A clash between Poland’s right-wing president and its centrist ruling coalition over the European Union’s flagship social media law is putting the country further at risk of multimillion euro fines from Brussels. President Karol Nawrocki is holding up a bill that would implement the EU’s Digital Services Act, a tech law that allows regulators to police how social media firms moderate content. Nawrocki, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a statement that the law would “give control of content on the internet to officials subordinate to the government, not to independent courts.” The government coalition led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Nawrocki’s rival, warned this further exposed them to the risk of EU fines as high as €9.5 million. Deputy Digital Minister Dariusz Standerski said in a TV interview that, “since the president decided to veto this law, I’m assuming he is also willing to have these costs [of a potential fine] charged to the budget of the President’s Office.” Nawrocki’s refusal to sign the bill brings back bad memories of Warsaw’s years-long clash with Brussels over the rule of law, a conflict that began when Nawrocki’s Law and Justice party rose to power in 2015 and started reforming the country’s courts and regulators. The EU imposed €320 million in penalties on Poland from 2021-2023. Warsaw was already in a fight with the Commission over its slow implementation of the tech rulebook since 2024, when the EU executive put Poland on notice for delaying the law’s implementation and for not designating a responsible authority. In May last year Brussels took Warsaw to court over the issue. If the EU imposes new fines over the rollout of digital rules, it would “reignite debates reminiscent of the rule-of-law mechanism and frozen funds disputes,” said Jakub Szymik, founder of Warsaw-based non-profit watchdog group CEE Digital Democracy Watch. Failure to implement the tech law could in the long run even lead to fines and penalties accruing over time, as happened when Warsaw refused to reform its courts during the earlier rule of law crisis. The European Commission said in a statement that it “will not comment on national legislative procedures.” It added that “implementing the [Digital Services Act] into national law is essential to allow users in Poland to benefit from the same DSA rights.” “This is why we have an ongoing infringement procedure against Poland” for its “failure to designate and empower” a responsible authority, the statement said. Under the tech platforms law, countries were supposed to designate a national authority to oversee the rules by February 2024. Poland is the only EU country that hasn’t moved to at least formally agree on which regulator that should be. The European Commission is the chief regulator for a group of very large online platforms, including Elon Musk’s X, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Google’s YouTube, Chinese-owned TikTok and Shein and others. But national governments have the power to enforce the law on smaller platforms and certify third parties for dispute resolution, among other things. National laws allow users to exercise their rights to appeal to online platforms and challenge decisions. When blocking the bill last Friday, Nawrocki said a new version could be ready within two months. But that was “very unlikely … given that work on the current version has been ongoing for nearly two years and no concrete alternative has been presented” by the president, said Szymik, the NGO official. The Digital Services Act has become a flashpoint in the political fight between Brussels and Washington over how to police online platforms. The EU imposed its first-ever fine under the law on X in December, prompting the U.S. administration to sanction former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other Europeans. Nawrocki last week likened the law to “the construction of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s novel 1984,” a criticism that echoed claims by Trump and his top MAGA officials that the law censored conservatives and right-wingers. Bartosz Brzeziński contributed reporting.

WARSAW — Poland’s nationalist President Karol Nawrocki on Friday sided with his ally U.S. President Donald Trump to veto legislation on enforcing the EU’s social media law, which is hated by the American administration. Trump and his top MAGA officials condemn the EU’s Digital Services Act — which seeks to force big platforms like Elon Musk’s X, Facebook, Instagram to moderate content — as a form of “Orwellian” censorship against conservative and right-wingers. The presidential veto stops national regulators in Warsaw from implementing the DSA and sets Nawrocki up for a a clash with centrist pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Tusk’s parliamentary majority passed the legislation introducing the DSA in Poland. Nawrocki argued that while the bill’s stated aim of protecting citizens — particularly minors — was legitimate, the Polish bill would grant excessive power to government officials over online content, resulting in “administrative censorship.”  “I want this to be stated clearly: a situation in which what is allowed on the internet is decided by an official subordinate to the government resembles the construction of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s novel 1984,” Nawrocki said in a statement — echoing the U.S.’s stance on the law. Nawrocki also warned that allowing authorities to decide what constitutes truth or disinformation would erode freedom of expression “step by step.” He called for a revised draft that would protect children while ensuring that disputes over online speech are settled by independent courts. Deputy Prime Minister and Digital Affairs Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski dismissed Nawrocki’s position, accusing the president of undermining online safety and siding with digital platforms.  “The president has vetoed online safety,” Gawkowski told a press briefing Friday afternoon, arguing the law would have protected children from predators, families from disinformation and users from opaque algorithms.  The minister also rejected Nawrocki’s Orwellian comparisons, saying the bill explicitly relied on ordinary courts rather than officials to rule on online content. Gawkowski said Poland is now among the few EU countries without national legislation enabling effective enforcement of the DSA and pledged that the government would continue to pursue new rules. The clash comes as enforcement of the social media law has become a flashpoint in EU-U.S. relations.  Brussels has already fined Elon Musk’s X €120 million for breaching the law, prompting a furious response from Washington, including travel bans imposed by the Trump administration on former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, an architect of the tech law, and four disinformation experts. The DSA allows fines of up to 6 percent of a company’s global revenue and, as a measure of last resort, temporary bans on platforms. Earlier this week, the European Commission expanded its investigation into X’s AI service Grok after it started posting a wave of non-consensual sexualized pictures of people in response to X users’ requests. The European Commission’s digital spokesperson Thomas Regnier said the EU executive would not comment on national legislative procedures. “Implementing the DSA into national law is essential to allow users in Poland to benefit from the same DSA rights, such as challenging platforms if their content is deleted or their account suspended,” he said. “This is why we have an ongoing infringement procedure against Poland. We have referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU for failure to designate and empower the Digital Services Coordinator,” in May 2025, Regnier added. Gawkowski said that the government would make a quick decision on what to do next with the vetoed bill but declined to offer specifics on what a new bill would look like were it to be submitted to parliament again. Tusk four-party coalition does not have enough votes in parliament to override Nawrocki’s vetoes. That has created a political deadlock over key legislation efforts by the government, which stands for reelection next year. Nawrocki, meanwhile, is aiming to help the Law and Justice (PiS) political party he’s aligned with to retake power after losing to Tusk in 2023. Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into whether Google breached EU competition rules by using the content of web publishers, as well as video uploaded to YouTube, for artificial intelligence purposes. The investigation will examine whether Google is distorting competition by imposing unfair terms and conditions on publishers and content creators, or by granting itself privileged access to such content, thus placing rival AI models at a disadvantage, the Commission said on Tuesday. In a statement, the EU executive said it was concerned that Google may have used the content of web publishers to provide generative AI-powered services on its search results pages without appropriate compensation to publishers, and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. Further, it said that the U.S. search giant may have used video and other content uploaded on YouTube to train Google’s generative AI models without compensating creators and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. The formal antitrust probe follows Google’s rollout of AI-driven search results, which resulted in a drop in traffic to online news sites. Google was fined nearly €3 billion in September for abusing its dominance in online advertising. It has proposed technical remedies over that penalty, but resisted a call by EU competition chief Teresa Ribera to break itself up.

A message from Brussels to Google: Would you break yourself up, please? The search giant faces an early November deadline to say how it intends to comply with a European Commission decision in September, which found that it had illegally maintained its grip on the infrastructure that powers online advertising. With a €2.95 billion fine in the rearview mirror, the Commission and Google find themselves in an unprecedented standoff as Brussels contemplates the once unthinkable: a structural sell-off of part of a U.S. company, preferably voluntary, but potentially forced if necessary. The situation is “very unusual,” said Anne Witt, a professor in competition law at EDHEC Business School in Lille, France. “Structural remedies are almost unprecedented at the EU level,” Witt added. “It’s really the sledgehammer.” In its September decision, the Commission took the “unusual and unprecedented step,” per Witt, to ask Google to design its own remedy — while signaling, if cautiously, that anything short of a sale of parts of its advertising technology business would fall foul of the EU antitrust enforcer. “It appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief, said at the time. As the clock counts down to the deadline for Google to tell the Commission what it intends to do, the possibility of a Brussels-ordered breakup of an American tech champion is unlikely to go unnoticed in Washington, even as the Donald Trump administration pursues its own case against the search giant. (Google accounts for 90 percent of the revenues of Alphabet, the $3.3 trillion technology holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.) Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Google has said that it will appeal the Commission’s decision, which in its view requires changes that would hurt thousands of European businesses. “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, its vice president and global head of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post in September. PARALLEL PROBES The proposal for a voluntary break up of Google marks the culmination of a decade of EU antitrust enforcement in digital markets in which “behavioral” fixes achieved little, and a unique alignment in both timing and substance between the U.S. and the EU of their parallel probes into the firm’s ad tech empire. “It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that there would be a case in the U.S.  and a sister case in Europe that had a breakup as a potential outcome,” said Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Tech Institute, which is advocating for a break-up. The Commission formally launched the investigation into Google’s ad tech stack in 2021, following a drumbeat of complaints from news organizations that had seen Google take control of the high-frequency exchanges where publishers and advertisers agree on the price and placement of online ads.  Google’s control of the exchanges, as well as infrastructure used by both sides of the market, was like allowing Goldman Sachs or Citibank to own the New York Stock Exchange, declared the U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit in 2023. It also created a situation in which cash-strapped news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic saw Google eating an increasing share of revenues from online advertising — and ultimately posing a threat to journalism itself. “This is not just any competition law case — this is about the future of journalism,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Green member of the European Parliament. “Publishers don’t have the revenue because they don’t get traffic on their websites, and then Google’s algorithm decides what information we see,” she said. The plight of publishers proved hefty on the other side of the Atlantic too. In April, the federal judge overseeing the U.S. government’s case against Google ruled that the search giant had illegally maintained its monopoly over parts of the ad tech market.   A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges. | Nurphoto via Getty Images The Virginia district court held a two-week trial on remedies in September. The Trump administration has advocated a sale of the exchanges and an unwinding of Google’s 2008 merger with DoubleClick, through which it came to dominate the online ad market. Judge Leonie Brinkema will hear the government’s closing arguments on Nov. 17 and is expected to issue her verdict in the coming months. STARS ALIGN Viewed by Google’s critics, it’s the ideal set of circumstances for the Commission to push for a muscular structural remedy. “If you cannot go for structural remedies now, when the U.S. is on the same page, then you’re unlikely to ever do it,” said Crider. The route to a breakup may, however, be both legally and politically more challenging. Despite the technical alignment, and a disenchantment with the impact that past fines and behavioral remedies have had, the Commission still faces a “big hurdle” when it comes to the legal test, should it not be satisfied with Google’s remedy offer, said Witt. The U.S. legal system is more conducive to ordering breakups, both as a matter of law — judges have a wide scope to remedy a harm to the market — and in tradition, said Witt, noting that the U.S. government’s lawsuits to break up Google and Meta are rooted in precedents that don’t exist in Europe. Caught in the middle is Google, which should file its proposed remedies within 60 days of being served notice of the Commission decision that was announced on Sept. 5. A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges, and therefore with the notion that structural remedies are necessary. The firm is expected to lodge its appeal in the coming days. While Google has floated asset sales to the Commission over the course of the antitrust investigation, only to be rebuffed by Brussels, the firm does not intend to divest the entirety of its ad tech stack, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. Ultimately, what happens in Brussels may depend on what happens in the U.S. case. While a court-ordered divestiture of a chunk of Google’s ad tech business is conceivable, U.S. judges have shown themselves to be skeptical of structural remedies in recent months, said Lazar Radic, an assistant law professor at IE University in Madrid, who is affiliated with the big tech-friendly International Center for Law and Economics. “Behavioral alternatives are still on the table,” said Radic, of the U.S. case. The Commission will likely want to align itself with the U.S. should the Virginia court side with the Department of Justice, said Damien Geradin, legal counsel to the European Publishers Council — of which POLITICO parent Axel Springer is a member — that brought forward the case. Conversely, if the court opts for a weaker remedy than is being proposed, the Commission will be obliged to go further, he said. “This is the case where some structural remedies will be needed. I don’t think the [European Commission] can settle for less,” said Geradin.

Mario Monti is a former prime minister of Italy and EU commissioner. The European Commission sanctioned Google on Sept. 5, for abusing its dominant position in the bloc’s advertising technology market. The sanction had two components: a €2.95-billion fine, as well as the obligation of introducing changes to the company’s business model that will ensure the discontinuation of the abuse. In reaction, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a statement on how “Europe today ‘hit’ another great American company.” Taking to social media, he warned: “We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American ingenuity and, if it does, I will be forced to start a Section 301 proceeding to nullify the unfair penalties being charged to these taxpaying American companies” — a proceeding that would presumably lead to the imposition of tariffs by the U.S. But, with all due respect, Trump is missing a key point: There is no discrimination here. The Commission sanctions cases of abuse of dominance that take place in the EU market, whether they’re carried out by EU or non-EU companies. More to the point, this is exactly what the U.S. antitrust authorities do with respect to the U.S. market. Incidentally, just yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission in Washington opened an investigation into the advertising practices of Google and Amazon, much along the lines set out by the Commission. We’ve been here before — and with the same players too. Let’s rewind 20 years to when I was Competition commissioner: In 2004, the Commission sanctioned Microsoft after a long investigation involving constructive discussions with Co-founder Bill Gates, then-CEO Steve Ballmer and then-General Counsel Brad Smith, among many others. Eventually, it imposed a fine of almost €500 million and, more importantly, ordered changes to the company’s business model. Interestingly, the complaints that prompted the investigation mainly came from U.S. companies, including the start-ups of the early days of the internet economy. They were complaining that Microsoft, which had — through its merits — legally earned a highly dominant position in operating systems for personal computers, was leveraging its position onto neighboring markets by obstructing other companies in a variety of ways, thus stifling innovation. In fact, I remember one such U.S. start-up — only about three years old when we began our investigation — had a rather intriguing name: Google. And I remember then-CEO Eric Schmidt visiting the Commission to praise our “courage.” The European Commission sanctioned Google on Sept. 5, for abusing its dominant position in the bloc’s advertising technology market. | Beata Zawrzel/Getty Images Incidentally, European corporate leaders, who sometimes urge the Commission to be less rigorous in its enforcement of competition rules, should also keep these past cases in mind — especially if they want a more innovative and competitive European economy, as we all do. Perhaps they should put the issue into a broader perspective and think twice. With its Microsoft decision, the Commission — followed by several other competition authorities across the world — allowed for the emergence of Google and other start-ups to become hugely successful. In fact, it put pressure on Microsoft to change its behavior and embrace a corporate culture building on collaboration rather than monopolization, supporting open-source projects and fostering partnerships with other companies. And many analysts believe it is these changes, stimulated by the past determination of competition authorities, that help explain Microsoft’s success over the last decade, under the leadership of CEO Satya Nadella. Against this backdrop, Trump’s view that EU competition policy is driven by discriminatory motivations against U.S. companies is simply unfounded. What’s true is that in any national or supranational context like the EU, institutions such as competition authorities and central banks have been set up in the eminent American tradition — dating back to the late 19th century (with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890) and the early 20th century (with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) — precisely with the goal preventing these abuses, whether by companies in the marketplace or by governments abusing future generations via high inflation. Of course, it’s no surprise that leaders with an autocratic vision wouldn’t feel at ease with institutions entrusted by governments and parliaments of the past with preventing power from becoming absolute. But it was the U.S. that set postwar Germany, and later the EU, on this track. When occupying the country after World War II, America imposed the creation of two institutions on the newly born Federal Republic of Germany: First, the Deutsche Bundesbank — an independent central bank modeled on the Federal Reserve System, meant to avoid a repetition of the hyperinflation that contributed to the advent of Nazism. Second, the Bundeskartellamt competition authority, modeled on the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, with the power to prevent the reemergence of cartels and trusts in heavy industry — another factor that had contributed to Hitler’s aggression and World War II. Then, at Germany’s request — and on the basis of the country’s democratic and economic resurgence — these two institutions were transposed to the EU level. So, today we must thank the U.S. not only for its decisive help in saving the continent from Nazism and Fascism and protecting it from Soviet Communism, but also for injecting postwar Europe with such powerful antidotes to the aberrations of the past. Perhaps Trump might forgive us if we aren’t ready to give up this great American legacy.

Meta and TikTok have dealt a blow to the European Commission’s social media rule book, pressing the EU executive to codify how it calculates the number of users on online platforms. The General Court at the Court of Justice of the European Union sided with the social media companies on Wednesday in their challenge of an annual supervisory fee the European Union charges to pay for the enforcement of its tech rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA). It’s the first major court loss for the Commission over the DSA, which entered into force in 2022 and can be wielded to fine social media and e-commerce platforms up to 6 percent of their global annual revenue. The EU has yet to finalize investigations under the law. At the heart of the case are platforms’ disagreements with how the EU calculated the fee. The Commission directly supervises “very large online platforms” with over 45 million average monthly users in the bloc. Meta and TikTok challenged the European Commission’s decisions imposing so-called supervisory fees in 2024. These fees are meant to support the Commission’s work overseeing the very platforms that pay it — an extension of the “polluter pays” principle often used in environmental policy — and are proportionate to the number of users platforms have in the EU. The EU’s General Court said in its ruling the Commission should have passed a separate set of rules about how users are calculated before determining the fees. Judges gave the Commission a year to draft a text on how it calculates platform users, or else potentially refund the platforms’ 2023 fees. The EU executive has already been working on such rules, called a delegated act. The Commission said the court merely ruled against it on procedure and not substance. “The Court confirms our methodology is sound: no error in calculation, no suspension of any payments, no problem with the principle of the fee nor the amount,” said spokesperson Thomas Regnier. Meta said in a statement that the judgement “will force the European Commission to reassess the unfair methodology being used to calculate these DSA fees,” adding it “looks forward to the flaws in the methodology being addressed.” TikTok “welcomed” the decision and will “closely follow the development” of the case, company spokesperson Paolo Ganino said.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to impose more tariffs against the European Union after the bloc levied a €2.95 billion fine against Google for violating anti-monopoly laws. “As I have said before, my Administration will NOT allow these discriminatory actions to stand,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. The European Commission announced the penalty against Google Friday for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology market — a decision the search giant vowed to appeal. The company now has 60 days to propose a remedy to the EU, which has left a forced breakup on the table. Trump and his administration, most notably Vice President JD Vance, have been outspoken in criticizing European tech laws they say disproportionately harm U.S. tech companies and chill free speech. Trump’s comment Friday comes as his Justice Department prepares to go to trial with Google later this month to resolve a similar case involving Google’s online advertising monopoly. A federal judge already ruled Google has an illegal monopoly in that case, and another trial will be held to determine a remedy, which could include breaking up the company. His comment also comes a day after Trump hosted a White House dinner with tech executives, including Google CEO Sundar Pichai and co-founder Sergey Brin, in which the president congratulated the company for avoiding a breakup after a judge on Tuesday found the company had illegally monopolized the online search market. “I’m glad it’s over,” Pichai told Trump during the dinner. “Appreciate that your administration had a constructive dialogue, and we were able to get it to some resolution.” Trump in his Friday post indicated he might order an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a little-used provision that allows the president to impose trade restrictions if an investigation finds that a country is engaged in a practice that is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. “We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American Ingenuity,” Trump wrote of the EU’s fine. “Google must now come forward with a serious remedy to address its conflicts of interest, and if it fails to do so, we will not hesitate to impose strong remedies,” said European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera in a statement Friday. The Commission’s multibillion-euro fine falls short of the €4.34 billion fine the EU executive slapped on Google in 2018 over abuse of dominance related to Android mobile devices, but is higher than the €2.42 billion fine the firm faced for favoring its own comparison-shopping service in 2017.

The European Commission today fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology market. The American tech giant is alleged to have distorted the market for online ads by favoring its own services to the detriment of competitors, advertisers and online publishers, the EU executive said in a press release. The search firm’s ownership of various parts of the digital ads ecosystem — including the software that both advertisers and publishers use to buy online ads — creates “inherent conflicts of interest,” according to the Commission. “Google must now come forward with a serious remedy to address its conflicts of interest, and if it fails to do so, we will not hesitate to impose strong remedies,” said European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera in a statement. Google now has until early November — or 60 days — to tell the Commission how it intends to resolve that conflict of interest and to remedy the alleged abuse. The Commission said it would not rule out a structural divestiture of Google’s adtech assets — but it “first wishes to hear and assess Google’s proposal.” In 2023, the Commission issued a charge sheet to Google in which it concluded that a mandatory divestment by the internet search behemoth of part of its adtech operations might be the only way to effectively prevent the firm from favoring its own services in the future. The Commission had originally intended to deliver the fine Monday, before Brussels’ trade czar Maroš Šefčovič intervened to halt the decision amid continued tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. This article is being updated.

WhatsApp plans to roll out a new advertising model in the coming months, but the company has told Ireland’s privacy regulator that it won’t affect the EU until next year. WhatsApp owner Meta announced the launch of new features in WhatsApp’s “Updates” tab on Monday, including targeted advertisements and a subscription model. It said the features would start to appear for users “over the next several months.” The announcement immediately raised concern among privacy organizations, in particular the fact that Meta will also use “ad preferences and info” from across people’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, where they are linked to WhatsApp. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, the Irish Data Protection Commission, responsible for enforcing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation against Meta, said that it has been informed by WhatsApp that its advertising model won’t roll out in the EU until 2026. “That new product won’t be launching [in] the EU market until 2026. We have been informed by WhatsApp and we will be meeting with them to discuss any issues further,” said Commissioner Des Hogan. He added that the advertising model will be discussed with other data protection authorities “so that we can reflect back any concerns which we have as European regulators.” A spokesperson for WhatsApp confirmed that the advertising model is a “global update, and it is being rolled out gradually around the world.” Meta said in the announcement that the new features are built “in the most privacy-oriented way possible,” and has emphasized that sharing of data between WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook will only happen when users have opted in to having their accounts linked. The U.S. social media giant previously paused the rollout of flagship artificial intelligence technology in the EU over privacy concerns from the Irish regulator. Commissioner Dale Sunderland said that regarding WhatsApp’s advertising model, they “haven’t had that sort of conversation” with the company. “We’re still early days, we’ll engage as we do with every other new feature, new issue that they bring to us … and at this stage, it’s too early to say what, if any, will be any red line issues,” he said.

The Dutch government on Tuesday said children under 15 years old should not have access to social media like TikTok and Instagram. Children over 13 should be able to learn how to use “social interaction platforms” like WhatsApp and Signal, the Dutch government said in new guidelines to help parents handle screen time and social apps. But when it comes to social media, the government advises to wait until the age of 15, it said in a press release. The Netherlands is one of several European Union countries that is taking action against the effects of social media on minors’ mental health and development. France’s President Emmanuel Macron has been vocal about a minimum age of 15 for social media use, and Greece and Spain also support tougher rules. The European Commission has released its own guidelines on the protection of minors online, but many member states appear unhappy with the pace of progress at the EU level. Social interaction platforms like chat apps play a “positive role” as children over 12 develop their social identities, offering “space for social interaction with peers and for self-expression,” the Dutch guidelines said. The guidelines also recommended limiting children’s screen time, starting from half an hour per day for two-to-four-year-olds and gradually increasing to three hours per day for children over 12. Parents and educators should also practice healthy screen time habits to set the example for children, the guidelines said, including putting their phones away and turning notifications off when they are with minors. The Dutch Parliament asked for the guidelines back in February.