Data Protection and Digital Regulation: Between Barriers to Innovation and Competitive Advantages

As they have done for many years, members of Aktion Freiheit statt Angst once again attended this year’s two-day conference hosted by Plattform Privatheit at Villa Elisabeth on Berlin’s Invalidenstraße. The theme of the event’s presentations and discussions was “Innovation, Competition, and Values — Data Protection and Digital Regulation Between Barriers to Innovation and Competitive Advantages”.

The focus was therefore on how much regulation data processing in Europe needs and how to defend against attacks on that regulation — primarily from U.S. Big Tech companies. The event program, including all presentations, is available here.

In the first keynote address by Thomas Roth (Head of Global Data Protection & AI; Boehringer Ingelheim), titled “Data Protection & AI Compliance at a Global, Research-Based Pharmaceutical Company — A Success Factor, Not a Barrier to Innovation!”, he defended the current regulatory framework and argued that how effectively this regulation can be applied for the company’s benefit depends largely on the creativity and courage of those in charge. He also noted that companies abroad have now recognized the value of regulation and have adopted similar standards for themselves.

It is true that many countries lack specific laws in this area, but companies have voluntarily implemented these regulations in order to succeed in the European market as well. This can be seen as a major success for European regulatory efforts. The EU has turned data protection into an export hit.

Robert Kreyßing from the University of Applied Sciences for Administration and Services in Schleswig-Holstein reported on AI applications in state administration. To this end, an AI Implementation Act was enacted in 2022. It permits automated administrative decisions. As in the EU AI Act, automation is structured in three levels. At the first level, AI merely provides assistance with text generation and serves as a guide; at the second level, AI can make decisions, though these must be reviewed and approved by humans; while at the third level, AI makes the decision on its own.

To prevent the machine from overruling humans in the latter case, the person affected by the administrative decision has the option to file an AI appeal. This process requires the administration to have the AI’s decision reviewed by a human — that is, an administrative employee. Unfortunately, studies have found that after four years, 64% of administrative staff are still unaware of the law. Furthermore, the third stage has not yet been implemented, meaning that the AI appeal has not yet been used in practice.

In addition, Schleswig-Holstein has curbed Microsoft’s influence by using an open-source application — the electronic file system — instead of Microsoft products (such as Teams). This makes Schleswig-Holstein a pioneer among the German federal states.

Elisabeth Herzog and Christoph Wagner (State Commissioners for Data Protection and Freedom of Information in Rhineland-Palatinate) describe a data protection sandbox — that is, a real-world laboratory where, pursuant to Article 57 of the AI Regulation, developments can be tested that should not be deployed on the internet without prior review.

Sandra Wachter (Professor of Technology and Regulation at the University of Oxford’s Oxford Internet Institute and Humboldt Professor of Technology and Regulation at the Hasso Plattner Institute) delivered the day’s second keynote speech titled “The Price of Innovation — How the Deregulation of EU Technology Law Threatens Human Rights ”. Her conclusion is that the current attempt to weaken regulation in the EU through a deregulation omnibus bill threatens human rights.

EU member states are willing to provide land, water, and electricity to Big Tech companies from the U.S. without receiving adequate compensation in return. As an example, she cited the construction of data centers, which is supported by local governments because of promises to create jobs in the respective areas. In the end, instead of the promised 20 jobs, there may be only 10, and access to electricity and water is provided to the companies at rock-bottom prices. Such deals are also usually negotiated without public involvement and behind closed doors.

She went on to criticize the fact that AI investments from the EU totaling approximately 200 billion euros essentially benefit the U.S. Big Tech giants. President Trump successfully prevented the EU from introducing a digital tax. The AI Liability Act was blocked, and U.S. companies can continue to do business worth billions in the EU. Similarly, the Digital Omnibus poses a threat; it could be a first step toward deregulation.

The appointment of a high-ranking Meta executive as Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner also already shows the direction things are heading. If we look at the promises of artificial intelligence, it is always just the concept of economic growth — which, in turn, only benefits Big Tech. Not a single concept points to a benefit for our society.

Furthermore, there is a serious risk that AI applications will in the future only be usable as toys, since companies refuse to take responsibility for errors in their applications.

Growth does not automatically lead to social improvement. That is why, in her lecture — which is based on a detailed paper (link to follow) — Ms. Wachter advocates that we anchor economic decisions, and thus also the regulation of the IT landscape, to a different concept. She proposes the concept of happiness, which is more than just a positive economic development.

• It’s about the bonds between people, and between people and nature.
• It’s about competence, learning, and the strength to act with competence.
• She cites autonomy as the third value — that is, we must be able to make self-determined decisions.

Artificial intelligence is not responsible for lies. Artificial intelligence manipulates and lies according to the specifications of its creators. This can be demonstrated through tests using appropriate question prompts directed at the AI. This reveals political influences, for example, when the term “genocide” is changed to “action.” Studies have shown that working with AI does not increase our competence. Doctors lost their ability to diagnose cancer after three months when they permanently outsourced this task to artificial intelligence.

In the ensuing discussion, the question was raised as to why the term “happiness” was chosen and why we should not simply settle for the concept of “justice”. Ms. Wachter referred in this regard to Adam Smith, the founder of capitalist economics — who was certainly not left-leaning — who cites “well-being” as the goal of the economy.
Happiness is more than justice. Her conclusion: Big Tech can only be this powerful because we let it. We must demand rather than ask.

Christian Groß (BfDI) presents survey results on data protection from the public’s perspective in a presentation titled “This Is How the Public — and Soon the Business Community — Thinks About Data Protection and Innovation.” He points to successful lawsuits against Big Tech, such as the ruling that Google should be considered a publisher when it displays short excerpts from articles in its search results, or GEMA’s successful lawsuit against OpenAI in the Munich Regional Court regarding the use of AI-altered music samples.

On behalf of the EU consumer protection organization BEUC, Cláudio Teixeira (Head of Digital Policy at BEUC, the European Consumer Organization) presents research on the profits of U.S. Big Tech companies in a paper titled “Protecting Consumers in the A(I)ge of Deregulation: the (real) cost of weakening privacy and data protection in the EU.” Only when one sees the true costs can one imagine the danger that deregulation would pose. In doing so, he confirms Ms. Wachter’s arguments.

He points out that Big Tech companies have already factored into their pricing the fines imposed on them by EU regulations. The companies have set aside billions to cover potential fines. However, it typically takes eight years for a legally binding ruling to be issued. Throughout this entire period — and, of course, even before the lawsuit was filed — the companies have been making profits at the expense of EU citizens through illegal practices.

The photo shown here illustrates the scale of the profits generated over the years by this illegal business model. The EU must protect its own economy and, above all, its people. The charts show that Big Tech companies are not interested in creating value in Europe, but rather in exploiting each and every one of us.

As an example, he cites Google, which started out as a search engine and has now become an advertising machine that entices us to consume and pressures us to accept its choices. As a second example, he cites the training of artificial intelligence using the collective knowledge of all humanity. This is the greatest expropriation of humanity — against our interests and in the interests of a select few.

As a complement to Google, for example, Matthias Söllner (University of Kassel) presents the further development of the EU Web Index under the title “Sovereign Search Engines.” The project was first introduced last year. It is intended to become a European alternative to the four other global search engines (Google, Bing [Microsoft], Xandex [Russia], and Baidu [China]).

The project conducted studies on user acceptance. Once again, the usual user paradox became apparent: 29% of users would be willing to switch, but 57% of users would share all their data if the service remained free. However, the vast majority of these 57% do not know what data is actually being shared and/or stored. The study also examined the extent to which users switch to an AI search when it is offered (always at the very top). The AI search is definitely preferred by young users.

During the closing discussion, the four participants essentially agreed on data protection regulations in the EU, even though surveys by Bitcom reportedly found that 95% of small and medium-sized enterprises want deregulation. The representative from Boehringer reiterated that most companies see regulation only as a burden, but not as an opportunity if they dare to take advantage of it.

There was agreement that the omnibus procedure for deregulation — which the EU is pursuing, but is essentially driven only by Germany — represents an attack by U.S. Big Tech.

We have included the image on the left here because, in connection with our participation in the FairnessJetzt campaign, the risk of massive job losses in the film and media industry has been raised repeatedly. Grażyna Zboralska (University of Frankfurt/Oder) presented the first German — and likely the first European — collective bargaining agreement designed to balance the costs of AI with the loss of earnings experienced by employees due to the use of AI.

Many other interesting presentations took place at this conference. We hope that the content will soon be posted online by the Privatheit platform in text or video format, and we are already looking forward to next year’s conference.

Read more https://plattform-privatheit.de/p-prv/jahreskonferenzen/jahreskonferenz-2026.php

Comment

For further confidential communication, we recommend that you include a reference to a secure messenger, such as Session, Bitmessage, or similar, below the comment text.

To prevent the use of this form by spam robots, please enter the portrayed character set in the left picture below into the right field.