Overview
This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and replies published from 26.01.2026 to 01.02.2026. The period was dominated by Commission clarifications on the implementation and enforcement of core digital legislation, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). Key policy areas addressed include platform accountability, the protection of minors online, safeguards for content moderation, and the application of competition rules in the digital media and AdTech sectors. Concurrently, a significant number of MEPs raised urgent questions concerning the harms of generative AI, pressing for stronger action against non-consensual deepfakes and risks posed by AI chatbots to minors. Institutionally, the Commission positions itself as a diligent enforcer of existing frameworks, emphasizing procedural correctness and the shared responsibility between the EU, Member States, and private actors. These developments offer crucial insights for digital-policy professionals into the Commission’s enforcement priorities, its interpretation of new digital regulations, and the emerging political pressure points in areas like AI safety and critical infrastructure resilience.
DSA & DMA Enforcement and Clarification
❗ Commission Outlines Multi-Pronged Strategy to Support Online Publishers
In a detailed response on 27.01.2026 (E-004665/25), Executive Vice-President Virkkunen outlined several measures to address challenges faced by online publishers. The Commission is leveraging the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to tackle Alphabet’s self-preferencing on Google Search and has opened an antitrust investigation into potentially unfair terms for publishers. The reply also highlights how the Digital Services Act (DSA) and European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) strengthen the position of media providers against Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) by requiring justifications for content removal and mandating mitigation of systemic risks to media pluralism.
❗ Commission Details DSA Safeguards for Content Moderation and Trusted Flaggers
Across two answers (E-004764/25 and E-004703/25), Executive Vice-President Virkkunen clarified the functioning of the DSA’s content moderation framework on 26.01.2026. The Commission stressed that the DSA is technologically neutral and does not mandate AI use. It detailed the robust criteria for ‘trusted flaggers’, who must be designated by national Digital Services Coordinators and are subject to ongoing monitoring and transparency obligations. The replies firmly state that platforms retain ultimate accountability for moderation decisions, and the trusted flagger mechanism is designed to improve notice quality without creating an imbalance of responsibility.
❗ DSA Enforcement in Focus for Protection of Minors
The protection of minors online is a key priority for DSA enforcement, according to a 27.01.2026 reply from Executive Vice-President Virkkunen (E-004398/25). The Commission referenced its request for information to Shein regarding the prevention of illegal products and age-inappropriate content. It also highlighted the role of the European Board for Digital Services in coordinating actions to ensure smaller platforms comply with their obligations, and pointed to the proposed Regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse as a complementary measure.
❗ Commission Positions Political Ad Regulation as Pro-Transparency, Not a Ban
The Political Advertising Regulation aims to create a level playing field and protect electoral integrity, not to ban political advertising, stated Commissioner McGrath on 29.01.2026 (E-004384/25). The Commission framed the decisions by some online platforms to discontinue political advertising services as commercial ones. It confirmed it is monitoring the regulation’s application and will hold an implementation dialogue in 2026, supported by a new stakeholder Expert Group.
❗ DSA and Digital Fairness Act to Address Consumer Protection in Video Games
On 30.01.2026, Commissioner McGrath affirmed the Commission’s support for the video games industry (E-003793/25). The reply notes that consumer protection is addressed through existing and upcoming legislation. Notably, Article 28 of the DSA requires platforms accessible to minors to provide the highest levels of safety and security, while the upcoming Digital Fairness Act will examine whether further action is needed to tackle specific unfair commercial practices in the sector.
❓ MEPs Probe X’s Compliance with DSA Obligations
MEPs from the PfE group have questioned the Commission on its assessment of platform X’s compliance with the Digital Services Act (E-000243/2026). The question, submitted on 21.01.2026, asks if the Commission has considered X’s arguments that bank card payments for verification indirectly verify identity and that making its algorithm open-source addresses transparency obligations. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Question Platform Liability for Unsafe Products Sold Online
In a priority question submitted on 27.01.2026 (P-000315/2026), MEPs from the S&D group are pressing the Commission on the enforcement of product safety rules for online sales. They ask who is legally responsible when unsafe products are sold by non-EU sellers without an EU representative and whether platforms should bear more liability to close the enforcement gap. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Scrutinise Commission’s AdTech Antitrust Case Against Google
An MEP from the Renew group has raised procedural questions regarding the Commission’s antitrust case against Google in the advertising technology sector (E-000132/2026). Submitted on 14.01.2026, the question asks why the Commission is conducting a market test on Google’s proposed remedies without having published its full infringement decision, and questions the exclusion of some long-standing plaintiffs from the process. A response is pending.
GDPR and Data Governance
❗ Commission Defends Proposed GDPR Amendments as Targeted Simplifications
In a reply on 28.01.2026 (E-004566/2025), Commissioner McGrath defended proposed amendments to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Commission asserts that the changes are well-targeted measures to harmonise, clarify, and simplify its application without altering its fundamental principles or impacting data protection rights. The response emphasizes that the amendments are fully compliant with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and do not permit new forms of profiling across services.
❓ MEP Questions German Application of GDPR Representative Action Rules
A question submitted on 13.01.2026 (E-000091/2026) asks the Commission about its handling of a complaint concerning the application of GDPR Article 80(1) in Germany, which allows for representation by non-profit bodies. The MEP queries whether national procedural rules impair the effectiveness of this right and asks for an update on the complaint’s status. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Demand Action Against AI-Generated Non-Consensual Intimate Images
A series of questions from cross-party MEPs (E-000114/2026, E-000202/2026, E-000198/2026) raised urgent concerns about AI tools like Grok on platform X being used to generate non-consensual nude and sexualised deepfake images of women and minors. MEPs are pressing the Commission on why formal investigation procedures have not been initiated under the DSA and are asking if such AI systems are, or should be, explicitly classified as a prohibited practice under the AI Act. Responses from the Commission are pending.
❓ MEPs Raise Alarm Over Risks of AI Companion Chatbots for Minors
A cross-party group of MEPs is questioning the Commission about the risks posed to minors by AI companion chatbots (E-000256/2026). Citing cases of emotional dependence and failure to escalate crisis disclosures, the question asks what concrete enforcement actions the Commission is taking under Article 5 of the AI Act (prohibiting manipulative practices) and whether it will propose binding EU legislation for harmonised age-assurance measures. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Raise Security Concerns Over German eID Cards and EU Digital Wallet Compatibility
Following media reports of security deficiencies, a question submitted on 20.01.2026 (P-000207/2026) asks the Commission about the security of German-issued eID cards for EU citizens. The MEP queries whether these cards meet the requirements for the forthcoming European Digital Identity Wallet and what the consequences are for its issuance. A response is pending.
❗ Commission Affirms Commitment to Balancing Innovation and Safety for Autonomous Vehicles
On 28.01.2026, Executive Vice-President Séjourné outlined the EU’s regulatory approach to automated driving (E-004709/25). The Commission has established a type-approval framework for automated systems and is working to boost it by 2026. While acknowledging safety concerns with advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla’s Full Self-Driving, the Commission noted that relevant UN regulations are under revision to ensure high safety standards without blocking specific technologies. To date, no Member State has requested an exemption for a technology demonstrating equivalent safety performance.
❗ Commission Highlights European Media Freedom Act to Protect Journalists
The safety of journalists is a priority, stated Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on 26.01.2026 (E-004863/25). The Commission’s response points to the European Media Freedom Act, which provides safeguards against political interference and surveillance, and the European Democracy Shield initiative, which foresees an update to the Recommendation on the Safety of Journalists and action against abusive lawsuits (SLAPPs).
❓ MEP Questions EU Digital Sovereignty in RAM Production
An MEP from the S&D group has asked the Commission about Europe’s dependency on non-EU companies for Random Access Memory (RAM), citing a recent surge in prices (E-000216/2026). The question, submitted on 21.01.2026, asks if the Commission can conduct an impact study on European needs and whether it intends to present a specific initiative on RAM. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Call for Action on Gender Health Gap in Future EU Research Programme
A question for oral answer from The Left group (O-000004/2026) calls on the Commission to ensure the next research framework programme (FP10) explicitly addresses the gender health gap. MEPs ask about measures to promote research into understudied areas of women’s health and whether mandatory requirements for disaggregated data collection will be introduced in EU-funded health research. A response is pending.
Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Resilience
❗ Commission and Council Underscore Coordinated EU Approach to Hybrid Threats and Drone Incursions
In separate replies, the Commission (P-004394/25) and the Council (P-003904/25) highlighted the EU’s coordinated approach to protecting critical infrastructure. Both institutions referenced the Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive and the Network and Information Systems 2 (NIS2) Directive as the core legal framework. The Commission detailed its support for Member States and new initiatives like the European Drone Defence Initiative, while the Council confirmed it regularly discusses such threats but clarified that producing findings on specific incidents is a Member State responsibility.
❗ Commission to Re-examine Drone Geofencing Regulation in 2026
On 27.01.2026, Commissioner Tzitzikostas explained that geofencing requirements for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) were not included in the 2019 regulation due to stakeholder feedback at the time (E-004507/25). However, the Commission will re-examine the topic as part of the Drone Strategy 2.0 progress review in 2026. The response notes the limited effectiveness of geofencing against malicious actors who can bypass such systems.
❗ Commission Comments on Potential Media Mergers and Competition Rules
While stating it cannot prejudge the outcome of any future merger proceedings, the Commission affirmed its commitment to preventing a significant impediment to effective competition (E-004469/25). In a 27.01.2026 response from Executive Vice-President Ribera regarding a potential media sector acquisition, the Commission referenced its Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines and past cases like Google/Fitbit to show how it can assess competitive harm linked to access to commercially sensitive information.
❗ Commission Defers to OLAF’s Independence on Potential Investigations
In response to a question about a specific case on 27.01.2026 (E-004149/25), Commissioner Serafin stated that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is independent in its investigative function. The Commission clarified that OLAF does not typically comment on potential cases to protect confidentiality, personal data, and procedural rights.
❗ Commission Clarifies Delayed Application of Revised EU Deforestation Regulation
In two replies on 27.01.2026 (E-003716/25 and E-002072/25), Commissioner Roswall confirmed that co-legislators have agreed to revise the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). The new date of application will be 30 December 2026 for most companies, with a later date for most micro- or small operators. The amendments aim to ease the administrative burden and limit due diligence reporting obligations to the first operator placing products on the market.
The Commission’s answers from this period reveal a clear focus on the granular implementation of its flagship digital rulebooks. The detailed clarifications on the DSA’s trusted flagger mechanism, the DMA’s application to online publishers, and the rationale behind GDPR amendments suggest a shift from a legislative phase to an operational and enforcement phase. The Commission consistently positions itself as the architect of harmonised frameworks, while emphasizing the primary responsibility of Member States (in areas like hybrid threats) and platforms (for content moderation outcomes), reflecting a governance model of shared accountability.
A recurring theme in the Commission’s replies is a methodical, evidence-based approach to potential new regulation. The decision to re-examine drone geofencing in a 2026 strategy review, and the assessment that it is premature to regulate charging interoperability for e-bikes, indicates a preference for acting based on market developments and formal reviews. This cautious pace stands in contrast to the urgent tone of parliamentary questions on emerging AI harms, highlighting a potential tension between the Parliament’s push for rapid responses to new technological risks and the Commission’s more measured, process-driven approach to intervention.
All Parliamentary Questions and Commission Answers are accessible via Policy-Insider.AI.
