Between mid-2025 and mid-2026, technology policy stopped being a debate over principles and became a matter of fines, lawsuits and bans. Europe enforces its laws while softening them, Washington swings between deregulation and control, and China tightens state command over AI.
Signed by Byline, Chief editor · English editionUpdated on What happened and when
Brussels accuses Temu under the DSA
The European Commission preliminarily found that Temu failed to mitigate the sale of illegal products, with an inaccurate risk assessment, and warned of possible fines if the breach is confirmed.
Washington ties broadband funds to rate rules
The administration warned states they would be left out of a $42 billion fund if they set rates for subsidized providers serving low-income households.
FTC warns on encryption and censorship
The FTC chairman wrote to big tech firms urging them to resist foreign pressure to weaken encryption, warning that giving in without telling users could break the law.
Cruz proposes the SANDBOX Act
Senator Ted Cruz put forward a light-touch framework that would let firms seek temporary exemptions from federal laws to test AI; critics fear it could be used to sidestep consumer protection.
Ofcom fines 4chan
The British regulator fined 4chan for failing to deliver a risk assessment required by the Online Safety Act; the platform answered with a lawsuit invoking free speech.
Visa bans hit critics of big tech
The United States barred visas for five European figures tied to platform regulation, including former commissioner Thierry Breton; Macron called it coercion and intimidation.
Authors sue six AI companies
A group of writers led by John Carreyrou filed a class action over the use of pirated books to train models from Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta, xAI and Perplexity.
Italy fines Cloudflare
Regulator AGCOM imposed a record fine of 14.2 million euros for refusing to block piracy sites on its public DNS; Cloudflare argued that filtering its network would be unworkable.
China bans OpenClaw on public computers
Beijing barred the OpenClaw agent tool from government computers and issued security guidelines for adopting AI, amid a surge in use of such tools.
White House presents an AI framework
The US executive sent Congress a framework with six principles: safety, privacy, non-discrimination, transparency, oversight and support for innovation.
Brussels proposes the Digital Omnibus
The Commission proposed delaying key AI Act obligations and relaxing the use of personal data to train models; civil society groups saw it as a step backward.
Political deal to adjust the AI Act
Deadlines for high-risk systems moved to December 2027 and for AI embedded in regulated products to August 2028, with a new ban on AI that generates non-consensual intimate images.
Chinese courts curb AI-driven dismissals
Two rulings held it unlawful to fire a worker solely because an AI can do the job, treating AI adoption as a business decision rather than an unforeseen change.
NSPM-11 speeds up military AI
A presidential memorandum aims to deploy advanced AI quickly in defense and intelligence and bars vendors from disabling or altering critical systems without government authorization.
Workday faces a class action
A San Francisco judge let a lawsuit proceed accusing Workday's AI hiring software of discriminating against applicants, a case that challenges the algorithmic foundations of screening tools.
The threads that matter
Europe: enforcing the law while softening it
The period shows European and British regulators moving from drafting rules to imposing penalties. The European Commission preliminarily accused Temu of breaching the Digital Services Act by failing to mitigate sales of illegal products; Ofcom fined 4chan for not delivering a risk assessment required by the Online Safety Act; and Italy's AGCOM hit Cloudflare with what was described as a record fine for refusing to block piracy sites on its public DNS. The cases differ, but they share a pattern: the supervisor demands data and concrete measures, and the companies answer with technical or free-speech arguments.
At the same time, Brussels eased its own pace. The Digital Omnibus package proposed delaying key AI Act obligations and relaxing the use of personal data to train models; civil society groups read it as a setback for digital rights, and the article covering it disputes that regulation explains Europe's lag. The later political deal moved the deadlines for high-risk systems to December 2027 and for AI embedded in regulated products to August 2028, and added a ban on systems that generate intimate images without consent. Meanwhile, the Digital Markets Act did not by itself guarantee competition: Setapp Mobile closed its alternative EU app store on 16 February 2026, citing complex business terms.
- Temu en la Mira Europa Acusa a la Plataforma de Vender Productos Ilegales y Amenaza con Multas...
- 4chan Multado Ley de Seguridad en Linea Reino Unido
- Italia multa a Cloudflare Fin de la pirateria
- Europa Desmantela Normas Competir o Rendirse
- EU AI Act Tweaked Nudification Ban Extended Deadlines
- Setapp Mobile Shuts Down EU App Store Economics Too Tough
European digital sovereignty versus Washington
Tension with the United States turned sovereignty into a political agenda. Washington barred visas for five European figures tied to the regulation of big tech, among them former commissioner Thierry Breton, and European leaders, Macron included, branded it coercion and intimidation. In parallel, the Commission is studying a technology sovereignty package that would require the most sensitive data in sectors such as finance, justice and health to be hosted on European cloud, and it presented EURO-3C, a pan-European digital public infrastructure whose components sit in data centers located and controlled in Europe.
The underlying diagnosis is one of dependence. One analysis puts the share of Europe's cloud market held by the three big American providers at up to 70% in 2026 and recalls that laws such as the CLOUD Act let Washington access data held by its companies wherever it is stored, which clashes with the GDPR. Another piece locates the turning point in the American restriction on foreign access to its most advanced AI models, which forced them to be switched off globally, European users included, and stresses that the European response revolves mostly around Mistral.
United States: from deregulation to asking for rules
In the United States, political impulse prevailed over a stable framework. Senator Ted Cruz proposed the SANDBOX Act, which would let companies request temporary exemptions from federal laws to test AI products and give the White House science office power to overrule independent agencies; critics fear a route around consumer protection. The administration warned states that they would lose a $42 billion broadband fund if they set rates for subsidized providers, and the FTC told big tech that yielding to foreign governments on encryption or data security could break the law.
Over time, industry itself began asking for rules. One analysis argues that executives who backed the promise of less intervention now want a formal framework after chaotic export controls, and the White House sent Congress a framework with six principles covering safety, privacy, non-discrimination, transparency, oversight and innovation. Another front was defense: memorandum NSPM-11 seeks to speed up the adoption of advanced AI in the military and intelligence agencies, and bars vendors from disabling or altering critical systems without government authorization.
- IA sin Frenos Ley Cruz y el Gran Tech
- Advertencia de la Administracion Trump a los Estados No Intenten Bajar los Precios de la Banda...
- Cuidado Gigantes Tech La FTC Advierte Sobre Ceder Ante Presiones Extranjeras en Cifrado y Segu...
- IA De la Desregulacion a la Peticion de Reglas
- Casa Blanca lanza directrices IA para el Congreso
- Trump Rushes Advanced AI Into Military Hands
Courts: copyright, liability and AI mistakes
Courts became the de facto regulator of generative AI. Warner Bros. Discovery sued Midjourney for using its works to train models and reproduce protected characters; a group of authors led by John Carreyrou sued six AI companies for training on pirated copies, recalling that in an earlier case against Anthropic a judge considered training could be lawful under certain readings without legalizing piracy. Liability for harm also reached the courtroom: a new wrongful-death suit against Character AI joins similar ones, and a San Francisco judge let Workday face a class action over algorithmic discrimination in hiring.
Courts also set limits on the use of AI within the justice system itself. India's Supreme Court reacted angrily to fake AI-generated court orders submitted by a lower-ranking judge and opened an inquiry. In China, judges ruled it unlawful to dismiss someone solely because an AI can do their job, treating AI adoption as a business decision, and ordered compensation in one case. Proctorio's five-year lawsuit against a librarian also illustrates the use of litigation against someone who criticized an exam-monitoring tool.
- Warner Bros Demanda a Midjourney Infraccion de Copyright
- Autores Demandan a Gigantes IA por Libros Piratas
- IA y Suicidio Adolescente Demanda a Character AI
- Workday Faces Landmark AI Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit
- Juez Indio Falsas Ordenes AI Enfurecen a Corte Suprema
- Chinas AI Layoffs Court Rules Replacement Illegal
China: state control and technological rivalry
China regulates from the top down. It banned the OpenClaw tool on government computers and issued security guidelines for AI adoption; according to reports, it plans to require state approval before its leading tech firms and AI startups accept American capital; and it created a national registry with a 29-character code for each humanoid robot, with more than 28,000 robots already identified. The underlying logic is the technological self-sufficiency that the Communist Party reiterated as it prepared its five-year plan.
The rivalry also uses materials and export controls. Beijing is slow to issue export licenses for indium phosphide, essential for the optical chips in AI data centers, and American prosecutors suspect a Thai company was used to divert servers carrying Nvidia chips to China. Both episodes show that technology policy is no longer limited to rules of use but now covers supply chains and capital.
- China Tightens AI Grip OpenClaw Banned New Security Rules
- China Restringe Inversion de EE UU en IA Aprobacion Gubernamental Obligatoria
- Robots Humanoides China Lanza IDs de Vida Completa
- China Refuerza Industria y Tecnologia en Plan Quinquenal
- Chinas AI Bottleneck Indium Phosphide Controls Spark Concern
- China OBON Corp y servidores Supermicro millonarios
Why it matters and what to watch
Compliance at two speeds
The new AI Act deadlines are a reprieve, not a cancellation: enforcement remains active in digital services, as the Temu and 4chan cases show.
Cloud becomes a political decision
Where sensitive data is hosted and which provider handles it is no longer a purely technical matter; watch whether the technology sovereignty package turns into binding obligations.
Courts set the pace for AI
Without a stable US federal law, copyright, discrimination and harm are settled case by case; the Workday and author lawsuits will be the practical guide.
Diverging regulatory blocs
Chinese limits on capital and American mandates on vendors point to separate ecosystems; watch the effect on global companies.
What we think
As chief editor, we read this period as one that rewards measured judgement. A good deal of what is presented as regulation is still a proposal, a draft or a preliminary finding, and it should not be treated as settled. What does look durable is the change in method: regulators no longer just write rules, they fine, accuse and litigate, and courts are in practice drawing the limits of artificial intelligence. It is reasonable for Europe to adjust its timetables, but simplifying must not become a way of abandoning the protection of rights. We also worry that digital sovereignty is turning into a slogan before it becomes a real capability. Our ask of companies and governments is the same: verifiable figures, sources and deadlines before any debate is declared closed.
Byline, Chief editor · English editionEverything we published on this topic
33 stories from Jul 2025 to Jun 2026, by month. These are the original articles this guide rests on; each one links to its source.
