In this episode, I host Sebastião to discuss the complex interplay between the GDPR, DMA, and AI regulation within the EU. He explores how regulators can cooperate across silos, the challenges of enforcement, and the future of cross-regulatory guidelines.To watch our brief tit-for-tat at CPDP, access the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7fEXSUEILU. Throughout the conversation, we covered different aspects of the digital rulebook requiring coordination: - 00:17, The European Commission's specification proceedings relating to Google's AI features: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_202. - 01:48, The EDPB's and EC's Draft Joint Guidelines on the interplay between the DMA and the GDPR: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/documents/public-consultations/2025/joint-guidelines-interplay-between-digital_en. - 04:49, The EDPB set to issue Joint Guidelines on the interface between competition law and the GDPR: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/about/news/commission-services-and-edpb-will-start-joint-work-guidance-interplay-between-eu-competition-law-and-2026-04-28_en. - 04:53, The EDPB's work with the EC on Joint Guidelines relating to the AI Act and its interplay with the GDPR: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2026-01/edpb_edps_jointopinion_202601_proposal_ai-omnibus_en.pdf. - 05:06, The EDPB's Joint Guidelines with the EDPS on the Anti-Money Laundering Act: https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/our-work-by-type/edps-edpb-joint-opinions_en. - 07:23, The EDPB's efforts in issuing Joint Guidelines relating to the DSA/GDPR interface with the EC: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2025-09/edpb_guidelines_202503_interplay-dsa-gdpr_v1_en.pdf. - 07:48, The EDPB's collaboration with the European Board for Digital Services in the DSA context: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/interplay-between-dsa-and-gdpr-edpb-adopts-guidelines_en. - 08:30, The Court of Justice's ruling relating to the principle of sincere cooperation (Case C-252/21, Meta Platforms Inc and Others v Bundeskartellamt): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0252. - 11:51, The EC's analysis of the Google/Fitbit merger: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202120/m9660_3314_3.pdf. - 11:58, The EDPB's statement on the Google/Fitbit merger: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_statement_2020_privacyimplicationsofmergers_en.pdf. - 12:04, Commissioner Vestager's statement that the EDPB could not intervene in the Google/Fitbit merger due to the lack of a legal basis: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2020/02/vestager-privacy-regulators-wont-be-involved-in-google-fitbit-review-3976959. - 12:17, The EDPS' call for a horizontal legal basis that provides the possibility to exchange confidential information between authorities: https://www.edps.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/2022-11-11-opinion-on-european-media-freedom-act_en.pdf. - 12:54, The stakeholder contributions to the Digital Fitness Check: https://data.europa.eu/en/news-events/news/eu-digital-omnibus-update-simplifying-europes-digital-rulebook. - 16:00, The European Commission's specification proceedings under Article 6(11) DMA against Google: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_202. - 17:34, The Court of Justice's recent case law on the principle of ne bis in idem (Case C-117/20, bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0117. - 20:22, The EDPB's work in fleshing out the notion of anonymisation: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/topic/anonymization_en. Key moments 00:00 Introduction to Data Protection and DMA01:20 Interplay Between GDPR and DMA08:12 Consultation and Cooperation Among Regulators15:03 Enforcement Fragmentation Risks22:38 AI Integration with DMA and GDPR

Join me in a brief talk around the analysis of AI within the DMA framework, where I build on my previous research surrounding whether an AI CPS must be added or how to meter AI technologies into the ex ante regulation.To celebrate the 1000th download of my paper 'Generative AI in Check: Gatekeeper Power and Policy Under the DMA', I invite you to read it on SSRN here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5025742. Throughout the talk, I touch upon different developments that guide the EC's analysis of AI under the DMA. Click and go directly to them through the links below: - 04:03, The European Commission proposes draft implementation measures in relation to interoperability with Android OS features necessary to power AI: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/interoperability_en. - 04:39, The European Commission proposes draft implementation measures to narrow down compliance with Article 6(11) DMA on search data: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/dma100209-consultation-proposed-measures-google-search-data-sharing_en. - 07:38, Meta's decision to scrape data from its Facebook and Instagram services to feed it into its LLM: https://about.fb.com/news/2025/04/making-ai-work-harder-for-europeans/.- 08:06, My opinion on such conduct as applied to Article 5(2) DMA: https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/the-higher-regional-court-cologne-barks-up-the-wrong-data-tree-the-courts-interpretation-of-article-52b-dma-in-the-meta-ai-case/.- 08:22, The Higher Regional Court of Cologne's dismissal of an interim injunction in the case (available in German): https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/koeln/j2025/15_UKl_2_25_Urteil_20250523.html.- 12:10, The Regional Court of Munich granted the requested preliminary injunction and prohibited Google from disseminating statements about publishers in AI-generated summaries: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2026-N-11860?hl=true. - 17:14, For more information on Amazon's Rufus and its interaction with the DMA, see my comment on their compliance workshop here: https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/amazons-second-dma-compliance-workshop-the-power-of-no-where-the-balance-should-land/.- 17:25, The European Commission's Amazon Buy Box case: https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/AT.40462. - 18:59, My analysis on gatekeeper designation and the use of delineation: https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhae011. Key moments00:00 Introduction to DMA and AI Integration02:15 Policy Options for AI Enforcement04:10 Transformations in Market Dynamics06:30 AI Features and Gatekeeper Services08:40 Challenges of Data Regulation10:23 The Evolution of Search with AI15:38 Regulatory Implications of AI Overviews19:34 Future of AI and DMA EnforcementTo learn more about Dr. Alba Ribera Martínez and her research, we invite you to visit her website: https://www.albariberamartinez.com.She also writes, from time to time, in her newsletter, the DMA Agora, about the latest developments surrounding the European regulation: https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7344021393451184128.________The Binary Agora is on social media, where we upload and comment on dedicated content only for our subscribers. Stay tuned there, as well.- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/thebinaryagora/posts/?feedView=all- BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/thebinaryagora.bsky.social- TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebinaryagora- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebinaryagora/

This interview with Dr. Anselm Küsters explores the EU's Tech Sovereignty Package, focusing on sovereignty as a capacity to act and the role of open source in fostering resilience and competition in Europe's digital infrastructure.

The Tech Sovereignty Package we discuss throughout the conversation can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1187.

During the conversation, Anselm and I also raised several developments and sources that can be useful to understand the EU's broader sovereignty strategy. Click on them below to go to them directly:

- 00:23, The Draghi report: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en.

- 01:08, Dr Küsters' work on sovereignty as a precondition for openness: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351046050_The_Fight_for_Digital_Sovereignty_What_It_Is_and_Why_It_Matters_Especially_for_the_EU.

- 01:34, Dr. Küsters' initial assessment of the Tech Sovereignty Package, co-authored with Phillip Eckhardt and Dr. Matthias Kullas: https://www.cep.eu/eu-topics/details/eu-tech-sovereignty-package.html.

- 01:52, The German approach towards sovereignty: https://www.bmftr.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/FS/1086286_Rahmenprogramm_FITS2030_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.

- 01:55, An analysis of Carl Schmitt's definition of sovereignty: https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/90975147/CarlSchmittsDefinitionofSovereignty.pdf.

- 04:05, The EU's 2020 Data Strategy: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/strategy-data.

- 06:23, Reporting on the EC's potential issuing of equivalence decisions to US hyperscalers: https://www.euractiv.com/news/commissions-sovereign-cloud-plan-doesnt-push-us-hyperscalers-out/.

- 07:49, Dr. Küsters' work on 'Coping with the Digital Trilemma? Trade-Offs and Risks in EU Digital Policy', co-authored with Cecilia Emma Sottilotta: https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.70023.

- 10:41, W.B. Gallie on 'Essentially Contested Concepts': https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544562.

- 12:28, Dr. Küsters' Small is Beautiful 2.0 book (available in German): https://www.herder.de/geschichte-politik/shop/p4/93614-small-is-beautiful-20-klappenbroschur/.

- 13:46, A summary in English of the Small is Beautiful 2.0 printed publication: https://commongroundeurope.eu/blog/small-is-beautiful-2-0-how-digital-decentralisation-can-strengthen-democracy/.

- 13:50, Dr. Küsters' weekly Substack, The Small Signal: https://anselmkuesters.substack.com/.

- 15:08, The EU's Digital Wallet: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/pages/694487738/EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home.

- 17:36, Research on open source demonstrating that it reduces security risks: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3736426.3736467.

- 17:48, Linus's Law, coined by Eric S. Raymond in his book The Cathedral and the Bazaar, means that if a codebase is visible to a large community of developers and users, problems will be identified and fixed quickly.

- 18:27, Feasibility study on funding needed for open source maintenance: https://eu-stf.openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/EU-STF-Feasibility-Study_final.pdf.

- 18:33, The European Competitiveness Fund: https://commission.europa.eu/publications/european-competitiveness-fund_en.

Key moments

00:00 Introduction to EU's Tech Sovereignty Package

03:54 Understanding Sovereignty in the Digital Sphere

07:41 The Four Tiers of Sovereignty

10:24 Trade-offs in EU Digital Policy

13:12 Open Source and Democratic Resilience

16:27 The Importance of Open Source for Competitiveness

To learn more about Dr. Alba Ribera Martínez and her research, we invite you to visit her website: https://www.albariberamartinez.com.

She also writes, from time to time, in her newsletter, the DMA Agora, about the latest developments surrounding the European regulation: https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7344021393451184128.

This episode features Tim Cowen, discussing the impact of AI Overviews on market competition and news publishers. Tim presents the legal complaints and expertise he has rendered to competition authorities and agencies surrounding market suppression tactics, which can potentially be analysed as competition harms.

The episode was recorded before the CMA issued its conduct requirements relating to Google's AI Overviews under the DMCCA, see here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1f0098b95db968c8f3bdb9/Publisher_CR_final_decision.pdf. Throughout the conversation, Tim touched upon different tenets of enforcement that have been taking place surrounding Google's position in search. Click on them directly below: - 01:35, Google's introduction of Bard in 2023: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/ai/bard-google-ai-search-updates/. - 01:49, The French competition authority intervenes by fining Google relating to the use of publisher content: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/article/related-rights-autorite-fines-google-eu250-million. - 02:48, The European Commission's Google Shopping decision: https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/AT.39740. - 03:07, The Court of Justice's ruling in Android Auto (actioned by Enel's service, JuicePass): https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=document&docid=295687&doclang=en. - 08:53, Judge Mehta decides that AI is a separate product from search: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/19/nx-s1-5538073/google-search-antitrust-data-privacy. - 10:19, The European Commission triggered a non-compliance procedure against Google's site reputation abuse policy: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-opens-investigation-potential-digital-markets-act-breach-google-demoting-media-publishers-2025-11-13_en. - 11:23, Bauer Media announces major digital restructure with respect to Heat and Grazia magazines: https://digiday.com/media/bauer-media-group-slashes-publishing-headcount-in-company-wide-restructure/. - 12:41, The Daily Mail reported a +70% decline in click-through rates due to the introduction of AI Overviews: https://digiday.com/media/daily-mail-says-google-ai-overviews-have-killed-click-throughs/. - 13:36, Pew Research Center research on AI Overviews: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/. - 13:36, Enders Analysis research on AI Overviews: https://www.endersanalysis.com/reports/publishers-invisibility-problem-organic-traffic-under-pressure. - 13:36, MIT research on AI Overviews: https://www.mitsloanme.com/article/how-googles-near-accurate-ai-overviews-fuel-misinformation/. - 13:49, Google announces that it will roll out more AI Overviews: https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/search-io-2026/. - 14:15, SparkToro reporting on the zero-click world: https://sparktoro.com/blog/in-a-zero-click-world-traffic-is-a-terrible-goal/. - 16:41, Judge Mehta rules AI Overviews conduct as out of scope: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/google-decision-demonstrates-need-to-overhaul-competition-policy-for-ai-era/. - 26:15, Impact of AI on jobs in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-of-ai-capabilities-and-the-impact-on-the-uk-labour-market/assessment-of-ai-capabilities-and-the-impact-on-the-uk-labour-market. Key moments00:00 Introduction to AI Overviews and Competition Law01:22 The Complaint Against Google: Background and Context10:49 Google's Defense and the Impact on Publishers16:28 Global Regulatory Landscape and the Role of Authorities23:19 Proposed Remedies and the Future of CompetitionTo learn more about Dr. Alba Ribera Martínez and her research, we invite you to visit her website: https://www.albariberamartinez.com.

This interview with Frédéric Marty explores the economics of digital platforms, competition law, and the impact of AI on market dynamics. It offers insights into the DMA and platform dependencies that shape the ordoliberal belief in the goals of competition.

In the conversation, Fred touched upon a couple of rulings and pointed to a few of his recent research outputs. Click on those directly below:

- 04:24, Sai Krishna Kamepalli, Raghuram G. Rajan, and Luigi Zingales' work on the kill zone: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3555915.

- 10:20, The Court of Justice's recent Android Auto ruling (Case C-233/23): https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=document&docid=295687&doclang=en.

- 11:02, The traditional requirements for refusal to supply in EU competition law, Bronner (Case 7-97): https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/affair?lang=en&sort=AFF_NUM-DESC&searchTerm=%22C-7%2F97%22&publishedId=C-7%2F97.

- 14:11, Fred's paper alongside Patric Bougette and Oliver Budzinski on 'Ex-ante versus Ex-post in competition law enforcement: Blurred boundaries and economic rationale': https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106264.

- 17:25, The French competition authority's report on cloud: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/cloud-computing-autorite-de-la-concurrence-issues-its-market-study-competition-cloud.

- 18:00, Data egress fees are charges from cloud providers (like AWS, Google Cloud or Azure) for transferring data out of their network or to another region.

- 18:40, Fred's work co-authored with Thierry Warin on 'Digital Platforms' Information Concentration: From Keystone Players to Gatekeepers': https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3753779.

- 21:17, The "Chevalier de la Palice" (Jacques II de Chabannes) was a 16th-century French nobleman and military commander. Following his death, his grieving troops composed a song in his honor. However, a famous line on his tombstone; "If he weren't dead, he would still be envied" ("S'il n'était pas mort, il ferait encore envie"), was misread centuries later as: "If he weren't dead, he would still be alive" ("S'il n'était pas mort, il serait en vie"). This is where the French word lapalissade (and the English derivative "lapalissian") comes from.

- 25:19, Teodora Groza's PhD thesis on 'Governing Innovation: Antitrust and the Organization of Industry': https://sciencespo.hal.science/tel-05379990.

To learn more about Dr. Alba Ribera Martínez and her research, we invite you to visit her website: https://www.albariberamartinez.com.

She also writes, from time to time, in her newsletter, the DMA Agora, about the latest developments surrounding the European regulation: https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7344021393451184128.

This in-depth interview with Nicolas Petit explores the European Commission's draft Merger Guidelines, focusing on dynamic competition, resilience, innovation, and the evolving analytical framework in merger review. Gain insights into how these changes could impact competition law and industrial policy.

Find the Draft Merger Guidelines that we discussed throughout the episode here: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/46dde10f-85c1-4590-a3f4-2b71f85685ef_en?filename=Merger%20Guidelines%20-%20final%20for%20public%20consultation.pdf.

In the episode, we referenced paragraphs of the Guidelines (find the transcriptions below) and some other developments. Click on the links below to access them directly:

- 00:17, The Horizontal 2004 Merger Guidelines: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52004XC0205(02).

- 00:21, The Non-Horizontal 2008 Merger Guidelines: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008XC1018(03).

- 05:42, Footnote 18 of the Draft Guidelines defining resilience: "the readiness and ability of the internal market or part of it to continue servicing customers and to anticipate, withstand and recover from serious shocks".

- 08:35, Paragraph 25 of the Draft Guidelines: "If the merging parties consider that the merger gives rise to efficiencies, as part of their prospective analysis, they must articulate and substantiate, in due time, a ‘theory of benefit’. A theory of benefit sets out how specific merger efficiencies occur and maintain or enhance effective competition, to the benefit of consumers (...)".

- 13:56, Paragraph 64 of the Draft Guidelines: "Market shares – especially those based on the previous year – may not fully reflect a firm’s market power (...)".

- 14:06, Paragraph 80 of the Draft Guidelines: "In some industries or markets, a static assessment of market power does not fully capture a firm’s competitive strengths and weaknesses from a dynamic perspective. (...) In these cases, the Commission also considers various other factors to assess the influence on the competitive process that a firm may have (‘dynamic competitive potential’)".

- 14:13, The moligopoly hypothesis: https://academic.oup.com/book/33503/chapter/287809787.

- 14:28, Paragraph 101 of the Draft Guidelines: "In its competitive assessment, the Commission considers all competitive constraints faced by the merged firm irrespective of whether they arise from inside or outside the relevant market. Products that do not exert a sufficient competitive constraint on the merging firms’ products to belong to the same relevant market (out-of-market constraints) may still play an important role in the assessment of market power".

- 16:59, Farrell and Shapiro's work on unilateral effects: https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/alternative.pdf.

- 17:02, Ivaldi, Rey and Tilore on tacit collusion and non-coordinated effects (https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/2003/tacit_collusion.pdf) and Steve Davies (https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/18471/2/Tacit_collusion_firm_asymmetries_and_numbers.pdf).

- 17:34, Paragraph 192 of the Draft Guidelines: "In cases where a transaction involves a small innovative company, including a startup, or an R&D project with a dynamic competitive potential, the Commission in principle does not find a SIEC in relation to any theory of harm, including the loss of innovation competition, potential competition, entrenchment and foreclosure (...)".

- 22:16, The EC's Dow/DuPont case (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/M.7932) and Illumina/Grail case (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/hu/ip_24_1964).

- 23:45, Grail fails to develop cancer detection tests: https://www.statnews.com/2026/02/19/grail-cancer-test-galleri-results/.

- 24:05, The Dynamic Competition Initiative: https://www.dynamiccompetition.com/.

This interview explores the complex concept of technology-neutral regulation, its benefits, challenges, and hidden costs. Expert Marco Almada discusses how neutrality can obscure technical details, lead to delegation of power, and create legal and practical issues in AI, cybersecurity, and digital markets.

Find Marco's LinkedIn profile, where you'll find all of his publications and work on technology neutrality: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcoalmada/.

Marco and I mentioned a few scholarly works and developments surrounding technology neutrality. Click on them directly here:

- 03:45, Rebecca Crootof's and B.J. Ard's work on 'Structuring Techlaw': https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications/1622/.

- 05:43, Marco's publication, 'Two Dogmas of Technology-Neutral Regulation': https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4953377.

- 06:48, South Korean experience with the adoption of ActiveX in its cybersecurity standards: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elaineramirez/2016/11/30/south-koreas-online-banking-system-is-stuck-in-1996/.

- 07:40, South Korea repeals its cybersecurity mandate in 2013: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/08/the-korean-way-with-data-how-the-worlds-most-wired-country-is-forging-a-third-way.

- 08:29, The Court of Justice's case law on automated decisions applying the GDPR (Case C-203/22 on the right to explanation): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62022CJ0203.

- 11:19, Laura Aade's research on drastic changes to social media platforms: https://law.stanford.edu/transatlantic-technology-law-forum/projects/defining-social-media-platforms-with-e-commerce-features-under-eu-and-us-consumer-law-a-tiktok-case-study/.

- 12:35, The European Commission's DMA Article 6(11) proceedings on access to search data: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-opens-proceedings-assist-google-complying-interoperability-and-online-search-data-sharing-2026-01-27_en.

- 15:08, The proposed reform of the Cybersecurity Act: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-eu-cybersecurity-act. - 16:30, Recital 15 GDPR reads as follows "In order to prevent creating a serious risk of circumvention, the protection of natural persons should be technologically neutral and should not depend on the techniques used".

- 19:20, Paul Ohm's research on the US' surveillance apparatus and technology neutrality: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256007763_The_Argument_Against_Technology-Neutral_Surveillance_Laws.

To learn more about Dr. Alba Ribera Martínez and her research, we invite you to visit her website: https://www.albariberamartinez.com.

She also writes, from time to time, in her newsletter, the DMA Agora, about the latest developments surrounding the European regulation: https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7344021393451184128.

Exploring the concept of human in the loop in AI systems, Melanie Fink discusses its practical implications, legal challenges, and the importance of meaningful human oversight to ensure accountability, dignity, and effective decision-making in public authority contexts.

Find Melanie's LinkedIn profile here, where you'll find all her work and publications: https://www.linkedin.com/in/melanie-fink-520a23101/.Throughout the episode, we commented on some legal developments that have crystallised and some empirical and scholarly work published on the topic.

Click on the link below to access it directly:

- 03:00, The AI Act's incorporation of human-in-the-loop as human oversight in Article 14: "1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they can be effectively overseen by natural persons during the period in which they are in use. 2. Human oversight shall aim to prevent or minimise the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular where such risks persist despite the application of other requirements set out in this Section (...)".

- 08:11, Madeleine Claire Elish's work on 'Moral Crumple Zones': https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/260.

- 08:19, Rebeca Crootof's, Margot E. Kaminski and W. Nicholson Price's research on 'Humans in the Loop' documenting the liability sponge-like property of civil servants: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/vlr/article/4845/&path_info=Humans_in_the_Loop__Crootof_Kaminski_Price.pdf.

- 09:37, The Spanish competition authority's use of AI systems: https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/editor_contenidos/Notas%20de%20prensa/2021/20210301_NP_SICA_UIE_ENG.pdf.

- 15:18, Empirical evidence documenting the existence of cognitive constraints and automation bias when humans make decisions stemming from the use of AI models: https://arxiv.org/html/2509.08514v1.

- 21:38, The GDPR's right to an explanation in Articles 13, 14 and 22, as well as the AI Act's Article 86, which reads as: "1. Any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of systems listed under point 2 thereof, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights shall have the right to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken (...)".

To learn more about Dr. Alba Ribera Martínez and her research, we invite you to visit her website: https://www.albariberamartinez.com.

She also writes, from time to time, in her newsletter, the DMA Agora, about the latest developments surrounding the European regulation: https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7344021393451184128.

This episode explores the recent EU Court of Justice ruling on the rights of news publishers, the implications for intellectual property law, and the future of content remuneration in the digital age. Featuring Prof. Eleonora Rosati, a leading IP law expert, we navigate the legal nuances, platform responsibilities, and AI training challenges stemming from the ruling. Find Prof. Rosati's post on the IPKat blog here: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/05/italian-transposition-of-press.html.

And here's the Court of Justice's ruling in full: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2023/C-0797-23-00000000RP-01-P-01/ARRET/320668-EN-1-html.

A bit more advertising will not hurt, so here's Prof Rosati's OUP book on Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/copyright-and-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-9780198885580?cc=es&lang=en&.

In this episode, Rolands Mesters, CEO of BirdyChat, discusses the development of BirdyChat, a European professional messaging app that interoperates with Meta's WhatsApp under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). He shares insights on regulatory impacts, technical challenges, user feedback, and future prospects of interoperability in messaging services.

BirdyChat is available on both Android and iOS, available for download here: https://www.birdy.chat/. In the conversation, we touched upon a few regulatory developments. Click directly on them through the following links:

- The open banking EU regulation, PSD2 Regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L2366&qid=1653045761540&from=EN.

- The promise of open banking back in 2022: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9781800612204_0002?srsltid=AfmBOopz3kCnUvauWcIVoSTB9SoW2PXJLHtlk8nmgrjAoA5eVP_YoP3f.

- Meta's Reference Offer relating to its compliance with Article 7 DMA: https://developers.facebook.com/m/messaging-interoperability/.

- The European Commission's materials available on its website: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal_en.