Overview
This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and replies published from 13.09.2026 to 20.09.2026. The legislative and regulatory landscape during this period is heavily focused on the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the implementation of the AI Act, platform accountability concerning child safety, and the interoperability mandates of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The institutional tone of the European Commission remains firmly anchored in established frameworks, consistently highlighting ongoing formal proceedings, audits, and existing legal provisions rather than signalling immediate new legislative overhauls. For public-affairs and regulatory professionals, these developments underscore a critical shift from policy design to rigorous technical enforcement, demanding close attention to how the Commission interprets compliance in practice.
DSA Enforcement & Platform Accountability
❓ MEPs Probe ChatGPT’s Status as a Very Large Online Search Engine
In Parliamentary Question E-003506/2026, Christine Anderson (ESN) asked the Commission how the Digital Services Act (DSA) applies to ChatGPT’s search and non-search functionalities given their shared technical systems. Submitted on 4 September 2026, the question probes whether mitigation measures could indirectly regulate non-designated conversational functionalities. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Commission Pressed on Spotify’s Potential VLOP Designation
In Parliamentary Question E-003512/2026, Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left) asked the Commission whether Spotify meets the threshold to be designated as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the DSA. Submitted on 4 September 2026, the inquiry highlights Spotify’s global user base and its algorithmic content dissemination. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Updates Guidelines on Electoral Integrity
In Parliamentary Question E-002950/2026, MEPs raised concerns about safeguarding electoral processes. In a response on 11 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen confirmed that the Commission is assessing and revising its DSA guidelines for VLOPs and VLOSEs to align with the new AI Act transparency obligations and the Regulation on political advertising.
❗ Commission Defends Enforcement Actions Against X and Meta
In Parliamentary Question E-003050/2026, MEPs queried the Commission’s response to coordinated inauthentic behaviour. In a response on 14 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen emphasized that formal proceedings are already open against X and Meta under the DSA regarding information manipulation and deceptive advertisements, affirming the Commission’s active supervision.
❗ Cross-Border Enforcement Against Illegal Drug Websites
In Parliamentary Question E-002965/2026, Malik Azmani (Renew), Hilde Vautmans (Renew), Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew), and Sophie Wilmès (Renew) highlighted the reappearance of illegal drug websites on foreign servers. In a response on 16 September 2026, Commissioner Brunner noted that the DSA requires hosting providers to act expeditiously against illegal content, adding that temporary platform bans remain a last resort for national courts.
AI Act Implementation & Regulatory Intersections
❗ Commission Clarifies Copyright Obligations for AI Training on Physical Books
In Parliamentary Question E-002819/2026, Andreas Schwab (PPE) asked the Commission about AI developers using destructive scanning on rare physical books to bypass digital provenance tracking. In a response on 16 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen confirmed that digitising protected analogue books requires rightsholder authorisation and falls outside the text and data mining exceptions of the InfoSoc Directive. She noted the Commission will enforce the AI Act’s requirement for public summaries of training data.
❗ DMA Interoperability Mandates and Agentic AI
In Parliamentary Question E-003096/2026, MEPs questioned the security risks of agentic AI under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In a response on 17 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen stated that while gatekeepers must manage risks, security cannot be used as a pretext to exclude alternative providers. She highlighted recent guidance on Google Android’s interoperability with third-party AI services.
❗ Cyber Resilience Act and API Disclosures
In Parliamentary Question E-002610/2026, questions were raised about server infrastructure transparency. In a response on 17 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen clarified that the upcoming Cyber Resilience Act requires manufacturers to maintain technical documentation, which may include identifying relevant application programming interfaces (APIs) and control server addresses.
❗ Commission Assesses Special Panel Report on Child Safety Online
In Parliamentary Question E-003064/2026, MEPs inquired about the protection of minors. In a response on 11 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen indicated that the Commission is carefully assessing the recent Special Panel report advocating for safety-by-design and will propose further actions, complementing existing frameworks like the DSA and GDPR.
❗ Enforcement Against Cyberbullying on Platforms
In Parliamentary Question E-002680/2026, focusing on cyberviolence, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen responded on 11 September 2026 that the Commission relies on the DSA to ensure platforms mitigate systemic risks to minors, citing the recent opening of formal proceedings against Snapchat.
❓ MEPs Push for EU-Wide Minimum Age for Social Media
In Parliamentary Question E-003339/2026, Ştefan Muşoiu (S&D) asked if the Commission plans to introduce a unified legislative framework establishing a common minimum age for social media access. Submitted on 26 August 2026, a response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Calls to Compel Meta to Bolster Child Safeguards Following US Settlement
In Parliamentary Question E-003518/2026, Sandro Ruotolo (S&D) and Nicola Zingaretti (S&D) asked whether the DSA empowers the Commission to mandate Meta to enforce protective measures akin to its recent US settlement. Submitted on 7 September 2026, a response from the Commission is pending.
❗ GDPR and AI Act Transparency Regarding Meta’s Muse Image
In Parliamentary Question E-002877/2026, Sandro Gozi (Renew) questioned Meta’s use of public profiles for AI image generation. In a response on 16 September 2026, Commissioner McGrath noted that Meta disabled this specific prompt functionality, but reaffirmed that processing public data requires a lawful GDPR basis and that the AI Act mandates machine-readable marking for synthetic content.
❓ Concerns Over Delayed Sustainability Benchmarks for Data Centres
In Parliamentary Question E-003396/2026, Nicolás González Casares (S&D) questioned the delay in establishing sustainability labels and energy efficiency benchmarks for data centres. Submitted on 31 August 2026, the inquiry asks how the Commission will balance AI infrastructure goals with environmental principles. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Technical Bottlenecks in the Entry/Exit System (EES)
In Parliamentary Question E-003176/2026, Özlem Demirel (The Left) raised alarms over biometric scanner failures at EU borders. In a response on 11 September 2026, Commissioner Brunner stated that the EES system offers partial suspension flexibility to manage passenger flows and that the Commission is supporting Member States through technical adjustments.
❗ Application of the AI Act to Linear Regression in Finance
In Parliamentary Question E-003010/2026, MEPs queried the classification of simple financial models. In a response on 17 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen clarified that linear or logistic regression systems fall under the AI Act only if they allow intelligent adjustment of decision-making models. She indicated the Commission is working on a proportionate approach for transparent models in the financial sector.
❗ Commission Clarifies Dynamic Pricing Under EU Consumer Law
In Parliamentary Question E-002518/2026, the Commission was asked about price changes and dynamic pricing in the event ticketing sector. In a response on 15 September 2026, Commissioner McGrath noted that dynamic pricing is not inherently illegal but must comply with the transparency requirements of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive. He added that the upcoming Digital Fairness Act may propose additional rules regarding price marketing.
❗ Commission Confirms Price Transparency for In-Game Currencies
In Parliamentary Question E-002352/2026, concerns were raised regarding consumer protection and in-game virtual currencies. In a response on 11 September 2026, Commissioner McGrath confirmed that price transparency requirements apply to video games providers using in-game currencies. He highlighted that the upcoming Digital Fairness Act will further address consumer protection gaps in digital products.
❗ Digital Euro Distribution by Non-Euro Area Banks
In Parliamentary Question E-002917/2026, concerns were raised regarding obligations for Polish banks. In a response published on 17 September 2026, Commissioner Dombrovskis clarified that non-euro area banks would only have to offer digital euro services if they serve a substantial euro-area customer base, subject to proportionality thresholds currently in trilogue negotiations.
❓ Clarification on E-Money Directive and Prepaid Cards
In Parliamentary Question E-003553/2026, Regina Doherty (PPE) asked if the European Banking Authority’s narrow interpretation of e-money transfers threatens existing prepaid card programmes. Submitted on 8 September 2026, a response from the Commission is pending.
❓ European Health Data Space (EHDS) Interoperability
In Parliamentary Question E-003532/2026, Mihai Tudose (S&D) asked about the timeline for implementing rules concerning cross-border healthcare and the EHDS. Submitted on 8 September 2026, a response from the Commission is pending.
❓ Support for SME Adoption of Advanced Technologies
In Parliamentary Question E-003536/2026, Claudiu-Richard Târziu (ECR) asked how the Commission will technically and financially support SMEs in less developed Member States in adopting AI and other advanced technologies. Submitted on 8 September 2026, a response from the Commission is pending.
❗ EU Upgrades Cyber Defence Against AI-Enabled Threats
In Parliamentary Question E-002526/2026, MEPs inquired about the security of AI models. In a response on 10 September 2026 (published 17 September), Executive Vice-President Virkkunen outlined the EU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and AI, highlighting reliance on the European Defence Fund, the Cyber Blueprint, and enhanced cooperation with NATO to counter large-scale hybrid threats.
❗ Law Enforcement and Palantir Contracts
In Parliamentary Question E-001813/2026, Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE) questioned the compliance of security contracts awarded to companies like Palantir. In a response on 16 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen clarified that while the AI Act exempts systems used exclusively for national security, dual-use systems (e.g., law enforcement) fall under its high-risk provisions and must comply with GDPR.
❗ Commission Defends Presence on W Social and Open Source Commitments
In Parliamentary Question E-002848/2026, Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE) questioned the Commission’s use of closed-source platform W Social. In a response on 11 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen stated the presence is part of a diversification strategy, noting that posts are accessible via the interoperable Authenticated Transfer Protocol and reaffirming the EU’s Open Source Strategy.
❗ Independence of the Media Pluralism Monitor
In Parliamentary Question E-002958/2026, Virginie Joron (PfE) raised concerns regarding the funding of Conspiracy Watch. In a response on 16 September 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen responded that the Commission co-finances the Centre for Media Pluralism but does not direct its findings. She also clarified that the DSA does not oblige the publication of unsuccessful applicants for trusted flagger status.
A central theme emerging from the Commission’s recent responses is an institutional pivot toward rigorous, cross-functional enforcement. Rather than proposing novel regulatory frameworks to address emerging challenges like generative AI, algorithmic amplification, or digital security, the Commission consistently positions existing tools—namely the DSA, the AI Act, the DMA, and the GDPR—as an interlocking safety net. The answers reveal a highly coordinated legal strategy where multiple legislative acts are invoked simultaneously to govern a single digital product or platform behaviour.
Furthermore, the Commission’s replies suggest a strong commitment to confronting platform gatekeepers directly. The repeated references to formal proceedings against major entities such as Meta, X, and Snapchat indicate that the Commission is actively testing the boundaries of the DSA’s punitive measures. At the same time, the Commission is carefully delineating the technical scope of the AI Act, as seen in its nuanced clarifications regarding linear regression in finance and the copyright implications of physical book scanning.
Ultimately, this material indicates that European digital-policy implementation has entered a highly technical, operational phase. For public affairs and regulatory professionals, the intelligence gathered here demonstrates that future compliance will depend less on navigating new legislative proposals and more on understanding how the Commission applies, interprets, and enforces its established digital rulebook in complex, real-world scenarios.
All Parliamentary Questions and Commission Answers are accessible via Policy-Insider.AI.
