Corporate Europe Observatory

Podcast: The Triangle of Madness

Joana — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:16:00 +0000

The MAGA coalition defending online hate speech in Europe

03.11.2026

In this podcast episode, Kenneth Haar takes us on trip through a MAGA campaign in Europe to roll back regulation of tech platforms, involving anti-abortion militants, links to European far-right groups, diplomatic pressure and outbursts at global summits. Stay tuned!

When the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s platform X, former Twitter, 120 million euros under the EU’s Digital Services Act, the Trump administration, Musk and the ultraconservative Alliance Defending Freedom closed ranks. Read his report here.

Who we are

This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agro-business, biotech & chemical companies, the financial sector & public investment banks, trade, energy & climate, scientific research and much more…

You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!

Automatic transcript of the episode (there might be slight changes to the final audio version):

Hi, welcome! I’m Joana Louçã, comms officer at Corporate Europe Observatory, or CEO.

In this episode of EU Watchdog Radio I will talk to my colleague Kenneth Haar about his new report: The Triangle of Madness: the MAGA coalition defending online hate speech in Europe.

When the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s platform X, former Twitter, 120 million euros under the EU’s Digital Services Act (or DSA), the Trump administration, Musk and the ultraconservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) closed ranks. Kenneth’s report takes us on trip through a MAGA campaign in Europe to roll back regulation of tech platforms, involving anti-abortion militants, links to European far-right groups, diplomatic pressure and outbursts at global summits. Stay tuned!

But before I give Kenneth the floor, I’d like to remind you of two little things. The first one is that this podcast is done with Counter Balance, and we publish alternating on the last Thursday of the month, in September they published a great episode on public investment in data centres and AI, make sure you follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

The second reminder is that CEO is a very small and independent organisation so if you can and want to make a donation to help us continue to do our work, visit our website at www.corporateeurope.org/support-ceo. We do appreciate any donation, no matter how small (or big!)

So Kenneth, thank you so much for your time. I would like to know what made you write the report. So what was the thing that really sparked your curiosity about this topic?

OK. My curiosity was sparked already in the early days of the Trump presidency, so in early 2025. Already back then, it became clear that the mega coalition and the Trump administration were prepared to intervene politically in Europe in new ways. And that one of the things that they would... they were developing a plan for was the alleged free speech crisis in Europe. However, I mean, the reason why I wrote the article now is because of events this summer when for the first time, as far as I know, we saw the American government or the US administration offer millions of dollars to companies or organizations in Europe that would work closely with the State Department for political ends in Europe. And the so-called free speech crisis was one of the things that they targeted with that money that ran into 25 million dollars as far as we could tell. So, I mean, that kind of move is something new, at least for parts of Europe. I mean, you will always see the US government put pressure on politicians, use diplomacy, and you would see American companies exert influence via lobbying. But this kind of, let's call it civil society, bottom-up style of influencing European politics is not something you see. It's not something you see every day. So that's what sparked my curiosity.

And then you called it the triangle of madness. So what are the three tips of the triangle?

Yes. So I explained one of them. It's the Trump administration. More precisely, it's the US State Department. They are the first part. And the second part is Elon Musk and his platform X. I guess it's debatable whether you should count in one or two or the other big platforms. do think at the moment that we see a particular style from Elon Musk and his platform, more aggressive style in Europe. That's the second part. And the third part is an organization called the Alliance Defending Freedom, an ultra conservative religious group that has been active in Europe for 15 years or so. But they've really had their heydays the last couple of years. since they are part of the MAGA coalition and they've developed a network of groups on the far right that they work with. So those are the three corners and they all have, I mean, they come to the table with different interests. The Trump administration is about influencing European politics and finding new allies. It's about preventing regulation of big tech platforms. X and Elon Musk, course, is about defending the right of platforms to do whatever they like. And the Alliance Defending Freedom is about having support of the Trump administration for some of their ultra religious conservative, conservative causes. The reason why I mean, some of the values behind this coalition are by most European standards, pretty archaic. You will see that there's a strong animosity against the LGBT community. The ADF, for instance, has fought against LGBT rights for a very, long time. They've worked against abortion for a very, long time. So there is this madness aspect of it already there. But the reason why I put the title on is is because of the analysis that they're producing about the situation in Europe, which is... everything considered completely off. They imagine that, they claim that at the moment we have a European Commission that is conducting a reign of terror in terms of attacks on freedom of speech all over Europe. They claim that the social media platforms have been obliged to conduct a strict regime of censorship. Whereas in reality the content moderation so-called that is imposed by European laws on the platforms is pretty mild. I mean, it's still the case that platforms are left to themselves when it comes to when to act on content moderation and when not. Digital Services Act does mainly is actually to give users a chance to object if their content is removed. That's the main effect of the Digital Services Act. But you will see them, you will hear the US administration and you will hear Elon Musk and you will hear the ADF claim that there is a reign of horrifying censorship at play in Europe at the moment. which is so far from the case that they certainly I think they deserve the term the triangle of madness

So you mentioned that the ADF works in a network of conservative think tanks organizations. Are there any other ones that are worth naming? And do they operate mainly in the US or are they also already very active in Europe?

In the network of the ADF you will find several religious organizations that are active both in the US and Europe. But what is most intriguing on the European side of things is the rather fringe anti-abortion groups that they work with in Austria, in Germany, in the UK and elsewhere. And then there is the... the relationship I'd say that they have been building up with some of the far-right parties in Europe. So, I mean, we're talking a coalition that is not just about one type of organization. It's more like a far-right conservative family in all aspects.

Yes. And then what was the most surprising thing that you discovered when you were writing this report?

Two things. First, I think it's been a surprise to see how influential a group like the Alliance Defending Freedom can be. They have really been able to have the Trump administration run with their agenda. We are talking about an ultra- ultra conservative religious group that has successfully fought the right to abortion in the US. By European standards, extreme in every way. And still they have been able to pretty much set the agenda for the Trump administration in this particular area. So whenever you hear the Trump administration talk about the free speech crisis in Europe, very often you will see them cite examples that were actually developed by by the Alliance Defending Freedom and link up with allies that were handpicked by the Alliance Defending Freedom a long time ago. So that's the first surprise. The second surprise is the audacity of the US State Department. It was quite something to read when they advertised their grants this summer, that they pretty openly said that anyone who would receive these millions of dollars would have to be prepared to coordinate substantially with the US State Department. So what they were saying basically is we would like to have a bunch of organizations in Europe that would be our stooges, that would be the ones that we can turn to when we need something, a particular job done. So that I felt was quite something to see it in writing. I mean, I guess for a US administration, it's not... It's not unusual to develop this kind of covert operation. I would say it's pretty rare in Europe, but it's not unusual for US government. But to see it in writing that they would want substantial coordination with the organizations that were to receive this money was still quite something. It gives me, mean, to me, this is reminiscent of US interventions in other parts of the world where you have seen them manipulate politics from the bottom up.

Definitely, at least a Cold War kind of thing, but even more active interventions by the US, we can say.
I had a talk with some US journalists a couple of weeks ago about the article and one of them said, actually this is something you would expect to see in Latin America and not in Europe. And I could respond, yeah, well exactly. I I can cite dozens of examples in Latin America that would be very, very similar.

Exactly. And can you... Tell me what we know about where this money concretely is going to.

We know too little. That's the sad truth. I'm super curious. And so are dozens of journalists in Europe and the US. So far, don't know where that money has ended up. I would say, though, there are strong indications that in the UK, two different, I would call them far right, groups have been on the receiving end. One of them linked to a current Tory conservative, think he's a member of parliament, Jacob Rees-Mogg, known to be on the far right of the Tory party, which is saying a lot. And then an organization run by a guy called Toby Young, and Toby Young happens to be one of the close allies of the Alliance Defending Freedom. Apparently, or so claims the Guardian, $12 million of the $25 million will be going to those two groups and perhaps other groups in the UK. But that's all. As far as continental Europe goes, we don't know anything.

And then I wanted to ask if you want to give the two amazing examples that you quote in your report about how freedom of speech is being censored in Europe, the two examples that are like poster children for the ADF.

Yes, yes, are the two examples they cite most frequently. One is about an army veteran, they say, who was convicted for what they call silent prayer, which is, mean, who would not be, who would not let an elderly guy have his chance to pray. But the thing is, this happened very close to an abortion clinic. And there are rules in the UK that leads to kind of a buffer zone around abortion clinics. So that young women who are on their way to having an abortion will not be harassed by anyone, by most standards, certainly by mine, that's a pretty fair thing to do. But he was there on his way of activism was to stand up and pray. I mean, whichever woman may have seen him would have gotten the message. There lies kind of a condemnation in his silent prayer. So he was fine and since then he has become one of the poster childs the Alliance Defending Freedom and proof that freedom speaks his is under pressure in the UK. The second example is a Finnish conservative politician who has been accused of hate speech in Finland over some pretty dramatic statements about homosexuality for being, I can't remember the exact term, but certainly an aberration, something deeply unnatural. and certainly something that goes completely against the doctrine of the church. She has written an absurd pamphlet on the issue and she has done tweets. And she is the second victim of the crisis of freedom of speech in Europe that has been used by the Alliance Defending Freedom very, very frequently.

Yes, and then to really face this tremendous attack on free speech that Europe is imposing on its citizens. Sarah Rogers of the State Department created a website that has scandalous examples of how that is happening. Except that when we visited the website, what did we find?

We find absolutely nothing. mean, this was, this website was declared, I think in February, in February, she said that on this particular website, freedom.gov, she would, she would upload examples of the kind of attacks on freedom of speech that was unfolding in Europe. And so far, so far there's nothing. And it's, mean, it's but one of several examples of how these, these guys are. are running a completely hysterical discourse and overstating claims about attacks on freedom of speech. But it is quite amazing to see. She's actually an undersecretary of state, she's not just anyone. She's definitely not an office clerk. She's kind of a US minister or vice minister. And to see her make this kind of absurd moves is really something.

And another example that happened recently obviously was with the launch of the documentary about Elon Musk and how ironic it is that Elon Musk who claims to be such a defender of freedom of speech tried to censor and tried to prevent the documentary from being spread.

Absolutely. No, I mean, there's a nice little chapter in my, in my article about the hypocrisy of things. mean, because what you see, the three, all three parts of the, of the triangle. So the state department, Elon Musk and the Alliance defending freedom are all involved in various ways in fighting freedom of speech. The Alliance defending freedom, for instance, they are, I mean, they have been involved in. in the banning of books and libraries across the United States for a long time.

Yeah. Okay. And then lastly, if people want to take action on this topic, what can they do?

I think, well, first a general remark. This is the time when we need to get a system in place for content moderation of social media platforms. That political struggle has now been open with the adoption of the Digital Services Act. And the Digital Services Act is definitely not a very good law and it's not perfect in any way. It's only a beginning. But this is when we should understand that this is when we should work for the kind of management of content on social media platforms that we need. And we cannot leave that to the platforms themselves. Then we will get actually we will get random censorship and ways of managing freedom of speech that should be deemed unacceptable. So now is the time. And the second of course is that, I mean, we see the MAGA coalition, the State Department in particular, try to manipulate European politics. We need to not just follow them closely, but prevent them from manipulating the European public. So, I mean, just a final word would be any sign of viewers' money at play, official money at play in Europe, please let us know because that's a big question that we need to answer following my article.

We have come to the end of this podcast. If you liked it make sure you also listen to the next one that our friends at Counter Balance will publish. Till next time, beijinhos!

Blog

EU Watchdog Radio

Fossil Free Politics calls on EU governments to exclude lobbyists from their COP31 delegation

Marcella Via — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 06:00:00 +0000

New research reveals 300+ brought over previous three COPs

02.11.2026

UN climate talks

Brussels, 2 November 2026 - The Fossil Free Politics (FFP) coalition is calling on the European Commission and EU Member State governments to stop granting fossil fuel lobbyists and executives access to the UN climate talks, in light of new historical data.

Analysis by FFP reveals that EU governments and the Commission brought more than 330 fossil fuel representatives to the last three UN climate talks between 2023-25, largely through “party overflow” badges. These badges gave senior oil and gas executives access to key decision-makers and private negotiating spaces.

The coalition has written to the European Commission and the worst-offending national governments, Italy, France and Belgium, urging them to refuse accreditation - including overflow badges - to fossil fuel lobbyists and executives at COP31. Key findings include:

The European Commission and EU Member States brought 332 fossil fuel representatives from almost 100 organisations across three years at COP28, 29 and 30.
Italy was the worst offender, bringing 55 fossil fuel representatives, followed by France with 48 and Belgium with 47. Fossil fuel lobbyists made up 12% of Belgium’s overall delegation across the three COPs.
The most frequently accredited companies were Italian Eni (16), French EDF and ENGIE (both 14), and Belgian Fluxys (13). Eni, ENGIE and Fluxys have all successfully lobbied against the implementation of the EU Methane Regulation.
Industry lobbyists brought to COP29 by Italy were there to sign new gas deals.
The European Commission brought five fossil fuel lobbyists to COP28, but none since - although it has not adopted an official position against future accreditation.
The number of fossil fuel representatives brought by EU governments to COP has steadily fallen from 132 at COP28 to 116 at COP29 and 84 at COP30.

Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

“The number of fossil fuel lobbyists brought to COP by EU governments has steadily declined from COP28 to COP30. But now that figure needs to fall to zero. Oil and gas executives have no place at the UN climate talks, particularly not on EU delegations, so we’ll be keeping a close eye.”

Nathan Stewart, Fossil Free Politics coordinator, says:

“During a summer marked by deadly heatwaves and an ongoing energy crisis, the six largest oil and gas companies announced profits of almost $80 billion in the second quarter of this year. Their commercial interests are in open conflict with the needs of Europe’s households. Any EU government thinking about bringing these same companies to the climate talks needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.”

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +44 7969665189

Nathan Stewart, Fossil Free Politics campaigner

@email; +32 497 321 994

Notes to editor

To read the full analysis, please see here; to read the letters sent to EU Climate Commissioner Hoekstra and Member States, please see here. The letter to Hoekstra was co-signed by the Climate Reality Project Europe and Transparency International EU.
This analysis is based on data from the thorough annual classifications of COP participants by the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition, which Fossil Free Politics is a member of. Increased transparency of “party overflow” badges is thanks to the sustained campaigning of the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition.
Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, and Saudi Aramco together reported profits of $79.4 billion in the second quarter of 2026
For more information on the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying against the EU Methane Regulation, see Fossil Free Politics’ new report, “How the Fossil Fuel Lobby Gutted the EU’s Methane Rules”.
Fossil Free Politics will analyse the COP31 delegations of the European Union and the worst offending Member States (Italy, France, Belgium) once the data becomes publicly available.

EU governments at COP31: A break with the past or business as usual?

Pascoe Sabido — Sun, 01 Nov 2026 23:01:00 +0000

02.11.2026

Gas lobby

UN climate talks

As negotiators prepare for COP31 in Türkiye, new analysis from Fossil Free Politics reveals that EU governments to have brought hundreds of fossil fuel lobbyists to the previous three COPs between 2023-25. UN climate talks must be a space protected from the undue influence of fossil fuel lobbyists, who have a vested interest in delaying or derailing climate action. EU governments need to end this planet-wrecking practice, but at COP31 will we see a break with the past or business as usual?

On 9 November 2026 negotiators from across Europe will meet in Antalya, Türkiye, for the latest round of the UN climate negotiations, COP31. But they won’t be alone. Each year, hundreds of fossil fuel representatives also attend the negotiations, determined to weaken climate action and protect their business models.

COP31 is happening at a critical time for European governments. This summer’s climate change-induced heatwaves led to 35,000 excess deaths and at least €180 billion in damage across the continent. It was dubbed Europe’s “summer of truth” by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Meanwhile a spiralling energy crisis – thanks to the EU’s continued reliance on imported fossil fuels – is making oil and gas majors richer while fuel prices rise for households and businesses. The narrow commercial interests of the fossil fuel industry are in open conflict with Europe’s declared commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

So why do EU governments insist on bringing this industry into the heart of the UN climate talks?

Fossil Free Politics research reveals how between 2023-25, EU member states have included hundreds of top executives from the biggest oil and gas companies in their official delegations to the UN climate change meetings. Between COP28 and COP30, both the European Commission and EU member states between them brought 332 fossil fuel lobbyists on their delegations, giving access to key decision-makers and private negotiating spaces closed off to civil society. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, the invited lobbyists even used the opportunity to sign new gas deals. It would be an absurd contradiction if European governments were to then include them in their delegations to COP31 when they have a track record of derailing climate action.

That’s why Fossil Free Politics has written to EU governments demanding they exclude fossil fuel executives from their national delegations; instead they should advocate for a UNFCCC Accountability Framework so that climate negotiations are protected from undue interests; and they should develop a strong EU-level conflict-of-interest rules which protect policy-making from fossil fuel influence.

330+ badges over past 3 years

EU member states and the European Commission have brought in more than 330 fossil fuel representatives from almost 100 different organisations over the previous three years. Between COP28 and COP30, from 2023-25, 15 EU Member State granted 327 places on their delegations to senior executives and staff from some of the most notoriously climate-policy obstructive oil and gas companies. The European Commission granted them 5 places for COP28, but has not allowed them on any subsequent delegation – a trend that Fossil Free Politics hopes will continue.

Box I: Where the data comes from

The data behind the figures in this briefing come from research by the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition, which systematically analyses and classifies all participants at COP and flags those that are considered to be representatives of the fossil fuel industry. For more information on the methodology behind it, please see here.

Between 2023-25, the Fossil Free Politics campaign – also a member of Kick Big Polluters Out coalition – has used the research to produce further analysis on the delegations of the European Commission and the 27 member states. This has been possible thanks to increased transparency of COP attendees, as a result of campaigning by Kick Big Polluters Out groups.

Party overflow badges

Governments, known as ‘parties’ in UNFCCC parlance, have the right to bring whoever they want to the COP. In addition to their official negotiating team, which receive pink ‘party’ badges, they can register lobbyists up until the last minute, who receive pink ‘party overflow’ badges. These permit their holders access to government-only areas. However, prior to COP28, the UNFCCC secretariat did not publish the identities of lobbyists on ‘party overflow’ badges during the COP. Therefore fossil fuel lobbyists brought by the European Commission and its governments had previously flown under the radar. But thanks to the new disclosure measures, the true extent of the problem has been revealed.

Pressure pays off

The overall number of fossil fuel lobbyists brought to the talks by EU governments has steadily declined from COP28 to COP30, in part thanks to campaigning from Fossil Free Politics groups in Brussels and across Europe. It was a high of 132 at COP28 in Dubai, dropped to 116 in Azerbaijan, and was 84 last year in Belém, Brazil for COP30.

Worst offenders: Italy, France, and Belgium

Italy, France, and Belgium handed out the most badges to fossil fuel representatives between COP28-30. Italy topped the charts, bringing 55 lobbyists on its delegation over the three years. France and Belgium each offered nearly 50 badges to fossil fuel lobbyists, while Greece, Denmark, and Sweden each provided more than 30.

Italy consistently brought lobbyists from its national oil and gas major Eni, and at COP29 in Baku it brought numerous senior executives from of gas transporter Italgas, who in turn used the talks to sign the dotted line on a gas distribution deal with SOCAR, the nationally-owned oil company of hosts Azerbaijan.

France’s delegation featured notable lobbyists from national utilities EDF (Électricité de France) and ENGIE, as well their own oil and gas major TotalEnergies — twice bringing its CEO Patrick Pouyanné (France boycotted COP29 so had no delegation).

Belgium’s delegation included senior staff from ENGIE, which owns and operates numerous gas and nuclear power plants in the country, as well as Pascal De Buck, CEO of Belgian multinational Fluxys, Europe’s largest gas transporter.

Other countries that offered government badges to fossil fuel lobbyists included Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania, Netherlands, Finland, Hungary, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia. The European Commission also hosted top fossil fuel lobbyists on its delegation (see below).

European Commission learns its lesson

For COP28 in Dubai, the European Commission brought two of Eni’s top figures, Chief Executive Officer Claudio Descalzi and Chief Operating Officer Natural Resources Guido Brusco, as well as BP Executive Vice President Giulia Chierchia. The Commission also brought Nikolaas Baeckelmans, ExxonMobil’s Vice President of EU Affairs in Brussels, despite the fact the US oil and gas major was actually suing the European Commission at the time for introducing a windfall tax on excess oil and gas profits.

Since then, the European Commission has excluded fossil fuel lobbyists from its official delegation, thanks in part to the sustained campaigning of Fossil Free Politics and others. Facing questions from Members of the European Parliament based on the Fossil Free Politics and Kick Big Polluters Out research, EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, who previously worked for Shell, even expressed support for a conflict-of-interest policy at the UN climate talks. However, since then, no official policy has been put in place to stop either the Commission or member states from bringing fossil fuel lobbyists to UN climate negotiations.

Supersized proportions

For Belgium in particular, fossil fuel lobbyists represented 12 per cent of their entire delegations from COP28-30. That means that one in every eight people brought to the climate talks by Belgium between 2023-2025 had an economic interest in continuing the fossil fuel economy.

In addition to gas companies ENGIE and Fluxys, Belgium also brought nine staff members from off shore oil and gas rig servicer Jan De Nul, including their CEO. Romania, who had the smallest European delegation over the three years, gave badges to the CEO and Deputy CEO of Romania’s largest natural gas supplier Romgaz.

Sweden turbo charges access

Between COP28 in the United Arab Emirates and COP30 in Brazil, Sweden increased the number of fossil fuel executives it brought into the UN talks six-fold (500 per cent). This included numerous Vice Presidents from E.ON, a German utility with gas-fired power plants in Sweden and across Europe.

Serial offending corporations

Italian oil giant Eni received a total of 16 badges (14 from Italy and two from the EU Commission). Next up were the French duo EDF and ENGIE, both receiving 14 badges (all from France apart from two Belgian badges given to ENGIE for COP30). Belgium consistently guaranteed the presence of Fluxys, giving it 13 badges over the three years, while TotalEnergies received 11 from France.

Box II: Slow but steady progress towards kicking big polluters out of the climate talks

Following years of sustained campaigning by the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition (including Fossil Free Politics), the UNFCCC finally took its first (baby) steps on transparency in the run-up to COP28: all UNFCCC participants are now expected to publicly declare their affiliation. In addition, Party overflow badges became public for the first time (see data box). This brought to light many of the fossil fuel interests that were previously hidden, as well as which governments were granting them access.

Ahead of COP30, the UNFCCC again responded to pressure to take additional steps. All non-government delegates are now asked to disclose who is funding their participation and confirm that their objectives are aligned with those of the UNFCCC. However, it is a major oversight that this measure does not apply to those on government delegations, meaning all those covered in this report would not face disclosure requirements.

These small steps have been long overdue, but are entirely insufficient when it comes to addressing fossil fuel influence over climate policy-making. This is why civil society has been calling on the EU and all Parties to the UNFCCC, as well as the UNFCCC Secretariat, to advance an Accountability Framework and conflict of interest measures that will end the ability of Big Polluters to write the rules of climate action.

Spotlight: Italy ushers in EU policy–obstructor Eni

Between COP28 and COP30, Italy gave 14 delegation badges to Eni lobbyists.¹ The Italian oil and gas major is one of the most influential in Europe when it comes to energy policies, in part thanks to its close ties to the Italian government.

Publicly, Eni is supportive of the need to reduce methane emissions. But the gas giant has leadership positions on both the IOGP and Eurogas, two prominent fossil fuel industry lobby organisations that have aggressively lobbied to weaken the EU Methane Regulation (EUMR). The Regulation was adopted in August 2024 in an effort to help curb fossil fuel methane emissions. Eni’s lobbyists attended two meetings with the European Commission between January 2025 and July 2026 on these regulations, and Eni was part of an industry effort in April 2026 to try to further weaken the regulations. Following the industry campaign, the European Commission has now proposed a one-year delay to the implementation rules, while the European Parliament just voted to delay implementation until 2030.

More broadly, Eni repeatedly advocates for scenarios and policies that would ensure oil and gas continues being used in energy projections well into the future, and received one of the lowest climate policy engagement scores from InfluenceMap (D+). Eni is very supportive of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen — risky and controversial technologies that are being positioned as climate “solutions” while providing life support to the fossil fuel industry.

Beyond embedding fossil fuels further into the energy transition, Eni is also partnering with Big Tech to fuel their data centres. For example, it has partnered with AI firm MGX to power data centres in Italy with Eni’s “blue power”, but this supposedly eco-friendly energy source is coming from gas-fired power plants with CCS. As ReCommon has shown, the associated CO₂ pipelines would run through earthquake-prone areas and shift significant risk onto local communities. Calling this new form of fossil fuel dependence “blue” doesn’t make it green, and it is anything but. Europe’s attempts to expand risky CCS have failed to capture or store CO₂ at any meaningful scale while risking great harm.

During COP29, Italy’s delegation included Eni Senior Vice President Marco Piredda and Public Affairs Director Lapo Pistelli. Eni’s CEO Claudio Descalzi was also a guest of the COP29 Azerbaijani presidency, and three of its senior staff attended as part of the International Chamber of Commerce delegation. At COP28, two Eni lobbyists were on the European Commission Party overflow.

Spotlight: France’s COP courtship with ENGIE and TotalEnergies

Between COP28 and COP30, France’s delegation included 48 badges for industry lobbyists — the second largest number from EU Member States in this period. This included 12 badges for ENGIE, a French energy company with an extensive fossil gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) portfolio. France also gave 11 badges to TotalEnergies, a French oil and gas major operating across well over 100 countries.

ENGIE: Hosting Brussels climate week with one hand while undermining EU climate regulation with the other

ENGIE brands itself as a “leader in the energy transition.” Its planet-friendly PR is illustrated by its sponsorship of the first Brussels Climate Week which took place in October 2026, right ahead of COP31 in Antalya. But at present, most of ENGIE’s energy is still provided by gas-fired power plants. Its non-renewable energy (including gas, coal and nuclear), still makes up 45% of its energy transition projections, and it has invested at least €258 million to expand its gas production. ENGIE remains one of Europe’s largest importers of liquified natural gas (LNG) — which generates 1/3 more emissions than coal.

ENGIE’s lobbying activities further demonstrate its commitment to profit over planet. Its lobbyists have worked hard to stall and thwart the EU Methane Regulations (EUMR). It directly lobbied for weaker emissions measurement requirements and joined efforts to stymy the rolling out of the regulations.

According to Lobbyfacts EU, ENGIE spent up to €2.25 million on EU lobbying each year between COP28 in 2023 and COP30 in 2025 and has declared 8 lobbyists in Brussels. Thanks to its wealth of resources, it secured 47 high-level meetings with EU Commission top brass between 2023 and October 2026.

Despite ENGIE’s carefully crafted green exterior, it is clear that a major objective is ensuring a future that keeps fossil fuels front and centre.

TotalEnergies: Lobbying for Paris (Dis)Agreement

French gas major TotalEnergies has made a concerted effort to undermine the EU Methane Regulation (EUMR). Between January 2025 and July 2026, it had a dozen registered meetings with the Commission to discuss the regulations — more than other major multinational fossil fuel corporations, according to Fossil Free Politics. In the months prior to a letter from 17 Members of European Parliament advocating for weaker measures in the EUMR, TotalEnergies lobbyists had meetings with some of the letter’s signatories. TotalEnergies sits on the board of three of the prominent oil and gas industry organisations that have also opposed the EUMR — namely International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) Europe, Eurogas and Energy Traders Europe.

TotalEnergies continues to meet with high-level Commission staff about methane regulations, with one registered as recently as October 6, 2026. TotalEnergies declared had a lobbying budget of up to €3.5 million annually between COP28 and COP30. It employed 9 lobbyists to engage the EU on its priorities and held 93 high-level EU meetings between 2023 and October 2026.

TotalEnergies’ public communications portray support for the Paris Agreement and climate action, but its actions paint a very different picture. As recently as March 2026, CEO Patrick Pouyanné implied that the 1.5 degrees Celsius target is not possible. The company has previously questioned science-aligned scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its objectives are clearly summarised in a 2025 correspondence to the UK Government in which it stresses that oil and gas production should be maximised.

TotalEnergies is the EU and UK’s largest LNG importer by a long stretch, a move that “risks French and European security, energy affordability, and climate goals”, according to Oil Change International.

Though the French Government boycotted COP29, TotalEnergies still sent six lobbyists to Baku. Vice Presidents, Managing Directors other senior staff were brought into the talks by their trade associations Association Française des Entreprises pour l’Environnement, BusinessEurope and the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). CEO Pouyanné there as a guest of the Azerbaijani Presidency.

EU must not bring fossil fuel lobbyists to COP31

As COP31 begins on Europe’s doorstep in Antalya, amidst a backdrop of an energy crisis fuelled by Europe’s fossil fuel addiction, the EU has a choice. Does it continue to facilitate fossil fuel industry access the talks, whose main interest is weakening climate action? Or does it put the interests of European households and businesses first, as well as those countries and communities across the Global South that are the least responsible for the climate crisis?

The European Commission and EU Member States together brought more than 330 fossil fuel representatives to the UN climate talks between COP28 and COP30. This is an unacceptable figure. However, over that period we also witnessed a steady year-on-year decline, from 132 in Baku at COP28 to 84 in Belém at COP30. COP31 now needs to ensure that decline continues and there are zero fossil fuel executives included in EU delegations. Fossil Free Politics members have written to the worst offending governments (Italy, France, and Belgium), as well as the European Commission, calling on them to not bring fossil fuel lobbyists to COP31 in Türkiye. They will be watching closely at what happens. In the letters they called on governments to:

a) Not grant UN climate summit accreditation (including overflow badges) to fossil fuel lobbyists or executives and exclude them from their national delegation to COP30 and future talks — building on the European Commission’s positive example at COP29 and COP30.

b) Advocate for a UNFCCC Accountability Framework to shield negotiations from undue influence, including robust conflict-of-interest disclosure rules for all participants, building on the general agreement expressed by many Parties during the “Open Dialogue on Enhancing transparency of participation and integrity in the UNFCCC process” during SB64 for the need to address conflicts of interest.

c) Develop a robust EU-level conflict of interest policy to shield public policymaking from fossil fuel interference, aligning European governance with the ambition and urgency of its climate goals.

Both within and beyond its borders, the EU has an obligation to ensure that climate policy is protected from, not written by, the fossil fuel actors that have simultaneously orchestrated and profited from the climate and energy crises.

At COP31, EU governments should exclude the fossil fuel industry from their delegations, but it is far from sure. Will we see a break with the past or business as usual?

[1] This is in addition to the two badges from the European Commission Eni received for COP28.

Big Tech lobbying pushes EU towards sweeping deregulation of data protection rules, new research reveals

Marcella Via — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 06:00:00 +0000

28.10.2026

Tech

Brussels, 28 October 2026 – New research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl shows that an intensive Big Tech lobbying campaign, supported by Germany and Ireland, is helping gut fundamental European data protection safeguards under the guise of boosting AI tech innovation.

‘The Big Tech campaign to kill data protection in Europe’ documents extensive engagement by Big Tech companies and affiliated front groups with both Member State governments and the European Parliament.

Key findings:

Non-EU tech companies had 103 meetings with German government officials since Friedrich Merz took office - an average of 1.5 meetings per week. The true figure is likely higher, as the German government does not systematically publish these meetings.
Between June 2025 and January 2026, Chancellor Merz met the CEOs of Apple and OpenAI, as well as senior representatives of Google and NVIDIA. Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger, who leads Germany’s work on the Digital Omnibus, held 18 meetings with large technology firms.
In Ireland, Meta met 41 lawmakers on the Digital Omnibus. Google met 30.Big Tech actively sought to shape the Irish presidency of the EU.
In the European Parliament, CEO and LobbyControl identified 655 lobby meetings on the Digital Omnibus - an average of three meetings with MEPs every working day since the Commission published its proposal in November 2025.
Business interests accounted for 83% of those meetings, compared with just 11% involving civil society organisations or trade unions. Google and Meta were the most active companies, with 21 and 19 meetings respectively.

The Digital Omnibus would allow AI models to be trained and operated using personal data. Last week, the Council approved the far-reaching deregulation of EU data protection rules, in the name of “winning the global AI race.”

If adopted by the European Parliament, the changes would allow companies to collect people’s personal data to train and operate AI systems without consent. Civil society warns that this would effectively remove data protection safeguards in the context of AI - including for highly problematic systems such as facial recognition, deepfake “nudes,” and misinformation campaigns.

Bram Vranken, campaigner and researcher, Corporate Europe Observatory, says:

“Our research shows that Big Tech enjoys unprecedented access to the highest levels of government across Europe. Over the past year, it has met hundreds of times with European politicians, pushing them to disregard our fundamental rights to train and operate their AI systems.

The public overwhelmingly supports safeguards on the development of artificial intelligence. The European Parliament must now listen to its constituents, not Big Tech.”

The research also highlights concerns about the movement of former civil servants and government officials into roles lobbying against the GDPR on behalf of Meta, including in Sweden, Denmark and Ireland. Such appointments can create conflicts of interest and risks of undue influence over public policy.

Felix Duffy, Campaigner & Researcher, LobbyControl, says:

“While the world is debating the dangers of AI, the German government has sided with the AI companies. Digital Minister Wildberger has taken up key demands of the AI lobby: our personal data will be available for AI.

The main beneficiaries are Google, Meta and OpenAI, not European companies. Instead of reducing Europe’s dependence on Big Tech, EU member states are now handing them our data as well.”

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

bram@corporateeurope.org; +32 497 131464

Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer

marcella@corporateeurope.org; +32 489 622233

Fidélité Niwenshuti, LobbyControl press officer

presse@lobbycontrol.de; +49 467 267211

Notes to editor

You can read the full text here.
Our research on how the Digital Omnibus closely matched Big Tech lobby demands is available here.
Our mapping of the lobby firepower of the tech industry is available here.

The Big Tech campaign to kill data protection in Europe

Bram Vranken — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 06:00:00 +0000

28.10.2026

Tech

Via Freedom of Information requests we reveal how Big Tech's deregulation push is shaping the EU's Digital Omnibus. The result could be very good news for the tech oligarchs, and not just a bad news for our data privacy, but also a dramatic defeat for European digital sovereignty.

In March 2026 Meta’s Director for Public Policy for the Nordic countries, Martin Ruby, was alarmed. In a previously unpublished email he wrote to a Danish official trying to sound casual: “A quick question: we’ve heard that the Council, under the Cypriot Presidency, is actually in the process of rolling back some of the proposals put forward by the Commission regarding the Digital Omnibus. Do you have time to speak to me....”

It's a little glimpse into the heavy lobbying campaign Big Tech has been waging in Europe over the Digital Omnibus. Up until Ruby's email, the debate on the Digital Omnibus had been going in Big Tech’s favour: the European Commission’s proposal in November 2025 provided for far-reaching watering down of regulations for Artificial Intelligence and data protection.

This proposal closely matched Big Tech lobby positions, and formed the basis of the European Commission’s draft Digital Omnibus, which the privacy activist Max Schrems described as “the biggest attack on Europeans’ digital rights in years” and which was sharply criticised in an open letter signed by 127 organisations and individuals. Data protection authorities were also highly critical of the Commission’s proposals.

Early 2026 under the leadership of the Cypriot Presidency a group of member states came together to reverse the worst of the Commission’s proposals. Hence Meta lobbyist Martin Ruby's email of concern.

However, the reversal against the tide of Big Tech's agenda was short-lived. Just six months after Ruby's concerned enquiry, the Council under the Irish Presidency approved the far-reaching deregulation of data protection in Europe. With the support of the German Federal Government, many of the problematic plans had been reinstated; in some cases, remaining safeguards were further watered down. Many of the key lobby messages put forward by the tech industry lobby were included in the Irish Presidency text.

How did this happen, and how did the mood in the Council shift so dramatically in such a short space of time, despite all the warnings from civil society and the European data protection authorities?

In this analysis, we examine the massive lobbying campaign by Big Tech, look at Big Tech’s best friend Ireland, and explain why OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman has suddenly taken such a keen interest in travelling to Germany.

What is at stake?

From worker surveillance to warfare, the risks of the widespread adoption of AI are increasingly clear. According to polls, large majorities of Europeans are in favour of regulating AI. For instance one survey from the European Commission shows 82 percent of people find it important to have rules which protect workers’ privacy when AI is used in the workspace.

The EU deregulation agenda risks to mainly benefit US Big Tech companies that already dominate the AI market and are well placed to use people’s personal data to train and operate their AI systems.

But while citizens support government actions to regulate AI, the Council’s text goes in the opposite direction. Under the guise of “winning the global AI race” the EU has embarked on a radical deregulation programme.

However, the EU deregulation agenda risks to mainly benefit US Big Tech companies that already dominate the AI market and are well placed to use people’s personal data to train and operate their AI systems.

Earlier this year, the EU already agreed to weaken the AI Act.

But the Council’s position goes further and fundamentally reshapes the GDPR, the backbone of the EU’s digital rulebook. According to the consumer organisation BEUC the Digital Omnibus “could render the GDPR effectively unworkable..., placing the personal data of millions of Europeans directly in the hands of US Big Tech”. The privacy organisation noyb has warned that “the 45-year promise of data protection is collapsing”.

So what exactly is in the Council text approved at the end of October under the auspices of the Irish Presidency?

Using personal data for AI

The European Commission already intended to permit the training of AI models using personal data, including highly sensitive information such as sexual orientation, political beliefs, or ethnicity, without active consent.

The Council text goes another step further. It doesn't just designate AI training as a legitimate interest, but also the operation of AI. That would open the door for any kind of AI system, however problematic, to be trained and operated with personal data – without people having the possibility to object.

The Austrian data protection advocates noyb outline just how far-reaching the consequences of these legislative changes could be: “It is currently proposed that, when using personal data ‘in the context of AI’, companies are generally permitted to do basically anything. The commercial interests of AI companies should generally trump the fundamental rights of users.” noyb cites examples including the training and use of AI for manipulation, disinformation, the generation of nude images, and killer drones.

The Omnibus opens the door for any kind of AI system, however problematic, to be trained and operated with personal data – without people having the possibility to object.

The crux of the matter is how legitimate interests in the use of personal data are defined. Until now, specific purposes such as security or fraud prevention could constitute a legitimate interest. Under the Irish Council Presidency’s text, however, an entire technology would be granted this status.

Trade unions have warned that “this 'carte blanche' access, allowing AI systems to override consent-protecting processes, would render GDPR irrelevant in the context of the algorithmic management of workers' data".

And according to the consumer organisation BEUC, this would “mean, in practice, that AI development would de facto outweigh the fundamental right to privacy and data protection enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights]”.

Limiting the definition of personal data

Another crucial point is the definition of personal data. The Commission proposed excluding pseudonymised data from GDPR protection if a company cannot identify the people behind it.

However, as BEUC warns, companies could use this exemption to avoid GDPR obligations by claiming they have no means of re-identification, potentially taking some of the largest data-processing industries outside the regulation’s scope. It is also unclear how truly anonymous such data is or remains.

Others, including the European Data Protection Board, have warned that the new definition would create legal uncertainty, and would rather benefit Big Tech companies that have the financial and legal means to exploit these changes.

Although the Council text removed this change to the definition of personal data, it introduced the exception for pseudonymised data via a new article (Article 25a). Personal data can still be exempted from the GDPR when transferred to third parties, such as data brokers. Earlier this year, the Data Broker Files revealed that data sold by data brokers can be used to spy on individuals. Although this practice is currently incompatible with the GDPR, the Council's proposed change could exclude this data from GDPR protection in future.

Germany’s deregulatory turn: weakening privacy in the name of AI

Shortly before the European Commission published its draft of the Digital Omnibus, Germany’s Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger delivered a glowing tribute to OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman. On 25 September 2025 at the Axel Springer Award ceremony, Wildberger not only lavished praise on the tech billionaire for his “incredible vision”, but also held out the prospect of weaker data protection rules by “giving AI the training data it needs”. Although Wildberger continued by saying this should be balanced against respecting "creators and safeguarding the integrity of knowledge itself", his actions showed that he was mostly concerned with the interests of OpenAI.

'We are pleased that we were able to raise so many of our – shared – concerns in Brussels. The simplification we had hoped for is on the way!

A German government official at a tech lobby conference.

Just one month later, the German Government produced a non-paper with potentially dramatic consequences for the protection of millions of Europeans’ personal data – and one that is likely to have delighted Sam Altman. Among other things, it proposed restricting individuals’ right to access the personal data held about them by online platforms. In its position paper, the government justified this restriction by arguing that complying with such requests could impose a “disproportionate effort” on companies. Google had used precisely the same wording when calling for restrictions on data access rights in a lobbying paper submitted to the German Government just a few months earlier in August 2025.

The German paper also proposed narrowing the definition of personal data by excluding pseudonymised information, thereby significantly reducing the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This demand had also been repeatedly put to the German Government in lobbying papers from Google, Microsoft, and industry associations such as DigitalEurope.

In a speech at the Privacy Conference organised by the tech lobby organisation Bitkom late September 2026 the German Government took credit for having influenced the European Commission’s proposal through the German non-paper.

The conference was sponsored by Amazon, Google, and Meta, amongst others. Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon took part in the event, delivering a total of seven talks.

In his speech a government official expressed delight at the German influence in Brussels: 'We are pleased that we were able to raise so many of our – shared – concerns in Brussels. The simplification we had hoped for is on the way!" [emphasis added].

Big Tech’s lobbying campaign in Germany

These developments were preceded by an extensive lobbying campaign by Big Tech in Germany – and a remarkable willingness on the part of the Government to open its doors to the tech lobby.

Already in the run-up to the federal election, companies including Amazon and Google had engaged in extensive lobbying aimed at weakening data protection and promoting greater “data use”. The CDU/CSU and SPD had already bowed to this lobbying pressure in their coalition agreement, signalling their intention to facilitate greater use of data instead of data protection.

The German government had 85 meetings during which it met 103 times with 11 non-European tech companies

Following the federal election, the tech lobby stepped up its efforts even further. Two parliamentary interpellations (p. 96) by MP Rebecca Lenhard that have so far attracted little attention, reveal just how many lobby meetings the German Government held with non-European tech companies since it took office. While this is far from a comprehensive list of all lobby meetings, and it is not known which topics were discussed at these meetings, it does show the extraordinary access of mostly US Big Tech firms to the German Government.

The German government had 85 meetings during which it met 103 times with 11 non-European tech companies from May 2025 to September 2026. Some of these meetings involved more than one company. On average, this equates to 1.5 meetings with these companies per week.

Big Tech had access to the highest levels of the German Government. Between June 2025 and January 2026, Chancellor Merz met with the chief executive officers of Apple and OpenAI, and high-level representatives of Google and NVIDIA. Documents obtained through an access to documents request also show that tech companies attempted to directly influence officials in Merz's chancellery on the Digital Omnibus. In May 2026, Google requested a meeting with high-level official Jörg Semmler, stating that they wished to "exchange views with you on the European regulatory agenda, particularly with regard to the Digital Omnibus and the question of how an innovation-friendly framework in Europe can be combined with strong transatlantic cooperation on AI standards and digital infrastructure".

The Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger, who is leading Germany’s work on the Digital Omnibus, had 18 meetings with large tech firms.

Added to this are lobbying meetings at a level below senior management and meetings that were mistakenly not recorded. These include Wildberger’s attendance at the ceremony for a new Microsoft data centre in March 2026.

The tech company with the most lobby meetings was by far Google with 28 meetings. Followed by Microsoft with 18 meetings, Amazon with 16 meetings and OpenAI with 11 meetings. TikTok, which is also included in the numbers, had four meetings with German officials.

Sam Altman’s presence in Berlin is particularly striking. In just four months, he secured five high-level meetings with Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil, whom he also courted through the OpenAI for Germany initiative. He also met Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger three times, on 25 June, 25 September and 22 October 2025. The purpose of the meetings is described in very broad terms as “discussions on digital policy issues”. The exact nature of the discussions remains unknown to this day. A new FOI request that we filed on 7 October 2026 is intended to find out more details of these meetings, but have received no response yet.

During a visit to Brussels in October 2025, where he met with Virkkunen, Wildberger had already made Germany’s position on the Digital Omnibus unmistakably clear: “radically simplify the rules” and “greater freedom in data use and AI development”.

The German Government’s cozy relations continued after the Commission proposed the Digital Omnibus. On 5 March 2026 Wildberger and other senior members of the Federal Government accepted Google’s invitation to open the new Google AI Centre in Berlin. Wildberger described it as a “good day for Germany as an AI hub”, and dismissed concerns that Germany’s growing dependence on US Big Tech is jeopardising its digital sovereignty, saying that “digital sovereignty doesn't mean you do everything on your own”.

From the Commission proposal to turning the table in the Council

In November 2025 the EU Commission published the Digital Omnibus. The proposal that consisted out of two seperate proposals, the AI Omnibus focused on postponing and watering down the AI Act, and the Data Omnibus on weakening privacy and data protection for the sake of ‘catching up in the global AI race’.

The Digital Omnibus was immediately heavily criticised by numerous civil society organisations. Politico called the package the end of the ‘Brussels effect’ – that is, that European tech regulations might be a model that would be adopted in other countries – and wrote that “Washington is [now] setting the pace on deregulation in Europe”.

There was also considerable scepticism among national governments. In a statement in December 2025, the Council, under the presidency of Cyprus, warned that “that simplification should not lead to deregulation”. The new definition of personal data was particularly contentious with multiple capitals, including Paris, pushing back against some of the Commission proposals as early as January 2026.

Data protection agencies were also highly critical. In a joint opinion in February 2026, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) warned the Council against changing the definition of personal data as that would “risk significantly weakening individual data protection”. They also considered it unnecessary to include a legitimate interest to train and deploy AI systems as the EDPB had only recently published detailed guidelines on how companies could use personal data responsibly for training AI models.

This had an effect. In the following months, while industry’s attention seemed to have been focused on the AI Omnibus and on defeating the Commission’s proposal on privacy signals (see box below), the Council moved towards removing the most problematic Commission proposals including the new definition of personal data and creating a legitimate interest for AI training and deployment.

Box 1 - How the ad-tech industry and Big Tech locked arms in favour of cookie banners

In the first months of 2026 most tech industry lobbying was concentrated on Article 88b proposed in the Digital Omnibus. This proposal – the only one positively received by digital rights organisations – would replace the omnipresent cookie banners with a privacy signal that automatically tells websites if an internet user wants to be tracked or not. Studies have shown that most internet users prefer not to be tracked on the internet.

In what seems to be a repeat of the fierce lobby battle on ePrivacy, the publishing sector tried to paint the proposed change as a gift to Big Tech, while actually locking up arms to keep cookie banners in place.

Documents released by the Swedish Government under Freedom of Information requests show that the ad-tech industry was up in arms against the proposal. In a position paper sent in February 2026 to the Swedish Government, the ad-tech lobby IAB Europe wrote that this will “result in significantly lower consent rates”.

Interestingly, various tech and publisher associations wrote in an open letter in February that “while we share the goal of reducing consent fatigue [it would]... entrench market power in the hands of a few actors”, hinting at Google’s 60 percent share of the internet browser market. This argument was taken up by governments. According to Politico, Poland warned the Council that although the country “supports efforts to reduce consent fatigue”, browser-level consent could concentrate power with tech firms.

However, in spite of the ad-tech industry using the prospect of increased market power as a scare tactic, Big Tech companies were on the same page as publishers and advertisers.

In an email to Swedish officials sharing a position paper, a Google lobbyist wrote in March 2026 that “I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that one of the most important issues for us (even though it doesn’t appear until page 9!) concerns what is known as ‘browser-level consent’ (Article 88b), which we’d like to see deleted.”

Google also commissioned a study by the economic consultancy Implement Group that claimed that ad revenue would drop by €40-50 billion in Europe if people were presented with a ‘one-click solution’ as a large majority would opt out. In other words, online tracking is so unpopular that if internet users are presented with a clear choice, the tech industry’s surveillance and advertising model would be severely impacted.

While this presented a real chance for simplification for millions of Europeans, the Council gave in to industry lobbying and adopted the removal of Article 88b in June.

Big Tech’s counter-offensive

The tech industry became alarmed as the Cypriot Presidency started removing some of the Commission’s proposals. In Denmark, Meta lobbyist Martin Ruby tried to meet with a Danish official to discuss the “rolling back of some of the proposals put forward by the Commission” at the moment that Denmark was having an election:

“Do you have time to speak to me and one of my (more knowledgeable) colleagues about the omnibus package and related matters at the moment, or are you not holding any external meetings at all during the election campaign?”

Ruby must have known that the Danish official wasn’t allowed to have lobby meetings during election campaigns as he had a long history working in Danish politics (see Box 2).

"Do you have time to speak to me and one of my (more knowledgeable) colleagues about the omnibus package and related matters at the moment, or are you not holding any external meetings at all during the election campaign?"

A Meta lobbyist in an email to the Danish government

In an email on 22 April, 2026 a Google lobbyist wrote to the Swedish officials that the company was “concerned to see the provision [on legitimate interest for AI] deleted from the recent compromise text”.

In a letter at the end of May, the powerful European business federation BusinessEurope also joined the fray. In an open letter to the Commission and national governments, it warned against “reducing the omnibus to a symbolic change”. The business association that counts Meta, Google, and Microsoft as members of its Advisory and Support Group, also tried to counter the framing that the Digital Omnibus is a giveaway to Big Tech: “Reducing the debate to a binary opposition between citizens and large corporations risks oversimplifying a complex policy discussion.”

But lobbying really picked up pace at the end of May and beginning of June, both in Brussels as well in member states. The principal aim of that offensive? To delay the Council from adopting a position.

An open letter on 3 June by industry associations – which appears to have been coordinated by BusinessEurope – demanded “Member States to actively oppose any attempt to fast-track a political agreement”. A week later national tech industry associations – many with Big Tech companies in their governance or among their members – called in a letter to the Council to take “sufficient time for reflection instead of rushing through half measures”.

While Big Tech companies remained rather muted in this period, Big Tech aligned front groups (see below) did launch a lobby offensive. In a letter at the end of May signed by among others Dot Europe, Chamber of Progress, Developers Alliance, and others demanded that the Council would “maintain the Commission’s targeted GDPR amendments”. Another letter signed by many groups that are closely aligned to Big Tech such as Consumer Choice Center Europe and the Slovak tech industry association Sapie (whose chair until recently was the country manager of Google), not only called for maintaining the Commission’s proposals, but also demanded to reform the European Data Protection Board to shift its focus from its “maximalist approach” on fundamental rights to “innovation and economic growth”.

Box 2: The front groups amplifying Big Tech lobby positions on the Digital Omnibus

Big Tech companies have a long and notorious history of funding third-party organisations to amplify their lobby positions, often hiding the exact role that Big Tech companies play in bankrolling these organisations.

The US business association Developers Alliance that claims to be the “voice of developers”. The group closed down its activities in 2024, only to restart in early 2025. The group lists Google as their sole sponsor, and regularly praises the company or jumps to Google’s defence. In a reacion, Developers Alliance said that “Google is an original funding partner of the Developers Alliance. They support a number of our event series and developer education and support initiatives in the EU and the US.”

Curiously, the group seems to have close links to RXN, a lobby consultancy based in the United States. Its US financial filing states that the “members of the board of the Developers Alliance are employees at RXN LLC”. Developers Alliance’s press secretary is also employed by RXN. Jake Ward, the founder of Developers Alliance who joined RXN when the group closed down, said in a reaction that RXN employees “leveraged their capabilities to relaunch the Alliance” and that RXN is paying paid by Developers Alliance to support the group. You can read the full reaction here.

The Digital Omnibus seems to be one of Developer Alliance’s priorities. Out of the three meetings they’ve had with MEPs, two explicitly mention the Digital Omnibus in the heading. The group has also taken up lobby positions on the Digital Omnibus that align closely to those of Big Tech firms.

Developers Alliance is not the only Big Tech aligned group lobbing EU lawmakers on the Digital Omnibus. The US-based Chamber of Progress is widely considered by US media to be a front group that was set up to steer Democrats away from antitrust action against Big Tech. It receives funding from among others Google, Amazon, and Apple.

The group has also expanded its activities to Europe, where it has consistently defended Big Tech lobby positions, including on the Digital Omnibus. It recently tried to sell the EU’s deregulation agenda as a “progressive tech policy” stating that:

“Progressives support Europe’s right to compete globally especially in the technology sector, through initiatives like the EU’s Digital Omnibus and Digital Omnibus on AI.”

Consumer Choice Center Europe is an infamous front group that claims to represent consumers. It has a long history of being funded by the tobacco industry, but its European activities are mainly funded by Google and Meta. CCC Europe has set up a satellite website called EU Tech Loop which is partnered with Euronews’ TechNews section to regularly publish op-eds on digital policies, including on the Digital Omnibus. Euronews does not mention that EU Tech Loop is an initiative from CCC Europe, nor does it mention the fact that CCC Europe is funded by Google and Meta.

The German Government, which has become a deregulation hardliner under Friedrich Merz’s leadership, joined business interests to oppose the Council’s compromise text. At the end of June, Germany was able to convince enough other European member states including Italy, Sweden, Poland, Czechia, Denmark, Portugal, and Austria to form a blocking minority in the Council to postpone a vote. This put the Digital Omnibus squarely in the hands of the Irish Presidency. In its proposed amendments in August, Germany once again pushed for extensive deregulation benefiting AI companies and the erosion of individuals’ data protection rights.

With Ireland taking over the Council Presidency from Cyprus in July, the tide turned in Big Tech’s favour.

Box 3: Former officials are now Meta lobbyists pushing to deregulate data protection

In several member states, former civil servants and government officials are now spearheading the attack against the data protections rules of the GDPR. Even when these revolving door appointments from the public to the private sector don’t technically break any rules, they can create a serious risk of conflicts of interest and undue influence. As former officials, they have privileged know-how, access, and influence with policy-makers. When revolving doors become a systemic issue, they can be highly damaging to the integrity and trust in policy-making. The European Ombudsman has for instance pointed to “the corrosive effects of officials bringing their knowledge and networks to related areas in the private sector”.

In Denmark, Meta’s Director for public policy for the Nordic countries, Martin Ruby, shows up in the documents we obtained through Freedom of Information requests, lobbying on the Digital Omnibus (see above). Ruby has a long history working with the Danish liberal party Venstre, and held various positions between 2002 and 2012 including as a Head of Office of the secretariat supporting Venstre MPs, and as a Special Advisor to the former Minister for Development and Integration. In 2012 he joined Google as a lobbyist for three years, before returning to public office in 2015 to become a special advisor to the then-Danish Minister of Justice Søren Pind. In 2018, Ruby joined Facebook as its Director for Public Policy in the Nordics. We have asked Ruby for a comment, but have not received a response.

Meanwhile Meta’s Head of Public Policy in Sweden and Finland, Janne Elvelid, also has a past as a civil servant. From 2012 to 2015 he worked for the Swedish Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation including as a policy analyst for digitisation. From 2015 to 2017, he worked as an official at DG Connect, the Commission’s department for technology, before joining Meta in 2017 as a lobbyist. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests show Elvelid had a meeting in January 2025 with Swedish officials to discuss the Digital Omnibus.

In Ireland, Matthew Lynch (now at Mastercard) worked as a public policy manager at Meta lobbying the Irish government on the Digital Omnibus. Lynch had a long-standing career in the Irish Government working as a special advisor for several ministers including for the former Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. In 2025, he joined Meta for a year during which he was one of the lobbyists who – according to the Irish Independent – dined with the Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke at the US Embassy where they discussed watering down the EU’s digital rules during the Irish Presidency.

Big Tech’s best friend: how Meta and Google influenced the Irish Presidency

A week after the Irish Presidency began, dozens of academics called on the country to recuse itself from key negotiations on digital and tax files. While in principle the Presidency of the Council should be an impartial chair of the Council, in practice it wields considerable power to shape the policy agenda. As the academics including Shoshana Zuboff and Mariana Mazzucato pointed out, “Ireland’s reliance upon giant non-EU firms creates insurmountable conflicts of interest, as evidenced by the country’s record in the area of data regulation and taxation”.

Ireland’s reliance upon giant non-EU firms creates insurmountable conflicts of interest, as evidenced by the country’s record in the area of data regulation and taxation.

Academics calling for the recusal of Ireland from digital files in an open letter

This call was reinforced by two conservative MEPs in a letter to the EU Commissioner McGrath, which cast doubt on the ability of Ireland to “neutrally oversee” negotiations of European digital files including the Digital Omnibus.

Indeed, given Ireland hosts the European headquarters of most US tech companies, it has a long history of being Big Tech’s best friend. In 2019 Facebook lobby memos revealed that the former Irish Prime Minister Enda Kelly had a close relationship with the company, and was described as “friends of Facebook”. The memos also reveal that the Irish Government in 2013, when it also held the EU Presidency, promised Facebook that it would use the “significant influence” of the six-month role to influence other EU member states at a time that the GDPR was being negotiated in the Council.

In her book 'Careless People' former Meta lobbyist and whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams describes how the former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg had a direct phone connection to somebody in the Irish Government that “could solve any problem or address any accommodation she needed”.

Ireland has played an outsized influence in enforcing the GDPR, and has shielded Big Tech from stringent enforcement. Data collected by the NGO Irish Council for Civil Liberties shows that the European Data Protection Board overturned 67 percent of the decisions of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.

The closeness of the Irish Data Protection Commission to Big Tech was again in the spotlight when in October 2025 former Meta lobbyist Niamh Sweeney was appointed as one of three Irish Data Protection Commissioners.

Lobbying campaign in the run-up to the Irish Presidency

In the run-up to the Irish Presidency, Big Tech firms ramped up their lobbying campaigns. The Irish lobby register shows how Meta and Google in particular used their presence in the country to lobby Irish Government officials, ministers, and MEPs on the Digital Omnibus, but also tried to shape “Ireland’s approach to the EU Presidency”.

Starting from May 2025, Meta had lobby interactions with 41 Irish policy-makers and MEPs on the deregulation of the EU’s rules, including nine lobby interactions over “seeking Ireland’s support for simplification of digital regulation at the EU level”.

Reporting by the Irish Independent revealed that Meta lobbied the highest levels of government to push for watering down EU digital rules. In February 2026, the company had a private dinner with the Irish Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke in the US ambassador’s residence to discuss the “digital agenda for Ireland’s EU presidency”. The dinner was attended by four Meta lobbyists of which one, Matthew Lynch, had worked for 15 years until 2025 for Fine Gael, the same political party Burke is also a member of. A spokesperson for the US embassy confirmed that “reducing EU digital regulation” was discussed at the dinner.

Irish Government officials haven’t been shy about their many lobby meetings with the company. On LinkedIn, the Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee posted a picture of herself with a Meta lobbyist with the caption “Great to meet with Meta yesterday to discuss priorities for Ireland's upcoming EU Presidency". Part of the discussion was on “reducing unnecessary regulatory complexity”.

Google too ramped up its lobbying of Irish policy-makers in order to influence EU policies. The company had lobby interactions with 30 public officials including multiple meetings to encourage “Ireland to support the EU digital simplification package in the context of its presidency of the EU Council”.

The company couldn’t hide its pleasure with the Irish Presidency. In September it hosted a ‘Google Irish Presidency Reception’ in Brussels to “celebrate Ireland’s presidency”.

But Big Tech’s influence runs deeper than just the lobbying by these companies individually. Ibec, the largest Irish employers' association of Ireland, has also lobbied extensively on the Digital Omnibus and has a strong Big Tech presence among its members. Until October 2025, its board President was the head of Meta in Ireland. Since May 2025, the lobby group has had lobby interactions with 30 Irish lawmakers on the Digital Omnibus.

In the run-up to the EU Presidency, the Irish Government called for input from stakeholders on its priorities. In its submission Meta argued for far-reaching demands including a “complete overhaul of Europe’s digital rulebook”, including a “pause on implementation of the pipeline of digital laws”. The company also seemed to suggest that its business dealings should at times trump fundamental rights saying that “economic considerations and competitiveness are not balanced as they should be against other rights, including privacy rights”. The Big Tech lobby outfit Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in its submission called for “corrective action” by the Irish Presidency against the “tech regulatory tsunami” and to “double down” on simplification”.

With the Council text adopted in October that allows the use of personal data for training and operating AI a legitimate interest, it seems that Big Tech could once again rely on its best friend.

The lobby blitz in the European Parliament

The European Parliament is also being heavily lobbied. Even though the Parliament will only decide on its position at the beginning of 2027, we already identified 655 meetings with lobbyists on the Digital Omnibus. Most of those meetings – 83 percent – were with business interests (companies, trade associations and lobby consultancies). Only 11 percent of meetings were with civil society organisations or trade unions.

Since the Commission put out its Digital Omnibus proposal in November 2025, lobbyists have, on average, been having three meetings with MEPs every working day.

On average, lobbyists have been having three meetings with MEPs every working day since the Commission put out its Digital Omnibus proposal in November 2025.

Google and Meta had the most lobby meetings on the Digital Omnibus, with 21 and 19 respectively. Their interests were further reinforced by the industry associations that represent them like DIGITALEUROPE (10 meetings), Dot Europe (7 meetings), and the American Chamber of Commerce (5 meetings).

The meetings also show that other interests are trying to shape the negotiations, particularly media companies and publishers.

And while some NGOs figure high on the list, the total number of meetings shows that business interests are meeting MEPs far more often.

The MEP Aura Salla held the most meetings, with 110 lobbyists. Former Meta lobbyist Salla was controversially appointed as the Digital Omnibus rapporteur on behalf of the industry committee in the Parliament (ITRE). Salla is a deregulation hardliner from the EPP group who told Politico that the GDPR must undergo “brutal changes” to give European companies and researchers the data they need to train AI.

Far-right MEP Sebastian Tynkkynen has had the second most meetings with 70 lobbyists. Tynkkynen has been convicted three times by Finnish courts for ethnic agitation (the crime of inciting hatred or hostility against a population group based on their ethnic or national origin). He is also the shadow rapporteur for the ECR on the Digital Omnibus. Especially noteworthy is that Google met four times with Tynkkynen on the Digital Omnibus, which is more than they met with any other MEP on this issue. This fits in a broader pattern of increasing contacts between Big Tech companies and the European far-right.

A detailed analysis by noyb of more than a 1000 amendments shows that the centre-right EPP group and far-right ECR have made the most far-reaching proposals, many of which would radically weaken people’s privacy or are even in violation of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.

Will the European Parliament stop the deregulation of our digital rights?

Polls show that there is consistent and strong support among Europeans for regulating AI. Even Ursula von der Leyen was forced to pay lip-service to the importance of “putting guardrails in place” in her annual State of the Union.

But as this research clearly shows, the Council moved in the opposite direction, thereby bowing to lobbying pressure from Big Tech. However, strong AI and data protection rules are essential for curbing the power of Big Tech and reducing our dependence on it.

With EU member states accepting the radical deregulation of our digital rights, attention will now focus on the European Parliament. Already, Big Tech, with its massive lobbying firepower, is ramping up its lobbying of MEPs.

However, digital deregulation is not inevitable. The European Parliament has a crucial opportunity to stop this dangerous proposal and defend the hard-won data protection safeguards.

The European Parliament has a crucial opportunity to stop this dangerous proposal and defend the hard-won data protection safeguards.

It is now up to the MEPs to stop this attack on data protection and AI regulations, put the brakes on, and fight hard for the protection of personal data and strict regulations on AI.

Act now

Share this text to let everyone know how Ireland and Germany are teaming up with the AI lobby.

Some MEPs are fighting for our fundamental digital rights, whilst others are fulfilling the wishes of Big Tech. Our partner organisation, noyb, highlights who is on which side. This list provides an overview and allows you to write to MEPs with just one click. A quick email is all it takes. Raise your voice now!

Methodology

We filed access-to-documents requests in several EU member states to obtain a more detailed overview of industry lobbying of the Digital Omnibus. We received two batches of documents from the Swedish Ministry of Finance, on 10 April and 30 September 2026, as well as documents from the Danish Ministry of Digital Affairs on 8 April.

There is no consistent way to keep track of meetings across Europe.

In Germany, two parliamentary questions provided information on meetings with 11 non-European tech companies. These lists do not enable us to identify the topics discussed at these meetings, and the second parliamentary question only covered the digital ministry.
The Irish lobby register includes a list of interactions between lobbyists and public officials, but does not provide an exact number of lobbying meetings. Instead it gives an indicative range (for instance between 2-5 meetings). The Irish lobby register also lists other lobbying activities, including emails and letters, relating to a particular topic. For these reasons, it is not possible to say how many meetings a particular company had. Therefore, we focused on the number of officials interacted with rather than the number of meetings. We included interactions with lobbyists filed by Meta, Google and Ibec that mentioned 'digital omnibus' and 'simplification', and that sought to influence the Irish Presidency.
Since 2023, all MEPs have been required to register their lobbying meetings; however, not all MEPs comply equally. Parliamentary assistants are not covered by this obligation. To identify the relevant meetings, we used keywords including ‘digital omnibus’, ‘data omnibus’, ‘digital simplification’, ‘omnibus numérique ’ and ‘digital omnibus’. We then cleaned up the database to standardise how companies were registered. If an MEP met with several companies during one meeting, we counted those as separate meetings, meaning we counted the number of companies met. We removed meetings with other MEPs, national ministries, permanent representations, and the EU Commission, but left in meetings with independent public authorities such as data protection agencies.

Downloads

Response Developers Alliance

Deregulation Watch

Joana — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 08:45:00 +0000

Helping civil society monitor the deregulation agenda

27.10.2026

Single market

Environment

Commission President von der Leyen has made very clear that the EU’s priority for the next five years will be to boost industry’s "competitiveness", including through deregulation of EU rules that industry perceives as burdensome. This deregulation campaign includes roll-back of existing social and environmental standards, more hurdles for new progressive EU regulation, escape routes allowing companies to avoid regulation, as well as new hurdles for national level regulation.

Von der Leyen’s deregulation agenda was heavily inspired by corporate lobbying campaigns and it now provides unprecedented opportunities for corporate lobby groups to determine the shape of future EU legislation and roll back social and environmental standards in existing EU laws.

Corporate Europe Observatory has set up Deregulation Watch to help civil society monitor new developments in the deregulation agenda, assess what’s at stake, and organise in defense of strong social, environmental and human rights protections.

We would be grateful for any insights on the EU deregulation offensive, including on corporate lobbying activities, that you may want to share with us. Insights can be sent to @email

Click here for more info on the European Commission’s omnibus packages.

New ‘Strategic Project’ list gives arms, oil, mining and metals firms an easy ride

26 Oct 2026

In a nutshell:

European Commission this month announced a new list of 46 critical raw material Strategic Projects, including mines and processing plants.
“Strategic” status fast-tracks permits for polluting projects, undermining environment, health, clean water and public participation.
The new list includes projects from arms and oil companies, as well as corporations that have lobbied to weaken workers’ protections, or been hit by fraud scandals.

What you need to know

The 2024 Critical Raw Materials Act, or CRMA, intended to reduce EU dependence on China for key minerals and metals used in batteries, digital technologies and defence equipment, by increasing their extraction, processing and recycling in Europe. Last year, the Commission published its first list of 60 “Strategic Projects” under the CRMA. These benefit from extra political and financial support, plus “streamlined” and shorter permitting procedures. But as the EU Raw Materials Coalition has warned, this risks sacrificing “environmental protection [and] meaningful public participation”.

One of these projects was Swedish mining company LKAB’s Per Geijer rare earth metals mine, which – following prolific lobbying – was granted strategic status despite ongoing violation of indigenous rights and the livelihoods of the Sámi people of Gabna. What’s more, as noted by the European Environment Bureau (EEB), the list included 11 projects that had failed the Commission’s own expert assessment. On top of that, the Commission rejected all NGO requests for access to the documents and expert opinions from the selection process.

A new list of Strategic Projects came out this month, fast-tracking 46 more projects. These include projects run by companies that profit from arms and oil, have lobbied to weaken workers’ protections, and been embroiled in fraud scandals. For example:

arms company Leonardo has received strategic status for its “CRM4Defence” recycling project in Italy, Poland, France, and the UK. In the year leading up to the new list’s publication, the weapons giant enjoyed 18 top-level meetings with the European Commission. Leonardo spends half a million euros a year lobbying Brussels… while receiving over €50 million a year in EU grants, for research funding and joint ventures;
Belgian materials firm Umicore has two metals processing projects in the list, including for cobalt, copper and nickel. Umicore spends an annual €1 million lobbying the EU, and met top Commission officials 23 times in the year leading up to the list’s publication. During this time, it’s been part of a lobby offensive against stricter worker exposure limits to cobalt dust, which causes cancer and lung disease – including as a vocal and prominent member of the Cobalt Institute;
German oil and gas producer Neptune Energy is on the list with a lithium mining project in a natural gas field in Altmark, Germany. The fossil fuel firm met top Commission officials to discuss CRMA strategic projects twice in 2025;
mining firm FinnCobalt has received strategic status for its Hautalampi Cobalt Nickel-Copper Mine in Finland. Even though the CEO of its parent company, Eurobattery Minerals, was this year convicted of fraud, a fact the European Commission admits it wasn’t aware of.

The EEB has warned that many of the new Strategic Projects are in water-stressed and already environmentally degraded areas, where mining and processing activities pose significant risks to water resources through depletion, pollution and mining waste. This threatens rivers, groundwater and ecosystems that are essential for Europe’s resilience to droughts, floods and water scarcity.

With such a poor track record, and such problematic recipients identified in this new list, it’s clear that a different approach is needed. No more loopholes to rules that protect us, for the privilege – and at the request – of companies and industries that pollute and profit from harm.

Unfortunately, things look to be moving in the wrong direction.

The expansion of loopholes to laws designed to protect the environment, health and people’s rights, is part of the deregulation wave sweeping Brussels. Increasingly, such loopholes apply to projects or industries labelled ‘strategic’, ‘critical’ or of (overriding) public interest. We explored who is shaping these definitions and categories (clue: it is not the public), and who is set to win and lose from them, in our investigation into the tech, oil and mining industry attack on permitting rules.

Central to this shift is the Environment Omnibus’ proposal to speed-up environmental assessments, which introduced a category of ‘strategic’ projects and sectors. These would automatically be considered in the public interest, and benefit from tacit approvals and fast-tracked dispute settlements. Hotly debated in Council and Parliament alike, as the file gets closer to trialogues, there is a real danger that what counts as ‘strategic’ will be expanded drastically, essentially making these exceptions into the norm.

Pact against higher national standards before end of year

23 Oct 2026

In a nutshell:

- Ursula von der Leyen is calling for a Pact against gold-plating to be signed before the end of the year.

- Many member state governments have issued statements of support.

- Civil society organisations and trade unions view this announcement as a sign that ambitious social protection and environmental standards are under threat.

What you need to know

On 12 October, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent a letter to the European Council proposing a 'Pact against gold-plating'. 'Gold-plating' is a term mainly used by corporate lobby groups to criticise national measures that go further than those agreed at EU level.

This initiative has sparked fears that it will lead to systematic attacks on social rights and environmental protection, even when fully in line with EU law. It seems that the Commission is looking for an approach that will increase the impact of EU decisions in areas where its competence is limited, or where EU law currently leaves member states with a lot of discretion. The fight against gold-plating is set to happen, among other ways, in the context of the European Semester, a procedure linked to fiscal rules.

Shortly after the announcement, 17 member states, including Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, supported a new initiative to boost simplification in the name of 'competitiveness', including by targeting gold-plating. The declaration from the 17 governments suggests that they are prepared to go to great lengths.

Since the Commission released a communication on so-called 'Better Regulation' in April this year, civil society organisations and trade unions have expressed deep concern over initiatives against gold-plating. In an open letter, 60 organisations denounced the increasingly negative framing of 'gold-plating', a term originating from vested industry interests that want the Commission to prevent member states from introducing measures more stringent than those agreed at European level. In itself, there is nothing wrong with 'gold-plating'.

In response to Ursula von der Leyen’s recent proposal, the European Trade Union Confederation has gone a step further and warned that it will take legal action if workers’ rights are put at risk through attacks on 'gold-plating'. However, according to Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at the Social Summit on 15 October, such action will not be necessary as the Pact is not set to cover social and employment directives.

The ETUC, for its part, has welcomed this statement, but is hoping to see it in writing. Similar promises have not been made in other areas, including environmental policies or consumer rights.

State of the Union: EU deregulation waves intensifies, with a focus on permitting, banking, national-level rules

28 Sep 2026

In a nutshell:

Ursula von der Leyen’s call for a pact against ‘gold-plating' has been embraced by 17 EU governments
Civil society groups and unions are insisting on the right to stronger national-level protections

What you need to know

The State of the Union (SOTEU) speech delivered by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier this month was controversial, both for what she said and what she failed to mention. The racial justice group Equinox pointed out that “Von der Leyen’s speech made no mention of the cost of living crisis currently affecting millions of people in Europe battling soaring food prices and electricity bills.” Equinox also noted that the Commission President “doubled down on commitments to scorched-earth deregulation – with no proposals for taxes on windfall profits to reinvest in public services.”

In her SOTEU speech, von der Leyen celebrated the 12 omnibus packages launched so far (weakening EU laws ranging from food and farming, over chemicals to digital and taxation) and announced new deregulation in the form of faster permitting for projects (energy infrastructure, mining, data centres, etc.). She also announced a new Banking Package focused on ‘simplification’, as well as further initiatives to “complete the single market”. This included a call for a pact against ‘gold-plating', a term used to describe the practice of national governments adding more ambitious requirements when transposing EU directives into domestic legislation.

In a CEO press release, Kenneth Haar commented “The plan to do a pact against gold-plating is much more dangerous than it sounds. Corporate lobby groups will eye this as an opportunity to bring down ambitious environmental policies and social standards at the member state level.” The European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) warned that “calling everything that goes beyond the EU minimum “gold-plating” risks fundamentally changing what transposition [of EU legislation] means.” With regard to the current transposition of corporate sustainability legislation (the CSDDD), the ECCJ stated that “Member States should not be discouraged from adopting stronger standards when transposing it, particularly when this leads to better human rights and environmental outcomes. Such an approach is not only permissible under EU law but is explicitly provided for in the Directive itself.” Judith Kirton-Darling of the trade union federation industriAll pointed out that “European legislation often establishes minimum standards precisely because member states have different industrial relations systems and social models. Stronger national protections should not suddenly be treated as obstacles to competitiveness.”

However, support for deregulation among member state governments seems at an all-time high. According to Politico, eleven countries led by Austria are pushing to pause new EU legislation for twelve months, which the country's Europe Minister, Claudia Bauer, has described as a 'year of simplification'. At an event a few days after the State of the Union speech, Austria and Italy responded to the call for a pact against gold-plating by announcing the 'Alliance for the Reduction of Bureaucratic Burden'. The alliance appears to have gained the support of 17 EU governments, with notable exceptions including France and Spain. At the EU summit on 22 September, numerous governments supported calls for 'regulatory restraint to avoid over-regulation' and for new regulations to undergo a mandatory competitiveness review at least every five years.

In contrast, the three centre-left groups in the European Parliament spoke out strongly against deregulation in their reactions to von der Leyen’s speech. Manon Aubry of The Left group accused the European Commission of pursuing a 'scorched earth policy' centred on deregulation. The S&D group called for "a change of direction away from deregulation". Terry Reintke of the Greens said, 'We have to stop this deregulation', and called for an inquiry committee to investigate the failure to implement the Green Deal.

Vampire at the door? Commission accepts Big Polluter invite to permitting conference

8 Sep 2026

Sector: Climate

In a nutshell:

Commission and MEPs join fossil fuel and mining industry lobby event on deregulating permitting – organised by the ‘Informal Coalition on Permitting’
Their key demand: simplify permitting rules. What this means: more dirty or dangerous infrastructure projects imposed on communities; human health endangered; biodiversity destroyed; curtailed rights for affected communities.
Oil and gas groups like IOGP, Gas Infrastructure Europe and Romgaz dominate session on weakening planning rules for carbon capture, transport and storage infrastructure.

What you need to know

The European Commission has made numerous proposals in the last year to provide major new loopholes to requirements to assess environmental and social impacts of industrial projects. From the Industrial Accelerator Act to the Environment Omnibus and Grids Package, many of these permitting deregulation plans are currently being argued over, amended and negotiated on in the European Parliament and Council. But this drive to ‘simplify’ (read: weaken) permitting rules risks curtailing the rights of affected communities, endangering human health and biodiversity, and imposing more dirty or dangerous infrastructure projects on communities across Europe.

Queue the first “European Permitting Conference” happening in Brussels today. Simplification and competitiveness are buzzwords of this lobby event, which is organised by an industry supergroup called the Informal Coalition on Permitting (ICP). Centred around fossil fuels, pipeline builders and mining giants, this ‘informal’ coalition of lobby groups is spearheaded among others by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). IOGP represents all the big names in Big Oil, from BP, ExxonMobil and Shell to TotalEnergies, Eni and Equinor. IOGP has praised the Commission for answering “long-standing asks from industry" such as "streamlined” environmental assessments – and said remaining “bottlenecks” are why it launched this coalition: to secure a permitting system “aligned with Europe’s competitiveness goals”. In other words, one which puts corporate interests first.

The European Commission has endorsed the ICP’s lobby event by sending three high level speakers – a cabinet member of Environment Commissioner Roswall, a unit head from DG Energy, and an advisor to President von der Leyen. Three EPP MEP speakers are listed (including the vice-chair of influential ITRE Committee), along with a whopping nine fossil fuel industry speakers, including from IOGP Europe, Gas Infrastructure Europe, Gas Distributors for Sustainability (GD4S), Romgaz, Nephin Energy, Fluxys and Element NL. The conference will be rounded off with a networking cocktail.

Here’s the problem: it matters who you’re talking to. Companies that produce and sell gas telling you that a technology they’ve been promising and failing to deliver for decades, will soon make the gas they profit from “clean” (...if you give them more taxpayers money and laxer permitting rules to build it) should ring alarm bells. Because promises of carbon capture and storage (CCS) are an excuse to keep fossil fuels in business. Take the conference session on “Strengthening Europe’s industrial base with CCS value chain”. Making it easier to get permits for CCS and CO2 transport infrastructure has been a major lobbying goal of oil and gas group IOGP, the moderator of this panel, and four out of six speakers on it are from the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel companies have buried and denied climate science, delayed, weakened, and sabotaged climate action, and engaged in greenwashing and peddling false solutions that enable them to continue making billions in profits, while heating the planet and destroying communities.

Yet the European Commission isn’t just accepting the invitations of the fossil fuel lobby and its allies. It is actively inviting them in, from advisory structures like the ICM Forum to implementation dialogues on CCS. But those responsible for the crisis, who continue to benefit from it, should not shape its solutions. To stop the fossil fuel industry from continuing to obstruct climate and energy policy, we need firewalls that protect policymaking from its influence.

How much “significant harm” can a €2 trillion EU budget do?

25 Aug 2026

Sector: Climate, Finance, Industrial Policy

In a nutshell:

Next EU budget contains dangerous exemptions to the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle.
Mining industry and fossil fuel lobby pushed for loopholes, and are set to benefit with public money for harmful projects and false solutions that promote fossil fuels.

What you need to know

In July, the European Commission presented its proposal for the EU’s 2028-2034 budget, the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Amounting to nearly €2 trillion, it features an alarming concession to some of Europe’s most polluting and dangerous industries. Namely, a series of exceptions to the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ (DNSH) principle, which is meant to ensure that EU funding does not support activities that significantly harm environmental and climate objectives.

DNSH was incorporated into the financial rules for the EU budget in 2024, in accordance with the EU’s 2020 sustainable finance taxonomy. The EU Taxonomy requires that for economic activities to be considered sustainable, they must not significantly harm any of six environmental objectives, including climate change mitigation, pollution prevention and biodiversity protection.

The corporate lobby world, however, was never keen on not doing significant harm: big business groups pushed to simplify DNSH criteria, while oil and gas lobbies complained of “disproportionate administrative burdens”. Enter the Commission’s new deregulatory tool, the omnibus, deregulating handfuls of laws in one go, guided by industry. The very first omnibus targeted corporate sustainability rules including the EU Taxonomy, with promises to “simplify” the application of the DNSH principle it introduced.

In that context, it is perhaps not surprising that the new rules for the EU budget require that EU funded programmes and activities only follow the DNSH principle “where feasible and appropriate”. Recent draft guidelines – appearing after a public consultation earlier this year, and now the subject of a consultation of the EU’s funding programmes – set out what this could mean.

And the prognosis is not good: colossal loopholes to the DNSH principle allow EU taxpayers’ money to be used in a way that causes significant harm to the climate, water resources, biodiversity and ecosystems. They suggest that applying DNSH would not be “feasible or appropriate” in crisis situations, for defence and security, and for other reasons of “overriding public interest”. Certainly, this not the first place that military exemptions to environmental protection have been introduced (take, for example, the Climate Law). And CEO has documented the expanding application of so-called ‘public interest’ to more and more problematic and polluting industries, at the request of those very same industries. Even Politico has noted that the Commission’s plans to exempt projects judged to be “overriding public interest” from DNSH could open the door for data centers or critical raw materials to benefit from favorable treatment.

Music to the ears of mining lobby group Euromines – an influential player in the industry push to weaken rules protecting community rights and the environment so that it becomes much easier to get permits. Euromines describes how it actively pushed against the use of the DNSH principle “as a negative filter for accessing EU funding”, an “exclusionary tool” that could limit mining corporations’ access to EU public money.

Another happy customer will be the fossil fuel lobby – due to the many additional specific exceptions provided in the draft guidelines. ‘Carve-outs’ are provided for a list of activities that do significant harm, such as fossil fuel production, transport and burning for electricity. These exceptions, however, would allow funding of fossil fuel-enabling infrastructure via the false promise of carbon capture technology. For example, there are carve-outs for ‘low-carbon’ energy and hydrogen infrastructure, by which they mean fossil gas or fossil-based hydrogen in combination with carbon capture and storage, a risky, costly and repeatedly failed technology. This echoes demands by fossil fuel lobbyists such as Gas Distributors for Sustainability, Italgas and Snam, as well as HydrogenEurope. Likewise, “net-zero technologies” – which explicitly include hydrogen and carbon capture – for industrial processes and fossil power generation get a free pass, as do waste incinerators using carbon capture and storage.

The next EU budget is going to be a hot topic for the coming year, and these steps to remove vital safeguards against harm will need continued scrutiny.

Implementation dialogue on carbon capture: latest in a textbook case of fossil fuel influence

22 Jul 2026

Sector: Energy/climate

In a nutshell:

Climate Commissioner Hoekstra organised an ‘implementation dialogue’ on carbon capture and storage in EU climate policy, inviting mostly representatives of dirty industries with vested interests.
When asked to bring in critical voices, Hoekstra's Cabinet falsely claimed that they had invited a diversity of stakeholders.
This is one more step in a long list of biased decision-making promoting a failed, risky and staggeringly expensive technology.

What you need to know

Business-dominated implementation dialogues are a staple of the Commission’s deregulation wave, and on 29 June, Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra held one on Carbon Capture and Storage in EU Climate Policy - Barriers and Enablers.

For the past three years, the EU has been turbo-charging policies to support the massive scale-up of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies – via public money, permitting deregulation, and dramatically upping carbon capture targets. These targets stand in stark contrast to reality: globally, we’re “permanently” burying less CO2 than a single large power plant can emit in a year. And there’s no reason to believe this is going to change – CCS technologies have been trialled for over 50 years with negligible results.

Corporate influence is a major reason that the Commission is betting on carbon capture despite ample evidence against it: fossil fuel and energy-intensive industries have fed a mirage that it will help achieve EU climate targets and decarbonise their continued use of fossil fuels.

This flawed premise was the basis of Hoekstra's implementation dialogue, which identified challenges slowing down CCS deployment as “lack of funding, slow permitting and negative public perception.” The dialogue claimed to have wide stakeholder participation, but when we wrote to Hoekstra's cabinet asking to participate, they declined. They argued that “the organisations invited were chosen to respect a diversity in terms of stakeholders, size, and geographical balance. In order to ensure a meaningful conversation, we had to limit the dialogue to a fixed number of participants. We regret that this time your organisation was not selected.”

At the time, the list of participants was not available, though it was published after our request. Contrary to the diversity claimed by the Commission, the dialogue was hugely dominated by fossil fuel and energy intensive industries, with only one trade union, few regional authorities and just two NGOs, both very supportive of CCS (and with a history of links to the fossil fuel industry).

Fossil fuel participants included Fluxys, Gasunie, Equinor, Eni and INEOS, as well as oil and gas lobby IOGP, and CCS Europe. Energy-intensive industries were also present, such as cement lobby Cembureau and its member Heidelberg, steel firm Marcegaglia, and industrial gas company AirLiquide. The latter three – along with Italian oil giant Eni – all have vested interests in Italy’s Ravenna CCS/Callisto project. Both Marcegaglia and Heidelberg have obtained Innovation Fund grants to develop carbon capture for their steel and cement plants in northern Italy, notes ReCommon.

Many of these participants are also prominent in the ICM Forum, whose undemocratic role in shaping EU energy policy we have repeatedly exposed. It has pushed for a network of pipelines transporting hazardous compressed CO2 from sites of pollution to places it could (theoretically) be used or stored. Obligingly, the EU plans 19,000km of CO2 pipelines by 2040 — despite the dangers demonstrated by mass hospitalisations following leaks in the US. Commissioner Hoekstra, however, appears hoodwinked: minutes of the implementation dialogue emphasise that “investment in CO2 transport and storage infrastructure is essential”, plus the need for faster and more predictable permitting, and money from the Innovation Fund.

This shopping list is set to be delivered, with new permitting loopholes in the Industrial Accelerator Act, Environment Omnibus, et al, and the review of the EU carbon market promising more public money (from the Innovation Fund and new Industrialisation Bank).

Hoekstra, closing the dialogue, stressed the importance of building a European market for CO2 transport and storage, “based on close cooperation between industry, Member States and the Commission”. These discussions, he promised, would feed into the Commission’s upcoming CO2 infrastructure and markets proposal, due by end 2026. The preparation of this proposal is subject to a complaint led by environmental group BUND to the EU Ombudswoman, over an industry-skewed public consultation. Likewise, the “close cooperation” Hoekstra promises leaves out all those impacted by the climate crisis, which these policies will only worsen.

This implementation dialogue on CCS is the next step in a textbook case of corporate capture and fossil fuel industry false solutions, which the Commission wants to paint as democratic.

Chemicals Omnibus rides roughshod over health protections

14 Jul 2026

Sector: Chemicals

In a nutshell:

The outcome of the Chemicals Omnibus will see a rolling-back of protections against harmful substances in cosmetics
And it could have been even worse: other deregulatory proposals were defeated
Some MEPs are trying to counter the race-to-the-bottom effect of omnibuses by putting forward proposals to increase health and environmental protections

What you need to know

In recent months the Chemicals Omnibus has been making its way through the EU’s legislative process (see Deregulation Watch, 12 March 2026). Now that an agreement has been reached between the Commission, Parliament, and Council, the final outcome is largely clear and looks set to come into force in December.

The Chemicals Omnibus represents a step backwards for the regulation of harmful substances in cosmetics. As such it’s no surprise that a coalition of industry lobby groups including Cosmetics Europe and the International Fragrance Association have welcomed the agreement.

But civil society, progressive MEPs, and some member states have helped to ensure that the outcome of the Chemicals Omnibus is not as bad as was originally proposed. For example, the Commission had proposed to lift the automatic ban on CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic) substances in non-ingested cosmetics (creams, powders, perfumes etc), but in the end that irresponsible provision was removed. Yet these types of harmful chemicals will still be given longer grace periods – during which they can be used in cosmetics – as a result of the Omnibus. Legislators managed to reduce the length of those periods from the Commission’s original proposal, but they are still longer than currently exist.

To speed-up the replacement of hazardous substances in cosmetic products, the Commission will now develop guidance specifying the properties that these alternatives should have. However, because the Omnibus has determined that these must be exact like-for-like substitutes, it seems unlikely that any alternative will ever be considered suitable. This is important because the availability of suitable alternatives is a major consideration when bans on substances are on the table.

On the labelling of the hazardous properties of chemicals, the worst of the Commission’s original proposal was dropped, and labels must at least be “legible” to consumers. Other industry-friendly measures have, however, been approved in this area.

But in an encouraging development, progressive MEPs tried to use the Chemicals Omnibus to put forward a positive agenda. Amendments were tabled aiming to ban 'forever chemicals' (PFAS) and endocrine-disrupting substances in cosmetics. The amendments narrowly failed to secure a majority at the Parliament’s plenary vote, but this effort to seize the initiative back from the deregulators is a positive indicator that a fight-back is possible, as more omnibuses come down the track.

Unions and NGOs slam new EU tax deregulation plan

29 Jun 2026

In a nutshell:

With its new tax ‘simplification’ package, the Commission is making corporate competitiveness its new tax policy priority.
The package, including a new tax omnibus, undermines the EU's efforts to prevent tax avoidance.
The proposals were warmly welcomed by BusinessEurope and other corporate lobby groups.

What you need to know

Last week the European Commission launched a 'tax simplification package', which includes a new omnibus on direct taxation. This package involves amending various EU tax laws and represents a significant change in priorities. As Elodie Lamer wrote in her analysis in Morning Post Europe, “After a long hunt for tax avoidance and evasion, a new era may be opening in which taxation is put at the service of competitiveness objectives”. This is particularly evident in the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive: “Born in the wake of the LuxLeaks scandal, it embodied an era in which Brussels regarded multinationals with suspicion. Now the Commission wants to give it a different mission.”

Oxfam heavely criticised the Commission’s proposal, describing it as 'another round of tax giveaways for large corporations while public budgets are at breaking point'. The group, which campaigns for the taxation of Europe's super-rich, criticised the proposal for “weakening key safeguards against tax avoidance and opening the door to broader exemptions for capital income”. Eurodad also expressed strong concern, describing the omnibus as a “giant leap backwards on tax justice” that “undermines fair taxation by slashing anti-abuse rules and makes an already bad EU tax system even worse”. Eurodad rejects the Commission’s framing of the proposals as ‘administrative simplification’, pointing out that ‘the measures in fact strip away anti-tax abuse mechanisms and slash taxes at source’. Eurodad concludes that what is termed 'simplification' is actually 'a capitulation to the interests of major multinational corporations'. Eurodad is calling for a comprehensive and transparent impact assessment of what these exemptions will cost public budgets in each EU member state.

The European Federation of Public Services Unions (EPSU) has criticised the Tax Omnibus as a “handout to corporations that will deplete public budgets and push back the battle against tax avoidance”. The Commission’s proposal, EPSU points out, ‘undermines the ability of public authorities to verify that companies pay fair taxes when bidding for public contracts financed by public funds’. The union also reminds us that the EU loses an estimated €210–250 billion every year to cross-border tax avoidance and evasion, and that the Omnibus does nothing to address these losses — quite the opposite. S&D MEPs share concerns about the Omnibus's impact on the fight against tax abuse, highlighting that the proposed measures risk exacerbating aggressive tax planning.

The banking lobby group Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) warmly welcomed the omnibus, encouraging Member States to “support the Commission’s ambitious proposals”. BusinessEurope described the omnibus as “a major step forward for competitiveness” and urged the Council to swiftly turn the proposals into law. This enthusiasm is hardly surprising, given that the omnibus aligns with the demands that BusinessEurope, together with its member groups from Germany (BDI) and France (MEDEF), have made during lobby meetings with the Commission earlier this year.

Commission asks polluting industry, are workers’ rights bothering you?

8 Jun 2026

Sector: chemicals, industrial policy, climate

In a nutshell:

EU survey asks petrochemicals companies if “regulatory hurdles” like worker exposure limits, climate policies, pollution limits, and permitting rules are “hindering” investment.
The Commission is once again inviting Europe’s biggest polluters to say what environmental and social protection rules they want thrown on the bonfire of competitiveness.

What you need to know

In our recent report, Permission to Pollute, we explored some of the new and existing channels of influence that are giving Europe’s most polluting companies the reins to drive the deregulation of permitting rules, and the vital protections that underpin them.

One key channel is via Industrial Alliances – official alliances between the Commission and specific industries, such as hydrogen and raw materials – described by environmental groups as “self-regulation” projects that give vested interests like fossil fuel and mining companies the opportunity to shape policy and direct public funding. Yet the von der Leyen Commission, intent on expanding this model of regulatory-capture, has been setting up new ones, including on chemicals. The Critical Chemical Alliance’s members include petrochemicals firms like ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, Bayer, and BASF, as well as influential chemicals lobby group CEFIC.

Soon after Permission to Pollute was published, and as part of our research for an upcoming report on the Critical Chemicals Alliance, we were tipped off that the Commission was running a survey for members of the Alliance. It asks what “regulatory hurdles” hinder their investments. Companies were invited to identify specific regulations in a wide range of areas and say whether they are a minor drawback, a major one, or even a “showstopper”. To name just a few of the “hurdles” the Commission asked companies about:

workers’ rights – including “occupational exposure limits” to things like cancer-causing chemicals, “major accident rules”, and even “unions”;
permitting – including “public consultation” and “environmental permits”;
industrial environmental compliance obligations – including pollution limits to air, water, and soil, not to mention “drought restrictions” and “biodiversity assessments”;
regulations on carbon capture, transport and storage – including permitting and liability (check out our CO2 pipeline case study to find out why weaker permitting rules for this dangerous infrastructure, being pushed by Big Oil as part of the carbon capture con, are a bad idea).

Let's spell this out: the European Commission is asking big polluters like ExxonMobil and Bayer to say which rules protecting worker’s health and the environment from toxic chemicals and deadly pollutants they consider the biggest obstacles to investment. All with the aim of creating a “Charter that moves beyond standard industry asks and focuses on practical, investment-relevant solutions.”

Curious about the results? So are we. The survey promises that “all responses will be treated as confidential”. Time to roll up our sleeves and see if we can find out more via the legal right to access to documents: watch this space.

EU Commission's 'Better Regulation' reform institutionalises undemocratic highspeed deregulation methods

12 May 2026

In a nutshell:
• Instead of halting its heavily criticised methods for producing Omnibus proposals at speed, the Commission intends to change its rules to enable more of this.
• The Commission’s new 'Better Regulation' Communication also includes sweeping new deregulation plans for twelve different policy areas, on top of last month’s 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap'.
• The Commission's approach mirrors the advice of Argentina’s minister for deregulation: disorient your opposition by deregulating lots of provisions and sectors simultaneously.

What you need to know

At the end of April, the European Commission published a 'Communication on Better Regulation', setting out plans to adapt its internal decision-making processes, known as the 'Better Regulation Guidelines'. These reform plans are widely regarded as a response to strong criticism from the European Ombudsman regarding the Commission's development of its Omnibus packages, the main instrument in its deregulation agenda. The ten Omnibus packages launched in 2025 were prepared without an impact assessment, instead using 'targeted consultation' with handpicked corporate lobbyists rather than the inclusive public consultation methods outlined in the Better Regulation Guidelines. The European Ombudsman ruled that the Commission had violated its own rules by failing to conduct impact assessments, climate consistency checks and public consultations for its Omnibus proposals.

As the trade union confederation ETUC points out, “rather than addressing these shortcomings, the Commission now appears to be adapting its internal rulebook to normalise this new approach”: “a less transparent and less participative approach, where hand-picked corporate lobbyists have privileged access”. ClientEarth confirms that “broad and unclear exemptions to the rule, based on ‘urgency’, could allow the Commission to continue bypassing its own standards”. The ECCJ called the Commission’s ‘smarter and more flexible consultation system’ “a smokescreen for shrinking civil society’s voice while granting privileged access to big busines”. In a detailed assessment, Professor Alberto Alemanno warns of “constitutional regression” and questions “whether this new policy is compatible with Article 11(3) of the EU Treaty”, which requires “broad consultations with parties concerned”. The Commission’s use of ‘targeted consultations’, Alemanno warns, “systematically favours well-resourced stakeholders.” For details on the Commission’s use of ‘targeted consultations’ to produce deregulation proposals at high speed, see CEO’s indepth report published last month.

To make matters worse, the Communication contains much more than just the planned changes to the Better Regulation Guidelines. The Commission outlines additional measures to prevent governments from 'gold-plating', whereby governments choose higher social and environmental standards when implementing EU directives. The Communication's annexes announce a new 'Action Plan on Regulatory Deep Cleaning', which details the Commission's deregulation ambitions in twelve different policy areas, including taxation, agriculture, transport, energy, climate, digital matters, housing, and permits. The annexes also contain numerous new measures aimed at clamping down on 'regulatory barriers' in the single market. These measures risk curtailing the democratic right of national governments to regulate in order to solve social and environmental problems.

It’s a lot! And just a few weeks ago, the EU agreed on the 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap' (see Deregulation Watch 27 April 2026), which also contained over 40 different initiatives, all with deadlines of just 6–18 months. This is much faster than normal EU decision-making processes. Such a rapid pace of decision-making on so many deregulation initiatives simultaneously prevents an informed public debate from emerging, particularly at the level of the member states. It overwhelms civil society groups and trade unions, who lack the capacity to campaign against rollbacks on so many issues simultaneously.

Interestingly, the Commission’s approach is exactly what Federico Sturzenegger, minister for deregulation in Argentinian President Milei’s government, recommends. Milei’s "chainsaw" campaign weakened or eliminated hundreds of laws within just a couple of years, with severe social and environmental impacts. In the article 'What Britain and the EU Can Learn from Argentina on Deregulation', published by the hardline neoliberal Cato Institute, Sturzenegger warns that “picking fights with one sector or group at a time for deregulation will ensure failure.” “The answer” to overcoming opposition from “interest groups and stakeholders”, Sturzenegger states, “is to deregulate lots of provisions and sectors simultaneously. That thins any media campaigns, disorients your opposition, and flips the political economy.“

It remains to be seen whether the Commission will succeed in its high-speed deregulation agenda. There are clear signs that governments are no longer unquestioningly supporting the Commission's agenda (see Deregulation Watch, 27 April 2026). Civil society groups and trade unions are pushing back through initiatives such as the Hands Off Nature campaign, the ‘Rules to Protect’ coalition and national-level anti-deregulation coalitions like Kettensäge Stoppen! In Austria.

Free lobby tour on Big Tech and the Far Right

Joana — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 16:35:00 +0000

Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 9th Nov at 4.30pm

18.10.2026

The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy and the pressure from Big Tech mean attacks on the digital rules that protect us, while fuelling the far right. If you want to know more, join us on a free lobby tour of Brussels on 9th Nov at 4.30 pm!

Join us on a free lobby tour of Brussels on 9th Nov at 4.30 pm! We will explain the basic scheme behind this wave of destruction, the lobbying happening behind the scenes, how the far right is involved and benefiting from it, what consequences it can have and how we can fight it.

Sign in at: ceo@corporateeurope.org (until the day before at 5pm)

Duration of the tour: 1.5 hours

Since 1997 we at Corporate Europe Observatory have investigated, revealed and campaigned on the massive power enjoyed by big business lobbyists in the EU. In this lobby tour, we will address case-studies showing how corporate capture has stood in the way of the public good and has influenced and even steered decision-making processes at the European-level, on the topic of deregulation. We will visit in loco the lobby of the offices of these ‘barons’ to the EU bubble and maybe if we’re luck we may even spot some of them!

Please note that CEO lobby tours are for free. Donations to support our work are very welcome.

Congratulations to Judge Pillay for her Nobel Peace Prize

Hans Van Schaaren — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:26:00 +0000

14.10.2026

Corporate Europe Observatory had the great privilege of working with Judge Pillay in March 2026 on a hearing over toxic pesticides in the European Parliament. In the face of autocratic backlash she is a beacon of the defence of human rights and international law.

"There is a crack, a crack in everything / That's how the light gets in". This line from a Leonard Cohen song came to mind when we heard the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Judge Navi Pillay. For decades – including under the racist apartheid-regime – South-African Judge Pillay, has been and remains, a powerful voice for justice and human rights. In times of relentless attacks on the rule of (international) law and human dignity from autocrats and far right movements, Pillay being awarded the prize is an important highlight. And a signal not to bow an inch to dark forces.

In its statement, the Nobel committee said Pillay, 85, had “contributed to strengthen the institutions of international law”, as The Guardian reported. “Her independence, expertise and steadfastness have made her one of the most respected international jurists of our time,” the committee said. Pillay stands now in the company of previous South-African Nobel Peace prize winners Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela.

“In awarding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel committee wants to remind the world that the rule of law – national and international – underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace and resolve conflicts non-violently,” its statement said.

When she heard the news, Pillay was at a meeting of human rights lawyers and jurists in Nuremberg, the site where several nazi leaders stood trial for war crimes. After the applause for her on Friday went on a bit too long for her taste, she joked that she would "share the prize with Donald Trump”. In another seeming attempt to break the Guinness world record for ‘how-low-can-you-go?’ Trump had not only begged publicly for the Nobel Prize, he later described Pillay's victory as an "indelible stain" on the reputation of Norway (whose government does not award the prize).

The tantrum continued. Mere hours after the announcement by the Nobel committee, the Trump administration announced further and far-reaching sanctions on the International Criminal Court, where Navi Pillay had previously served. Having gone after individual judges of that court – locking them out of banking systems, and complicating the use of insurance and software for example – Washington now vows to destroy the ICC completely.

Why? Because the ICC spoke truth to power and issued arrest warrants for Israeli politicians Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. Former UN human rights chief Pillay chaired the UN commission that concluded Israel was guilty of genocide in Gaza.

This commission concluded in 2025 that the state of Israel was guilty of genocidal acts in Gaza “with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza”, meaning guilty of genocide. One year ago Pillay spoke powerful words: “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the genocide convention.”

Toxic pesticides and human rights

Pillay has also worked on the right to a livable environment and human rights violations in connection to exposure to pesticides. In March 2025 she took part in the 'South African People’s Tribunal on AgroToxins', which she presided over as Chair of a three-judge jury.

The Tribunal was convened by farm worker organisations, affected communities, civil society groups, unions, academics, and activists who have spent many years trying to draw attention to the harms caused by pesticides in South Africa.

Pillay said that “after exhausting the usual channels — letters, petitions, research submissions, regulatory engagement and public campaigns — many communities felt their voices were still not being heard. The People’s Tribunal therefore created a space where those most affected by pesticide exposure could testify directly about their lived experiences, while independent experts presented evidence on the health, environmental and human rights impacts of agrotoxins”.

As part of the ‘End Toxic Pesticide Trade Coalition' Corporate Europe Observatory managed to get Judge Pillay invited for an official hearing in the Human Rights Committee in the European Parliament. There on the 18 March 2026 she spoke powerful words and disclosed the essence of the verdict of the 'South African People’s Tribunal on AgroToxins'.

Pillay's speech in the European Parliament – in which she cited some recommendations of the Tribunal – was not only relevant for South-Africa but for the whole world, including the European Union, given what's happening now with the Omnibus X deregulation of EU pesticide laws:

"The costs of pesticide harm should no longer be externalised to society. Pesticide manufacturers must be held accountable for the health, environmental and regulatory costs associated with their products,'' said Pillay. It is exactly what’s happening in the EU too.

Pillay reminded her listeners that the Tribunal emphasised “the need for a transition toward safer and more sustainable agricultural systems, including agro-ecology and integrated pest management. This is also consistent with the European Green Deal and specifically the Farm to Fork Strategy, which proposed to reduce pesticide use by half till 2030, as well as other important global commitments, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework’s Target 7, which commits to reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half by 2030.”

Colette Solomon, the South-African Director of Women on Farms Project also testified in the same European parliament hearing. Women on Farms Project is a South African feminist organization supporting women farmworkers and dwellers around their rights as workers, and working collectively to claim those rights. Since 2019 they’re fighting against the use of harmful pesticides on the Cape region's vineyards and are specifically targeting European multinational Bayer.

Female farm workers are routinely exposed to dangerous pesticides throughout their working lives, without proper personal protective equipment, training, access to water, sanitation, or safe working distances. These exposures also enter homes through drift and contaminated clothing.

Pillay ended her speech in the European Parliament by saying "the People’s Tribunal was not simply an exercise in documentation. It was an act of democratic participation by communities who have long been ignored and a concerted effort to bring material change to the lives of victims, by taking their voices to the highest decision-makers of South-Africa and demanding action. Behind every statistic are real people — workers, families and children — living with the consequences of chemical exposure. The Tribunal therefore calls on governments, industry and international partners to act decisively: to end double standards, ensure accountability, and uphold the rights to health, dignity and a safe environment for all people in South Africa.”

That's the opposite of what policymakers in the EU are doing right now as they deregulate pesticide safety standards.

The 'double standards' Pillay referred to are the fact that Europe continues to export thousands of tons of toxic pesticides for use abroad, that are banned for use in the EU. By doing so the EU is contributing to massive violations of human rights and contributing to immense suffering in many parts of the world.

EC-president Ursula von der Leyen promised in 2020 to end these double standards and "lead by example". That promise has been silently withdrawn under pressure from the (German) chemical industry and Croplife.

As a result of the hearing in the EP, Chair of the Human Rights committee MEP Satouri (Greens) and the head of the South-African delegation MEP Bullmann (S&D), sent a letter to the European Commission asking why it's not acting on putting an end to the double standards by which Europe continues to export thousands of tons of toxic pesticides that are banned for use in the EU. By doing so the EU is contributing to massive violations of human rights and contributing to immense suffering in many parts of the world.

That letter has not been answered. The highest echelons of the European Commission are hiding in the corridors of shame.

But Corporate Europe Observatory would like to thank Pillay for her contributions, not just in that parliamentary hearing but for her long career defending human rights, and to congratulate her on the highest recognition of her important work. May it light a way for others.

Downloads

SAPTOA presentation EU Human Rights_shortened_final.March 2026.pdf

The Triangle of Madness:

Kenneth Haar — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:00:00 +0000

the MAGA coalition defending online hate speech in Europe

14.10.2026

Tech

A trip through a MAGA campaign in Europe to roll back regulation of tech platforms, involving anti-abortion militants, links to European far-right groups, diplomatic pressure and outbursts at global summits.

Following the €120 million fine imposed on Elon Musk’s X by the European Commission under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), the Trump administration, Musk and the ultraconservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) joined forces. They have a common cause. A Corporate Europe Observatory investigation has exposed how a MAGA coalition is converging to undermine EU platform regulation under the banner of ‘free speech’.

Our in-depth article, 'The Triangle of Madness: the MAGA coalition defending online hate speech in Europe', reveals not just one lobbying campaign, but an interconnected network where the Trump administration provides political pressure and public funding, Musk and X provide a powerful communications platform, and the Alliance Defending Freedom provides legal advocacy, coalition building, and connections to conservative and far-right networks across Europe.

Downloads

The Triangle of Madness Report

The MAGA campaign in Europe against regulation of Big Tech is based on “far-fetched claims”, but it is dangerous nonetheless

Marcella Via — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 05:00:00 +0000

An analysis about how US money, X’s reach and ultraconservative religious legal expertise converge against EU platform regulation

14.10.2026

Tech

Brussels, 14 October 2026 — When the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s X €120 million under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), the Trump administration, Musk and the ultraconservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) closed ranks. A new Corporate Europe Observatory investigation exposes how a MAGA coalition is converging to undermine EU platform regulation under the banner of “free speech.”

The ‘Triangle of Madness’ documents not a single lobbying campaign, but a mutually reinforcing network: the Trump administration supplies political pressure and public funding; Musk and X supply a powerful communications platform; and the Alliance Defending Freedom supplies legal advocacy, coalition-building and links to conservative and far-right networks across Europe.

Key findings include:

A campaign against the DSA: The campaign misrepresents a law designed to increase platform transparency and accountability as a European censorship regime. It combines media messaging, court cases, parliamentary questions, conferences, coalition-building and potential funding.
US public money enters the campaign: The Trump administration intends to spend around US$25 million in grants to European organisations, with approximately US$12 million reserved for the UK. The grants require “substantial involvement” by the State Department or a US embassy. At the time of publication, the EU recipients were not publicly known.
ADF’s tactical use of “free speech”: The Alliance Defending Freedom uses legal cases involving abortion, LGBTQI+ rights and hate-speech restrictions to create emotionally powerful examples. It is about attacks on rights, disguised as a defence of free speech. It presents these cases as evidence of a general European “free-speech crisis” and links them to the DSA, even when the cases have nothing to do with the DSA.
Allies in the European Parliament: The investigation finds evidence of a political bloc in the European Parliament that echoes the anti-DSA narrative, particularly among far-right groups but also beyond them. The campaign has not yet changed the law, but it is normalising its arguments and building political alliances inside the Parliament.

The DSA applies the principle that what is illegal offline is also illegal online; it does not impose a general obligation on platforms to monitor all content. It is not perfect: it leaves too much power in the hands of the platforms and does not address the business models built on surveillance advertising. But weakening or repealing it would remove an important, if limited, step towards making Big Tech more accountable. The immediate risk is not necessarily repeal of the DSA, but the gradual normalisation of an anti-regulation narrative and the creation of durable alliances.

Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

“A MAGA pressure campaign against regulation of Big Tech is developing in Europe. It has three main actors, forming a real Triangle of Madness. Many of the claims we hear from them about the impact of European rules on Big Tech, are far-fetched and hysterical. But they are dangerous nonetheless.”

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +45 2360 0631

Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer

@email; 32 489 622233

Notes to editor

You can read the full report here.
Corporate Europe Observatory contacted the Alliance Defending Freedom for comment prior to publication; it had not responded at the time of writing.
At the time of publication, the EU recipients of the grants were not publicly known.
In 2024, CEO published ‘The Alliance Attacking Freedom’, a report on how Trump’s troops are attacking gender rights and underpinning the far right in Europe.

Traced: How pesticide industry demands made their way into Omnibus X

Marcella Via — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 04:00:00 +0000

07.10.2026

Brussels, 7 October 2026 – The pesticide industry and big farming lobby have succeeded in getting a string of their demands into the European Commission’s Food & Feed Omnibus and amendments tabled by European Parliament co-rapporteurs, a new investigation by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reveals. Lobby demands from Bayer, BASF, CropLife Europe and Copa-Cogeca on unlimited pesticide approvals, longer grace periods and wider derogations made their way into the Omnibus proposals. Taken together, the changes would weaken key EU pesticide safeguards and keep harmful pesticides in use for longer, rather than accelerating the shift to safer alternatives.

Negotiations on compromise amendments in the European Parliament’s AGRI and ENVI committees started this week. An EP committee vote is now foreseen for 5 November.

The report, ‘Food & Feed Omnibus, co-written by the pesticide lobby’, compares dozens of internal lobby documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests from DG SANTE and DG AGRI, as well as submissions from lobby groups to the European Commission’s consultation rounds, with the Omnibus proposal itself and amendments tabled in the European Parliament by co-rapporteurs Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) and Michele Picaro (ECR) and other MEPs.

Key findings include:

Industry demands for unlimited pesticide approvals made their way into Omnibus X: DG SANTE discussed abandoning renewal assessments for pesticides and making approvals unlimited with CropLife Europe and Copa-Cogeca in early October 2025 – almost two months before the draft Omnibus X was leaked. Bayer and Copa-Cogeca explicitly called for unlimited approvals. Dorfmann and Picaro subsequently went further, proposing to extend unlimited approvals to national formulations – matching demands from Bayer and BASF – and to apply them retrospectively to ongoing procedures, as demanded by BASF.
A three-year grace period for banned pesticides mirrors industry demands: The Commission’s Omnibus proposal already extends grace periods to up to three years for withdrawn or banned pesticides when there is “no alternative”. Dorfmann and Picaro went further, introducing a blanket three-year default grace period – exactly as demanded by CropLife Europe and Bayer.
Industry wording is echoed in proposals for more and longer derogations: The Commission proposal already expands the scope for EU-wide derogations. Dorfmann and Picaro adopted demands from Bayer, CropLife Europe and Copa-Cogeca to include an agro-economic assessment in decisions on such derogations. Other MEPs have copied industry wording to propose extending derogations for up to 10 years.
“No Ban Without Alternatives” is a coordinated industry strategy: An internal CropLife Europe presentation reveals how the pesticide industry intends to operationalise its “No Ban Without Alternatives” slogan – not only through changes weakening pesticide legislation, but also through changes to EFSA processes that would give industry greater influence over the agency.
MEP amendments target pesticide cut-off criteria: Various amendments, notably from far-right groups, attack the EU’s restrictions on pesticides that can cause cancer or disrupt the hormonal system – the so-called “cut-off criteria”.
Industry tries to block potential for better alternatives: While demanding “no ban without alternatives”, the pesticide industry and Copa-Cogeca are simultaneously opposing a fast-track approval for biocontrol products, raising questions about whether the industry’s concern is really the availability of alternatives, or the threat those alternatives could pose to pesticide sales.

Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, said:

“The paper trail is striking. Once again, we can trace pesticide-industry demands into the Omnibus proposals and parliamentary amendments, in some cases almost word for word. While the industry interests were carefully catered for, the thousands of citizens and scientists calling for stronger health protection were ignored. Omnibus X risks locking Europe into continued reliance on harmful pesticides, rather than delivering the transition towards safer alternatives that policymakers claim to support. This is exactly why we need a firewall between the pesticide industry and policymaking, so that those who profit from pesticides cannot write the rules governing their use.”

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +32 466 294420

Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer

@email; +32 489 62 22 33

Notes to editor

You can read the full report here
Annex: Pesticide industry demands that were taken up in Omnibus proposals by the Commission or Parliament
Methodology: Corporate Europe Observatory analysed dozens of lobby documents obtained through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from DG SANTE and DG AGRI, as well as lobby groups' submissions to the European Commission's public calls for feedback. These were compared against the Omnibus X proposal and amendments tabled by co-rapporteurs Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) and Michele Picaro (ECR) and other MEPs.
Cut-off criteria: The EU's pesticide legislation (1107/2009) includes "cut-off criteria" that ban pesticides that can cause cancer or disrupt the hormonal (endocrine) system. Various amendments to the Omnibus, notably from far-right political groups, seek to weaken or remove these criteria.
An assessment signed by 573 scientists has been sent to the European Parliament and the Council, urging them to carry out an independent investigation into the health and environmental impacts first.

Food & Feed Omnibus, co-written by the pesticide lobby

Nina Holland — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 22:01:00 +0000

How the European Commission and right-wing MEPs are writing industry demands into law, at the expense of our health and the environment

07.10.2026

Pesticides & GMOs

Chemicals

The pesticide lobby’s dirty fingers are all over the EU's Food & Feed Omnibus. Key lobby demands from Bayer, BASF, CropLife Europe and Copa-Cogeca ended up, almost word for word, in the Commission's Omnibus X proposal and into amendments tabled by European Parliament's co-rapporteurs Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) and Michele Picaro (ECR). Omnibus X is paving the way for the dismantling of EU pesticide regulations by allowing harmful pesticides to remain in use.

Corporate Europe Observatory compared key industry lobby demands against the Commission’s Omnibus proposal as well as the proposals of the co-rapporteurs and other right-wing MEPs. From unlimited 'forever' approvals for chemical pesticides, to easier and longer derogations for banned pesticides, key elements of the Omnibus texts can be traced back to industry lobby positions.

Download the full report here.

An overview with examples of key pesticide lobby demands taken up in Omnibus X can be found here.

The voices of citizens, scientists, and family farmers have been entirely ignored by Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, who did not even order a proper impact assessment.

The report's key findings include:

- Unlimited pesticide approvals were on the wish list of both producer Bayer and Copa-Cogeca (big farmers’ lobby) and were discussed in lobby meetings held by DG SANTE with lobby groups. However, this proposal was kept from public interest groups. The Commission made unlimited approvals for chemical pesticides to be the core element of Omnibus X.

- MEP co-rapporteurs Herbert Dorfmann and Michele Picaro want to extend unlimited approvals to pesticide products (mixtures approved at a national level) and propose applying these rules retrospectively, thus delivering on demands made by producers Bayer and BASF.

- The Omnibus prolongs grace periods for withdrawn or banned pesticides to up to three years when there is 'no alternative'. Dorfmann and Picaro are pushing for a three-year default grace period – exactly what industry lobby CropLife Europe and Bayer demanded.

- Omnibus X expands the scope for EU-wide derogations (opt-outs), meeting industry demands. A demand by lobbyists from Bayer, CropLife and Copa-Cogeca to further widen the possibility of derogations by including an agro-economic assessment was integrated by Dorfmann and Picaro. Other MEPs copied industry wording to extend derogations to up to ten years.

Notably far-right MEPs even challenge the EU's ban on pesticides that can cause cancer or disrupt the hormonal system (the so-called 'cut-off criteria') in their amendments.

While Croplife and Copa-Cogeca are lobbying under the slogan 'no ban without alternatives', they are at the same time opposing special treatment for biocontrol products that could present better alternatives. Copa-Cogeca is collaborating more and more with the pesticide industry in lobbying activities, even though farmers and agricultural workers are the first to be exposed to the industry's harmful products. Croplife is also lobbying the Commission to regain industry influence over the European Food Safety Authority.

Instead of this industry-driven deregulation attempt, Omnibus X should be withdrawn and EU pesticide rules should be strengthened according to the latest science.

The Food and Feed Omnibus is a key example of why we urgently need a different approach to regulating harmful chemicals. A toxic-free politics approach to pesticide regulation would learn from the tobacco control arena , meaning that lobby firewall measures are put in place to restrict the influence and access of pesticide corporations and their allies to decision-makers. This would be an important step to set priorities in the right direction to serve the public interest, not just corporate profits.

Downloads

Food Feed Omnibus Lobby co-written by the pesticide lobby.pdf

No place for Palantir in a democratic Europe!

Joana — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 11:58:00 +0000

28.09.2026

Tech

Over 120 campaigning organisations and unions across Europe, including Corporate Europe Observatory, Global Justice Now and the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) have issued a joint call to governments and the European Commission to scrap all existing public sector contracts with the US tech company Palantir. Read it here.

The full letter can be read here, as well as the full list of signatories, and its the demands are for European governments and public institutions to:

- Terminate contracts with Palantir Technologies and permanently ban the company from future public contracts
- Develop alternative data solutions compatible with public service – and put in place transparent mechanisms for safeguarding people from mass surveillance
- Protect democracy and guard against the rise of the far right by investing in and democratising public institutions, providing good jobs and services
- Work to build international coalitions against corporate capture by companies like Palantir, building and sharing alternative technological developments
- Europe’s public finance institutions must divest from Palantir

Palantir is not just another tech company selling governments a piece of software. Its systems are being woven into the machinery of the state, creating deep dependencies while giving a private company a far too powerful role in how governments process sensitive information and make decisions. Olivier Hoedeman of Corporate Europe Observatory, said “This is a recipe for corporate capture of public infrastructure and decision-making. A company whose technologies are implicated in serious human rights abuses should not be allowed to become an integral part of Europe’s public infrastructure. Member state governments and the EU institutions should cut their ties with Palantir and scrap their contracts with the company.”

“Palantir’s ramping up of ‘war-related’ support for Israel during the genocide in Gaza and the apparent disdain of its leadership for democracy are just two clear signs that this company serves the interests of the rich and powerful, not the general public. Yet it has been allowed to embed dubious technologies across our public services, giving it access to sensitive data and creating worrying new technical dependencies", added Tim Bierley, campaign manager at Global Justice. "The UK must work with other countries to end dependence on companies involved in human rights abuses, and end the outsourcing of the public sphere to a dangerous class of big tech oligarchs”, he concluded.

Lastly, Jan Willem Goudriaan, EPSU General Secretary commented: “companies like Palantir, engaging in tax avoidance strategies, have no place in a democratic Europe. The European Commission has missed an opportunity with its proposal for the Public Procurement Directive to put the screws on tax avoiders. Europe must stop rewarding public contracts to corporations that do not share public service values. The European Parliament must fix this. It is unacceptable to keep feeding corporations with public money while they minimise their tax bills in the middle of a public services emergency. Every euro shifted offshore means fewer nurses, teachers or firefighters.”

❌ WE SAY NO TO PALANTIR We and 120+ organisations and unions across Europe are calling on our governments and the European Commission to scrap all existing public sector contracts with Palantir. Read the open letter here: www.globaljustice.org.uk/wp-content/u...

[image or embed]
— Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) (@corporateeurope.org) 28 September 2026 at 14:21

Free lobby tour on the EU's deregulation frenzy

Joana — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 11:21:00 +0000

Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 1st Oct at 5.30pm

18.09.2026

The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a free lobby tour of Brussels on 1st Oct at 5.30 pm!

We will explain the basic scheme behind this wave of destruction, the lobbying happening behind the scenes, what consequences it can have and how we can fight it.

Sign in at: ceo@corporateeurope.org (until the day before at 5pm)

Duration of the tour: 1.5 hours

Please note that CEO lobby tours are for free. Donations to support our work are very welcome.

SOTEU: von der Leyen doubles down on deregulation

Marcella Via — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 09:32:00 +0000

16.09.2026

Brussels, 16 September 2026 - In her State of the Union speech, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen set out her vision for the EU amid mounting social, environmental and geopolitical pressures. However, while the Commission presents competitiveness, deregulation and AI as the solutions to Europe's problems, it risks granting even greater influence to the corporate interests that already enjoy privileged access to EU decision-making processes.

Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

“Clearly, Ursula von der Leyen takes great pride in the deregulation campaign she has launched under the pretext of simplification. Her problem is, that the EU cannot address the climate crisis or handle the risks from AI if it keeps going the way of omnibuses and deregulation.

The plan to do a pact against gold-plating is much more dangerous than it sounds. Corporate lobby groups will eye this as an opportunity to bring down ambitious environmental policies and social standards at the member state level. This could evolve into a deregulation drive going berserk. “

Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

“This summer’s heat waves saw more than 35,000 additional deaths across Europe, predominantly among the elderly and the less well-off. Adapting to the deadly impacts of global heating requires sustained public investment, but Von der Leyen’s State of the Union speech presents it as a financial opportunity, saying “we must capture this market”. No wonder most people don’t trust European politicians.

Curbing global heating is not a win-win or a business opportunity and requires tough measures like phasing out fossil fuels. That’s why Europe’s oil and gas industry has fought them tooth and nail.

But this speech gives that industry and its allies a helping hand by announcing it will speed up permitting approvals and slash administrative burdens.

Those so-called burdens are in fact laws that protect our air and water quality, and speeding up permitting will stop communities being able to say no to new gas pipelines or energy-guzzling data centres. This undermines climate action but also tramples on local democracy. By the end of this Parliament, expect to see record deaths from global heating and record low trust in Europe’s political class.”

Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

“Never before has the call for regulating AI been stronger. But instead of enforcing EU rules to keep unaccountable tech companies in check, the EU is intent on slashing data protection and rules on AI.

Ironically, in her State of the Union, von der Leyen claims the importance of guardrails, but ignores the fact that the EU Commission has teamed up with the tech industry to deregulate the digital rule-book.

It is clear that the Commission should reverse its misguided attempts to slash the rules that protect us.”

Vicky Cann, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

"In her State of the Union speech, Ursula von der Leyen did not once mention the unprecedented chemical pollution crisis from pesticides and harmful chemicals such as PFAS (forever chemicals), which are impacting people's health and the environment on a daily basis. She cannot cover all topics? Well, health and nature are the very basis of any progress including economic, and AI will not impact on this reality one iota. For more than one year, VDL has refused to talk to people from PFAS-affected communities - this is very telling indeed. It is vital that her Commission prioritises a comprehensive universal ban on PFAS in both consumer and industrial uses; and abandons the Food and feed Omnibus which threatens to worsen pesticide pollution."

Instead of giving the biggest industry lobbies free rein, the Commission should ensure that voices from civil society, researchers and independent scientists are heard loud and clear. As corporate interests are steadily capturing some parts of the decision-making process to the detriment of citizens' interests, urgent action is needed to protect progress on tackling the climate and environmental pollution crises, and to preserve digital rights.

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +45 2360 0631

Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +44 7969665189

Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +32 497131464

Vicky Cann, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +44 7960 988096

Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer

@email; +32 489 622233

Notes to editor

A deadly alliance of Big Tech and Big Oil

Rachel Tansey — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:10:00 +0000

The unholy trinity of data centres, gas and carbon capture

31.08.2026

Tech

Big tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Google are building new fossil gas plants to power their energy guzzling data centres. And the EU wants to triple Europe’s data centre capacity in five to seven years. What’s more, tech firms are starting to team up with oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron and Eni to greenwash their fossil-fuelled data centres. This unholy alliance of Big Tech and Big Oil promises to capture, transport and store the emissions from these gas plants.

Carbon capture, however, is the ultimate moving goalpost: always promised but never here, despite billions in public subsidies. Exxon claims it is the “only realistic game in town” for low-emission data centres – but the oil giant's actions tell a very different story. Carbon capture is a paper tiger: presented by big polluters as a strong solution, but flimsy and weak on closer inspection. At the end of a summer of deadly heatwaves and uncontrollable wildfires, make no mistake: new fossil gas to power data centres just means new emissions. Worsening the climate crisis, and amplifying its deadly impacts.

Back to basics: a carbon capture con

Polluting industries have been coming up with escape hatches to avoid stopping using fossil fuels for years. For the fossil fuel industry itself, as well as petrochemicals, cement, steel, plastic incinerators, and increasingly, Big Tech’s energy guzzling data centres, one the most popular escape hatches is carbon capture and storage (or ‘CCS’). And thanks to a Big Polluter-captured policy making process, the EU has in recent years bought into this technology in a big way.

The idea behind carbon capture is that instead of CO2 being released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are used in industrial processes or for electricity generation, it is captured, transported and stored underground. You can see the appeal for multi-billion euro polluting industries: forget about transforming or overhauling their business models, and instead picture a neat little CO2-catcher that siphons off the climate pollutant so it can be zipped away though pipelines, and stored safely away forever, climate change be gone!

The reality of CCS, however, is very different. Practical problems with carbon capture have led to its repeated failure to materialise at scale, for decades. Projects consistently underperform or fail to emerge – and major proponents of the tech, fossil fuel companies like Equinor, keep scaling back. The technology is energy intensive and staggeringly expensive, costing far more to implement than simply switching to renewable energy. Meanwhile, the injection of CO2 deep into the earth’s rock can trigger earthquakes, and there are very real risks of CO2 leaking from underground storage, and from the pipelines – or ships – carrying it there. This could be lethal for the climate, and for human and animal life. In our recent report, Permission to Pollute, Corporate Europe Observatory presented the huge dangers from weakening permitting rules for CO2 pipelines – which the EU wants to build thousands of kilometers of, including through populated areas. You can find out more in the video – an extract from our recent webinar – below.

Advised by fossil fuel lobbyists, the EU has fallen for the idea of creating a market for this hazardous waste gas, underpinned by a vast CO2 pipeline network. Yet the idea that CCS will decarbonise energy-intensive industries not only ignores how complex and costly this would be, it disregards the need to reduce production and consumption as part of a just transition to a more sustainable economy. Instead of asking what industry we need, or who it benefits, carbon capture offers a (largely imaginary and wholly inadequate) sticking plaster over the social and environmental harms inflicted by powerful, polluting corporations. A sticking plaster that is now being applied in the case of data centres. Don’t ask, what are they for? Who are they benefitting? What harm are they causing? No, just whack a new fossil gas power plant up and say you have plans to capture its emissions.

Data centres: the newest lifeline for fossil fuels

The scale of the data centre build-out is difficult to imagine. In just three years, four Big Tech companies have poured a staggering $1 trillion into AI, mostly into the data centres powering these AI models. This build-out has put energy grids under increasing pressure, and has far outpaced the development of renewables. Increasingly, Big Tech companies are looking at the fossil fuel industry to feed their energy needs. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) gas investments in 2025 were at a 25 year high mainly driven by the data centre build-out. The US is now investing more in fossil fuel power than China in what the IEA is calling an “AI-driven push”. Big Tech’s emissions are soaring thanks to data centres, and gone is even the pretence of ‘being climate front-runners’.

In Europe, too, the rapid build-out of data centres or ‘AI factories’ is having negative impacts on both people and planet. In Ireland, people are paying far higher energy bills, with data centre operators paying half what households do, while local communities are struggling to get access to the grid. Ireland’s 129 data centres account for almost a quarter of the country’s electricity demand. New fossil fuel infrastructure – including extra-polluting and harmful LNG – is being built to power data centres, leading to increased emissions and lasting harm to the climate, while at the same time providing a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry. You can learn more about Ireland, the canary in the coal mine of Europe’s data centre rush, in the video below.

Ireland isn’t the only country suffering the ill-effects of Big Tech’s AI expansion. Spain, home to over 200 data centres, is already at risk of desertification in 75% of its territory, and the combination of the climate crisis and data centre expansion threatens ecological collapse. In the water-scarce region of Aragon, data centres’ immense water use is threatening farmer’s crops. Yet Amazon plans three new data centres in Aragon, at the same time as requesting to double the water consumption of its existing data centres – because, Amazon notes unironically, climate-induced heat waves mean they require more cooling. Local campaign group Tu Nube Seca Mi Río, which translates as “Your cloud is drying my river”, is calling for a moratorium:

Neither people nor data can live without water, but human life is essential and data isn’t.”

In the US, home to far more data centres than anywhere else in the world (over 4700), there is a huge amount of grassroots resistance – and now more than 500 moratoriums.

Despite this, the EU wants to triple Europe’s data centre capacity in five to seven years, with the Commission emphasising the importance of winning the “global race for AI”. Yet investigations by research organisation SOMO demonstrate that this expansion will primarily increase the wealth and power of US Big Tech companies and shareholders. Data centres in the EU are largely financed by US investors and tied-in to demand from US tech companies, reinforcing Europe’s dependency on US tech giants rather than fostering the digital sovereignty being promised. Music to the ears of Google, Amazon and Microsoft.

As with other polluting and energy-intensive industries, instead of asking fundamental questions about AI data centres – are they socially useful? at what scale? – the industry’s narrative of “more, more, more” goes unquestioned by policy-makers. Yet rhetoric about falling behind and looming capacity shortages contrasts with the reality that many EU data centres remain significantly underutilised – with some data centres running well below capacity (at as little as 6.1 per cent).

Despite this, the urgency ascribed to rapidly multiplying Europe’s data centre capacity is enabling the build out of new fossil fuel infrastructure to power them. What’s more, we’re starting to see this build out being accompanied by promises of carbon capture and storage, to clean up (ie greenwash) this fossil fuel industry revival.

This is because the expansion of data centres, which use vast amounts of energy (and water), is outpacing growth in renewable energy provision. But Big Tech’s answer is not to build enough new renewables, and pace its growth with its increase in renewable energy output. No, it’s answer – when it’s not cannibalising existing renewable electricity, which is already needed for other uses – is to build more gas power. The head of the European Data Centre Association (EUDCA) – which represents Big Tech titans like Amazon, Google and Microsoft – recently called on the EU to prioritise AI over the climate transition, and to power data centres with fossil fuels where necessary, as the EU’s data centre expansion goals, it said, cannot be met by other energy sources. (The lobby group later backtracked, “reaffirming” it’s commitment to “climate-neutral” data centres).

At the same time, fossil fuel companies are starting to market themselves not just as the providers of dirty energy to power this energy-intensive industry – they are promising “clean” fossil fuels for data centres thanks to carbon capture. (Spoiler: it still doesn’t exist.)

Carbon capture firms are jumping on the bandwagon too. Take Carbon Clean, which is backed by oil firms including Chevron and Aramco; it claims that the surge in data centre construction across Europe “is driving demand for carbon capture technology”. On-site gas-fired generation for data centres paired with their carbon capture systems, Carbon Clean says, “can reduce the unit footprint by 50%”. So, not decarbonised then, even theoretically, just – optimistically – halved. And in practice, capture rates for CCS projects have always been consistently far lower than promised.

Big Oil to Big Tech: “Your place or mine?”

Research from Greenpeace Australia shows how the frenzied rollout of AI data centres is set to derail the renewable energy transition and entrench gas – including data centre projects “framed misleadingly as ‘low carbon’ on the promise of carbon capture, an unproven technology that has persistently failed at every measurable level”.

Notably, Greenpeace Australia describes how fossil fuel corporations are quietly joining data centre lobby groups and attending their industry events, and vice versa, with the two industries reinforcing each other’s talking points and PR spin.

fossil fuel corporations are quietly joining data centre lobby groups and attending their industry events, and vice versa.

There are signs of the same trend happening in Europe, where Big Tech and Energy are the #1 and #3 highest spending sectors on EU lobbying (€73 and €52 million/year respectively¹). Their high spending reflects the profits at stake in lobby battles around files like the Tech Sovereignty package and Cloud and AI Development Act. And their influence matches their spending, as the copy-paste scandal uncovered by CEO earlier this year revealed: Microsoft ghostwrote Commission legislation to keep data centre energy use secret. This battle around transparency is ongoing, with the delayed draft sustainability label disguising an array of ways for tech companies to greenwash their data centres, including allowing data centres that rely on fossil fuels to be labelled as green if they buy renewable or nuclear energy offset certificates.

With Big Tech and Big Oil’s interests aligning, there is growing cross-over in their PR and lobbying worlds. Big Tech lobby group Digital Europe’s members include Greek fossil fuel company Motor Oil, which received EU funds for its oil refinery CCS project.² Motor Oil took part in the European Commission’s recent Implementation Dialogue on CCS, an invite-only consultation that was populated almost entirely by fossil fuel and dirty industries. Motor Oil is also listed as a speaker (and sponsor) at EU hydrogen week in October 2026, alongside the Big Tech data centre lobby group EUDCA. BP is listed as a speaker at the Data Centre Congress in Amsterdam in October. Gas turbine manufacturers are piling on as sponsors to European data centre conferences, eager and confident that Europe will follow the US’ climate-wrecking path of embracing gas-fired AI data centres, as reported by DeSmog. Italian oil giant Eni, meanwhile, spoke at the Data Centre Nation Milan conference in May, where its head of data centre management said: “In an era where AI is redefining data centres as strategic “knowledge factories,” energy is no longer just a utility – it is the fundamental enabler of digital sovereignty… Eni is stepping into the AI race as a strategic, integrated partner for large-scale digital infrastructure.”

Eni: greenwashing data centres with “blue power”

Eni’s CCS plans go hand in hand with building new fossil gas power stations to power data centres. For example, the oil and gas corporation has teamed up with UAE-based AI firm MGX to “to develop state-of-the-art data centres in Italy” which will be “fully powered by blue power supplied by Eni, a low-carbon energy source generated by natural gas power plants, whose CO₂ emissions are captured and stored”. A new dedicated fossil gas power plant will be built, with the promise of “CO₂ capture and storage at the Ravenna CCS hub”. Ravenna is a highly controversial CCS project in northern Italy, including 100km of dangerous CO2 pipelines through populated, earthquake and flood-prone areas, as documented by ReCommon. Currently in its pilot phase, the project is spearheaded by fossil fuel firms Eni and Snam. The political influence of these corporations in Italy – against a backdrop of conflicts of interest and lack of transparency – has ensured policies that put the burden and cost of CO2 leaks onto the public, and secured exemptions to environmental impact assessments.

Eni’s chief executive claims that “data centres powered by blue energy” are “essential in the energy transition”. “Blue power” – supplied by Eni – is promised to be “a low-carbon electricity source” based on building new gas power plants that are “designed” to capture CO₂ emissions. But lets be clear: none of this CO2 is yet being captured or stored – in fact, EU countries currently capture hardly any CO2 (around just 1 Mt per year) and permanently store none of it. Globally, we’re “permanently” burying less CO2 than a single large power plant can emit in a year. So when you hear about new fossil gas plants being built to power data centres, let there be no mistake: this just means new fossil fuels, with new emissions. Even if they're accompanied by distracting marketing lingo about “blue power” or “decarbonised gas”, these are little more than empty promises from companies that produce and sell gas, that a technology they’ve been promising and failing to deliver for decades, will soon make the gas they profit from “clean”.

empty promises from companies that produce and sell gas, that a technology they’ve been promising and failing to deliver for decades, will soon make the gas they profit from “clean”.

Eni, however, has been busy lobbying the European Commission on this topic. In the last year, Eni has met top-level Commission officials responsible for the Energy and Digital portfolios, to discuss CCS and data centres, the Cloud and AI Development Act, AI policies, and Eni’s data centre investments. The oil giant is also a member of influential big business club the European Round Table for Industry, which successfully lobbied for “streamlined permitting processes” for data centres to be a focus of the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal, and it’s follow up proposals. Eni was also present at the Commission’s recent ‘Implementation Dialogue’ on CCS, and it had six representatives in the CO2 infrastructure working group (set up as part of the Commission-run and fossil fuel dominated ICM Forum). This group’s recommendations for easier permitting and more public money for CCS infrastructure have been faithfully followed by the Commission. From the Industrial Carbon Management (ICM) Strategy to a new legislative proposal on CO2 infrastructure and markets expected from the Commission soon, this is a carbon coup in progress. A coup exemplified not only by the influence of the ICM Forum but by a biased and industry-skewed public consultation that is now being investigated by the European Ombudswoman.

ExxonMobil’s record reveals what CCS really is: a paper tiger

Another loud proponent of gas power with CCS for data centres is ExxonMobil. Exxon’s boss recently claimed that the oil firm wants to capture up to 90 percent of CO2 emitted by gas power plants that serve the data centre sector – describing itself as the “only realistic game in town” for data centres to be low-emission facilities. In the US, Exxon has teamed up with NextEra Energy to market huge new gas power projects with carbon capture as reliable “low-carbon” electricity for data centre operators. The oil giant has even claimed that by 2050, AI data centres could represent 20 per cent of the market for CCS. In its marketing materials, Exxon describes CCS as a “powerhouse technology for decarbonizing heavy industry”, with “limitless potential”: “CCS is here to stay, and we’re committed to being part of its legacy.” In a tongue-in-cheek reference to the lions and tigers and bears in the Wizard of Oz, one Exxon article is titled "Steel, ammonia and AI? Oh my! What can’t our CCS help decarbonize?”

The problem is, if CCS is a tiger, it’s a paper one.

ExxonMobil’s glowing public optimism about CCS – including to create “Low Carbon data centres” – is a truly astonishing contrast to its statements elsewhere. Exxon casts doubt on carbon capture’s technical viability – describing CCS as “speculative” and long-term CO2 storage as “simply unproven”. Exxon moreover, admitted, point blank, in a UK parliamentary hearing, that it won’t pay for CCS: it wants governments to use taxpayers money to do that, because CCS is “not economic” and “does not make any sense” for companies otherwise.

There’s no doubt that Exxon – like other fossil fuel companies – wants public money for carbon capture, and it makes no secret that it lobbies for public support for CCS. But that doesn’t mean it is actually serious about making CCS happen – in fact, Exxon is suing the European Commission over provisions in the Net-Zero Industry Act that oblige oil and gas producers to contribute to the EU’s CO2 storage objectives (Art. 23). This obligation to contribute to CO2 injection capacity is something that Exxon has long been railing and lobbying against (including commissioning studies saying the EU’s CO2 storage targets aren’t achievable). When lobbying to prevent it didn’t pay off, Exxon began filing lawsuits. This summer, it filed a notice of dispute – the first step in a new lawsuit – using the investor-state dispute mechanism in the big polluter-friendly Energy Charter Treaty. (Which the EU has now withdrawn from, but corporations can still use to sue the EU for another 20 years). In a statement about the case, Exxon complained that compelling oil and gas companies to provide storage for captured carbon is “extremely costly” and could “break” Europe’s industrial base; the dispute, the Big Oil firm said, is “as much about saving Europe from itself as it is about the oil and gas industry fighting yet another irrational law from Brussels.”

This is a dynamic we see time and again in fossil fuel – and fossil-fuel-using – industry lobbying around CCS. They say that CCS is the answer, the solution to decarbonising their continued use of fossil fuels… but only if the public purse pays for it. And only on the condition that they are not held accountable for what they say it will do and when. To give another example of this dynamic playing out, in Denmark, most companies withdrew their CCS project plans when faced with the reality that government subsidies would include sanctions for non delivery.

Carbon capture is nothing more than a paper tiger – presented as a strong solution, but flimsy and ineffectual on closer inspection. It is the quintessential red herring – a distraction, promoted by big polluters, from the plain reality that stopping climate chaos means phasing out fossil fuels.

Let there be no mistake, as we come to the end of another summer in which Europe burned and thousands died from heatwaves: new fossil fuels to power data centres just means new emissions. No matter what PR is put out by the Big Tech-Big Oil bromance.

Big Tech should be held accountable not just for its gas-guzzling data centres, but for the additional fossil fuels that AI is enabling to be extracted and burned.

And for every unsubstantiated “AI will solve the climate crisis” claim, remember this: the services provided by data centres are already being sold to fossil fuel companies to increase extraction. AI is enabling fossil fuel expansion, as from exploration and extraction to refining and logistics, AI applications lower costs and sustain the economic viability of oil and gas resources that would not otherwise have been used. A recent study suggests that AI’s role in increasing emissions from boosting fossil fuel production far outweighs any climate benefits that AI applications in renewables might have. Big Tech should be held accountable not just for its gas-guzzling data centres, but for the additional fossil fuels that AI is enabling to be extracted and burned.

₁_{Based on}_{the lobbyists that declare €1million+ in annual lobby spending – which means the total numbers for each sector will be even bigger.}

₂_{IRIS (}_{Innovative low caRbon hydrogen and methanol productIon by large Scale carbon capture}_{) at Agioi Theodoroi refinery is expected to enter into operation in December 2029, and has received an EU Innovation fund grant of €126.8 million.}

Read more: From data centres to hydrogen and carbon removals, the other bad ideas selling the carbon capture con

Using carbon capture and storage (CCS) to “decarbonise” fossil-powered data centres is merely the latest excuse latched on to by Big Oil to try to justify it’s continued existence. Other excuses – or escape hatches – include:

using CCS to make hydrogen made from fossil gas “low-carbon”. The problem? Carbon capture doesn’t (and probably never will) exist at scale, so dirty industrial processes get to keep using fossil fuels while claiming they will soon decarbonise with low-carbon hydrogen. Worse, studies suggest that even with carbon capture, so-called “low-carbon” hydrogen would still be 20 per cent worse for the climate than just burning gas, due to methane leakage during the extraction and transportation of the fossil gas it is made from.
carbon removal technologies that rely on CCS. Instead of merely claiming to capture CO2 from a site of pollution before being emitted into the atmosphere, carbon removals claim to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using technologies such as Direct Air Capture (unproven and colossally energy-intensive), combined with CCS. The problem? The future use of these carbon removals is used to justify prioritising expensive and risky carbon capture, transport and storage infrastructure now. At the same time, the build-out of CCS infrastructure is used to justify relying on future CCS-based removals as a get-out-of-jail free card to continue polluting today. Mutually reinforcing bad ideas.

Whether it’s CCS for gas-powered data-centres, for hydrogen made from gas, or as part of dubious and destructive carbon removal technologies, the push for widespread CCS – and the rush to build a vast, costly and dangerous CO2 pipeline network to enable it – is all about deferring the phase out of fossil fuels. It’s about prolonging the deadly business model of the some of the world’s wealthiest, most powerful and most climate-wrecking corporations.

Indemnifying Bayer

Joana — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:15:00 +0000

A corrupt company who uses corrupt science now wants to be rewarded for fraud

26.08.2026

Bayer and its lobby groups are trying to get Congress in the States to indemnify them against lawsuits, giving them complete legal protection. Listen to our brand new episode where CEO’s Nina Holland talks to Naomi Oreskes.

Naomi Oreskes is an historian of science, professor at Harvard University, she’s the author or co-author of 8 books, and over 150 articles and essays. She is the co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of the best-selling books ‘Merchants of Doubt’, and ‘The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loath Government and Love the Free Market’. ‘Merchants of Doubt’ identified parallels between the climate change debate and earlier different public controversies, notably the tobacco industry’s lobbying and propaganda campaign to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Nina Holland is a campaigner and researcher CEO working on agribusiness, GMOs, and lobbying in the EU. They talk about Naomi Oreske’s recent work, what Bayer and the lobby groups it works with are pushing for in the US, with their attempt to get the Congress in the US to indemnify them against lawsuits regarding glyphosate, the world’s most used pesticide, giving them full legal protection.

In a previous investigation by Oreskes, it was proven the huge impact that a fake study, ghostwritten by Bayer, has had in minimising the dangers and impacts of glyphosate. Therefore, in a brief to the Supreme Court, Naomi Oreskes argued that if you indemnify this company, you are rewarding them for fraud, and for corrupt behaviour, when in reality they, should have responsibility for the consequences of the things that they have done.

Naomi Oreskes being interviewed by Nina Holland

They also discuss the recent deregulation frenzy of the European Commission, with Naomi Oreskes comparing regulation to having rules of the road: we wouldn’t get on the highway without having them, as we would crash and be killed. The same, she argues, is true of the economy. It is often argued by the industry that competitiveness and the free market are drivers of economic growth. In this episode, both speakers agreed that there is little evidence to that, and discussed cases where regulation created innovation, by steering it in the right direction.

Who we are

This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agribusiness, biotech and chemical companies, the financial sector and public investment banks, trade, energy and climate, scientific research, and much more…

You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!

Blog

EU Watchdog Radio

Action: Tell MEPs to stop the dismantling of EU pesticide laws

Nina Holland — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 07:03:00 +0000

14.07.2026

Once more we call on you to take action on the Food and Feed Omnibus proposal - a direct attack on EU pesticide regulations. Now it is being made even worse by its rapporteurs Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) and Michele Picaro (ECR).

Therefore we ask you with to write to key MEPs in the Agriculture and Environment committees today. It's urgent. MEPs have only a few days left to propose changes to the disastrous report by Dorfmann and Picaro. The Parliament will vote on them after summer.

Choose your country and language of preference, send a message, spread the word. Thank you!

The Ombudsman to shed light on the Commission’s opaque meetings with business

Marcella Via — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 08:23:00 +0000

The Ombudsman is to investigate the Commission’s ‘Reality Checks’, a form of consultation established to develop ‘simplification’ proposals with corporate lobbyists.

08.07.2026

Brussels, 8 July 2026 - Today, the European Ombudsman announced that she will open an inquiry into the lack of transparency around the so-called Reality Checks. The decision is welcomed by Corporate Europe Observatory, the lobby watchdog that filed a complaint on the matter.

Reality Checks were introduced to help the European Commission develop its simplification proposals, not least the so-called Omnibus laws. Set up to establish an exchange with ‘practitioners’, the Reality Checks offer the Commission a chance to restrict participation to business-only.

Despite the political importance of these meetings, which can include a high number of corporate lobbyists, they are exempted from standard transparency requirements. If such a meeting has played a role in developing a simplification/deregulation proposal, the Commission has allowed itself not to inform the public before the proposal is launched.

Kenneth Haar, researcher and campaigner at CEO, said:

“These meetings show us a Commission so hellbent on mass production of deregulation proposals that they are prepared to circumvent even its own rules on transparency. There is no justification for that, and we hope the Ombudsman will help us have the Commission paddle back and introduce full transparency.”

“At the moment, we see the Commission engage in a lot of opaque meetings, with only corporate lobbyists at the table, to develop new deregulation proposals. We need to put a stop to that, and hopefully this case can be a step in that direction.”

Examples of controversial omnibuses that were developed in no small part through Reality Checks, are one on chemicals and the digital omnibus.

The case presented to the Ombudsman is based on research for CEO’s report “This is what corporate capture looks like!”.

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email, tlph. +45 - 23600631

Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer

@email, tlph. +32 - 489 62 22 33

Notes for the editor

- The Ombudsman’s announcement can be seen here.

- CEO's complaint can be seen here.

- The letter from the Ombudsman to Corporate Europe Observatory is available on request.

- The report from CEO on the simplification campaign, with the research that formed the basis of the complaint, is available here.

Industry in the driving seat of the EU's Critical Chemicals Alliance

Marcella Via — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 06:00:00 +0000

A new industry-led platform to secure public funding and roll back regulation

06.07.2026

Chemicals

Brussels, 6 July 2026 – The European Commission has handed the chemicals industry a leading role in shaping a key initiative that will help determine which chemical substances and production sites qualify for future public support, according to a new report [1] by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

Launched in January 2026 as part of the Commission's competitiveness agenda, the Critical Chemicals Alliance (CCA) [2] is tasked with identifying which chemicals and production sites are considered "critical" for Europe's economy. Its recommendations are expected to inform future industrial policy and public funding measures, including state aid and other support.

‘Captured! The Critical Chemicals Alliance: by industry, for industry’ reveals that the Alliance has been structurally dominated by incumbent chemicals industry interests from the outset. Rather than ensuring decisions are guided by the public interest, the Commission has created a process in which the companies and lobby groups that stand to benefit from future support are shaping the criteria for receiving it.

Drawing on lobby documents, official records, and insights from participants, the report finds that:

The concept originated in an industry-backed French proposal before being rapidly embraced by the Commission
The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) occupies influential leadership positions, while industry enjoys an overwhelming majority in the membership of the Alliance, outnumbering civil society 16 to 1 [3]
Civil society organisations have been excluded from decision-making roles, from the Steering Board to various working groups, and sidelined throughout the process
The Alliance is moving at remarkable speed [4], limiting meaningful consultation and public scrutiny
The process risks locking in support for harmful chemicals and polluting production models while reinforcing the Commission's wider deregulation agenda

Vicky Cann, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner, says:

"The evidence is abundantly clear: the chemical pollution and climate crises need urgent tackling. Yet the Critical Chemicals Alliance is symptomatic of a wider problem under the European Commission, where concepts, structures, and processes are designed by industry for big business rather than people and the planet. In this case, the incumbent chemicals industry and its allies stand to benefit from public support because, despite their obvious vested interests, they have been given a privileged role in deciding what chemicals the EU should consider “critical”. And too many of these substances are harmful to our health and the environment".

Tatiana Santos, European Environmental Bureau, Head of Chemicals Policy, says:

“Instead of letting vested interests shape industrial policy and public spending, the EU should define what is ‘critical’ in the public interest. Public funding should drive safer chemicals, cleaner production, and a phasedown of petrochemicals, not support business as usual. Chemical pollution is a major public health and environmental crisis, so public money should only be given with strict conditions ensuring harmful production is phased out and public value is delivered, because public money must serve the public good - surely the least taxpayers should expect.”

Rather than rewarding the status quo, the Commission and member states should base public policy and funding on the essential uses of chemicals - those that are necessary for health, safety, and the functioning of society - while speeding up the phase-out of harmful and unnecessary chemicals.

ENDS

For media inquiries, please contact

Vicky Cann, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner

@email; +44 7960 988096

Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer

@email; +32 489 622233

Tatiana Santos, European Environmental Bureau Head of Chemicals Policy

@email; +32 2 289 10 94

Beatriz Ortiz Martínez, European Environmental Senior Communications Officer for Chemicals

@email; +34 6526 95003

Notes to editors

[1] You can read the full report here
[2] The Critical Chemicals Alliance was launched by the European Commission in January 2026 as a follow-up to the Chemicals Industry Action Plan.
[3] The most recent Critical Chemicals Alliance membership list counts 293 members. 13 are civil society organisations (CSOs), 4.4 per cent of the total. There are also 124 companies and 86 trade associations, making up 72 per cent. Industry (companies and trade associations) outnumber CSOs 16 to 1.
[4] The timeline of the Critical Chemicals Alliance is as follows:

December 2024 French Government proposal, influenced by France Chimie’s EU election demands

July 2025 Announced as part of Commission’s Chemical Industry Action Plan

January 2026 Launch of Critical Chemicals Alliance with first General Assembly

February-June 2026 Intensive working group activity

October 2026 Second and final General Assembly

Corporate Europe Observatory

Podcast: The Triangle of Madness

The MAGA coalition defending online hate speech in Europe

Who we are

Automatic transcript of the episode (there might be slight changes to the final audio version):

Fossil Free Politics calls on EU governments to exclude lobbyists from their COP31 delegation

New research reveals 300+ brought over previous three COPs

EU governments at COP31: A break with the past or business as usual?

330+ badges over past 3 years

Box I: Where the data comes from

Pressure pays off

Worst offenders: Italy, France, and Belgium

European Commission learns its lesson

Supersized proportions

Sweden turbo charges access

Serial offending corporations

Box II: Slow but steady progress towards kicking big polluters out of the climate talks

Spotlight: Italy ushers in EU policy–obstructor Eni

Spotlight: France’s COP courtship with ENGIE and TotalEnergies

ENGIE: Hosting Brussels climate week with one hand while undermining EU climate regulation with the other

TotalEnergies: Lobbying for Paris (Dis)Agreement

EU must not bring fossil fuel lobbyists to COP31

Big Tech lobbying pushes EU towards sweeping deregulation of data protection rules, new research reveals

The Big Tech campaign to kill data protection in Europe

Deregulation Watch

Helping civil society monitor the deregulation agenda

Deregulation Monitor

Deregulation Watch

New ‘Strategic Project’ list gives arms, oil, mining and metals firms an easy ride

Pact against higher national standards before end of year

State of the Union: EU deregulation waves intensifies, with a focus on permitting, banking, national-level rules

Vampire at the door? Commission accepts Big Polluter invite to permitting conference

How much “significant harm” can a €2 trillion EU budget do?

Implementation dialogue on carbon capture: latest in a textbook case of fossil fuel influence

Chemicals Omnibus rides roughshod over health protections

Unions and NGOs slam new EU tax deregulation plan

Commission asks polluting industry, are workers’ rights bothering you?

EU Commission's 'Better Regulation' reform institutionalises undemocratic highspeed deregulation methods

Free lobby tour on Big Tech and the Far Right

Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 9th Nov at 4.30pm

Congratulations to Judge Pillay for her Nobel Peace Prize

The Triangle of Madness:

the MAGA coalition defending online hate speech in Europe

The MAGA campaign in Europe against regulation of Big Tech is based on “far-fetched claims”, but it is dangerous nonetheless

An analysis about how US money, X’s reach and ultraconservative religious legal expertise converge against EU platform regulation

Traced: How pesticide industry demands made their way into Omnibus X

Food & Feed Omnibus, co-written by the pesticide lobby

How the European Commission and right-wing MEPs are writing industry demands into law, at the expense of our health and the environment

No place for Palantir in a democratic Europe!

Free lobby tour on the EU's deregulation frenzy

Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 1st Oct at 5.30pm

SOTEU: von der Leyen doubles down on deregulation

A deadly alliance of Big Tech and Big Oil

The unholy trinity of data centres, gas and carbon capture

Back to basics: a carbon capture con

Data centres: the newest lifeline for fossil fuels

Big Oil to Big Tech: “Your place or mine?”

Eni: greenwashing data centres with “blue power”

ExxonMobil’s record reveals what CCS really is: a paper tiger

Indemnifying Bayer

A corrupt company who uses corrupt science now wants to be rewarded for fraud

Who we are

Action: Tell MEPs to stop the dismantling of EU pesticide laws

The Ombudsman to shed light on the Commission’s opaque meetings with business

The Ombudsman is to investigate the Commission’s ‘Reality Checks’, a form of consultation established to develop ‘simplification’ proposals with corporate lobbyists.

Industry in the driving seat of the EU's Critical Chemicals Alliance

A new industry-led platform to secure public funding and roll back regulation