Overview
This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and replies published from 19.04.2026 to 26.04.2026. The primary policy areas highlighted in this period include the rigorous enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), data privacy frameworks, and the governance of artificial intelligence. Institutionally, the European Commission adopts a firm, defensive posture, particularly in protecting its regulatory sovereignty and staff against external political allegations regarding the DSA. The Commission consistently frames its role as a procedural enforcer of transparency and systemic risk mitigation, rather than an arbiter of online content. For digital-policy professionals, these developments underscore a critical shift from legislative design to robust, highly scrutinised enforcement, where compliance hinges on structural accountability rather than subjective content moderation.
DSA Enforcement & Institutional Sovereignty
❗ Commission Rejects US Allegations on DSA Content Moderation
In a response on 20 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen addressed E-000528/2026, firmly rejecting claims made by the US House Judiciary Committee. The Commission clarified that the DSA does not prescribe what constitutes illegal content, as this remains a matter for national or other EU laws. The reply emphasised that the Commission has no role in individual moderation decisions, which lie with the platforms, but acts when platforms fail to meet transparency obligations, citing ongoing investigations into Meta’s recommender systems.
❗ Commission Clarifies DSA’s Role Regarding Political Speech
Answering E-000592/2026 on 20 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen reiterated that the DSA does not regulate political speech or debate. The Commission positioned its regulatory dialogues with providers as a normal part of oversight to mitigate systemic risks to fundamental rights, dismissing interpretations that such exchanges aim to influence political debate.
❗ Commission Defends DSA Staff and Redaction Procedures
In response to E-000681/2026 on 20 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen defended the Commission’s practice of allowing companies to redact sensitive business information before publishing enforcement decisions. The Commission expressed deep concern over the publication of personal data of EU staff and civil society experts by the US House Judiciary Committee, framing the enforcement of EU digital regulations as a sovereign matter.
❗ Commission Outlines DSA Support for Election Roundtables
Addressing P-000489/2026 on 23 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen confirmed that the DSA does not regulate electoral processes, which remain a Member State competence. However, the Commission noted that it supports national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) in organising election roundtables to facilitate information sharing, confirming such support was provided in several Member States, though not in Poland.
❗ Commission Details DSA Enforcement Resources and Costs
In a reply on 17 April 2026 to E-000947/2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen outlined the staffing and financial resources dedicated to DSA implementation. The Commission estimated that 270 full-time equivalents will be necessary for supervisory tasks in 2026, with an associated cost of EUR 34.82 million, firmly denying allegations that this constitutes a structural censorship apparatus.
❗ Commission Explains Boundaries of Regulatory Dialogues Under the DSA
Answering E-000550/2026 on 16 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen detailed how the Commission engages with Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs). The response highlighted that while platforms must mitigate systemic risks, they have the freedom to choose their measures, including voluntary codes of conduct, and must apply their terms diligently to prevent over-moderation.
❗ Commission Affirms Transparency in DSA Enforcement Actions
In a joint response to E-000549/2026 and E-000552/2026 on 20 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen outlined the transparency framework governing DSA enforcement. The Commission confirmed that meetings with interest representatives are published and that access to enforcement documents is examined case-by-case to balance transparency with the protection of business secrets and ongoing investigations.
❓ MEPs Question ‘Voluntary’ Nature of Disinformation Codes
In Parliamentary Question E-001432/2026, Tom Vandendriessche (PfE) and colleagues asked the Commission to reconcile its claim that the Code of Practice on Disinformation is voluntary with internal company emails suggesting platforms felt pressured to participate under the threat of future DSA sanctions. A response from the Commission is pending.
Platform Accountability & Consumer Protection
❗ Commission Highlights Payment Services Regulation in Tackling Financial Scams
Responding to E-004577/2025 on 17 April 2026, Commissioner Brunner outlined measures to combat online investment scams. The Commission pointed to ongoing DSA enforcement, including requests for information sent to major platforms, and highlighted the upcoming Payment Services Regulation, which will clarify liability for illegal financial offers.
❓ MEPs Raise Concerns Over Risky Products on E-commerce Platforms
In Parliamentary Question E-001130/2026, Jan Farský (PPE) asked the Commission if it plans to create a specialised mechanism to oversee the distribution processes of large platforms like Shein and Temu to prevent the spread of illegal goods and addictive design features. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Scrutinise YouTube’s Recommendation Systems and Dark Patterns
In Parliamentary Question E-001497/2026, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE) asked the Commission how it will tackle potential DSA breaches related to recommendation systems, specifically referencing complaints that YouTube imposes profiling-based systems by default and uses deceptive interface designs. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Flag Promotion of Unlicensed Gambling by Content Creators
In Parliamentary Question E-001475/2026, Sabine Verheyen (PPE) asked the Commission what steps it is taking to ensure effective DSA enforcement against content creators promoting unlicensed online gambling services via affiliate links on platforms like YouTube and Twitch. A response from the Commission is pending.
Media Freedom Act (EMFA)
❗ Commission Defends Media Pluralism Following Fines on Italian Journalists
Answering E-004452/2025 on 16 April 2026, Commissioner McGrath addressed concerns over press freedom in Italy following fines imposed on the investigative programme Report. While noting it cannot investigate individual cases, the Commission emphasised that the European Media Freedom Act sets specific safeguards for editorial independence and that it is monitoring implementation closely.
❓ MEPs Question Czech Public Service Media Funding Reforms
In Priority Question P-001516/2026, Danuše Nerudová (PPE) asked the Commission how it views the Czech Government’s proposal to abolish licence fees for public service media in light of the European Media Freedom Act’s requirement for adequate, sustainable, and predictable funding. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Seek Clarity on EMFA Application in France
In Parliamentary Question E-001549/2026, David Cormand (Verts/ALE) and Anthony Smith (The Left) asked the Commission to specify which aspects of the French legal framework require adjustment for the application of the European Media Freedom Act, particularly regarding the role of the regulatory authority Arcom. A response from the Commission is pending.
Digital Identity & eIDAS
❗ Commission Supports Coexistence of National Apps and EUDI Wallet
In a response on 16 April 2026 to E-000763/2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen confirmed that existing national eID solutions, such as Poland’s mObywatel application, can continue to coexist with the European Digital Identity Wallet. The Commission noted that Poland is preparing a new version of its app to comply with eIDAS 2.0 requirements.
❓ MEPs Highlight Fragmentation in EU AI Governance
In Parliamentary Question E-001514/2026, Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE) asked the Commission how it intends to address the fragmented nature of EU AI policies and the risk of encroaching on national industrial strategies, as highlighted in a recent European Court of Auditors report. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Warn of Cybersecurity Risks from Advanced AI Models
In Parliamentary Question E-001575/2026, Leila Chaibi (The Left) and colleagues asked the Commission how it will adapt the EU legislative framework to address the emergence of AI models with offensive cyber capabilities, citing the unreleased Claude Mythos model. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Call for EU-Wide Criminal Provisions on Cyberbullying
In Oral Question O-000018/2026 and Written Question E-001498/2026, MEPs asked the Commission if it considers the current DSA framework sufficient to address cyberbullying and whether it plans to propose an EU-wide legislative initiative establishing minimum rules on criminal offences, similar to Ireland’s Coco’s Law. Responses from the Commission are pending.
❓ MEPs Scrutinise Anonymity of EU Age Verification App
In Parliamentary Question E-001582/2026, Friedrich Pürner (NI) asked the Commission how it will guarantee the complete anonymity of the newly unveiled EU age verification app and prevent the collection of metadata or profiling by issuing authorities. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Advocate for Proactive Design in Children’s Online Safety
In Parliamentary Question E-001583/2026, Friedrich Pürner (NI) asked the Commission if it is considering shifting its child protection policy from bans and control mechanisms toward an evidence-based approach focused on proactive safety by design. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Question Legal Basis for CSAM Scanning by US Providers
In Priority Question P-001566/2026, Birgit Sippel (S&D) asked the Commission on what legal basis private companies can continue scanning private communications for child sexual abuse material in the absence of Regulation (EU) 2021/1232, and what enforcement actions will be taken regarding ePrivacy Directive compliance. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Clarifies GDPR Application to NGOs in Gaza
Responding to E-003642/2025 on 23 April 2026, Commissioner McGrath clarified that Israeli registration rules for international NGOs in Gaza do not fall within the GDPR’s scope. However, the Commission noted that any personal data processing carried out in the EU to comply with these rules may be covered by the GDPR, subject to assessment by national data protection authorities.
❗ Commission Comments on GDPR Court Representation in Germany
Answering E-000091/2026 on 22 April 2026, Commissioner McGrath declined to provide details on a pending complaint regarding legal representation requirements in German courts under Article 80(1) of the GDPR, but noted the obligations of national courts of last instance to refer questions to the Court of Justice.
❓ MEPs Probe Commission’s Stance on Huawei as High-Risk Supplier
In Parliamentary Question E-001490/2026, Maciej Wąsik (ECR) asked the Commission to confirm if it maintains its official position that Huawei is a high-risk 5G supplier that poses a threat to EU data security. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Raise Concerns Over Data Centre Proliferation in Sicily
In Parliamentary Question E-001491/2026, Giuseppe Antoci (The Left) asked the Commission if the concentration of energy-intensive data centres in Sicily is compatible with the Green Deal and what steps it will take to prevent digital colonialism by non-European Big Tech companies. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Outlines Regulatory Path for Autonomous Vehicles
In a response on 24 April 2026 to E-000837/2026, Executive Vice-President Séjourné detailed the EU’s approach to fully autonomous driving (levels 4-5). The Commission highlighted the upcoming adoption of a new UN Regulation for automated driving systems in June 2026 and noted that while road safety liability remains a Member State competence, the Product Liability Directive holds manufacturers accountable for defective products.
❗ Commission Prepares Affordable Housing Act to Address Short-Term Rentals
Answering E-000727/2026 on 17 April 2026, Commissioner Jørgensen confirmed that the Commission will propose an Affordable Housing Act, which will include a new legislative initiative on short-term rentals. This will complement the existing STR Regulation, enabling public authorities to take proportionate measures in areas experiencing housing stress.
❗ Commission Responds to ‘Stop Destroying Video Games’ Initiative
In response to E-000536/2026 on 23 April 2026, Commissioner McGrath confirmed that the Commission will adopt a formal reply to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Destroying Video games’ by July 2026. The Commission clarified that EU consumer legislation requires transparency on total prices but does not regulate price levels for video games.
❗ Commission Details SME Support in Next Multiannual Financial Framework
Answering E-000937/2026 on 23 April 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen outlined plans to simplify digital financing mechanisms for SMEs in the 2028-2034 MFF. The Commission highlighted the proposed European Competitiveness Fund and a single rulebook to leverage private investments and support the transition from research to commercialisation.
❓ MEPs Propose European Preference Mechanism for AI Procurement
In Parliamentary Question E-001494/2026, Catherine Griset (PfE) asked the Commission if it would respond favourably to proposals for a European preference mechanism in public procurement for strategic sectors like AI, which would benefit companies headquartered and managed in Europe. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Question Google’s Android Developer Verification Policy
In Parliamentary Question E-001534/2026, Catherine Griset (PfE) asked the Commission if Google’s new policy requiring identity verification and fees for all Android developers, even outside the Play Store, aligns with competition rules and risks subjugating open-source software. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Clarifies Stance on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
Responding to E-000484/2026 on 16 April 2026, Commissioner Kubilius stated that the EU position on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) is developed in consultation with Member States. The Commission confirmed that the European Defence Fund specifically bans funding for lethal autonomous weapons that operate without human control over engagement decisions.
❗ Council Declines Comment on Police Operation ‘B@lltring’
In a brief reply on 20 April 2026 to E-000425/2026, the Council stated that it does not possess the requested information regarding the EU intelligence-based police operation ‘B@lltring’ targeting dark web networks and irregular migration.
❓ MEPs Probe Frontex Data Sharing Limitations
In Parliamentary Question E-001559/2026, Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE) asked the Commission if it is preparing an urgent amendment to the Frontex Regulation to address limitations imposed by the EDPS on sharing immigrant interview data with police authorities. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Question EU Funding for Fact-Checking Outlet Correctiv
In Parliamentary Question E-001482/2026, Mary Khan (ESN) and colleagues asked the Commission to detail the total funding awarded to the German media outlet Correctiv, directly and through the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), and whether future funding is planned. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Raise Concerns Over Trade in Predator Spyware
In Parliamentary Question E-001304/2026, Lefteris Nikolaou-Alavanos (NI) asked the Commission how it views the EU’s responsibilities regarding the trade and use of Predator spyware by Member State governments under Regulation (EU) 2021/821. A response from the Commission is pending.
A dominant theme across the Commission’s recent replies is the vigorous defence of its regulatory sovereignty, particularly concerning the Digital Services Act. The Commission’s coordinated pushback against external political critiques frames the DSA strictly as a procedural framework focused on transparency, systemic risk mitigation, and user empowerment, rather than an instrument for subjective content control. This indicates a strategic effort to insulate EU digital enforcement from international political polarisation, positioning the Commission as an objective administrator of structural rules.
Furthermore, the material suggests a growing tension between harmonised EU frameworks and national implementation realities. Whether addressing the integration of national digital identity wallets under eIDAS, the funding of public service media under the EMFA, or the fragmented legal approaches to cyberbullying, the Commission consistently positions itself as a guardian of baseline EU standards while carefully navigating the boundaries of subsidiarity and national competence.
Ultimately, these developments reveal that the EU’s digital-policy apparatus is fully transitioning into a rigorous enforcement phase. For stakeholders, this signals that regulatory scrutiny will increasingly focus on structural compliance, algorithmic transparency, and institutional accountability. Platforms and digital service providers will be expected to demonstrate robust internal risk-management systems and procedural diligence, rather than merely reacting to individual content disputes or political pressures.
All Parliamentary Questions and Commission Answers are accessible via Policy-Insider.AI.
