Why the EU’s simplification of digital rules turned out to be not so simple

Eglė Markevičiūtė

EU Tech Loop, Vilnius

For the past two and a half years – since the European Commission took office on 1 December 2024 – its digital policy has been increasingly inspired by two principles: simplification and enhancing European competitiveness.

Mario Draghi’s report[1] on competitiveness took direct aim at Europe’s regulatory maze, which, in his words, made the operations of European companies more expensive and complex compared to their counterparts in the US, and prevented the very same companies from scaling within Europe. Since the Draghi report, the European public has been emboldened to state the obvious: the EU’s digital rulebook is complex, fragmented, often overlapping and topped up by notoriously slow decision-making. Politicians from European Union Member States – such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni – have also not shied away from calling[2] for ‘regulatory self-restraint’.

The European Commission’s primary response was the simplification package:[3] a series of 12 Omnibuses, including the Digital Omnibus, which aims to streamline artificial intelligence, data, e-Privacy and cybersecurity rules.

Although the European Commission carefully framed the Digital Omnibus Package[4] as ‘targeted, European SME-focused reviews’ to counter concerns about deregulation and threats to fundamental rights, the strategy wasn’t successful. First, in December 2025, a complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the urgent simplification procedures violated the EU’s Better Regulation Principles, and the European Commission was later forced to formally amend its definition of urgency procedures. Second, the European Commission’s incremental yet positive proposals to amend the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were also diluted by the Council and the European Parliament.

The very concept of simplification is becoming increasingly blurred: both external stakeholders and the European Commission are using the term to advocate for legislative changes that do not necessarily simplify things. While external stakeholders push for changes that benefit their industries under the guise of simplification and competitiveness, the European Commission itself creates new rules in the name of simplification – even before existing frameworks have been properly enforced (the most notable examples being the Digital Networks Act and the Digital Fairness Act).

The primary targets of the EU’s simplification efforts – European businesses – are left passive, uninformed or confused by the EU’s attempt to have its cake and eat it too: promising simplification while simultaneously introducing new layers of rules. In May 2026, ASML chief executive officer (CEO) Christophe Fouquet openly questioned the European Commission’s simplification effort, telling Politico EU: ‘The idea that you make something very complex, then simplify it, and that you end up with something good […] is a bit strange’.

Notes