This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and European Commission replies published between 10 and 16 November 2025. The key policy areas under scrutiny include the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), the implementation of the new Political Advertising Regulation, cybersecurity under the NIS2 Directive, and the geopolitical dimensions of EU-US digital trade. The Commission’s tone is consistently focused on the robustness and sufficiency of existing legal frameworks, positioning itself as a monitor of implementation rather than an initiator of new legislation. These exchanges offer crucial insights for digital-policy professionals into the Commission’s current enforcement priorities, its stance on international digital diplomacy, and the practical application of recently enacted landmark legislation.
❗ Commission Outlines Adtech Regulation Under DSA and DMA
In a reply dated 11 November 2025, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen detailed how the EU monitors adtech intermediaries. The response to question E-003344/2025 confirms that the Digital Markets Act (DMA) imposes transparency obligations on gatekeepers, while the Digital Services Act (DSA) requires clear identification of advertisers and mitigation of systemic risks from advertising systems. The Commission noted that adtech is not currently within the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) but stated it is monitoring the effectiveness of the current frameworks before considering further action.
❗ Commission Defends DSA Against Censorship Accusations
Responding to claims that the French government used the DSA to censor a US-based account, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen clarified the Act’s scope on 10 November 2025. The answer to E-003535/2025 states unequivocally that the DSA does not empower Member States or the Commission to order content removal or censor specific viewpoints. The Commission emphasized that removal orders must be based on national or EU law, are issued by judicial authorities, not governments, and that the DSA’s role is to harmonise procedures and enhance transparency for such orders.
❗ New Political Advertising Rules Accommodate Small Providers
On 11 November 2025, Commissioner McGrath addressed concerns about the impact of the Regulation on transparency and targeting of political advertising on small service providers. In the reply to E-003717/2025, the Commission highlighted that its implementation guidelines, published on 8 October 2025, explain tailored requirements for smaller actors, such as exemptions from certain record-keeping and reporting obligations. The Commission also announced the establishment of a new stakeholder Expert Group and an implementation dialogue in 2026 to monitor the application of the new rules.
❓ MEPs Question Impact of Political Advertising Rules on Civil Society
A question (E-004384/2025) submitted on 6 November 2025 raises concerns that the broad definition of political advertising in the new Regulation could harm NGOs. The query notes that major platforms are planning to restrict paid content on issues like civil rights and the environment, potentially undermining advocacy and fundraising. MEPs ask how the Commission will ensure its guidance protects civil society and freedom of expression. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Clarifies National vs. EU Enforcement Roles Under DSA
In a reply on 10 November 2025, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen clarified the DSA’s enforcement structure for non-VLOPs. The answer to E-003708/2025, concerning the platform DanCenter, specifies that the Digital Services Coordinator in the Member State of establishment—in this case, Denmark—is exclusively competent for supervision and enforcement. The Commission reiterated that it does not have direct enforcement powers for such cases but that national consumer authorities can coordinate through the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network.
❗ Commission Affirms Independence Safeguards for National Digital Regulators
Responding on 10 November 2025 to concerns about the impartiality of France’s media regulator, Arcom, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen confirmed that both the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and the DSA include strong independence safeguards. The reply to E-003702/2025 notes that while the EU framework does not prescribe specific recruitment procedures, it requires regulators to be functionally independent. The Commission also clarified that supervisory powers for the platform in question (Kick.com) lie with the Digital Services Coordinator of Malta, where the platform’s legal representative is designated.
❗ Commission Addresses E-Commerce Risks with Customs Reform and DSA Enforcement
On 14 November 2025, Commissioner Šefčovič responded to concerns about dangerous products sold by online marketplaces like Temu and Shein. The answer to E-002907/2025 points to the proposed 2023 Customs Reform package as the main long-term solution. In the interim, a Priority Control Area (PCA) will coordinate customs and market surveillance authorities to better target controls on products bought online, which will also support the enforcement of the DSA.
❗ Copyright Directive Rules Seen as Key for Creator Remuneration
Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, in a reply on 11 November 2025, highlighted the importance of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market for author and performer remuneration. The response to E-003857/2025 references a recent Commission study on buy-out contracts and points to the Directive’s provisions on proportionate remuneration and contract adjustment as key tools. The Commission will consider the need for further measures after the Directive’s review, due no sooner than June 2026.
❓ MEPs Probe DSA Compliance Regarding Automated Chatbots
A parliamentary question (E-004287/2025) submitted on 31 October 2025 asks the Commission about the use of automated chatbots for user complaints, suggesting the practice may breach the DSA. The query cites DSA articles requiring providers to offer direct and efficient communication that does not rely solely on automated tools. MEPs ask what measures the Commission will take to ensure platforms offer human interaction in complaint management. A response is pending.
❓ Concerns Raised Over Problems Caused by Non-EU Online Sales
MEPs submitted a question (E-004369/2025) on 5 November 2025 regarding product safety and the sale of illicit materials by large online retailers based outside the EU. The question highlights insufficient resources for customs and supervisory authorities and asks what plans the Commission has to address these problems, particularly to prevent the sale of criminal material. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Defends Proportionality of Child Sexual Abuse Proposal
In a 10 November 2025 reply, Commissioner Brunner defended the proposal for a Regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. The response to E-003250/2025 asserts that the proposal strikes a fair balance between fundamental rights, including privacy and the rights of the child. The Commission argues that making voluntary detection by communications companies mandatory is essential for child protection and that detection orders are a measure of last resort, issued by a judicial or independent authority after a thorough assessment of necessity and proportionality.
❓ MEPs Question Legality of Workplace Surveillance Under GDPR
A question (E-004291/2025) from 3 November 2025 highlights extensive real-time surveillance of employees in Sweden and asks the Commission to assess its compatibility with GDPR requirements. The query also questions the practice of allowing businesses to self-assess the legality of camera surveillance and criticizes the Swedish model that prevents trade unions from filing complaints on behalf of employees. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Cites NIS2 and Aviation Rules for Airport Cybersecurity
Following cyberattacks on European airports, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen outlined the EU’s legal framework for cybersecurity in a reply on 12 November 2025. The answer to E-003669/2025 points to the NIS2 Directive, which sets cybersecurity requirements for the air transport sector, alongside specific aviation security and safety regulations. The Commission stressed that successful implementation of these rules, including supply chain measures, is crucial and urged all Member States to complete the transposition of NIS2.
❓ MEPs Challenge Commission’s Cloud Sovereignty Framework
Two separate questions challenge the Commission’s new Cloud Sovereignty Framework. One question from 3 November 2025 (E-004293/2025) asks for an explanation of the weighting used for the “Sovereignty Score,” noting that legal and jurisdictional sovereignty accounts for only 10%. Another question from 4 November 2025 (E-004334/2025) cites criticism from European cloud providers who claim the framework could disadvantage them against non-EU competitors. Both questions await a response from the Commission.
❓ MEPs Question Security Risks of Drones Without Geofencing
A question submitted on 31 October 2025 (E-004288/2025) raises concerns about the world’s largest civilian drone manufacturer selling new models without integrated automatic geofencing systems. MEPs ask the Commission how it assesses the potential safety risks to airspace security and critical infrastructure and whether further regulation is necessary. A response is pending.
❓ Transparency of ECB Leadership on Crypto-Asset Holdings Questioned
A question filed on 4 November 2025 (Z-000019/2025) asks the European Central Bank whether members of its governing bodies disclose personal investments in crypto-assets or stablecoins in their declaration of financial interests to avoid conflicts of interest. A response from the ECB is pending.
❗ Commission Confirms RRF Funds Can Be Channeled to European Defence Industry Programme
In a 10 November 2025 reply, Commissioner Dombrovskis confirmed that Member States can make voluntary national contributions from their Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) grants to the future European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP). The response to E-003796/2025 states this would be in line with the RRF’s objective to increase crisis preparedness and that such contributions can also serve digital priorities. This provides a mechanism for Member States to use recovery funds to support strategic industrial policy in the defence and digital sectors.
❓ MEPs Urge Safeguards for Critical Raw Materials Industries
A question from 4 November 2025 (E-004312/2025) highlights the suspension of silicon metal production in Europe due to intense global competition. MEPs ask if the Commission is considering emergency measures, including trade-defence actions and targeted state aid, to protect industries linked to critical raw materials. A response is pending.
❓ Commission Queried on Strategy to Reduce Dependence on China for Critical Raw Materials
MEPs asked the Commission on 4 November 2025 (E-004320/2025) about its strategy to end the EU defence industry’s dependence on rare earth minerals and other critical raw materials from China. The question seeks details on specific measures to diversify supply sources and strengthen strategic partnerships with countries like Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan. A response is pending.
❗ Commission Asserts EU Digital Rules are a “Sovereign Matter” in EU-US Trade Context
In a significant statement on 13 November 2025, Commissioner Šefčovič addressed the EU-US Joint Statement on trade. The reply to E-003643/2025 firmly states that “EU digital regulations are a sovereign matter and not an issue for trade negotiations.” The Commission denied that outcomes on goods tariffs were linked to discussions on the DSA or DMA and confirmed there have been no talks about a joint committee that would give US tech companies a role in applying market rules.
❗ Commission Comments on G7 Statement on Global Minimum Taxes
On 10 November 2025, the Commission responded to a question (E-002858/2025) regarding the G7 statement on global minimum taxes. The reply describes the statement as a political understanding among G7 members to facilitate progress within the OECD Inclusive Framework. The Commission notes that it remains to be seen how a “side-by-side” system to the OECD’s Pillar Two would be structured and whether it would require amendments to the EU Pillar Two Directive.
❗ Commission Defends Record-Keeping Policy on Text Messages
In two separate but related replies on 12 and 14 November 2025 (E-003222/25 and P-003224/25), Commissioner Šefčovič addressed the controversy over text messages exchanged between the Commission President and Pfizer’s CEO. The Commission maintains that the messages were “short-lived” and did not meet the criteria for registration under its rules. It argues its record management policy is sound and was not questioned by the General Court, and therefore sees no need to update it in response to this case.
❗ Commission Focuses on Digitalisation to Improve Social Security Coordination
On 10 November 2025, Executive Vice-President Mînzatu acknowledged delays in the cross-border exchange of social security information. The reply to E-003800/2025 states that the system for electronic exchange (EESSI) is almost complete and the Commission is working to improve its efficiency. The Commission is pushing for a final agreement on its proposal to revise social security coordination rules, which aims to improve digital processes between Member States.
The Commission’s replies from this period consistently project an institution focused on the implementation and enforcement of its existing, landmark digital legislative files. A clear cross-cutting theme is the reliance on the current legal frameworks—particularly the DSA, DMA, and NIS2—as the primary and sufficient tools to address a wide range of issues, from adtech transparency (E-003344/2025) to airport cybersecurity (E-003669/2025). This confirms a deliberate shift from a rule-making phase to a practical application and monitoring phase, with the Commission indicating it is premature to consider new actions until the effectiveness of current laws is fully evaluated, as seen in previous weeks.
A second major theme is the firm assertion of the EU’s regulatory sovereignty in the digital sphere. The Commission’s declaration in its response on EU-US trade (E-003643/2025) that its digital regulations are a “sovereign matter” and “not an issue for trade negotiations” is a powerful signal to international partners and global technology companies. This stance frames the EU’s digital rulebook as a non-negotiable aspect of its single market that will be enforced without external influence.
Finally, several answers work to delineate the complex, multi-layered enforcement architecture of the new rulebook. The Commission repeatedly clarifies the specific jurisdictional boundaries between itself and national authorities like Digital Services Coordinators (E-003708/2025, E-003702/2025), reinforcing that much of the day-to-day supervision will be decentralized. Collectively, these responses reveal an institution focused on bedding down its digital policies, emphasizing process, the integrity of existing legal texts, and the distinct roles of designated national and EU-level bodies in the new regulatory landscape.
