This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and European Commission replies published between 27 October and 2 November 2025. The key policy areas under scrutiny include the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), particularly concerning content moderation, illegal content, and the use of AI. Other significant topics include cybersecurity, the resilience of ICT supply chains under the NIS2 Directive and Cybersecurity Act, and the geopolitical dimensions of technology policy, touching upon relations with China, Israel, and Türkiye. The Commission’s institutional tone is consistently procedural and enforcement-oriented, positioning itself as the guardian of existing legal frameworks and emphasizing the distinct responsibilities of Member States and national coordinators. These developments are crucial for digital-policy professionals as they signal a shift from legislative creation to the practical implementation and enforcement of the EU’s core digital rulebook.
❗ Commission Affirms DSA Rules Apply to AI-Driven Content Moderation
In response to a question regarding TikTok’s replacement of human moderators with AI, the Commission clarified its stance on automated content moderation. In its reply on 30 October 2025, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen stated that the Digital Services Act (DSA) is the primary tool for ensuring fairness and protecting fundamental rights. The response to E-003564/25 underscores that Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must assess and mitigate risks associated with their content moderation systems, including those amplified by AI. The Commission highlighted DSA requirements for transparency reports on automation, the necessity of qualified human supervision for internal complaint systems, and the right for vetted researchers to access platform data to scrutinize these systems.
❗ Commission Outlines DSA Procedures for Tackling Illegal Content Orders
Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, on 27 October 2025, detailed the procedural obligations for intermediary services under the Digital Services Act (DSA) when they receive judicial or administrative orders to act against illegal content. The reply to E-003459/25, which raised concerns about the illicit use of services like VPNs to circumvent intellectual property protections, explained that providers must inform authorities of the actions taken. The Commission emphasized the role of national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) in sharing these orders across the EU via a dedicated system, thereby ensuring coordination. The response also noted that supervision of these obligations primarily falls to the DSCs, not the Commission directly.
❓ MEPs Question Oversight of European Media Freedom Act and Fact-Checking Networks
A group of MEPs submitted E-004102/2025 on 17 October 2025, raising questions about the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). The inquiry seeks clarity on the allocation of EU funding to media companies, the vetting procedures for beneficiaries, and the governance of fact-checking networks that underpin initiatives like the Digital Services Act and the European Democracy Shield. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Seek EU Action on ‘Sharenting’ and Child Protection Online
In light of national initiatives in Italy, France, and Spain to regulate the online sharing of children’s images by parents (‘sharenting’) and the activities of ‘baby influencers’, a question was tabled on 17 October 2025. Parliamentary Question E-004100/2025 asks the Commission how it views these Member State actions in the context of the GDPR and DSA. It also presses the Commission on whether it will promote common guidelines or propose targeted EU-level measures to ensure uniform protection of children’s rights and support digital education for families. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Stresses Legal Frameworks for ICT Supply Chain Security
On 31 October 2025, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen responded to a question on mitigating risks from dependency on non-European ICT suppliers. The answer to E-003576/25 highlights that the EU’s strategy relies on several key legislative acts. The Commission pointed to the Cybersecurity Act for certification, the NIS2 Directive for imposing supply-chain risk management on essential entities, and the Cyber Resilience Act for product-level security obligations. The reply also confirmed that the upcoming revision of the Cybersecurity Act will further address critical dependencies and aim to “de-risk” ICT supply chains from high-risk suppliers, in line with the ProtectEU Strategy.
❓ MEPs Raise Alarm Over Funding for EU Cyber Defence Centre
Concerns about the future of the EU’s cyber defence capabilities were raised in E-004169/2025 on 22 October 2025. The question directed to the High Representative notes that the European External Action Service (EEAS) has reportedly not allocated financial resources for the establishment of the EU Cyber Defence and Coordination Centre (EU CDCC) in 2026. MEPs are asking for justification and for a plan to ensure the continuity of cyber situational awareness during the transition from the current prototype to the permanent Centre. A response is pending.
❗ Commission Details Energy Footprint of Digital Twin Ocean Project
Responding to inquiries about the environmental impact of the European Digital Twin Ocean (DTO) project, the Commission provided details on its energy consumption. In a reply on 27 October 2025, Commissioner Zaharieva stated that the DTO’s current annual energy use is approximately 60 MWh, with negligible CO2 emissions due to the use of green energy, a low-fossil-fuel grid mix, and heat repurposing. The answer to E-003406/25 also framed the project as a net positive for energy efficiency, citing its potential to generate significant energy savings in sectors like the maritime industry by optimising shipping routes.
❗ Commission Confirms Intent to Partially Suspend Israel’s Horizon Europe Participation
In a significant development, the Commission addressed questions about EU research funding for Israeli military-affiliated companies. In a reply dated 27 October 2025, Commissioner Zaharieva reiterated that Horizon Europe funding is exclusively for civil applications. However, the Commission stated in its response to E-003467/25 that it has concluded Israel is in breach of the human rights clause of the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. Consequently, it has proposed to the Council a partial suspension of the Horizon Europe Association Agreement, which would make Israeli entities ineligible for grants under the European Innovation Council Accelerator.
❗ Commission Clarifies Rules on Biometric Data Protection in Türkiye
On 31 October 2025, Commissioner Kos responded to a question concerning the protection of biometric data in the context of EU pre-accession assistance to Türkiye. The answer to E-002880/25 clarified that while EU financial regulations and monitoring frameworks are in place for funded projects, the responsibility for complying with procurement and data protection rules for issuing passports lies with each Member State. The Commission noted that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) applies, and its enforcement is primarily a matter for national supervisory authorities and courts.
❓ MEPs Probe Commission’s Response to China’s Rare Earth Export Rules
Following China’s announcement that it will tighten export rules on rare earth elements (REEs) from December 2025, a question was submitted on 20 October 2025. E-004118/2025 asks the Commission to assess the risk to the European defence industry’s supply chain and to explain how its strategy for securing raw materials aligns with broader EU goals for defence and industrial resilience. A response from the Commission is pending.
❗ Commission Defends Tax Enforcement Amid Allegations Against Meta
On 27 October 2025, Executive Vice-President Ribera addressed allegations of turnover misreporting and transfer price manipulation by Meta. The Commission’s response to E-003261/25 stated that while it has no formal investigation open into the Meta Group, it is committed to enforcing EU State aid rules against unfair tax advantages. The Commission also pointed to its broader efforts in international tax reform, including the G20/OECD ‘Pillar 1’ and ‘Pillar 2’ initiatives, and ongoing evaluations of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC).
❗ Commission Confirms Crypto-Assets Included in Proposed Russia Sanctions
In a brief reply on 28 October 2025, Commissioner Albuquerque confirmed that the Commission has proposed including cryptocurrencies within the scope of its 19th sanctions package against Russia. The answer to E-003377/25 noted that the proposal is under negotiation in the Council, and therefore specific details could not be shared. The Commission reiterated that Member States have the primary responsibility for monitoring and enforcing sanctions.
❗ Commission Affirms Level Playing Field for Non-EU Sellers Under Packaging Rules
Responding to concerns about unfair competition from e-commerce platforms, the Commission clarified the scope of the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). On 28 October 2025, Commissioner Roswall explained in the answer to E-003395/25 that sustainability requirements are applied at the product level, meaning non-EU businesses placing goods on the EU market face the same obligations as EU businesses. The reply also specified that online marketplaces have extended producer responsibility obligations to ensure compliance of third-country sellers using their platforms.
❗ Commission Defers Assessment of Spanish RRF Project Pending Payment Request
Regarding a project in Spain for electronic monitoring bracelets to protect victims of gender-based violence, funded under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the Commission clarified its oversight role. In a reply on 29 October 2025, Commissioner Dombrovskis stated that the assessment of the relevant milestone has not yet occurred, as Spain has not submitted the corresponding payment request. The answer to P-003683/25 emphasized that the RRF is performance-based and that Member States are responsible for ensuring procurement procedures comply with EU and national law.
❓ Multiple Questions Pending on Public Procurement, Institutional Conduct, and Funding Transparency
Several questions submitted in September and October remain unanswered. These include inquiries into alleged public procurement irregularities in Spain (E-003791/2025) and Czechia (E-004157/2025), the transparency of NGO funding under the European Democracy Shield initiative (E-004093/2025), the accountability of Commissioners under their Code of Conduct regarding misinformation (E-004159/2025), and the communication strategy around a major competition fine against Google (E-004092/2025). Another pending question concerns the impact of the European Disability Card on benefits for people with disabilities (E-003908/2025).
The Commission’s replies from this period consistently point towards a phase of legislative consolidation and enforcement. Rather than hinting at new initiatives, the executive repeatedly frames existing legal frameworks—most notably the Digital Services Act, the Cybersecurity Act, and the NIS2 Directive—as the sufficient and appropriate tools to address emerging challenges, from AI in content moderation to ICT supply chain security. This suggests that the Commission’s immediate priority is the effective implementation of the current digital rulebook, placing the onus on Member States and their designated authorities, such as Digital Services Coordinators, to carry out supervision and enforcement on the ground.
A second cross-cutting theme is the careful delineation of institutional responsibilities. In its answers concerning sanctions, Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) projects, and DSA enforcement, the Commission consistently positions Member States as the primary actors responsible for implementation, monitoring, and compliance with national and EU law. This approach frames the Commission’s role as one of oversight and coordination, acting as a guardian of the Treaties rather than a direct enforcer in most cases.
Finally, the Commission’s response regarding Israel’s participation in Horizon Europe indicates an increasing willingness to link access to EU programmes with compliance with fundamental values and international law. By proposing a partial suspension based on a breach of the human rights clause in an association agreement, the Commission signals that geopolitical and ethical considerations are becoming integral to the implementation of the EU’s research and innovation policy. This reveals a more assertive posture where digital and technology partnerships are not insulated from broader foreign policy and human rights assessments.
