This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and Commission replies published between 12 and 19 October 2025. The exchanges highlight significant focus on the implementation and enforcement of core legislative frameworks, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and the new regulation on political advertising. MEPs raised pressing concerns about platform accountability, content moderation, foreign interference, data protection, and the real-world impact of EU digital rules on civil society and businesses.
In its responses, the Commission consistently positions the DSA as a content-agnostic framework designed to protect, rather than restrict, fundamental rights like freedom of expression through transparency and redress mechanisms. It frequently underscores that direct enforcement on many issues lies with Member State authorities and emphasizes the adequacy of the existing legal arsenal to tackle emerging challenges, from cybersecurity threats to unfair commercial practices.
DSA & Platform Accountability
❗ Commission Defends DSA Against Accusations of Censorship and Overreach
In a reply on 14 October 2025 to a question (E-003303/25) concerning US criticism of the Digital Services Act (DSA), Executive Vice-President Virkkunen stated that the DSA “does not regulate content, nor can it be used as a legal basis to censor any specific viewpoint online.” The Commission frames the DSA as a tool to establish transparent procedures for tackling illegal content and societal risks while protecting freedom ofexpression, noting that appeal mechanisms have already led to millions of content reinstatements. The response asserts the EU’s sovereign right to regulate economic activities on its territory consistent with its democratic values.
❗ Commission Clarifies Territorial Scope of Content Removal Orders Under DSA
Responding to concerns about a “stacking effect” where the most restrictive national content moderation rule becomes the EU-wide standard, the Commission clarified the DSA’s approach to removal orders. In its 14 October 2025 answer to question E-003272/25, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen explained that national removal orders are, in principle, confined to the jurisdiction of the issuing Member State. A broader territorial scope is only justified if the illegality stems directly from EU law or is necessary to protect fundamental rights, consistent with international law. The Commission reiterated that the DSA does not define illegal content and aims to protect fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.
❗ Commission Outlines Approach to Disinformation and Intent Under DSA
In a reply dated 14 October 2025, the Commission addressed how it distinguishes between disinformation and misinformation. Answering question E-003273/25, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen highlighted that the EU follows a multi-faceted approach, including media literacy and strategic communication, alongside regulation. The Commission noted that patterns of inauthentic behaviour, such as impersonation, can indicate intentional actions. Crucially, the response stressed that the Digital Services Act (DSA) is “content-agnostic,” and regulators do not moderate content. Instead, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) are required to assess and mitigate systemic risks, with robust redress mechanisms in place to protect users against over-removal of lawful content.
❓ MEPs Question Commission on Child Protection Measures Under the DSA
In question E-003970/2025 submitted on 8 October 2025, MEP Hilde Vautmans (Renew) pressed the Commission on the practical implementation of child protection under the Digital Services Act. The question seeks clarity on financial support for trusted flaggers, how Digital Services Coordinators will be encouraged to run reporting campaigns for young people, and whether specific guidelines will be developed for risk assessments and industry standards for age verification. A response from the Commission is pending.
❓ MEPs Probe Commission on Platform Censorship and Content Removals
A group of MEPs from the PfE group submitted a question (E-003962/2025) on 8 October 2025 regarding what they term “illegitimate censorship” by digital platforms. Citing the European Media Freedom Act’s goal of limiting arbitrary content removal, the MEPs ask if the Commission has observed a drop in content or account removals, which platforms are most active in suppressing content, and whether national regulators are conducting proper checks. A Commission reply is awaited.
❓ MEPs Raise Concerns Over US Testimony on EU Digital Legislation
MEPs Marieke Ehlers and Auke Zijlstra (PfE) submitted a question (E-003873/2025) on 2 October 2025 regarding a letter from Google to the US Congress. The letter allegedly warned that the DSA and DMA could lead to the censorship of politically undesirable but lawful content. The MEPs ask for the Commission’s position on these concerns, whether it has been in contact with tech companies to block such content, and what it will do to mitigate transatlantic tensions. A response is pending.
Political Advertising & Media Freedom
❗ Commission Frames Meta’s Political Ad Ban as a “Commercial Decision”
In a 16 October 2025 response to a question regarding Meta’s decision to discontinue political advertising in the EU, the Commission stated it is a “commercial decision.” Commissioner McGrath, answering on behalf of the Commission, clarified that the Regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (E-003116/25) does not ban political ads but establishes common transparency standards to support a fair democratic debate. The Commission noted it is assessing the impacts of Meta’s decision and has issued guidelines to help actors comply with the new rules.
❗ Commission Clarifies Scope of State Advertising Rules Under EMFA
Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, in a reply on 15 October 2025, detailed the scope of Article 25 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) concerning state advertising. The response to question E-003309/25 explains that the rules, applicable from August 2025, aim to ensure undistorted competition and prevent undue political influence by requiring public funds for media to be awarded through open, proportionate, and non-discriminatory procedures. The definition of ‘state advertising’ covers national and regional public authorities and state-controlled entities, but explicitly excludes advertising bought by EU institutions.
❓ MEPs Question Impact of Political Ad Regulation on Civil Society
MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew) asked the Commission (E-003935/2025) on 8 October 2025 about the consequences of major platforms like Meta and Alphabet banning political and issue-based advertising in the EU. The question highlights the risk that this could undermine democratic pluralism by limiting the outreach of civil society actors. The MEP seeks to know what safeguards and guidance the Commission will provide to ensure such actors can continue to advertise lawfully and to clarify the scope of ‘issue-based’ advertising. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Raise Alarm Over Media Pluralism in Italy Under EMFA
Citing the 2025 Media Pluralism Monitor, MEPs Giuseppe Antoci and Gaetano Pedulla’ (The Left) questioned the Commission on 9 October 2025 about risks to media pluralism in Italy (E-003977/2025). The question points to issues of ownership concentration and lack of transparency, asking how the Commission will check Italy’s compliance with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), particularly regarding media ownership transparency and editorial independence. A Commission reply is awaited.
Consumer Protection & E-Commerce
❗ Commission Points to National Enforcement and Upcoming Digital Fairness Act for Misleading Booking Practices
In response to a question (E-003452/25) on misleading online booking practices, such as false scarcity claims, Commissioner McGrath stated on 14 October 2025 that such practices could be prohibited under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. However, the Commission clarified that it lacks direct enforcement powers, which lie with national consumer protection authorities. The reply highlighted past coordinated actions against major booking platforms and noted that the Commission is working on a Digital Fairness Act to strengthen consumer protection against manipulative interface designs, with a public consultation open until 24 October 2025.
❓ MEPs Urge Action Against Ultra-Fast Fashion Platforms
MEP Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE) submitted a question (E-003860/2025) on 2 October 2025 concerning the market impact of ultra-fast fashion platforms like Shein and Temu. The question highlights accusations of non-compliant products and exploitation of regulatory loopholes, such as the customs duty exemption for small parcels. It asks what measures the Commission intends to take to enforce the DSA and DMA and protect European consumers and industries. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Question Commission on Physical Stores for Chinese E-commerce Platforms
Following reports of Shein’s plans to open physical stores in France, MEP Dirk Gotink (PPE) asked the Commission (E-003936/2025) on 8 October 2025 whether it considers this development desirable. The question raises concerns about non-compliant products, aggressive marketing, and the undermining of EU companies. The MEP asks if the Commission intends to prevent Shein from establishing a physical presence until it complies with all EU laws to ensure a level playing field. A Commission reply is awaited.
❗ Commission Prioritises Child Protection in Stalled ‘Chat Control’ Negotiations
In a 17 October 2025 reply, Commissioner Brunner confirmed the Commission’s focus on reaching a compromise in the Council on the proposal to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, often referred to as ‘Chat Control’. Answering question P-003471/25, the Commission stated that protecting children is its priority and that it will consider a further prolongation of the interim regulation if necessary to allow for voluntary detection of abuse. The response underscores the importance of these measures in rescuing children and arresting offenders.
❓ MEPs Challenge Commission on ‘Chat Control’ Following Signal’s Threat to Exit EU
MEPs Mary Khan (ESN) and Petra Steger (PfE) questioned the Commission on 11 October 2025 regarding the ‘Chat Control’ proposal (E-003993/2025). The question cites criticism from the president of the messaging app Signal, who warned the company might withdraw from Europe if forced to break its end-to-end encryption. The MEPs ask for the Commission’s view on this criticism and how it justifies a policy that could force a secure messenger to discontinue its services for EU citizens. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Question Commission on Legislative Plans to Counter AI’s Threat to Free Speech
Citing the rising use of deepfakes to discredit political figures and influence elections, MEP Joachim Streit (Renew) asked the Commission (E-003952/2025) on 8 October 2025 about its plans to counter the threat AI poses to freedom of expression. The question seeks to know if specific legislative measures are planned and whether the existing toolkit for foreign interference and manipulation of information (FIMI) should be expanded. A Commission reply is awaited.
❓ MEPs Raise Concerns Over Role of Private ‘Moderation’ Organisations
MEP Sarah Knafo (ESN) submitted a question (E-003878/2025) on 2 October 2025 expressing concern about the growing role of unelected bodies and private associations in media and digital regulation in France. The question asks how the Commission assesses this trend and what measures it envisages to ensure that actions against online abuse remain subject to strict judicial review to protect fundamental freedoms. A response is pending.
❗ Commission in “Active Dialogue” with Spain Over Controversial Tourist Data Law
In a 14 October 2025 reply regarding a Spanish law requiring the registration of extensive tourist details, Commissioner McGrath stated the Commission is in an “active dialogue” with Spanish authorities. The response to question E-003286/25notes that the exact scope of the obligations is still being defined in a draft Ministerial Order, which is currently under revision following public consultations and discussions with the Commission. The Commission is closely monitoring the process before deciding on next steps, indicating a cautious approach before considering infringement proceedings.
❓ MEPs Flag Risk to Emergency Service Access from 2G/3G Network Phase-Out
MEP Elena Kountoura (The Left) raised concerns (E-003985/2025) on 10 October 2025 about access to the 112 emergency number as 2G and 3G networks are phased out. The question highlights that a new technical standard for 4G/5G roaming (S8 Home Routing) may prevent emergency services from calling back or receiving precise location data. The MEP asks if the Commission has assessed this risk and what steps it will take to ensure full access to 112 for all citizens. A response is pending.
❓ Commission Queried on Tackling Digital Divide in Rural and Mountain Areas
On 8 October 2025, MEP Anna Maria Cisint (PfE) asked the Commission (E-003956/2025) how it intends to address the lack of basic communication and internet services in remote EU territories. The question points out that despite EU digital agenda goals, some Alpine and rural areas suffer prolonged blackouts, affecting predominantly older populations. A Commission reply is awaited.
❗ Commission Defends Advanced Vehicle Safety Systems, Citing Driver Control and Data Anonymisation
Responding to a question on new mandatory vehicle safety systems, Executive Vice-President Séjourné clarified on 16 October 2025 that their purpose is to support, not replace, the driver, who remains in full control and can switch them off. The answer toE-003423/25also specified that the event data recorder (EDR) only stores anonymised, crash-related data in line with GDPR. The Commission attributed rising vehicle costs to supply chain disruptions and energy prices rather than the safety measures mandated by the General Vehicle Safety Regulation.
❗ Commission Highlights DSA and Cancer Plan in Response to Sunbed Risks
In a 17 October 2025 reply concerning health risks from sunbeds, particularly for minors, Commissioner Várhelyi pointed to existing and planned measures. The response to E-003017/25 noted that sunbeds must meet safety requirements under the Low Voltage Directive. Under the Digital Services Act, VLOPs must mitigate risks to minors, including limiting targeted ads. The Commission also mentioned its exploration of further measures on UV radiation exposure under Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and its promotion of media literacy campaigns.
❗ Commission Highlights ‘Choose Europe’ Initiative to Retain Research Talent
On 13 October 2025, Commissioner Zaharieva outlined the ‘Choose Europe’ initiative, which aims to retain and attract top researchers to the EU. The reply to questionE-002760/25explains that the initiative is funded through redeployments within Horizon Europe. Measures include additional top-ups for European Research Council (ERC) grantees relocating to the EU and a new seven-year “super grant” to provide longer-term perspectives. The Commission stressed that all funding is based on excellence and is open to researchers globally, provided they work in the EU or associated countries.
❓ MEPs Seek Action to Protect Skilled AI Workers Amidst Corporate Restructuring
Following the announced closure of the Turin office of AI company Cerence, MEPs from The Left group asked the Commission (E-003848/2025) on 2 October 2025 how it intends to prevent multinationals from laying off skilled workers and relocating research activities outside the EU. The question calls for bolstering European works councils, proposing a mechanism to counter unjustified relocations, and activating tools like the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to preserve strategic AI skills. A response is pending.
❓ Commission Questioned on Geographical Imbalance in EU Innovation Funding
MEPs András Gyürk and Tamás Deutsch (PfE) raised concerns on 8 October 2025 about the geographical imbalance in the distribution of directly managed EU funds, such as Horizon Europe and the Innovation Fund (E-003964/2025). Citing the low share of funding going to Central and Eastern European Member States, they ask what measures the Commission plans within the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) to reduce these imbalances, including the possibility of regionally dedicated funding envelopes. A Commission reply is awaited.
❗ Commission Acknowledges Daily GNSS Interference in Eastern EU, Outlines Resilience Measures
In a 16 October 2025 response regarding reported GPS interference during the Commission President’s flight, Commissioner Kubilius confirmed that Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) interference is a daily occurrence in the EU’s Eastern territories. The reply to P-003367/25stated that EASA is monitoring the situation and has issued guidance to ensure aviation safety. The Commission outlined its commitment to bolstering the resilience of the EU’s Galileo system through measures like deploying more satellites, developing interference monitoring services, and increasing cooperation with Ukraine on anti-jamming technologies.
❗ Commission Cites Multiple Legal Tools to Scrutinise Foreign Acquisitions
Responding to a question about the acquisition of Ceconomy by JD.com, Executive Vice-President Ribera on 16 October 2025 outlined the EU’s toolkit for assessing such transactions. The answer to E-003301/25 noted that while this specific merger did not meet EU Merger Regulation thresholds, transactions can be assessed under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Furthermore, the GDPR prevents personal data transfers without adequate safeguards, and the Foreign Direct Investment Regulation mandates screening for access to sensitive information. This points to a multi-layered approach to protecting the EU from economic security risks.
❗ Commission Affirms Member State Responsibility for National Security in Surveillance Tech
In a 13 October 2025 reply concerning surveillance technologies in Spain, Commissioner Brunner stated that national security is the exclusive responsibility of Member States. However, the answer to E-003061/25 emphasized that EU law still applies in areas like data protection (GDPR) and cybersecurity. The Commission pointed to the forthcoming revision of the Cybersecurity Act and the NIS2 Directive, which provides for EU-level coordinated security risk assessments of critical ICT supply chains, as key frameworks for managing such risks.
❓ MEPs Probe Commission on Foreign Influence Risks from TikTok’s US Deal
A cross-party group of MEPs submitted a question (E-003925/2025) on 7 October 2025 regarding the sale of TikTok’s US operations and statements by former President Trump about making the algorithm “100% MAGA”. The MEPs ask which version of the TikTok algorithm will be available in the EU, how the Commission evaluates the risk of foreign influence, and whether the algorithm could constitute a systemic risk to civic discourse under the DSA. A response is pending.
❓ Commission Questioned on New Measures to Counter State-Sponsored Cyberattacks
Citing an ENISA report on the sharp increase in cyberattacks, MEP Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE) asked the Commission on 2 October 2025 what new measures it will introduce to strengthen the EU’s cyber resilience (E-003871/2025). The question highlights the targeting of public administration and critical infrastructure by state-aligned proxies from Russia, China, and North Korea, and the vulnerability of democratic processes. A Commission reply is awaited.
❗ Commission to Review Copyright Directive’s Author Remuneration Rules in 2026
In a 14 October 2025 reply, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen confirmed that the Commission will review the Copyright Directive not before 7 June 2026. The response to question E-003362/25, which concerned coercive buy-out contracts for creators, stated that the effectiveness of the Directive’s measures on author and performer remuneration, including transparency obligations, will be considered as part of this review. The Commission also acknowledged the Parliament’s call for a European industrial strategy for music and will continue to engage with stakeholders.
❓ MEPs Question Commission on Coercive Buy-Out Contracts for Creators
MEP Leire Pajín (S&D) submitted a question (E-003857/2025) on 2 October 2025 regarding coercive buy-out contracts that force creators to give away their rights, often imposed by non-EU platforms. The question notes that Parliament has repeatedly condemned these practices and asks the Commission about the next steps to be taken at the EU level and when it intends to prepare legislative proposals to ensure EU rules apply to all services. A response is pending.
❓ Commission Probed on Potential Conflict of Interest at European Digital Media Observatory
MEP Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE) questioned the Commission on 8 October 2025 about a potential conflict of interest at the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) (E-003960/2025). The question notes that EU-funded EDMO also plays a major role in the Google-funded European Media and Information Fund (EMIF). The MEP asks why the Commission is funding an organisation that runs a Google fund, whether EDMO’s advice on the Democracy Shield could be influenced by Google, and if its focus on media literacy over structural causes of disinformation is also influenced by this relationship. A response is pending.
❓ MEPs Seek Clarity on RRF Certification Requirements for Computer Hardware
On 7 October 2025, MEP Marcin Sypniewski (ESN) asked the Commission (E-003926/2025) to clarify certification requirements for computer hardware financed by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The question notes that Polish tenders require specific TCO and EPEAT certificates to comply with the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle, and asks if these specific certificates are a Commission requirement or if other forms of compliance with ISO 14024:2018 are acceptable. A Commission reply is awaited.
Based on the Commission’s replies during this period, several cross-cutting themes emerge. Firstly, the Commission is engaged in a robust defense of its landmark digital legislation, particularly the Digital Services Act. It consistently frames the DSA not as a censorship tool, but as a content-agnostic, procedural framework that enhances transparency and provides redress mechanisms, thereby protecting fundamental rights like freedom of expression. This defensive posture suggests an awareness of international and domestic criticism and a concerted effort to control the narrative around the implementation of its digital rulebook.
Secondly, there is a clear pattern of deferring to existing legal frameworks and Member State responsibilities. Whether addressing surveillance technology, consumer protection, or national security, the Commission frequently points to the roles of national authorities and the adequacy of the current EU legal arsenal (e.g., GDPR, NIS2, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive).
Finally, the Commission’s approach to sensitive and contentious issues appears cautious and procedural. In cases like the Spanish tourist data law or Meta’s withdrawal from political advertising, the official response emphasizes “active dialogue,” “monitoring,” and the “commercial” nature of corporate decisions.
