The parliamentary term now ending has been full of regulatory proposals concerning the digital sector. Some proposals are brand new regulations, as with the AI Act, while others update regulations that were no longer able to cope with the changes of the times, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA). The latter will soon be put to the test in the upcoming June elections.
While the European Commission must be given credit for its deep commitment and success in finding the right balance in all these new regulations, the role of the European Parliament has not been inferior. Take, for example, the role of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), which I sit on, and which has not been intimidated by external pressures and government. The IMCO, in the trialogue, kept to the point when it was necessary to defend the fundamental rights of individuals.
Just to give a brief list as an example, in these five years both the DSA and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) have been approved, which finally succeeded in curtailing the excessive power of Big Tech in favour of users and SMEs. These regulations were criticised at first because they were considered a barrier to the free market and innovation but are now being 'copied' in other countries.
But if these examples have taken up space in national media, many other lesser known but no less important examples have seen, or are seeing, the light of day, too: the Data Act, which will favour market access for smaller companies and facilitate the portability of users' data; the Data Governance Act, which will increase the circulation and exchange of data between the public and private sectors in a controlled manner and the European Health Data Space, which will facilitate the secure exchange of health data for research purposes. And, again, new regulations in the digital and financial sector on digital identity and on cybersecurity.
AI will radically change the way we do many things, just as social media changed the way we communicate with others
More recently, we passed the AI Act and the directive to protect platform workers. I mention them together not only because I was co-rapporteur of the first and a colleague, MEP Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D, IT) was rapporteur of the second, but also because both cases saw trialogues that seemed to be closed, but then were not.
The interests of large multinationals behind these two pieces of legislation jeopardised interinstitutional bargaining, just when it seemed closed. These attempts clearly show how decisive the role of Parliament is in protecting people's rights, which must always be combined with the drive for innovation.
As we rightly added in the incipit of the AI Act, artificial intelligence only works if it serves people. This is why the next term of parliament will have to both monitor the implementation of these very important regulations and recognise that the work is not over. I personally hope to work on a directive on the use of AI in the workplace. Worker protection is of paramount importance if we want to govern these changes: the AI Act is a milestone, but it is only the beginning of a path and we need investment, research and more co-ordinated actions at European level.
AI will radically change the way we do many things, just as social media changed the way we communicate with others. We didn't realise it then, but this time we are prepared not to be overwhelmed by the novelty.