European Union

On 19 March 2026, Advocate-General Capeta issued an opinion in the case of Elisa Eesti AS v Estonian Government Security Committee (C-354/24). This case concerned, among other things, whether a 2022 order from the Estonian Government for Elisa Eesti AS—a 5G network operator—to remove Huawei components from its network for national security reasons was subject to EU law, constituted a lawful restriction on the right to offer an electronic communications network, and amounted to a “deprivation of property” requiring compensation. AG Capeta concluded that the relevant Estonian regime was within scope of EU law—specifically the European Electronic Communications Code (“EECC”)—even though that regime allowed for the imposition of orders on electronic communications network (“ECN”) providers for national security reasons. She also concluded that the requirement to obtain prior authorization from the Estonian government for use of network equipment constituted a restriction on the freedom to provide an ECN, but that this could be justified on national security grounds if the decision was based on a genuine risk assessment that meets the requirements for proportionality under EU law. She stated that this determination should be left to the referring court. Finally, she concluded that the Estonian Government’s order did not amount to a “deprivation” of property for which compensation would be required, as it was instead a mere “restriction” on the use of property. Below, we describe these non-binding conclusions in more detail. The Court’s final ruling in this case will have significant implications for the European Commission’s proposed revisions to the EU Cybersecurity Act, which as drafted would—among other things—allow the Commission to require ECN providers to remove and cease using components from designated high-risk jurisdictions in their networks. See our prior blog post on the proposal for a revised Cybersecurity Act here. … Continue Reading CJEU Advocate-General indicates that communications network operators can lawfully be required to remove Chinese components, and that compensation is not required

On March 19, 2026, the CJEU issued its judgment in the Brillen Rottler case (C‑526/24).  The case concerns the GDPR right of access and the conditions for claiming damages.  In the underlying facts, an Austrian individual subscribed to Brillen Rottler’s newsletter and, two weeks later, exercised his right of access.

Continue Reading EU Court Defines Limits to the GDPR Right of Access

In February 2026, the Spanish data protection authority (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, “AEPD”) published guidance on data protection issues related to the use of AI agents. The guidance follows an earlier, similar analysis by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, which we discussed in a prior blog…

Continue Reading Spanish Supervisory Authority Issues Detailed Guidance on Agentic AI and GDPR Compliance

On February 13, 2026, France’s highest administrative court (“Conseil d’État”) delivered an important decision clarifying the boundary between pseudonymization and anonymization under the GDPR. The ruling confirms that data which remain re‑identifiable in practice—even with some effort—must be treated as personal data under the GDPR by service providers, unless the risk of re‑identification by such providers can genuinely be regarded as insignificant.

Continue Reading France’s Highest Administrative Court Upholds CNIL’s Standard On Anonymization

On February 18, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Report on Stakeholder Event on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation of 12 December 2025 (the “Report”). The Report summarises feedback from a remote stakeholder event convened to inform the EDPB’s ongoing work on Guidelines 01/2025 on Pseudonymisation (version for public consultation available here) and forthcoming guidance on anonymisation. The event gathered input from 115 participants spanning industry, NGOs, academia, law firms, and public sector bodies.

The objective of the Report is to capture stakeholder insights on how the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to anonymisation and pseudonymisation, particularly following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) judgment in EDPS v SRB (C‑413/23 P). (See our previous blog post here.)

Continue Reading EDPB Publishes Report on Stakeholder Event on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation

On February 11, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (jointly, the Authorities) issued a Joint Opinion on the European Commission’s proposed Digital Omnibus Regulation (Digital Omnibus). This follows their Joint Opinion of January 20, 2026 on the Digital Omnibus on AI.

The Digital Omnibus, as with the other “omnibuses” released by the Commission, aims to streamline several EU laws, reduce administrative burdens for covered entities, and enhance competitiveness in the EU. Once adopted, it should reshape how organizations handle personal data generally, including in relation to AI development, scientific research, and incident reporting. The Authorities welcome efforts to simplify and to promote consistent interpretations of key concepts found in the GDPR, the ePrivacy Directive, the NIS2 Directive, and the remaining Data Acquis. At the same time, they caution that this initiative launched by the Commission must not weaken fundamental rights protections, including data protection.

Below is an overview of the Authorities’ positions. It covers only the key amendments discussed in our previous blog post on the Digital Omnibus.

Continue Reading EU Regulators Issue Opinion on Revisions of GDPR and Other Data Laws

As 2026 gets underway, the European Union enters a pivotal year for data protection, AI governance, and cybersecurity regulation, among other matters. EU institutions and national authorities are expected to progress a number of significant digital‑policy files, roll‑out new cyber‑resilience obligations, and make transparency in the privacy space a top priority. Below is an overview of the key developments to monitor.

Continue Reading What to Watch in 2026: Key EU Privacy & Cybersecurity Developments

On 21 January 2026, the European Commission (“Commission”) unveiled its landmark proposal for the Digital Networks Act (“DNA Proposal”), an ambitious attempt to overhaul the framework for the regulation and development of electronic communications networks and services across the EU. The Commission’s stated aim with the DNA Proposal is to establish a “modern and simplified legal framework that incentivises the transition from legacy networks to fibre, high quality 5G and 6G networks, and cloud-based infrastructures, as well as increased scale through service provision and cross-border operation.” To do this, the DNA Proposal would replace and consolidate several existing EU laws, including the European Electronic Communications Code (“EECC”), the BEREC Regulation, and parts of the Open Internet Regulation and e-Privacy Directive.

A key theme of the proposal is harmonization of rules—arising first and foremost from the fact that this is a directly-applicable Regulation rather than a Directive like the current European Electronic Communications Code. Several of the substantive provisions in the DNA Proposal may take a significant amount of influence over the communications networks and services away from Member State governments and up to EU level. In turn, the Commission clearly hopes to promote larger-scale communications network and service providers that can operate across the EU, and that have the funds to invest in modern communications infrastructure. The DNA Proposal could, therefore, have a substantial and long-lasting impact on the connectivity and communications markets in the EU, although we anticipate significant debate about many of the provisions of the DNA Proposal throughout the legislative process.

Below, we summarize seven of the most eye-catching changes to the regulatory framework for communications providers in the DNA Proposal.

Continue Reading Seven Major Changes in the European Commission’s Proposal for an EU Digital Networks Act

On 20 January 2026, the European Commission published a proposal to amend the Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) as part of a broader package to streamline the EU’s cybersecurity framework. The Commission also issued a proposal to revise the EU Cybersecurity Act (CSA2), which we cover in a separate blog post.

The proposed amendments build on earlier streamlining efforts in the Commission’s Digital Omnibus Package—published on 19 November 2025—which introduced the first wave of technical adjustments to NIS2. Those earlier amendments focused on creating a single framework for reporting cyber incidents and clarifying how NIS2 interacts with sectoral regimes such as the CER Directive and DORA.

With this proposal, the Commission now aims to clarify the scope of the law, harmonize technical measures, introduce certification‑based compliance pathways, and strengthen cross‑border supervision through an expanded role for ENISA.

Below, we summarize the main elements of the proposal and what they could mean for entities in scope of NIS2.

Continue Reading European Commission Proposes Targeted Amendments to NIS2 to Simplify Compliance and Align With Proposed Cybersecurity Act 2