Denmark, holding the EU presidency, welcomes the adopted proposal for voluntary chat control by tech companies, despite having initially pushed for even broader measures.
The country’s Justice Minister, Peter Hummelgaard, stated his desire for EU member states to have gone further, as an earlier Danish proposal that would mandate tech companies to monitor user traffic failed to gain sufficient support.
The current proposal maintains a temporary exemption to the ePrivacy Regulation, allowing tech companies to scan user traffic, but Denmark strongly advocates for this measure to be made permanent.
However, the Netherlands opposes this permanent status, arguing that a temporary arrangement allows for periodic re-evaluation of concerns, a crucial element that would be lost with a permanent adoption.
Critics, including former Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer, view the adopted proposal as a “Trojan horse.” He warns it legitimizes error-prone mass surveillance by American companies without judicial oversight and eliminates online anonymity through mandatory age verification. Read Breyer’s analysis here: Patrick Breyer’s Reality Check.
Breyer argues that age verification would force all Europeans to undergo facial scans or upload ID for email and chat accounts, effectively banning anonymous communication, a vital lifeline for whistleblowers and abuse victims.
The vote was not unanimous, with the Netherlands, Czech Republic, and Poland voting against the proposal, and Italy abstaining. Negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament are expected soon, with a final proposal aimed for a vote before April 2026. The initial press release from the Danish Ministry of Justice was not accessible.
The Danish push for broader chat control measures aligns with growing concerns from intelligence services, such as the AIVD in the Netherlands, who warn of significant risks to national cyber resilience from such proposals. These warnings underscore the delicate balance between security and privacy.
Even voluntary message scanning, critics argue, could weaken fundamental digital security and make critical infrastructure more vulnerable to hostile actors and cybercriminals. The debate continues to highlight deep divisions within the EU on these critical issues.