The EU AI Act not only regulates artificial intelligence but also triggers the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, embedding EU principles of procedural justice into national administrative law. This development advances the Europeanisation of domestic legal systems and reshapes the balance between EU and national public law in the digital age.
At the dawn of 2025, liberal democracy is faced with a considerable challenge: Big Tech bosses appear to leverage their market power for far-reaching political influence, without any democratic legitimisation to do so. As someone working on issues of market power in the digital economy, one cannot help but wonder: shouldn’t competition law be able to contain (some of) this unseeming wielding of market power?
In this blogpost, I situate and address Musk’s position within the broader EU debate on freedom of expression. The purpose of this symposium is to elucidate aspects that make Musk, his influence, and his provocations to the EU legal order, problematic under EU law, and, should we consider his influence as unwanted, harmful or illegal, whether EU law can provide answers to it. This post centres on three points: (i) Musk’s changes to X’s content moderation process, (ii) Musk’s usage of X to amplify select political candidates and (iii) Musk’s ownership of Starlink. It ends with a note on how this fits in a grander theme, which has been dubbed by commentators such as Paul Bernal as the ‘techbrocracy’.
At a time when calls for the EU to respond to Musk’s provocations multiply, critical questions about whether, why, and how the EU may react remain largely unanswered. Musk’s conduct, which spans sectors as diverse as social media (X, formerly Twitter), AI (xAI), satellite technology (Starlink), space rockets (SpaceX), and electric vehicles (Tesla), pose unique challenges to existing legal frameworks. His multi-industry influence gives rise to profound questions about the limits of individual influence and power accumulation in a complex geopolitical landscape.
In December 2024, the European Commission issued a communication to the European Parliament and the Council discussing the current situation of so-called ‘hybrid threats’ at the EU-Belarussian border. With the goal of stopping irregular arrivals of migrants and its facilitation by Belarus and Russia, the EU Commission outlines how EU primary law, namely Art. 72 TFEU, could be utilized by Member States to circumvent the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and curtail the protection afforded by fundamental rights for migrants. By advising member states to make use of this legal pathway for the current situation at the EU-Belarussian border, the EU Commission indirectly justifies the current pushback practices from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.
Although digital anonymity is associated with a wide range of opportunities, it also stands in the way of successful criminal prosecution. The right to respect private and family life under the the EU Charter as well as the right to protection of personal data are of fundamental importance for natural persons. However, since life is increasingly taking place online, anonymity can be exploited to spread hate, discriminatory content, and fake news. Considering these risks, the ECJ has opened the door to data retention in Europe and thereby restricted digital anonymity.
La Quadrature du Net II has been criticized for allowing generalized metadata retention measures. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the law must not become a mechanism for protecting criminals. The scale of online rights violations are a real problem. P2P networks are not only a threat to copyright protection, but also an environment for the distribution of content related to serious crime. It is therefore necessary to strike a balance between these two concerns and to propose solutions that adequately protect users without guaranteeing impunity for criminals.
Five Questions to Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger
Fünf Fragen an Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger
After the major shift in surveillance practices from state power and control to big tech corporations and monetisation, we are currently witnessing yet another Zeitenwende: Surveillance practices as a means of hybrid warfare, with the AI-driven vision of accessing what people think and feel. This type of surveillance produces knowledge that not only claims to reveal what people are likely to do in the future but also what they feel and think. The consequences of this epistemological bending are potentially grave.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters