Enforcement Design in EU Digital Regulation: Lessons for the Digital Fairness Act

Authors: Laura Zoboli (IE University, Spain) and Joanna Mazur (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Published in: European Journal of Risk Regulation (Cambridge University Press), published online on 28 May 2026 Cambridge CoreCambridge Core

The legislative text of the Digital Fairness Act has not yet been published. The authors argue that whether it works will depend as much on how it is enforced as on its substantive rules. Recent instruments such as the DSA, DMA, AI Act and Data Act have struggled to achieve consistent and timely enforcement across Member States. Building on the Commission’s Digital Fairness Fitness Check, the article looks at how the enforcement models in the GDPR, DSA, DMA, AI Act and Data Act can inform the design of the new act. It traces recurring enforcement problems to three kinds of fragmentation: procedural, institutional and epistemic. It then discusses how different combinations of centralisation, coordination and capacity-building could address them. Cambridge CoreCambridge Core

Read the article at Cambridge Core
Related: the authors’ blog post on EU Law Enforcement

From Illusion to Digital Fairness: Structural Protection in EU Consumer Law

Authors: Emilia Mišćenić (Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Croatia) and Monika Namysłowska (Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz, Poland)
Published in: Remedies to Digital Vulnerability in European Private Law: Pathways towards Fairness, edited by Camilla Crea and Marta Infantino (Springer Cham), pp. 3–23. Open access. SpringerSpringer

This chapter argues that EU consumer law relies formally on transparency and information duties, and that in digital markets this gives consumers only the appearance of protection. Consumers may look informed, but they remain structurally exposed to manipulative design, personalisation and data-driven information asymmetries. The authors call for structural protection that tackles harm at its source rather than relying on individual consumers to protect themselves. They propose two preventive tools: information duties redesigned so the form of delivery makes them effective, and outright prohibitions of particularly harmful practices. They also propose concrete additions to the list of commercial practices banned under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. These include manipulative default settings, making cancellation harder than signing up, exploitative targeting of minors, and loot boxes in games that minors can access. From Illusion to Digital Fairness: Structural Protection in EU Consumer Law | Springer Nature Link +2

Read the chapter (open access) on SpringerLink

Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments under the AI Act: A Possible Remedy to Algorithmic Discrimination in the Private Sector

Authors: Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Greta Berardi and Niels Singer (Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, the Netherlands), and Alma-Cristina Onaie (Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy)
Published in: Remedies to Digital Vulnerability in European Private Law: Pathways towards Fairness, edited by Camilla Crea and Marta Infantino (Springer Cham), pp. 209–232. Open access. SpringerSpringer

This chapter asks whether fundamental rights impact assessments can help prevent algorithmic discrimination in contractual relationships. It first examines the assessment required by Article 27 of the EU AI Act, which applies to public bodies and to several categories of private actors. These include private providers of public services, credit institutions that score creditworthiness, and life and health insurers. It then compares this with the Dutch Fundamental Rights and Algorithms Impact Assessment (FRAIA), a model developed in response to algorithmic discrimination scandals in the Netherlands. Drawing on examples from employment and platform work, banking and insurance, and targeted advertising and pricing, the authors question how effective these assessments can be, because they leave the organisations using the algorithms wide discretion. They conclude that courts remain crucial, including through the direct horizontal effect of the Charter’s non-discrimination provision. Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments Under the AI Act: A Possible Remedy to Algorithmic Discrimination in the Private Sector | Springer Nature Link +2

Read the chapter (open access) on SpringerLink
Also available via the University of Groningen research portal

Asset Protection, Privacy, and Consumer Data in Digital Banking: A Comparative Study of Indonesia and Malaysia

Authors: Ronald Fadly Sopamena, Lastuti Abubakar and Tri Handayani (Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia), and Kamil Strzepek (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Poland)
Published in: Jambura Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 2 (July 2026), pp. 535–573. Philosophia Law ReviewPhilosophia Law Review

The study compares how Indonesia and Malaysia legally protect consumers’ assets, privacy and personal data in digital banking. It also identifies the regulatory gaps that weaken Indonesia’s framework. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual and comparative approaches, the authors find three main problems in Indonesia: fragmented regulations, overlapping institutional authority and limited harmonisation. These weaken both cybersecurity governance and legal enforcement. Malaysia, by contrast, has built a more integrated framework. It rests on the Financial Services Act 2013, the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 and policy documents from Bank Negara Malaysia, which gives it stronger institutional coordination and more consistent regulation.

Read the article in Jambura Law Review

Share Your Publications

Would you like your work featured in the FIDMA newsletter and on the FIDMA website? Send us news and links to your recent publications at alexissjovall@gmail.com, and we’ll include them in upcoming issues.

Researchers, practitioners and policymakers working on digital sovereignty have one week left to submit to the 3rd International Conference on Digital Sovereignty (ICDS 2026). The conference takes place from 25 to 27 November 2026 at Forskningsparken (Oslo Science Park) in Oslo, Norway.

About ICDS 2026

ICDS was founded by the Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) and has quickly become a leading international forum for examining how digital sovereignty is changing. Nations and organisations face growing challenges around digital infrastructure, strategic autonomy and data governance, which makes resilient and ethical frameworks more urgent than ever.

This third edition builds on the success of ICDS 2024 and ICDS 2025. It introduces a dedicated Industry Day that will bring together senior leaders from across sectors with researchers and policymakers from around the world.

Publication Opportunities

Springer Proceedings in Complexity: All accepted papers will be published in Springer Proceedings in Complexity. The series is indexed in Scopus, DBLP and Web of Science, and is ranked Level 1 in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals.

Emerald journal special invitation: Authors of all accepted papers will be invited to submit extended versions to the Emerald International Journal of Digital Sovereignty and Global Data Governance, which was established by the IFE Digital Sovereignty team. Learn more about the journal’s partnership with ICDS.

International Journal of Information Security (Springer): Selected papers will also be invited to the International Journal of Information Security (IJIS). The journal has an impact factor of 5.0 and is ranked Level 2.

Conference Tracks

ICDS 2026 has five tracks:

1. Human-Centric Digital Sovereignty
2. Industry and Innovation Impact
3. Digital Ecosystems and Governance
4. National Digital Sovereignty and Societal Impact
5. Geopolitics and Trust

Full track descriptions are available on the official ICDS 2026 page.

Topics of Interest

The organisers welcome papers on any area related to digital sovereignty. Relevant keywords include Artificial Intelligence, Computational Intelligence, Cybersecurity, Digital Trust, Trustworthiness, Human-Centric AI, Human-AI Teams, Sovereignty, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence of Things, Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability, Big Data, Data Analytics, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Intelligent Systems, Cloud Computing, Edge Computing, Blockchain, Digital Autonomy, Federated Systems and Resilience.

Submission Guidelines

Authors should submit an original full paper of 6 to 10 pages in English, formatted according to the Springer Computer Science Proceedings guidelines. Templates are also available on the ICDS 2026 web page.

Submissions must be original. They must not have been published or accepted for publication elsewhere, and they must not be under review at any other conference before or during the ICDS 2026 review process.

Submit your paper here: https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=icds20260

Important Dates

The first day, 25 November, is given to keynotes and industry presentations. On 26 and 27 November there will be keynotes and scientific presentations, plus networking during an Oslo tour.

Previous Editions

ICDS 2024 papers were published in Elsevier Procedia Computer Science. ICDS 2025 papers appeared in Springer Proceedings in Complexity, which is also the publication venue for ICDS 2026.

Contact

For questions, contact the General Chairs:

• Sanjay Misra, Senior Scientist, Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), Halden, Norway: sanjay.misra@ife.no
• Petter Kvalvik, Institute for Energy Technology (IFE): petter.kvalvik@ife.no

Don’t miss this chance to contribute to the international conversation on digital sovereignty. Submit by 30 September 2026, and we hope to see you in Oslo this November.

A new one-day conference in Malmö asks researchers to rethink what “resistance” means in the age of artificial intelligence. It takes place on 5 November 2026 at Media Evolution in Malmö, Sweden. Attendance is free, and the organisers are now accepting abstracts.

About the Conference

Polls and commentators often report that people distrust AI. Yet governments keep backing AI firms, and the market value of the chipmakers behind AI keeps climbing. Many of the CEOs leading these firms present themselves as fighting “the elite,” even though they have held economic power and political influence at the centre of that elite for more than a decade.

The conference looks at three seemingly contradictory faces of techno-resistance in the age of AI.

Resistance against AI

In an otherwise polarised time, “Anti-AI” or “Alter-AI,” in its many forms, has become a rallying point that crosses the political spectrum. It also stands in for wider movements against centralisation. As AI moves into the physical world, some people have attacked robots and posted videos urging others to do the same. Environmental activists are finding new allies in campaigns against new datacentre projects. Resistance against AI can also give feedback that improves how AI is used in practice. It also shows up in pushback against how AI is represented, in negotiations over AI regulation, and in debates about its public use.

Resistance with AI

At the same time, people use AI as a tool to resist other targets. Cash-strapped NGOs use it to make up for lost funding. Individuals use it to present themselves better when they deal with companies, politicians or their local doctor. Some see AI-powered “civic tech” as a route to more democratic decision-making and stronger communities. Others warn that the political economy behind AI, including who owns the algorithms and the data, makes it a fool’s paradise to expect these platforms to reinvigorate the public sphere.

Resistance for AI

A strong current of thought in Silicon Valley and its satellites holds that AI is being built as an alternative to the way society is currently organised. The demand for AI appears in projects ranging from private bitcoin-based settlements to AI-focused religions. It often serves as a banner for very wealthy individuals who want to resist conventional politics built on democracy and public authority.

Themes

The organisers welcome abstracts on one or more of the following themes:

• Resisting mainstream visualisation of AI
• Resistance as a source of innovation for better AI
• Underground extremist movements against AI
• “Anti-AI” as the umbrella of a wider social movement
• Tech bro self-narratives as “revolutionaries”
• Civic tech and civil society: the good and the bad
• Conceptualising resistance strategies in AI
• Contesting AI regulation
• Resistance across the design, development and deployment of AI
• Resistance by civil servants
• Resistance by everyday actors
• Professional resistance: how workers seek to modify, subvert and/or avoid AI

How to Submit

Send an abstract of no more than 250 words by email to the conference’s main organiser, Michael Strange, at Michael.Strange@mau.se.

• Subject line: RESISTANCE-AI
• Deadline: 1 October 2026

Important Dates

Attendance

This is a full-day, in-person event. Attendance is free and includes a coffee break and lunch. Space is limited. Depending on numbers, the organisers may also welcome participants who are not presenting.

Venue

Media Evolution
Stora Varvsgatan 6A, 211 19 Malmö, Sweden
www.mediaevolution.se

Organisers

The conference is hosted by the Future Society & Democracy in Europe research group. It is funded by the Centre for Modern European Studies (CEMES), a joint initiative of the University of Copenhagen, Malmö University and Lund University. It is organised in collaboration with the AI Politics Hub at Malmö University.

Contact

For questions about the conference, contact Michael Strange at michael.strange@mau.se.

Whether your work looks at resistance against AI, with AI or for AI, this is a chance to add to a timely, interdisciplinary conversation. Submit your abstract by 1 October 2026, and join the discussion in Malmö this November.

Lianos is the founding director of the Centre for Law, Economics and Society (CLES) at UCL Laws and served as the executive director of the Jevons Institute of Competition Law & Economics at UCL. He is also a fellow of the European Institute at UCL. He teaches the EU Competition Law course at the College of Europe in Natolin. He was previously the Vincent Wright chair at Sciences Po Paris between 2018-2019 as well as the Chief Researcher of the Skolkovo Laboratory on Law and Development, National Research University, Higher School of Economics and academic head of the BRICS Competition Law Project (2014-2019). He has also held an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship at the WZB (Social Science Research centre) in Berlin from 2014-2016. Between 2012 to 2014 he was the Gutenberg Research Chair at France’s Ecole Nationale d’Administration. He is a visiting professor in competition and intellectual property law at the Universities of Chile in Santiago, the University of Strasbourg and was a fellow at the Australian National University’s Centre for Law & Economics and an Emile Noel Fellow at New York University School of Law’s Jean Monnet Centre as well as a fellow at the Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. He was also a visiting professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong in 2014. Professor Lianos has been a Non-Governmental Advisor at the International Competition Network since 2009, a research partner to UNCTAD in competition law and policy since 2010, and was an elected member of the advisory board of the American Antitrust Institute between 2010 and 2020. He was the co-editor of the Journal of Competition Law and Economics (2017-2024) and of the Yearbook of European Law (2015-2019), both published by OUP. He was the co-editor of the GLOBAL COMPETITION LAW & ECONOMICS series with Stanford University press and since 2018 he is the general editor of the book series Global Competition Law & Economic Policy with Cambridge University press. He sits at the Advisory Board of many law journals (including Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Journal of Competition Law and Practice, World Competition etc.). Between 2014 and 2019 he was a member of the review college of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. He has advised a number of governments and companies on competition law, IP matters as well as better regulation (impact assessment, CBA).

https://portal.research.lu.se/en/persons/stefan-larsson

Her professional trajectory includes legal practice in Istanbul, Brussels (King & Wood Mallesons), and Kyiv (Baker & McKenzie), as well as academic engagements such as lecturing at Boğaziçi University and the ELSA Summer School.

Hanna holds degrees from Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University and the University of Amsterdam, in addition to an International Baccalaureate diploma from UWC Atlantic (Wales, UK). She is admitted to the Bar of Ukraine and has contributed to numerous international conferences and publications.

Driven by a commitment to fostering international collaboration, she actively engages with global organizations and research institutions to promote impactful developments in competition law. She also leads the regional initiative of the George Washington Competition & Innovation Lab.

Areas of expertise: market law, intellectual property law and IT law; research interests: digital commercial practices, data protection and the digital internal market.

Background in Germany with education from the UK and work experience as a German lawyer, legal counsel and manager within academi

https://www.uu.se/en/contact-and-organisation/staff?query=N21-884

PhD in EU law (Uppsala University) with a thesis on the subject of “payments with personal data”.

LL.M. in Law and Information Technology from the University of Stockholm.

https://www.uu.se/en/contact-and-organisation/staff?query=N14-1917

Fika-to-fika workshop in Lund and online 1 October 2025.

Following on from the successful workshops on Regulating High Risk AI in the EU (2023), and Compliance and Enforcement (2024), AI Lund’s fika-to-fika workshops* returns to the AI Act with a focus on legal aspects related to “transparency”.

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) marks a groundbreaking shift in AI regulation, laying the foundation for a potential global standard in AI governance, risk management, and transparency. A key pillar of the Act is data transparency, i.e., the ability to understand and audit training data, algorithmic processes and AI output.

For example, the Act establishes the following obligations:

• During AI training (machine learning): Ensuring high-quality, unbiased, and representative training datasets.
• Inside the black box: Documenting and monitoring requirements related to algorithmic transparency, ensuring interpretability and traceability.
• AI output: Enabling human oversight, contestability, and post-market monitoring to mitigate risks and ensure accountability.

The AI Act also introduces transparency requirements to ensure that users are informed when interacting with an AI system. For example, AI systems generating synthetic content (such as deepfakes) must clearly label their outputs as artificially generated. Furthermore, providers of general-purpose AI models must meet specific disclosure obligations, including transparency regarding copyrighted content used for training models.

At the same time, questions remain about how the transparency obligations in the AI Act interact with other legal frameworks, including:

• Fundamental rights under the EU Charter
• Copyright protection for content used as training data in AI development
• Trade secret protection for training data and AI system operations
• Obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding personal data protection
• Competition law restrictions on data access and potential abuse

Against this backdrop, this workshop—featuring leading experts, policymakers, and industry professionals—will explore how these requirements translate into real-world AI compliance strategies and what challenges remain in opening the black box while preserving innovation and competitiveness.

When: 1 October 2025.

Where:

• Stadshallen (Lund City Hall, Lund, Sweden): 9.00 to 15.30 CET
• Online: 9.25 to 12.00 and 13.00 to 15.15 CET

Spoken language: English

Programme
09.00 Registration open
09.25 Online meeting open
Online host: TBA

09.30 Presentations & Panels

Initial overview of Transparency in AI Systems
Stefan Larsson, Technology and Society, Lund University

Invited talk: Mapping competition concerns along the generative AI value chain
Kalpana Tyagi, International Law, Maastricht University

Copy right and Machine Learning
Johan Axhamn, Business Law, Lund University

TBA
Sebastian Schwemer, Law and Governance, Oslo Business School

—Short break—

Panel 1: Focus Transparency in Data Input
Moderator: Johan Axhamn, Business Law, Lund University
Panelists: TBA

Transparency in the GDPR and the AI Act – right to explanation of individual decision-making
Jonas Ledendal, Business Law, Lund University and Hajo Michael Holtz, Department of Law, Uppsala Universitet

Transparency as Fairness and Fairness as Transparency
Behrang Kianzad, Institute for Global Political Studies, Malmö University

When is an AI system transparent? Legal and non-legal meanings of AI transparency and their relation to Trustworthy AI
Kasia Söderlund, Technology and Society, Lund University

12.00 Lunch break
13.05 Online meeting opens
13.10 Presentations and Panels

Panel 2 Focus Transparency in AI Systems
Moderator: Behrang Kianzad, Institute for Global Political Studies, Malmö University
Panelists: TBA

Transparent but incomprehensible
Jacob Dexe, IAB

TBA
Ana Nordberg, Law, Lund University

The Logics of Transparency in the AI Act
Ida Koivisto, Law, University of Helsinki

—Short break—

Panel 3 focus Transparency in AI Output
Moderator: Jonas Ledendal, Business Law, Lund University
Panelists:
Janne Elvelid, Head of Public Policy Sweden and Finland, Facebook and TBA

TBA
Katja de Vries, Law, Uppsala University

Final words
Stefan Larsson, Technology and Society, Lund University

15.15 Coffee & mingle