Recording below.
The webinar presented the main elements of ELI’s Response to the Commission’s initiative to simplify the EU’s digital regulatory framework. The speakers, including Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (ELI President; Professor, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid; Director of the Chair AI: Foundations & Frontiers), Christiane Wendehorst (ELI Scientific Director; Professor, University of Vienna), Agata Szeliga (Attorney at law, partner at Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak in charge of the personal data and privacy law practice), and Bernhard Nessler (Research Manager Intelligent Systems and Certification of AI, Software Competence Center Hagenberg; Lecturer, Johannes Kepler University Linz and Vice-President of the Austrian Society for Artificial Intelligence (ASAI)), emphasised that while ELI supports the overall objectives of the simplification strategy, several provisions of the Data Act would benefit from targeted revisions in order to avoid legal uncertainty and unintended burdens for businesses operating in the European Union.
During the first part of the discussion, the drafters of the Response explained that ELI’s Response focuses on a number of provisions where drafting problems or inconsistencies have been identified. In particular, they proposed revisions to several key articles of the Data Act, including provisions relating to the territorial scope of the Act, the definition of data holders, and rules governing the use and sharing of product data. The speakers noted that certain provisions risk creating confusion or unintended consequences, for instance where the territorial scope of the Act may place European companies at a competitive disadvantage depending on how it is interpreted.
One of the examples discussed concerned the current wording of the provision defining the territorial scope of the Act. The speakers argued that the existing formulation is unnecessarily complex and contains inconsistencies, particularly regarding the obligations of data holders and data recipients both inside and outside the European Union. ELI therefore proposes clarifying the scope to ensure that the rules apply coherently to both EU and third-country actors involved in data sharing.
Another key point of discussion concerned the rules governing the use of data generated by connected products. The speakers highlighted that the current provisions may create uncertainty for manufacturers and data holders, especially where contracts concluded before the adoption of the Data Act did not explicitly regulate the use of such data. To address these concerns, ELI proposes introducing a separate and clearer provision setting out the circumstances in which data holders may use product data and related service data.
The proposed clarification would explicitly allow the use of data where this is necessary for the functioning of the connected product or the provision of related services, as well as where the use of data is required under EU or national law. The speakers explained that the aim is to establish a coherent mechanism covering both personal and non-personal data, while ensuring that the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) continue to apply where personal data are involved.
The discussion also addressed several questions from participants concerning the interaction between the proposed rules and existing EU data protection law. In particular, speakers highlighted the importance of ensuring legal certainty when assessing potential liability under the GDPR, emphasising that compliance with the applicable legal framework should provide businesses with an appropriate degree of legal security.
Additional questions concerned the use of concepts such as ’digital assets’ in the Data Act. The speakers noted that the term is already well established in international legal instruments with a specific meaning, particularly in instruments developed by organisations such as The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). Using the same terminology with a different definition in EU legislation could therefore lead to confusion and should be reconsidered.
The webinar concluded with a broader reflection on the EU’s digital regulatory framework. The speakers stressed that simplification should not only aim to reduce complexity but must also preserve legal certainty and ensure that the regulatory framework supports innovation and competitiveness in the European digital economy. In this context, ELI encouraged the European Commission to continue pursuing its simplification strategy while carefully addressing inconsistencies and unintended effects that could otherwise undermine the policy objectives of the legislation.
The webinar concluded with a Q&A session.
The recording is available below.
