Free Tools
Paid Assessments
Learn
Pricing
News
Compliance
Sign in
Regulatory Intelligence

EU Regulatory News

What's changed across CSRD, GDPR, EU AI Act, DMA, and EU Taxonomy, and what it means for your business.

French CNIL 2025 Annual Report: Record €486.8 Million in Fines, AI Act Powers to Expand in 2026

On 19 May 2026, France's data protection authority (the CNIL) published its 2025 annual report. The CNIL recorded 20,150 complaints (a 10% rise on 2024), 6,167 data breach notifications (up 9.5%), 323 investigations and 259 corrective decisions including 83 sanctions totalling €486,839,500. For 2026, the CNIL will dedicate half of its controls and enforcement actions to data security, and confirmed it is already the designated authority for prohibited AI practices under the EU AI Act and is set to be named market surveillance authority for several categories of high-risk AI systems.

What changed

On 19 May 2026, France's Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) presented its 2025 annual report, marking another record year for enforcement and complaints. The CNIL received 20,150 complaints in 2025, a 10% increase on 2024, and 6,167 notifications of personal data breaches, up 9.5%. It carried out 323 investigations, issued 259 corrective decisions, and adopted 83 sanctions for a total of €486,839,500, the highest annual fine total in the authority's history. Two sanctions issued on 1 September 2025, both relating to cookies and other trackers, accounted for €475 million of that total.

The CNIL also set out its 2026 priorities. Half of all controls and enforcement actions this year will focus on data security, in response to the continued rise in breach notifications. On artificial intelligence, the CNIL confirmed that it is already the designated national authority to monitor prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the EU AI Act, and is expected shortly to be designated as the market surveillance authority for several categories of high-risk AI systems, including biometrics, migration, law enforcement, employment and education. The report also covers the CNIL's continued work on its AI regulatory sandbox, where six projects relating to the silver economy were supported during the year.

What it means for your business

If you handle personal data of users in France or sell into the French market: The CNIL's 2025 figures show enforcement intensity is rising on cookies, employee monitoring and data security, the three areas it identifies as driving the bulk of last year's fines. Review your cookie banners, monitor your data-breach response times against the Article 33 72-hour deadline, and audit your security controls against the storage-limitation and security principles of GDPR Articles 5 and 32. If you build, deploy or distribute AI systems used in France: The CNIL is positioning itself as one of the most active EU AI Act regulators and is on track to supervise several Annex III high-risk categories (biometrics, migration, law enforcement, employment, education) once formally designated. Map your AI systems against the prohibited practices in Article 5 and the high-risk categories in Annex III. Run a privacy review with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check and an AI Act classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment.

Italian Garante Fines Ambrosetti €85,000 for Plain-Text Passwords and Late Breach Notification

On 21 May 2026, Italy's data protection authority (the Garante) announced an €85,000 fine against the consultancy The European House - Ambrosetti for security and notification failures exposed by a data breach affecting 61,670 people. The Garante found roughly 36,000 account passwords stored in plain text and around 98,000 hashed with the outdated MD5 algorithm, alongside excessive retention of credentials for systems no longer in use. Although Ambrosetti notified the regulator within the 72-hour deadline, it informed the affected individuals only about two months later, and only after the authority intervened.

What changed

On 21 May 2026, the Italian Garante per la protezione dei dati personali published an enforcement decision fining The European House - Ambrosetti €85,000 following a data breach that exposed the names, email addresses, usernames and passwords of 61,670 people, including staff of client companies and internal users of Ambrosetti's online services. The Garante found that the company had stored about 36,000 passwords in plain text and roughly 98,000 using the MD5 hashing algorithm, not always with a salt, a configuration the authority considered inadequate against the security and integrity requirements of GDPR Articles 5(1)(f) and 32. The authority also found that the company retained credentials for systems that were no longer in use, in breach of the storage-limitation principle of Article 5(1)(e).

The Garante separately examined how Ambrosetti handled communication of the breach. The company notified the authority within the 72-hour window required by Article 33, but it informed the affected individuals only around two months after discovering the incident, and only after the Garante intervened. Ambrosetti argued that disclosure had been complicated by reputational concerns and by the organisation of the Cernobbio Forum, but the authority held that those reasons could not justify the delay or override the rights of the people whose data had been exposed. The Garante concluded that the breach posed a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, which under Article 34 of the GDPR triggers an obligation to communicate the breach to those individuals without undue delay.

What it means for your business

If you store user credentials or run any service that holds account passwords: Plain-text password storage and weak hashing remain among the clearest security failures a regulator can find. Hash passwords with a modern, salted algorithm, never keep them in readable form, and delete credentials for systems and accounts you no longer use, in line with the storage-limitation principle. If you handle personal data breaches: Notifying the supervisory authority within 72 hours under Article 33 is only half of the obligation. Where a breach poses a high risk to individuals, Article 34 requires you to inform those individuals without undue delay, and commercial or reputational concerns do not pause that clock. Map your breach-response plan and security controls with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

EU Commission Opens Consultation on Draft Guidelines for Classifying High-Risk AI Systems

On 19 May 2026, the European Commission published draft guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems under Article 6 of the EU AI Act and opened a targeted public consultation that closes on 23 June 2026. The guidelines explain both routes to high-risk status, the Annex I product-safety route and the Annex III route across eight areas (biometrics, critical infrastructure, education, employment, essential services, law enforcement, migration and border control, and justice), and include practical examples of AI systems that should or should not be classified as high-risk.

What changed

On 19 May 2026, the European Commission published its draft guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems and opened a targeted consultation on the AI Act Single Information Platform. The guidelines set out the Commission's interpretation of the concepts relevant to Article 6 of the EU AI Act, which defines two routes to high-risk classification. Under Article 6(1), an AI system is high-risk where it is itself a product, or a safety component of a product, covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I (for example medical devices, machinery, toys and lifts). Under Article 6(2), an AI system is high-risk where it falls within one of the eight areas listed in Annex III: biometrics, critical infrastructure, education and vocational training, employment and worker management, access to essential private and public services, law enforcement, migration and border control, and the administration of justice and democratic processes.

In line with Article 6(5) of the EU AI Act, the guidelines are accompanied by a set of practical examples of AI systems that should or should not be classified as high-risk, giving providers and deployers concrete reference points for borderline cases. The targeted consultation runs until 23 June 2026 (22:00 CET) and is open to AI providers and developers, organisations using AI systems, public authorities, supervisory bodies, researchers, civil society and members of the public. The guidelines are designed to support uniform application and effective enforcement of Article 6 by providers, deployers and market surveillance authorities. They arrive ahead of the high-risk obligations themselves, whose application date for stand-alone Annex III systems was provisionally postponed to 2 December 2027 under the Digital Omnibus on AI agreement.

What it means for your business

If you build, deploy or distribute AI systems and are unsure whether they count as high-risk: These draft guidelines are the most detailed official steer yet on where the high-risk line sits. Map your AI systems against the Annex I product-safety route and the eight Annex III areas, and use the practical examples to test borderline cases such as HR, credit-scoring and biometric tools. If a specific use case is unclear, submit feedback to the consultation before 23 June 2026. Classification is the first step in every AI Act compliance programme: a system classified as high-risk triggers risk management, data governance, logging, transparency and human-oversight obligations. Run a classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment.

EU Member States Confirm Digital Omnibus on AI Compromise, Lock 2 December 2027 Annex III Deadline

On 13 May 2026, the Council's Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) formally confirmed the 7 May 2026 provisional agreement on the Digital Omnibus on AI. The text fixes the high-risk Annex III application date at 2 December 2027 and the Annex I date at 2 August 2028, shortens the grace period for AI-content transparency solutions to three months (new deadline 2 December 2026), and postpones the deadline for national AI regulatory sandboxes to 2 August 2027.

What changed

On 13 May 2026, Member State ambassadors meeting in the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) confirmed the compromise text on the Digital Omnibus on AI agreed with the European Parliament on 7 May 2026. The Council Presidency was authorised to send a letter to the European Parliament stating that, if Parliament adopts the text at first reading, the Council will approve Parliament's position. The compromise locks the new application dates for high-risk AI systems: 2 December 2027 for stand-alone Annex III systems (employment, education, credit scoring, biometrics, critical infrastructure, law enforcement, migration, justice) and 2 August 2028 for high-risk AI embedded in regulated Annex I products (medical devices, machinery, toys, lifts, watercraft).

The Coreper text also clarifies several technical points beyond the headline deadlines. The grace period for providers to implement watermarking and other transparency solutions for AI-generated content under Article 50(2) is cut from six months to three months, with the new deadline set on 2 December 2026. The deadline for competent national authorities to establish AI regulatory sandboxes under Article 57 is postponed to 2 August 2027. The text also adds a new Article 5 prohibition on AI systems generating non-consensual sexual content ("nudification" tools) and AI-generated child sexual abuse material, extends SME regulatory exemptions to small mid-cap enterprises (up to 500 employees) and broadens the lawful basis for processing sensitive personal data for bias detection and mitigation. Formal adoption by Parliament at first reading is expected before 2 August 2026.

What it means for your business

If you build, deploy or distribute high-risk AI systems or general-purpose AI: The new deadlines (2 December 2027 for Annex III, 2 August 2028 for Annex I) are now locked in by Coreper but are not yet law until Parliament adopts at first reading. Until that adoption, the original 2 August 2026 deadline applies. If you build generative AI consumer products: The reduced three-month grace period means watermarking and content-provenance solutions must be in place by 2 December 2026, three months earlier than the originally proposed six-month grace. Audit your tooling against the new "nudification" and CSAM prohibitions before adoption. Run a classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment.

EU Council Adopts Conclusions on Human-Centred AI in Education, Reinforces Teacher AI Literacy

On 11 May 2026, the EU Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council adopted conclusions calling for an ethical, safe and human-centred approach to artificial intelligence in education. The conclusions ask Member States to strengthen teachers' AI literacy, embrace AI's potential while mitigating bias, misinformation and data-protection risks, and ensure teachers participate in the design and evaluation of AI tools used in classrooms.

What changed

On 11 May 2026, EU education ministers meeting as the Council adopted conclusions on the role of teachers in the era of AI, calling for an ethical, safe and human-centred approach to AI in education. The conclusions ask Member States to boost teachers' AI literacy, promote education-specific AI tools, address digital divides, and safeguard teachers' working conditions and well-being. The Council also argues that teachers should have an opportunity to contribute to the design and evaluation of AI tools, in line with an approach based on "digital humanism" that ensures technology supports human agency and democratic values.

The conclusions explicitly raise concerns about reduced autonomy, over-reliance on technology, and risks relating to bias, misinformation and data protection. The Council notes that AI in education could exacerbate inequalities and digital divides, affect learners' concentration and skill acquisition, and have broader societal and environmental implications. The conclusions reinforce Article 4 of the EU AI Act (the AI literacy obligation), which requires providers and deployers of AI systems to ensure their staff and persons dealing with the operation and use of those systems have a sufficient level of AI literacy. They also align with the classification of AI used in education and vocational training as a "high-risk" use case under Annex III of the EU AI Act.

What it means for your business

If you provide AI systems to schools, universities or vocational training providers, or if you deploy AI in an education or training context: Education ministers are now formally aligned on a human-centred deployment model. Expect Member States to push procurement requirements that include teacher AI-literacy training, transparent evaluation criteria, and bias and misinformation safeguards. The conclusions also reinforce that the Article 4 AI literacy obligation applies to all AI deployers, not just those in high-risk sectors. If you sell AI tools for HR, recruitment, assessment or scoring in an education or training context: Classification as high-risk under Annex III is now coupled with these political conclusions, raising the bar for transparency, human oversight and evaluation. Run a classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment and review your training programme with Verdaio's AI Literacy guide.

EU Commission Opens Public Consultation on AI Act Article 50 Transparency Guidelines

On 8 May 2026, the European Commission published draft guidelines on the implementation of the transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act and opened a targeted consultation that closes on 3 June 2026. From 2 August 2026, providers must inform users when they interact with an AI system and add machine-readable marks to AI-generated or manipulated audio, image, video and text, while deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest.

What changed

The draft guidelines clarify the scope of Article 50 transparency duties for both providers and deployers of AI systems. Providers of AI systems intended to interact directly with people must design them so users are informed they are interacting with an AI system, unless that fact is obvious. Providers of generative AI systems must mark synthetic audio, image, video and text outputs in a machine-readable format that allows detection as artificially generated. Deployers must disclose AI-generated deepfakes and AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest, and must inform people exposed to emotion recognition or biometric categorisation systems.

The Commission has run the guidelines work in parallel with the Code of Practice on marking and labelling of AI-generated content: the guidelines clarify legal scope and the Code addresses technical implementation. The targeted consultation runs until 3 June 2026 and is open to providers, deployers, businesses, public authorities, academics and citizens. Article 50 obligations apply from 2 August 2026 and were not affected by the 7 May 2026 Digital Omnibus on AI deal, which postponed the high-risk Annex III deadline to 2 December 2027 but left the transparency timeline intact.

What it means for your business

If you build or deploy generative AI, chatbots, deepfake tools, emotion recognition or biometric categorisation systems: The 2 August 2026 transparency deadline still stands. Plan now for chatbot disclosure, machine-readable watermarking of synthetic outputs, and clear deepfake labelling, and submit feedback before 3 June 2026 if your use case needs clarification. Run a classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment.

Irish DPC Fines PTSB €277,500 for Voice-Phishing Account Takeover Failures

On 8 May 2026, Ireland's Data Protection Commission concluded its inquiry into Permanent TSB (PTSB) and imposed total fines of €277,500: €250,000 for security and integrity failings under GDPR Articles 5 and 32, plus €27,500 for failing to notify the DPC of personal data breaches within 72 hours under Article 33. The breaches stemmed from voice-phishing attacks against PTSB's "Open24" contact centre in 2022, where attackers posed as customers and changed account details on three occasions, exposing the holders to fraud and financial loss.

What changed

The DPC found that PTSB's call-centre identification controls were not consistently followed in three separate incidents in 2022. Attackers, already in possession of certain customer information, contacted PTSB's "Open24" contact centre and impersonated the legitimate account holders to amend account details and obtain further account information. PTSB had reimbursed the affected customers for the funds taken by external fraudsters, but the DPC concluded that the bank infringed the security and integrity requirements of GDPR Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1).

The DPC also found a separate breach of Article 33: PTSB failed to notify the regulator without undue delay and within 72 hours of becoming aware of the incidents. The total enforcement is €277,500 (€250,000 for the Article 5 and 32 infringements and €27,500 for the Article 33 infringement) and is accompanied by a formal reprimand. PTSB has acknowledged the outcome and stated that it has improved its processes to reduce the risk of similar incidents.

What it means for your business

If you operate a contact centre or any voice-channel customer service handling personal or financial data: Voice-channel social engineering remains a top regulatory concern. Map your caller-authentication procedures against Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1), train staff on knowledge-based authentication weaknesses and impersonation indicators, and ensure your incident-response process can detect and notify the supervisory authority within the 72-hour window of Article 33. Run a structured posture check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

EU AI Act Omnibus Deal Reached: High-Risk Annex III Deadline Postponed to 2 December 2027

On 7 May 2026, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the Digital Omnibus on AI, postponing the high-risk AI Act obligations originally due on 2 August 2026. Stand-alone Annex III systems now apply from 2 December 2027 and AI embedded in regulated Annex I products from 2 August 2028. The deal also adds a new prohibited practice covering AI "nudification" tools and AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

What changed

After the 28 April 2026 trilogue collapsed without agreement, negotiators returned on 7 May 2026 and closed a provisional deal under the Cypriot Council Presidency. Annex III stand-alone high-risk obligations (employment, education, credit scoring, biometrics, critical infrastructure, law enforcement, migration, justice) are postponed by 16 months, from 2 August 2026 to 2 December 2027. Annex I obligations covering AI embedded in regulated products (medical devices, machinery, toys, lifts, watercraft) are postponed by 24 months, to 2 August 2028. Both deadlines are now fixed dates rather than conditional on harmonised standards being in place.

The deal introduces a new prohibited AI practice under Article 5: AI systems used to generate non-consensual sexually explicit content (so-called "nudification" tools) and child sexual abuse material. Targeted simplifications extend SME regulatory exemptions to small mid-cap companies (SMCs, up to 500 employees), narrow certain technical documentation requirements, and broaden the lawful basis for processing sensitive personal data for bias detection and mitigation. The provisional agreement still requires formal adoption by both co-legislators before 2 August 2026 to take effect; until that adoption, the original 2 August 2026 deadline remains the legal baseline.

What it means for your business

If you build, deploy or distribute high-risk AI systems (HR, education, credit scoring, biometrics, AI in regulated products) or general-purpose AI: Plan for a 2 December 2027 (Annex III) or 2 August 2028 (Annex I) deadline, but do not stop compliance work. Formal adoption is still pending and the original 2 August 2026 deadline applies until both co-legislators sign off. The extra time is best used to mature risk management, data governance and human-oversight controls, not to delay them. If you build generative AI consumer products: Audit your tooling against the new "nudification" and CSAM prohibitions before the deal is adopted. Run a classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment.

EU Commission Opens Public Consultation on Revised ESRS, Closes 3 June 2026

On 6 May 2026, the European Commission opened a one-month "Have Your Say" public consultation on the draft revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and on a separate voluntary standard for smaller companies. The consultations close on 3 June 2026, with adoption planned for Q2 2026.

What changed

The draft revised ESRS reduce mandatory datapoints by over 60% and total datapoints by over 70%, are shorter and clearer, introduce new flexibilities, and simplify the materiality assessment used to determine what must be reported. The Commission estimates these changes will reduce reporting costs per company by more than 30%. The revised standards build largely on technical advice provided by EFRAG in December 2025.

Undertakings within the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) must use the revised ESRS for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027. However, undertakings subject to the CSRD for financial year 2026 may choose to apply the revised ESRS for that financial year instead of the existing ESRS. The voluntary standard introduces a "value chain cap": CSRD in-scope companies cannot require value-chain partners with 1,000 employees or fewer to provide information beyond the voluntary standard, unless those partners choose to provide it.

What it means for your business

If you are an undertaking in scope of the CSRD (1,000+ employees, €450M+ turnover): Review the draft revised ESRS now, especially the materiality assessment changes and reduced datapoint set, and decide whether to apply the revised standards early for FY 2026 or wait for FY 2027. Submit feedback before 3 June 2026 if you have specific concerns. If you are a smaller company in a CSRD value chain: The voluntary standard plus the value chain cap limits what your large clients can require from you on sustainability data. Run a gap-check with Verdaio's ESRS Gap Analysis.

European Parliament Calls for Stronger DMA Enforcement, Criticises 'Modest' Fines on Apple and Meta

On 30 April 2026, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (P10_TA(2026)0160) urging the Commission to use all enforcement tools under the Digital Markets Act and to conclude pending non-compliance proceedings without undue delay. MEPs called the €500M Apple and €200M Meta fines 'modest' and warned that pressure from third countries should not weaken EU enforcement.

What changed

In its resolution adopted by show of hands on 30 April 2026, the European Parliament called on the Commission to make full use of all DMA enforcement instruments: regulatory dialogue, market investigations, non-compliance proceedings, inspections, interim measures, fines and periodic penalty payments. MEPs regretted the 'modest' fines imposed on Apple (€500M) and Meta (€200M) in April 2025 and stressed that effective and proportionate fines are essential to ensure deterrence. The resolution focuses on the practical effect of DMA rules on competition, market access and user choice, rather than on formal compliance alone.

Parliament urged the Commission to prioritise enforcement of interoperability, data access, anti-steering and anti-self-preferencing obligations, and called for closer scrutiny of AI-driven search and assistant tools, including Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Apple Siri, Meta WhatsApp AI, Amazon Rufus and Microsoft Copilot. Although the resolution does not name third countries directly, MEPs warned that external pressure must not compromise the EU's sovereignty to enforce its own digital rules. The vote follows the Commission's first DMA review report (28 April 2026), which concluded that the DMA remains fit for purpose.

What it means for your business

If you operate or distribute services on a designated gatekeeper platform (App Store, Google Play, Amazon Marketplace, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Search, Booking.com): Expect the Commission to accelerate ongoing non-compliance proceedings and to focus on practical effects (real choice, real interoperability) rather than formal box-ticking. Plan for higher fines on repeat or continued non-compliance, and for closer scrutiny of AI-driven search and assistant tools when integrated with gatekeeper services. Track DMA developments and align your distribution, advertising and consent flows accordingly.

Irish Supreme Court Upholds Stay on €530M TikTok GDPR Fine and Data Transfer Orders

On 30 April 2026, Ireland's Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Data Protection Commission's appeal in the TikTok case, leaving the High Court stay on the DPC's €530M fine and EEA-to-China data transfer orders in place during the substantive appeal. Justice Hogan held that the legal test for staying a regulator's decision is a matter of national procedural law and does not undermine the full effectiveness of EU data protection law.

What changed

In May 2025 the Irish DPC fined TikTok Technology Limited €530M and ordered it to bring its EEA-to-China transfers into compliance within six months, finding that TikTok had failed to verify the effectiveness of supplementary measures and Standard Contractual Clauses under Article 46(1) GDPR. TikTok appealed to the High Court, which granted a stay on the corrective orders pending the substantive ruling, citing the limited and temporary risk to consumers against the difficulty of quantifying the harm to TikTok from immediate enforcement. The DPC then appealed the stay itself to the Supreme Court.

On 30 April 2026, a five-judge Supreme Court led by Justice Hogan unanimously dismissed the DPC's appeal. The Court held that the test for staying a regulatory decision belongs to national procedural law, not EU law, and that applying the Irish stay test does not undermine the full effectiveness of GDPR enforcement. The €530M fine remains formally imposed but unenforced; the corrective orders to suspend the EEA-to-China transfers are paused. The substantive High Court appeal continues at pace.

What it means for your business

If you operate cross-border data transfers (especially to non-adequacy jurisdictions) or rely on Standard Contractual Clauses with supplementary measures: the DPC decision still stands as the EU benchmark on what 'essentially equivalent protection' under Article 46(1) GDPR requires. The stay only freezes enforcement while the Irish courts review the underlying decision; it does not weaken the substantive compliance obligation. Audit your transfer impact assessments, supplementary measures, and onward-access controls. Run a structured check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

Italian Garante: Hotels and B&Bs Cannot Retain Copies of Guest ID Documents After Police Reporting

On 29 April 2026, the Italian Garante issued a clarifying note to industry trade associations confirming that hotels, B&Bs, and short-term rentals cannot retain photocopies or digital images of guests' identity documents beyond the time strictly necessary to transmit the data to public security authorities. Once the Alloggiati Web reporting is complete, any document copies must be deleted or destroyed; only the automated transmission receipt may be kept (for up to five years as proof of compliance).

What changed

Italian public security law requires accommodation operators to identify guests and transmit their data to police authorities through the "Alloggiati Web" portal. The Garante's note clarifies that this legal obligation does not authorise hotels, B&Bs, or short-term rental operators to retain photocopies, scans, or smartphone images of identity documents. The Authority issued the note in response to a rise in data breaches and complaints, including the practice of receiving documents via WhatsApp or other messaging apps, which exposes guests to identity theft and unauthorised access risks.

Once data transmission to public security authorities is complete, any copy of an identity document acquired for that purpose must be immediately deleted or destroyed. The only record accommodation providers may retain is the automated receipt produced by the Alloggiati Web portal, kept for up to five years to evidence the reporting obligation. The Garante also reminds operators that, as GDPR data controllers, they must adopt adequate security measures, properly train staff handling guest data, and notify the Authority within 72 hours of any personal data breach (and, where appropriate, inform affected individuals).

What it means for your business

If you operate a hotel, B&B, or short-term rental in Italy (or process Italian guest data from abroad): Audit your check-in workflow now. Stop photographing or storing identity documents after the Alloggiati Web reporting; keep only the transmission receipt. Review your retention policy, train front-desk staff on the new guidance, and ensure your booking and PMS systems do not preserve ID images by default. Run a gap-check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

AI Omnibus Trilogue Collapses: 2 August 2026 High-Risk AI Act Deadline Stays in Force

The 28 April 2026 political trilogue on the Digital Omnibus on AI ended without agreement after roughly 12 hours of negotiations, with the conformity assessment architecture for AI in regulated products (Annex I) the unresolved sticking point. A follow-up trilogue is scheduled for around 13 May 2026; until and unless agreement is reached, the EU AI Act's 2 August 2026 high-risk obligations remain legally in force.

What changed

The European Parliament, Council, and Commission entered the second political trilogue on the Digital Omnibus on AI on 28 April 2026, aiming to postpone the high-risk compliance deadline (originally 2 August 2026) and integrate AI Act obligations more closely with sectoral product safety law. After approximately 12 hours of negotiations the talks broke down on Annex I, where the European Parliament pushed to move sectoral legislation (machinery, medical devices, in-vitro diagnostics) from Section A (combined AI Act and sectoral assessment) to Section B for primarily sectoral handling. The Council declined to move and the single disagreement was sufficient to block the entire package.

A follow-up political trilogue is scheduled for around 13 May 2026. The Cypriot Council Presidency is expected to attempt closure before its term ends on 30 June 2026, after which the Lithuanian Presidency would take over. With no agreed Omnibus, the original AI Act timetable stands: providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems remain on the hook for the 2 August 2026 obligations under Articles 9-15: risk management, data governance, technical documentation, logging, transparency, human oversight, and accuracy and robustness.

What it means for your business

If you build, deploy or distribute high-risk AI systems (particularly in HR, education, credit scoring, biometrics, or AI embedded in regulated products): Plan as if the 2 August 2026 deadline will hold. Trilogue uncertainty is not a basis for delaying compliance work. Even if a postponement is later agreed, an early start protects you from a compressed timeline. Run a classification check with Verdaio's EU AI Act Assessment.

Commission and EDPB Launch Joint Guidance on the Interplay Between EU Competition Law and the GDPR

On 28 April 2026, the European Commission's competition services and the European Data Protection Board announced joint work on guidance clarifying how EU competition law and the GDPR interact. The initiative builds on the prior DMA-GDPR joint guidelines and will inform a remote stakeholder event on 29 June 2026.

What changed

Commission services and the EDPB will jointly develop guidance on situations where data protection law is relevant for competition law assessment, and conversely where competition considerations matter for data protection. According to the announcement, the guidance is expected to address dominant digital platforms, access to user data, data portability, online advertising, contractual conditions linked to data use, and digital ecosystems. The work formalises a coordination model already piloted through the joint DMA-GDPR guidelines.

The EDPB has invited stakeholders to a remote event on 29 June 2026 to inform the upcoming guidelines, with a call for expressions of interest to follow in the coming weeks. The announcement signals continued integration of GDPR analysis into EU competition enforcement, particularly for gatekeepers and platforms whose business models rely on personal data. Companies operating across both regimes (large platforms, ad-tech, marketplaces and data brokers) should expect more cross-regulatory scrutiny.

What it means for your business

If you operate a digital platform, ad-tech product, or any service whose terms condition access on data use: Expect EU competition authorities to assess your data-handling practices through a GDPR lens, and the EDPB to factor competition outcomes into its guidance. Review the alignment of your privacy notices, consent flows and data-portability mechanisms with both frameworks. Run a gap-check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

Italian Garante Adopts Guidelines on Tracking Pixels in Email: Consent Mandatory, 6 Months to Comply

The Italian Garante adopted Guidelines on the use of tracking pixels in email communications on 17 April 2026, confirming that pixel tracking falls under Article 122 of the Italian Privacy Code and, in ordinary cases, requires prior, free, specific and informed consent. Senders and email platform providers have six months from publication in the Official Gazette to comply.

What changed

Tracking pixels are minimal-size images, typically invisible to the recipient, inserted into email messages to detect opens, clicks and device or behavioural signals. The Garante's Guidelines classify them as "instruments of access and storage of information" under Article 122 of the Italian Privacy Code (the national transposition of the ePrivacy Directive) and require prior, free, specific, informed and unambiguous consent before any tracking pixel is activated. Controllers must provide clear, transparent information, easy and granular consent-revocation mechanisms, and privacy-by-design and privacy-by-default measures such as non-intelligible identifiers separated from the email address.

The Guidelines apply broadly to information-society service providers, email service providers, managers of bulk-email sending platforms and any entity using tracking pixels in electronic communications. Limited consent exemptions cover cybersecurity (anti-phishing, fraud prevention), aggregated anonymous statistics that cannot identify recipients, and strictly necessary institutional or service communications. The Garante grants operators six months from publication in the Official Gazette to bring their systems into compliance.

What it means for your business

If you run email marketing, transactional emails or newsletters targeting Italian recipients: Review every pixel, open-tracker and click-tracker in your ESP or CRM stack, map each to a specific legal basis, and align your consent flows and privacy notices with the Guidelines. Revisit data-minimisation controls (pseudonymous IDs, short retention) and document the exemption you rely on where no consent is collected. Run a gap-check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

Italian Garante Fines Poste Italiane and Postepay €12.5M for Unlawful App Data Monitoring

Italy's data protection authority (Garante) imposed fines totalling over €12.5 million on Poste Italiane (€6.624M) and Postepay (€5.877M) for the BancoPosta and Postepay mobile apps' unlawful monitoring of users' device data. Users were required to authorise access to installed applications as a mandatory condition of service.

What changed

The Garante ruled that the BancoPosta and Postepay mobile apps' mandatory authorisation to monitor installed applications and running processes on users' devices was excessively invasive and not strictly necessary for fraud prevention. The investigation followed complaints received by the Authority from April 2024. Additional violations found include inadequate user information, absence of a proper Data Protection Impact Assessment, failure to adopt adequate security and retention measures, and irregularities in the designation of data controllers and processors.

Poste Italiane has announced it will appeal to the Rome Court, arguing that access to device data complied with PSD2 and had been recognised by Banca d'Italia as a legitimate fraud-prevention measure. The total €12.5M enforcement action is one of the largest Italian GDPR fines issued in 2026 and continues the Garante's focus on mobile-app privacy following prior decisions against banking and payment apps.

What it means for your business

If you run a mobile app that reads device state (installed apps, running processes, device fingerprinting): The Garante's decision sets a clear precedent that mandatory, all-or-nothing authorisations to access device data are disproportionate, even for fraud prevention. Review data minimisation, user-information flows, DPIA coverage, and security/retention controls for your mobile apps. Run a gap-check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

EDPB Plenary: Scientific Research Guidelines Adopted, Europrivacy Seal Approved for Transfers

At its 16 April 2026 plenary, the European Data Protection Board adopted Guidelines 1/2026 on processing personal data for scientific research and, for the first time, approved a European Data Protection Seal (Europrivacy) as a valid Article 46 tool for international data transfers.

What changed

Guidelines 1/2026 clarify the boundaries of the GDPR "scientific research" concept. The EDPB sets six indicative factors for identifying research processing (methodical approach, ethical standards, verifiability, autonomy, research objective, and contribution to knowledge) and explains how data subject rights, including the right to erasure and the right to object, can be limited under Article 89 GDPR. The Board also covers appropriate technical and organisational safeguards, including pseudonymisation, anonymisation, secure processing environments, and ethical oversight. The Guidelines are open for public consultation until 25 June 2026. A separate EDPB "sprint team" was created to finalise the long-pending Guidelines on anonymisation by summer.

The Board also adopted Opinion 15/2026 recognising the Europrivacy certification criteria as a European Data Protection Seal under Articles 42 and 46(2)(f) GDPR. This is the first time a certification mechanism has been approved at EU level as a valid tool for transfers. Data importers outside the EU/EEA who are not subject to the GDPR can now apply for Europrivacy certification and rely on it, together with binding and enforceable commitments, to receive personal data from EU controllers.

What it means for your business

If you process personal data for research: Start mapping your activities against the six indicative factors and review how you document consent, safeguards and the limits on data subject rights. If you transfer personal data outside the EU/EEA: Certification is now a practical alternative to Standard Contractual Clauses and BCRs, useful where providers are reluctant to sign SCCs, or where the destination jurisdiction creates uncertainty. Review your GDPR posture and see whether certification-based transfers fit your vendor stack.

Italian Garante: "FaceBoarding" Facial Recognition at Milan Linate Violates GDPR

The Italian Garante declared the "FaceBoarding" facial-recognition boarding system at Milan Linate airport, operated by SEA, unlawful, ordering a definitive stop to biometric processing. The decision aligns with the EDPB's 2025 opinion on airport facial recognition and targets missing encryption, excessive retention, and non-consensual data capture.

What changed

The Authority found that SEA, the Milan Linate airport operator, processed passengers' biometric data (facial templates) without a valid legal basis, failed to encrypt stored biometric models, retained templates for up to 12 months (an excessive period), and provided inaccurate information to data subjects. The system also captured facial images of passengers who had not opted into FaceBoarding but used hybrid boarding gates, processing their biometric data without consent.

The decision confirms a provisional limitation measure adopted in September 2025 and is explicitly aligned with the EDPB's 2025 opinion on facial recognition in airports, which concluded that passenger convenience does not justify default biometric processing. FaceBoarding is the first high-profile Italian application of the EDPB opinion and reinforces EU-wide expectations for airport biometrics: encryption of templates, minimised retention, explicit opt-in, and genuine non-biometric alternatives.

What it means for your business

If you deploy biometric systems (facial recognition, fingerprint) for access, authentication, or customer experience: Biometric processing in public or semi-public spaces must satisfy strict necessity, encryption, and retention standards, even with consent. Review the Article 9 GDPR legal basis, technical safeguards, and whether you offer a real non-biometric alternative. Biometric systems may also trigger EU AI Act obligations. Check your posture with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check and EU AI Act Assessment.

EDPB Adopts Harmonised DPIA Template: Public Consultation Open Until 9 June 2026

The European Data Protection Board adopted a harmonised Data Protection Impact Assessment template to help controllers structure, harmonise and evidence their DPIA reporting across the EU. It is the first EU-level DPIA template and is open for public consultation until 9 June 2026.

What changed

Delivering on the EDPB's Helsinki Statement commitment to simplify GDPR compliance, the Board adopted a common DPIA template covering all core Article 35 elements: description of processing and its purposes, necessity and proportionality assessment, risks to data subjects, and mitigating measures. The template is accompanied by an explainer document breaking down key concepts in plain language and addressing common questions from controllers.

Use of the template is not mandatory, but organisations that use it will benefit from predefined fields that prompt complete, structured responses and evidence of accountability. After the public consultation closes on 9 June 2026, national supervisory authorities will take steps to adopt the template either as their sole standard or as a meta-template to which existing national-specific templates will align.

What it means for your business

If you conduct DPIAs: This is the first time the EU has offered a single, consistent DPIA format that will be recognised across Member States. Multinational controllers benefit most, one template, one structure, accepted by every DPA. Action: Review your current DPIA methodology against the draft template, submit feedback before 9 June if relevant, and plan to migrate existing DPIAs once national DPAs formally adopt it. Run a gap-check with Verdaio's GDPR Quick Check.

NIS2 Compliance Deadline: October 2026: First Audits Due by June

Companies in scope of the NIS2 Directive have until October 2026 to achieve full compliance. The first audit deadline has been set for 30 June 2026, and Member States must identify critical entities by 17 July 2026.

What changed

The NIS2 Directive (2022/2555) significantly expanded the scope of EU cybersecurity obligations from the original NIS Directive. It covers medium and large organisations in 18 sectors including energy, transport, banking, health, digital infrastructure, and ICT service management. Companies must implement risk management measures, incident reporting procedures, supply chain security assessments, and business continuity plans.

The first compliance audit deadline was originally set for 31 December 2025 but has been moved to 30 June 2026. By 17 July 2026, each Member State must formally identify the critical entities in their jurisdiction. Penalties for non-compliance include fines of up to €10M or 2% of global turnover for essential entities, and €7M or 1.4% for important entities. Senior management can be held personally liable.

What it means for your business

If you operate in any of the 18 NIS2 sectors: The compliance deadline is now less than 6 months away. Start with a gap assessment to understand your current posture, particularly around incident reporting (72-hour notification requirement), supply chain risk management, and board-level accountability. Not sure if NIS2 applies to you? Run the free NIS2 Readiness Assessment.

CSRD Omnibus Now Law: Scope Cut by 80%, Only 1,000+ Employee Companies In

The EU's Omnibus I simplification package raises the CSRD reporting threshold to companies with 1,000+ employees and €450M+ in turnover, removing roughly 80% of previously in-scope businesses. Listed SMEs are fully exempt.

What changed

The Omnibus I Directive has raised the CSRD applicability threshold from the original 250-employee threshold to 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover. The law also removes listed SMEs from mandatory scope entirely, they will only report on a voluntary basis using a simplified VSME standard.

The wave 2 deadline (financial year 2025, reporting in 2026) and wave 3 deadline (FY 2026) are both postponed by two years. Wave 1 companies (those already reporting for FY 2024) are not affected. The Omnibus I Directive was published in the EU Official Journal on 26 February 2026 and entered into force on 19 March 2026. These changes are now binding law.

What it means for your business

If you have under 1,000 employees: You are likely out of mandatory scope under the new threshold. However, large customers and financial institutions may still require CSRD-aligned disclosures through their own value chain reporting. If you have 1,000+ employees: Mandatory reporting continues, the core ESRS standards remain unchanged. Use the delay to strengthen your data collection processes.

AI Act High-Risk Deadline: Extension to December 2027 in Final Negotiations

The EU Digital Omnibus proposes extending the compliance deadline for high-risk AI systems from August 2026 to December 2027. Trilogue negotiations are underway with political agreement expected by late April 2026. Until formally adopted, August 2, 2026 remains the legal deadline.

What changed

The EU Digital Omnibus package proposes extending the deadline for high-risk AI system compliance under the EU AI Act. The original Article 6 Annex III deadline is August 2, 2026. The proposal would push this to December 2027 for stand-alone high-risk systems, and to August 2028 for high-risk AI embedded in regulated products (medical devices, machinery). Trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament and Council started on 26 March 2026, with political agreement expected by 28 April 2026.

The proposed extension covers obligations under Articles 9-15 of the AI Act: risk management systems, data governance, technical documentation, logging, transparency, human oversight, and accuracy/robustness requirements. The prohibited practices ban (effective February 2025) and GPAI model obligations (effective August 2025) are not affected. The Omnibus also proposes adding a new prohibited practice: AI systems generating non-consensual intimate imagery.

What it means for your business

If you deploy high-risk AI: The extension is very likely to pass, but it is not yet law. The responsible approach is to prepare for the August 2026 deadline while expecting the relief. If adopted as expected, you will have until December 2027 for Annex III systems. Use the time to build compliant processes rather than waiting. We will update this story when the final text is published.

ECB, EBA and ESMA Warn: ESRS Simplifications Risk Undermining Data Quality

Four EU financial regulators published joint opinions warning that the Omnibus reliefs and permanent exemptions in the revised ESRS could significantly reduce the availability of decision-useful sustainability data.

What changed

In February 2026, the European Central Bank (ECB), European Banking Authority (EBA), European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), and European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published their opinions on the revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards. All four regulators share a core concern: the cumulative effect of permanent reliefs, phase-ins, and exemptions risks undermining the availability of key quantitative data that financial institutions need for risk assessment and lending decisions.

The regulators also highlighted that several reliefs go beyond, or deviate from, the IFRS/ISSB framework, creating interoperability gaps between EU and international sustainability reporting standards. This matters for companies with global investors or operations, who may need to report under both frameworks.

What it means for your business

If you report under ESRS: Even though the Omnibus reduces mandatory scope, the financial sector, your banks, investors, and insurers, still expects comprehensive sustainability data. Companies that only meet the minimum simplified requirements may face challenges accessing green finance or satisfying due diligence requests from larger clients.

EU Taxonomy Reporting Simplified: 10% Materiality Threshold Introduced

A new EU delegated act introduces a 10% materiality threshold for Taxonomy reporting, significantly reducing the number of activities companies must assess and disclose.

What changed

The European Commission adopted a new delegated act amending the EU Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Regulation. The key change is a 10% materiality threshold: companies no longer need to assess and report on Taxonomy alignment for activities that represent less than 10% of their total revenue, capital expenditure (CapEx), or operating expenditure (OpEx).

The delegated act also introduces simplifications to the "Do No Significant Harm" (DNSH) assessment, reduces the number of mandatory data points, and provides clearer guidance on how to handle activities that span multiple NACE codes.

What it means for your business

If you're already reporting: Review which activities fall below the 10% threshold, you may be able to exclude a significant portion of your current assessment scope. If you haven't started: This simplification makes first-time Taxonomy reporting considerably more manageable. The threshold applies for reporting periods from 2025 onwards.

EU AI Act: Prohibited AI Practices Are Now Enforceable

From 2 February 2025, the EU AI Act's ban on unacceptable-risk AI systems became legally enforceable across all Member States. Systems that manipulate users, exploit vulnerabilities, or enable social scoring are now prohibited by law.

What changed

Article 5 of the EU AI Act, listing AI systems with unacceptable risk, became enforceable on 2 February 2025, six months after the regulation entered into force. This includes absolute prohibitions on: AI systems that use subliminal techniques to influence behaviour, systems that exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups, real-time biometric identification in public spaces (with narrow exceptions), social scoring by public authorities, and AI used to infer emotions in workplaces and schools.

Member States were required to designate national market surveillance authorities and notify the European AI Office by this date. The AI Office, established within the European Commission, oversees enforcement for general-purpose AI models. National authorities handle enforcement for other AI systems.

What it means for your business

Immediate action required: If your organisation uses or deploys AI systems, review them against the Article 5 prohibited practices list now. Violations can result in fines of up to €35M or 7% of global annual turnover. Most business AI tools (productivity, analytics, customer service) are not prohibited, but AI used in recruitment, credit scoring, or affecting individuals in sensitive contexts requires careful review.

First DMA Penalties: Apple Fined €500M, Meta €200M

The European Commission issued its first-ever Digital Markets Act enforcement decisions, fining Apple €500M and Meta €200M for failing to comply with their DMA obligations as designated gatekeepers.

What changed

On 23 April 2025, the European Commission issued its first enforcement decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Apple was fined €500M for its App Store practices, specifically for not allowing app developers to freely direct users to alternative purchasing options outside the App Store. Meta was fined €200M for its "pay or consent" advertising model on Facebook and Instagram, which the Commission found did not give users a genuine free alternative to data-based advertising.

Both companies were also ordered to remedy their non-compliant practices within 60 days. The DMA targets large digital platforms designated as "gatekeepers", currently Apple, Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, ByteDance, and Booking.com. The fines can reach up to 10% of global annual turnover (20% for repeat infringements) and up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover per day for non-compliance with interim measures.

What it means for your business

If you use gatekeeper platforms: These decisions signal that app stores, search rankings, and advertising systems on major platforms may change to comply with DMA requirements, potentially affecting your distribution and marketing strategies. If you are a gatekeeper platform: The DMA is now actively enforced. Non-compliance carries substantial financial risk.

GDPR Enforcement Record: TikTok Fined €530M for Sending EU Data to China

Ireland's Data Protection Commission fined TikTok €530M, the third largest GDPR fine on record, for transferring EU users' personal data to China without adequate legal safeguards under Chapter V of the GDPR.

What changed

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) concluded a multi-year investigation into TikTok's international data transfers, finding that TikTok had transferred EU/EEA user data to its parent company ByteDance in China without meeting the strict adequacy requirements of GDPR Chapter V. The €530M fine consists of €485M for the transfer violations and €45M for a transparency infringement regarding TikTok's privacy policy.

This is the third largest GDPR fine ever issued, behind Meta's €1.2B fine (2023) and Amazon's €746M fine (2021). TikTok was also ordered to bring its data processing into compliance within six months. More than 360 GDPR fines were issued across Europe in 2025, with total enforcement reaching a record high.

What it means for your business

For any company that transfers personal data outside the EU/EEA: This fine reinforces that transfer mechanisms must be watertight. Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) are not sufficient if the destination country's laws prevent the data importer from complying with them in practice. Review your data transfer impact assessments (DTIAs), particularly for transfers to the US, India, and China. Consider data localisation where technically feasible.