems followed immediately, with Android and Apple as the obvious reference points.There was also a brief reference to digital sovereignty, innovation & Co. coupled with the familiar suggestion that competition policy can do little in these spaces.

On this point, I disagree. It is not competition policy as such that can do little. It is this kind of competition policy (besides the mixed, ex ante DMA) that can do little. A different competition policy could matter considerably more. But we are clearly not there yet. The intellectual centre of gravity remains markedly traditional and proven ineffective if not plain wrong.

That said, traditionalism is not a certainty any more; Yesterday, for instance, we heard some openings from the current EC competition chief economist that were broader than what we have heard from another entrenched IO economist, Fiona Scott Morton, who had also been considered for the same role. In that respect, one may say, with some relief, that the appointment could have been worse.

Live posts here.

Do not invite big-tech to join your digital autonomy discussion

 berthub, here.

Dependance Day ? Fable 5, Mythos 5 : l’Europe face à son point de bascule

 The Best, ici.

Europe's Innovation Problem Is a Competition Problem

 T. Valletti, the new evolutionary economist in town?, here;

A smarter ban A blueprint for safe, fair, innovative European social media.

 FOTI, here.

THE ITALIAN COMPETITION AUTHORITY LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO APPLE UNDER THE DIGITAL MARKETS ACT ON THE INTEROPERABILITY OF APPLE’S DESIGNATED OPERATING SYSTEMS IOS AND IPADOS WITH ALTERNATIVE CONSUMER CLOUDS

 AGCM, here.

Apple's Siri AI Drama, Debunked

 DMAVP, here. 

Europe 2031- What getting AI wrong means for us

 D. Juijn et al., here. 

We're already in 2029! One antenna-raising is its recurring praise for partnering with American AI firms as the path forward for the European economy. Moreover, remarkably little discussion of market power, gatekeeping, interoperability, the DMA, etc. 

Can Europe build digital sovereignty

 BBC, here.

Would you be able to change the underlying model that powers Siri AI. Ask Siri.

Someone just asked Siri to confirm if this would eventually be true, Here.

Tech-Related Actions and Litigation: The TRAL Tracker

 Here.

Who Do AI Agents Work For?

 OMI, here. 

The UK Just Said No to Google's AI News Grab. Who's Next?

 M. Dark, here.

"You can't possibly trust LLMs, can you?" (says Google)

 D. Chisnall, here. 

How to get rid of Musk and the other Tech oligarchs? Do it like the Europeans do!

 Jon Stewart's Weekly Show, here.

Big Tech’s Shadow Market Power

 H. Malikova et al., here.

Deux ans de DMA

 P. Bichet, ici.

Google ecosystem: too opaque to regulate?

 Google's own words about the opacity of the ecosystem, here.

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

 The Decoder, here.

It is not that German judges invariably get it right — the dreadful Meta decision rather proves the point. Yet, as I recently told someone whose identity now escapes me, they remain among the very few actors in whom I still place some faith to save us from the "tragedy of AI."

The ruling here (AI translated0.

Apple wants Europe to blink [but it won't]

 The Verge, here.

UK Regulator Staunches Google’s AI Content Grab

 C. Radsch, here.

New Apple product, old DMA tantrum.

 Apple, here.

Relax and comply, says the EC here.

Commission imposes interim measures on Meta to preserve free access to WhatsApp for rival AI assistants

 EC. here.

[EUCJ is a subtle reference to Android Auto, ofc]

The Commission’s Tech Sovereignty Package (an Update)

 EuroStack, here. 

The Origin Story Behind the CMA's Conduct Requirements Against AI Overviews w/ Tim Cowen

Chez Alba, here.  

Generative AI and Society: What is at stake?

 8th Weizenbaum Conference, livestreamed here.

Google’s AI opt-out leaves publishers with a choice they can’t safely use

 DigiDay, here. 

The European Social Stack

 European.Social, here. 

Dear Microsoft, Enough is Enough [First time I had this very thought: 1998]

 Browser Choice Alliance, here.

[BTW, retired oligarchs with a flair for bridge and extra-marital affairs can still be a societal nuisance (not to mention a disgrace to their very families), for example if they associate with people like Epstein]. 

The General Court has partially annulled Meta’s designation decision as a gatekeeper. Let's unpack a bit.

 P. Bichet, here.

Google haftet – Lausen erstreitet erstes Urteil zu KI-Übersichten

 juve.de, hier.

Competition and consumer policy in digital markets

 OECD, here.

Canada’s national Artificial Intelligence strategy: AI for All

 Canada Gov, here.

A.I., Journalism and the Uncertain Future of the Public Square

 NYT, here.

National security considerations in competition enforcement

 OECD (!), here. 

VW cuts owners' access to their own vehicle data with API change

 Heise.de, here. 

Unsurprising, but this increasingly makes the Data Act a...laughing stock? A good idea that was already watered down during the long negotiations - never enough for the VDL-supported car industry! 

More generally, are all regulatory systems that give 'API control' to the gatekeeper bound to fail? We discussed exactly this in Episode 3. 

Sign the petition here.  

 

Enshittification, Despotification, and the Open Internet

 M. Masnick, here. 

What do UK watchdog’s new rules on Google AI results mean for publishers?

 The Guardian, here. 

Fast ein Jahr später...Volltext OLG Köln liegt vor: Meta darf Daten aus öffentlichen Profilen bei Facebook und Instagram für das KI-Training verwenden - kein Verstoß gegen

 Hier.

Strengthening Europe’s Tech Sovereignty

 EC, here.

CMA secures fairer deal for publishers and improves Google search services in UK

 Here.To be applied globally, Google says here.

ARTICLE 19 Response to the European Commission Call for Evidence Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA)

 Here (refreshing :)). 

Digital Markets Act: the General Court annuls the decision designating Meta as a gatekeeper as regards Marketplace

 EC, here.

The crux is how the EC legally assessed the changes made in January/July 2023 (relevant/not relevant) and the reasons given. Not such a big deal, IMHO - another Pyrrhic victory by Meta?

How Trump supercharged the EU’s tech independence push

 Politico.eu, here

[Is Europe condemned to an endless regulatory pilgrimage, forever seeking in the next regime the salvation denied by the last?]

The Hard Political Problem: Artificial intelligence as a subject of governance

 M. Hand, here.

Debate on setting a minimum age for social media

 EPRS, here.

Creating a Competitive Marketplace For Compute

 CAP, here.

ÜBER LEBEN MIT KI

 R. Schwartmann, hier.

Technological Lifecycles and Dominant Designs: A Missing Lens for Antitrust

 With L. Hummel, here.

Missing lens XXXX

A call for European Choices

 M. Snoep, here.

Commission hosts workshop on the future of social networks in the EU

 EC, here.

Designing Value-Based Platforms: Architectural Strategies Derived from the Digital Markets Act

 F. Stiehle et al., here. 

Unlawful by Design: Exposing the Human Rights Costs of Generative AI

 Amnesty International, here. 

Why Don't We Just Do This Together?

 ATProto.com, here. 

Artificial Intelligence and Competition Law - A Comparative Analysis of Market Studies by India and Japan

 CUTS, here. 

VULNÉRABILITÉS SYSTÉMIQUES DANS LE SECTEUR DU NUMÉRIQUE : M. UMBERTO BERKANI, RAPPORTEUR GÉNÉRAL DE L’AUTORITÉ DE LA CONCURRENCE

 Ici.

Compte rendu ici.

Souveraineté numérique

 Conseil IA/numérique  ici.

Cable diplomatique de Rubio à l'Assembleée nationale

 Ici.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS

 Pope Leo, here is right.

...this blog is and remains 100% atheist (and still wondering how a small band  of zealots could acquire such a power), but he's our only hope.

The Pope is also holding up a mirror to the antitrust circus, from enforcers downwards: they might consider fewer (mostly) pointless conferences and more pilgrimages, preferably to a place suitably amusing for the contemplation of their sins (starting from...?)

The EU’s Big Tech law was meant to move fast. It hasn’t.

 J. Parry, here.

The Efficiency Moat: Why China Is Beating the U.S. on AI… And Everything Else

 M. Stoller, here.

Meta v AGCOM: the Court endorses “regulated contractual freedom” between platforms and press

 K. Bania, here

Let's review the Review!

 DMA Vox Populi Podcast, here.

Commission publishes 2025 report on the Digital Markets Act implementation

 EC, here.

Omnibus numérique européen : non à l’affaiblissement de la protection des droits numériques des citoyens !

 Le Sénat! Ici. 

Ad Infini­tum

 M. Ott, here. 

"The recycling of synthetic turf is a growing market and is making the industry more circular"

 EC, here. 

Any digital regulators in the room?

 

Vice, here. 

« La souveraineté numérique se construit par étapes, et si les institutions ne bougent pas, le public ne bougera pas »

 N. Hénin & Robin, ici.

Google Search’s AI evolution includes more ads

 The Verge, here.

Civil Society Role Grows in EU’s DMA Case Against Apple

 M. Kirkwood, here.

Chasing the AI Cloud in Europe

 FES, here.

To unleash AI innovation, stop model providers from picking the winners

 Brookings, here.

iOS 26.5 updates unlocks Apple Watch and AirPod features for third-party alternatives — but only if you live in the EU

 TechRadar, here.

The Lambs Refuse to Stay Silent: Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt booed during graduation speech about AI

 

NBC News, here. 

 #thelambsrefusetostaysilent

re:publica 2026: my (modest) plan for making the most of it off-site

Because I will not be in Berlin, this is my plan for making the most of re:publica 2026, an especially promising event. This first list contains the sessions I should be able to watch live (re:publica livestream and YouTubechannel).

Day 1 — Monday 18 May 2026

Time	Title	Speaker(s)	Venue
11:15–12:15	Opening Keynote: How Silicon Valley is Reshaping the World – via AI	Karen Hao	Stage 1
15:00–16:00	On Enshittification – and What Can Be Done About It	Cory Doctorow	Stage 1
17:30–18:00	KI und der neue Faschismus	Rainer Mühlhoff	Stage 1

 

Day 2 — Tuesday 19 May 2026

Time	Title	Speaker(s)	Venue
12:30–13:30	How to Never Give Up: Investigating (and Surviving) Techno-Authoritarianism. A Conversation with Carole Cadwalladr	Carole Cadwalladr, Geraldine de Bastion	Stage 1
15:30–16:00	Zivilgesellschaft unter Druck	Siri Hummel	Stage 1

 

Day 3 — Wednesday 20 May 2026

Time	Title	Speaker(s)	Venue
13:00–13:30	Was machen die globalen Krisen mit unserer Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und unserem Wohlstand?	Marcel Fratzscher	Stage 1
15:00–15:30	Von Habermas zum Podcast: Das Ende der Schriftkultur und die verquatschte Republik	Albrecht von Lucke	Stage 1
17:30–18:30	Zur Gegenmacht	Arne Semsrott	Stage 1
18:45–19:45	Closing #rp26	Andreas Gebhard, Markus Beckedahl, Anna Dushime, Nilz Bokelberg	Stage 1

This is my wider catch-up plan for re:publica 2026. These sessions take place on Stages 1 to 7 or in the Lightning Boxes, to be made available later as videos on the re:publica YouTube channel.

 

Day 1 — Monday 18 May 2026

Time	Title	Speaker(s)	Venue
11:15–12:15	Opening Keynote: How Silicon Valley is Reshaping the World – via AI	Karen Hao	Stage 1
12:10–13:00	Im Stresstest: Europa und die grosse Disruption	Kiran Klaus Patel, Isabel Schayani	Stage 5
12:30–13:30	Cut Me Loose: Wie der EU der digitale Befreiungsschlag gelingt	Axel Voss, Alexandra Geese, Julia Pohle, Frank Karlitschek, Daniel Leisegang	Stage 7
13:00–14:00	Trotz allem: Hoffnung Europa?	Angela Merkel, Markus Preiss, Caro Bredendiek, Florian Gregorzyk	Stage 5
13:45–14:45	The Next Health Tech Giants Won’t Come from Silicon Valley	Anna Sophie Herken, Axel Deniz, Abimbola Adebakin, Christine Mhundwa	Stage 6
15:00–16:00	On Enshittification – and What Can Be Done About It	Cory Doctorow	Stage 1
15:00–15:30	Globalisierung im Wandel: Was passiert in der Weltwirtschaft und was bedeutet das für die deutsche Wirtschaft?	Almira Enders	Lightning Box 1
15:00–15:30	Von Plantage zu Plattform: Wie Kolonialismus digital weiterlebt	Justice Mvemba	Lightning Box 3
15:30–16:00	Colonialism, AI, and the Apocalypse: A Brief History of Intelligence	Ninell Oldenburg	Lightning Box 3
16:15–16:45	Wer die Themen setzt, gewinnt: Wie demokratische Kräfte das Netz zurückerobern können	Peter Jelinek, Melanie Goemmel	Stage 6
16:15–17:15	Who Owns the Future? Digitale Souveränität ohne Grenzen	Anna Sophie Herken, Thomas Jarzombek, Nikolaus Hagl, Rhoda Berger	Stage 7
16:45–17:15	How to Fight the Broligarchy by Democratizing AI	Annette Zimmermann	Stage 3
16:45–17:15	Big Tech in the Crosshairs – How to Break Hyperscalers’ Power	Maria Luisa Stasi, Brianna Rock	Lightning Box 1
16:45–17:15	Zivilgesellschaft 2.0: Die Hochwasser-Lektion – Warum wir das Potenzial der digitalen Bürgerbeteiligung nicht aufgeben dürfen	Florian Schodritz	Lightning Box 3
17:30–18:00	KI und der neue Faschismus	Rainer Mühlhoff	Stage 1
17:30–18:30	Podcast Zivilgesellschaft neu denken live	Maja Göpel, Siri Hummel, Astrid Deilmann	Stage 2
17:30–18:00	Erst die UX, dann die Moral: Mit Opportunismus gegen Big Tech	Torben Klausa	Stage 3
17:30–18:00	Social Media als kritische Infrastruktur – Warum Europas Demokratie eigene Netzwerke braucht	Sebastian Vogelsang	Stage 7
18:45–19:15	Der digitale Wiederaufbau Europas	Wolfgang Oels	Lightning Box 1
19:15–19:45	Wirf deine Rechte unter den Omnibus: Wie die EU Reform-Agenda droht, ein Jahrzehnt digitaler Rechte zu löschen	Ralf Bendrath, Thomas Lohninger	Stage 4
19:15–19:45	Was wir von der Sovereign Tech Agency lernen können	René Lührsen	Lightning Box 1

 

Day 2 — Tuesday 19 May 2026

Time	Title	Speaker(s)	Venue	Language
10:00–11:00	Big Tech verklagen, Rechte durchsetzen	Max Schrems, Albrecht von Sonntag, Katharina Meyer	Stage 2
10:00–10:30	Unternehmer*innentum als ultimative Form des Aktivismus	Alma Spribille	Lightning Box 2
11:15–11:45	Der Innovationsmaschinenraum Deutschlands: 11 Pioniere live auf einer Bühne	Alexandra-Gwyn Paetz, Jeanne Rubner, Max Lemme, Tim-Henri Bruun, Julia Schaft, Wibke Zängler, Hanna Hasselblatt, Peter Krüger, Christopher S. Riess, Luisa Brückner, Marco Gustav, Rik de Doncker, Nina Weber, Oliver May-Beckmann	Stage 3
11:15–11:45	Offline per Gesetz – Brauchen wir ein Social-Media-Verbot für Kinder und Jugendliche?	Sanya Lehmann, Kristian Kunow, Kerstin Paschke, Ninia LaGrande	Stage 7
12:30–13:30	How to Never Give Up: Investigating (and Surviving) Techno-Authoritarianism. A Conversation with Carole Cadwalladr	Carole Cadwalladr, Geraldine de Bastion	Stage 1
12:30–13:00	Der digitale Euro: Was bringt er, wann kommt er, wie funktioniert er?	Jens Reich	Lightning Box 1
13:00–13:30	Hat KI eine Meinung zu Milch? Infovermittlung in Zeiten der 5. Generation Gatekeeper	Simone K. Frey, Jakob Vicari, Mads Pankow	Stage 6
14:15–14:45	Wer ist hier souverän? Wie wir digitale Souveränität messbar gemacht haben.	Laura Dornheim, Jürgen Pfeffer	Stage 3
14:15–14:45	Nudge+, Boost und mehr – Verhaltensökonomik die befähigt	Philipp Thamer	Lightning Box 3
15:00–15:30	Keep Going: Lessons from Civil Society on Both Sides of the Atlantic	Marina Pavlic, Daniel Altschuler, Ella Müller	Stage 7
15:30–16:00	Zivilgesellschaft unter Druck	Siri Hummel	Stage 1
15:30–16:00	Brüssel, mach doch was!	Renate Nikolay, Falk Steiner	Stage 4
15:30–16:00	Die Narrative der Macht: Was Big Tech uns glauben lassen möchte und wie wir uns die Zukunft zurückerobern	Linda Klapdor	Lightning Box 1
16:15–16:45	How the EuroStack Initiative is Fighting for Digital Sovereignty in Europe	Frank Karlitschek	Stage 6
17:30–18:30	Klassismus im digitalen Raum – Zwischen Selbstermächtigung und medialem Versagen?!	Helena Steinhaus, Malik Yannick Gannouchi, Maja Malik, Manuel Biallas	Stage 3	Deutsch
18:00–18:30	Die Rache der Konsument*innen. Streiten über Kunst und Kultur im Internet	Johannes Franzen	Stage 2	Deutsch

 

Day 3 — Wednesday 20 May 2026

Time	Title	Speaker(s)	Venue	Language
10:00–11:00	OpenClaw – Anatomie der kommenden Welle	Stephan Noller, Benedikt Köhler	Stage 2
10:00–10:30	Bye-Bye Big Tech: Schleswig-Holsteins Ausbruch in die digitale Souveränität	Dirk Schrödter, Leonhard Dobusch	Stage 5
10:30–11:00	Digitale Souveränität: Das Bullshit Bingo	Marielle-Sophie Düh, Julia Pohle	Stage 5
10:30–11:00	Thiel, Altman und das Silicon Valley – Wie berichten über die Macht der Tech-Bosse?	Jasmin Körber, Christian Schiffer	Lightning Box 1
11:45–12:15	Digitale Unabhängigkeit und monetäre Souveränität jetzt! Wie wollen wir in Europa bezahlen?	Sebastian Giessmann, Petra Gehring	Stage 6
12:30–13:00	Europas KI-Zukunft: Gefangen im Lock-in oder souverän dank Wettbewerb?	Nicole Büttner, Pascal Kaufmann, Celine Nauer	Stage 6
12:30–13:00	Wie souverän ist Open Source wirklich?	Mark Neufurth	Lightning Box 1
13:00–13:30	Was machen die globalen Krisen mit unserer Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und unserem Wohlstand?	Marcel Fratzscher	Stage 1
13:45–14:15	Big Tech Lobbying besser verstehen	Joris Kanowski	Lightning Box 2
14:15–14:45	Keine Macht der Ohnmacht! Wie wir Krisen bewältigen und uns gegen Faschismus wehren	Matthias Quent	Stage 2
14:15–14:45	Das Lobbyregister als digitales Recherchewerkzeug	Aurel Eschmann, Timo Lange	Lightning Box 2
14:15–14:45	Der blinde Fleck: Wie Asien (und nicht das Silicon Valley) die digitale Zukunft baut	Adrian Block, Sofie Wiedemeyer	Lightning Box 3
15:00–15:30	Von Habermas zum Podcast: Das Ende der Schriftkultur und die verquatschte Republik	Albrecht von Lucke	Stage 1
15:00–15:30	The Great Enclosure: Survival Tactics for the Digital Commons	Lea Gimpel	Lightning Box 2
15:30–16:00	Hype is a System: How Tech Futures Get Made	Georgina Neitzel, Raphael Iltisberger	Stage 5
15:30–16:00	Mut zur Innovation. Wie bringen wir nachhaltige Lösungen in den Mainstream – ohne Kulturkampf und ideologische Debatten.	Cornelius Lahme, Sebastian Rakers	Stage 7
15:30–16:00	Wie landet man 2026 noch einen Podcast-Hit?	Benedikt Dietsch, Ali Gutsfeld	Lightning Box 1
15:30–16:00	The Limits of Openness in Europe’s Digital Sovereignty Agenda	Aditya Singh, Aline Blankertz, Sebastian Vogelsang	Lightning Box 2
16:15–16:45	AI Industrial Policy, Done Right	Carsten Jung, Frederike Kaltheuner, Elizabeth Nöfer	Stage 5
16:45–17:15	Digitale Souveränität durch dezentrale Netzwerke? Potenziale und Widersprüche am Beispiel Mastodon	Marco Wähner	Lightning Box 1
17:30–18:30	Zur Gegenmacht	Arne Semsrott	Stage 1
17:30–18:30	Demokratisierung der Medien oder Content-Kapitalismus: Was wird aus der Creator Economy?	Jeanette Okwu, Stefanie Lefeldt, Robin Blase, Adil Sbai, Moritz Meyer	Stage 5
18:45–19:45	Closing #rp26	Andreas Gebhard, Markus Beckedahl, Anna Dushime, Nilz Bokelberg	Stage 1