Can it be so? Yup. Apparently, European Union officials are ready to sacrifice some of their most prized privacy rules for the sake of AI.
According to Politico (Brussels knifes privacy to feed the AI boom, written by Ellen O’Regan and available here), the European Commission will unveil a “digital omnibus” package later this month to simplify many of its tech laws. The executive has insisted that it is only trimming excess fat through “targeted” amendments, but draft documents obtained by POLITICO show that officials are planning far-reaching changes to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to the benefit of artificial intelligence developers.
The proposed overhaul will come as a boon to businesses working with AI, as Europe scrambles to stay economically competitive on the world stage.
But touching the flagship privacy law – seen as the “third rail” of EU tech policy – is expected to trigger a massive political and lobbying storm in Brussels.
Brussels’ shift on privacy comes as it frets over Europe’s waning economic power. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi namechecked the General Data Protection Regulation as holding back European innovation on artificial intelligence in his landmark competitiveness report last year.
European privacy regulators have already been spoiling Big Tech’s AI party in recent years. Meta, X and LinkedIn have all delayed rollouts of artificial intelligence applications in Europe after interventions by the Irish Data Protection Commission. Google is facing an inquiry by the same regulator and was previously forced to pause the release of its Bard chatbot. Italy’s regulator has previously imposed temporary blocks on OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Chinese DeepSeek over privacy concerns.
The Commission is “secretly trying to overrun everyone else in Brussels,” said Max Schrems, founder of Austrian privacy group Noyb — and Europe’s infamous (or famous, depending on your point of view) privacy campaigner who was behind court cases that brought down major data transfer deals with the United States in the past. “This disregards every rule on good lawmaking, with terrible results,” he said.
How far is the European Commission willing to go to placate industry on AI?
Draft changes would create new exceptions for AI companies that would allow them to legally process special categories of data (like a person’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data) to train and operate their tech. The Commission is also planning to reframe the definition of such special category data, which are afforded extra protections under the privacy rules.
Officials also want to redefine what constitutes as personal data, saying that pseudonymized data (where personal details have been obscured so a person can’t be identified) might not always be subject to the GDPR’s protections, a change that reflects a recent ruling from the EU’s top court.
Finally, it wants to reform Europe’s pesky cookie banner rules by inserting a provision into the GDPR that would give website and app owners more legal grounds to justify tracking users beyond simply obtaining their consent.
Once presented (a week from today), the omnibus package has to pass muster with EU countries and lawmakers, who are already sharply divided on whether to touch privacy protections.
Documents seen by POLITICO show that Estonia, France, Austria and Slovenia are firmly against any rewrite of the General Data Protection Regulation. Germany — usually seen as one of the most privacy-minded countries — on the other hand is pushing for big changes to help AI.
In the end, it’s always about the money – isn’t it? Through GDPR and other privacy initiatives over the past several years, European Union officials have established probably the strongest set of privacy rights for individuals in the world. But the allure of AI doll, er, euros threatens to dilute that – perhaps significantly. Profits over people yet again. 😐
So, what do you think? Are you surprised that European Union officials are apparently ready to sacrifice privacy rules for the sake of AI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.