EU Law Enforcement – Central point of information, research and discussion

Data Sharing Regulation in Europe: Enforcement, Governance and the Future of the EU Data Economy (A new edited volume)

Data has become one of the most critical assets of the European digital economy. From artificial intelligence and platform markets to public services and industrial innovation, access to and sharing of data increasingly determine competitive dynamics, market entry, and the effectiveness of regulation. At the same time, data sharing raises complex legal questions: how to reconcile openness with the protection of personal data, trade secrets, and intellectual property; how to prevent data-driven market foreclosure; and how to ensure that regulatory interventions foster innovation rather than stifle it.

Over the past decade, the European Union has responded to these challenges with an increasingly dense—and at times fragmented—regulatory framework. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, and, more recently, the Data Governance Act (DGA), the Data Act (DA), and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) have profoundly reshaped the legal landscape. Together, these instruments signal a clear policy shift: data sharing is no longer merely encouraged, but in certain contexts actively mandated as a tool to promote competition, innovation, and fairness.

It is against this background that our recently published edited volume, Data Sharing Regulation in Europe (Routledge, 2025), aims to offer a systematic and enforcement-oriented analysis of the EU data-sharing regulatory landscape.

More Power to the President? The U.S. Supreme Court is Poised to Restrict Congress’ Power to Create Independent Agencies

Since 1887, (and arguably before that), the United States Congress has created regulatory agencies with a certain degree of independence from the President. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that model as constitutional in 1935 and again in 1958, but the current Court began to chip away at it in the last two decades. The Trump Administration has now declined to defend independent agencies and the President has fired members appointed by Democratic Presidents. Now the issue is back at the Court and its conservative majority appears to be ready to overrule its precedents and declare many or most independent agencies unconstitutional. This would transfer more power to the Presidency, at Congress’s expense, at a time when many think that office has already become too powerful.

The First Steps of the Aruban Fair Trade Authority as an Antitrust Enforcer

*A conversation with Director Kross and Dr. Wessel Geursen

Earlier this year, one of the editors of eulawenforcement.com had the chance to discuss the interesting topic of the gestation of a competition authority and the challenges it faces in its first years of existence. This issue was at the core of the event ‘Competition law enforcement overseas: an interactive discussion with the Aruba Fair Trade Authority (AFTA)’, organized by the RENFORCE Building Block ‘Public Interest Ecosystems’ (PIE) at Utrecht Law School. In what follows below, we describe some of the main takeaways of our insightful conversation with the Director of the Aruban Fair Trade Authority (AFTA) Ernesto Kross and Dr. Wessel Geursen, a competition lawyer and specialist on the territorial scope of application of EU law.

When Seeing Isn’t Believing: Deepfakes, Financial Markets, and the Limits of EU Enforcement

In finance, trust is everything, but what happens when even our eyes and ears fail us? Recent cases show this is no longer a theoretical concern. Deepfake technology, powered by neural networks trained on massive datasets, can analyze audio, video, and images to produce highly realistic impersonations and edits, creating increasingly convincing fake media. This then could be used by fraudsters to commit crime. example, in one incident, a multinational corporation lost 25 million USD after fraudsters used deepfake video technology to impersonate its CFO during a live video call. In another, British energy executive wired funds after “speaking” with someone he thought was his CEO, only to later discover the voice was synthetic. Scenarios like these are now increasingly common. In a recent article, I co-authored with Dr. Michal Lavi, “Seeing is Believing? Deepfakes in Financial Markets,” we examine this emerging phenomenon, and suggest that more preventive enforcement strategy needs to be used to address this issue.

[REPOST] From coordination to cooperation, a step change in EU competition law enforcement

As markets become increasingly cross-border, the landscape for EU competition enforcement is evolving. The review of Regulation 1/2003 offers a unique chance to take the next step: from coordination to genuine cooperation, through joint investigations and joint decisions.

Mental Accounting and Market Definition in Antitrust: How Behavioral Biases Reshape Competitive Boundaries

In the intricate world of antitrust law, the definition of a relevant market stands as a cornerstone of competition analysis, yet its foundational assumptions are increasingly being questioned. This process, which identifies the boundaries of competition between firms, has traditionally relied on the model of a rational consumer. However, the growing body of knowledge in behavioral economics challenges this paradigm, a shift now formally acknowledged by regulators.

Practitioner Networks complementing the Compliance Assurance Toolkit in EU environmental law

EU environmental law forms the foundation of approximately 80% of all national environmental regulations. At the same time, national authorities are struggling with significant difficulties in enforcing EU environmental law, one reason being that violations of environmental law rarely involve infringements of subjective rights. Therefore, in the environmental sector, the EU institutions need to play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with EU law by using or providing supranational compliance assurance instruments.

Regulation as Agreement: Rethinking the Hard–Soft Divide

Introduction

It is common to view agreements between regulators and regulated entities, such as enforcement settlements, voluntary compliance agreements, and even permits and licenses, as a specific regulatory tool grounded in negotiation, exchange, and consensus. In a forthcoming article in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, titled “The Hidden Nature of Regulation,” I offer an alternative view and suggest that all types of regulation–including command-and-control (c&c), self-regulation, voluntary programs, regulatory sandboxes, disclosure, and “naming and shaming”– are based on agreements between government regulators and regulated entities (e.g. corporations and businesses).

Can the Public Be Trusted? Navigating the Complex Terrain of Voluntary Compliance in Modern Regulation

In the evolving landscape of regulatory governance, few concepts generate as much enthusiasm—and skepticism—as voluntary compliance. Across jurisdictions and different regulatory domains, policymakers increasingly champion the notion that citizens and regulated entities should comply with the law not through coercion, but through intrinsic motivation and shared commitment to public goals. This aspiration promises to transform adversarial regulatory relationships into cooperative partnerships, reduce enforcement costs, and foster genuine behavioral change rather than mere box-ticking compliance.

Yet as Yuval Feldman’s forthcoming book Can the Public be Trusted? The Promise and Perils of Voluntary Compliance (Cambridge University Press, 2025) demonstrates, the reality of implementing voluntary compliance strategies reveals a far more nuanced picture. Focusing on three main case studies in tax, environmental behavior, and public health, the book poses a fundamental question that challenges regulatory orthodoxy: if voluntary compliance offers such compelling benefits, why do regulatory agencies worldwide continue to default to deterrence-based approaches?

Data Protection Rights Born of Recent Reform in Georgian Law

Introduction

On June 14, 2023, the Parliament of Georgia took a significant step toward safeguarding personal privacy by adopting a new Law “On Personal Data Protection”. Entering into force on March 1, 2024, the legislation marks a transformative shift in Georgia’s legal framework for data protection, aligning it more closely with the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).