“Detective Work We Shouldn’t Have to Do”: Practitioner Challenges in Regulatory-Aligned Data Quality in Machine Learning Systems external link

Yichun Wang, Irion, K., Paul Groth & Hazar Harmouch
The 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’26), June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp: 25, 2026

Abstract

Ensuring data quality in machine learning (ML) systems has become increasingly complex as regulatory requirements expand. In the European Union (EU), frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) articulate data quality requirements that closely parallel technical concerns in ML practice, while also extending to legal obligations related to accountability, risk management, and human rights protection. This paper presents a qualitative interview study with EU-based data practitioners working on ML systems in regulated contexts. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigate how practitioners interpret regulatory-aligned data quality, the challenges they encounter, and the support they identify as necessary. Our findings reveal persistent gaps between legal principles and engineering workflows, fragmentation across data pipelines, limitations of existing tools, unclear responsibility boundaries between technical and legal teams, and a tendency towards reactive, audit-driven quality practices. We also identify practitioners’ needs for compliance-aware tooling, clearer governance structures, and promoting a culture of regulatory-aligned data quality.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

GPT-NL respects copyright – cui bono? – Part 1 external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

A Minimum Age for Social Media: A Legal Exploration download

Social media

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Panel at CPDP 2026: From AI and Quantum to EuroStack and Digital Commons: Which Way to Digital Sovereignty? external link

van Hoboken, J., Vogiatzoglou, P., Streinz, T., Paul, A. & Warso, Z.
2026

Abstract

As Big Tech controls most of the digital infrastructure on which everyday practices depend, digital sovereignty has emerged as a countervailing strategy to (re)gain control over data, technologies, and infrastructures, thereby safeguarding autonomy and self-determination in the digital era. The EU’s digital sovereignty agenda emphasises investment in sectors it considers critical, like artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. Industry and civil society also advocate for domestic alternatives to hyperscalers. The various digital sovereignty visions share commonalities; they highlight the need for European-based infrastructures that comply with EU digital rules, but raise similar concerns about underlying dependencies and geopolitical tensions. At the same time, they differ in the futures they imagine, from becoming a global leader to developing open-source solutions. This panel will investigate what digital sovereignty entails nowadays and the different pathways, from private to public digital infrastructures, towards achieving it.

Artificial intelligence, Digital sovereignty, quantum technologies

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Building normative diversity into algorithmic news recommendations external link

Vrijenhoek, S.
2026

Abstract

News recommender systems aim to predict which news items their users would like to read based on their past reading behavior. However, rather than only catering to a readers' preferences, a diverse recommender system could also be used to expand a reader's world view, to help them be more informed, or to expose them to events and ideas they were not aware of before. This dissertation therefore aims to answer the question: “How can we evaluate news recommender systems on their normative diversity?” The dissertation takes an interdisciplinary approach towards answering this question. It contains interviews with practitioners from public service media organizations in the Netherlands on how they conceptualized diversity in their recommender systems (Chapter 2); proposes new diversity evaluation metrics founded in democratic theory (Chapter 3); generalizes these evaluation metrics into a rank-aware divergence-based formalization (Chapter 4); analyzes the public datasets available for news recommendation on their suitability to diversity-based research (Chapter 5); and describes workshop sessions with a national news organization to collaboratively define evaluation metrics for their recommender systems (Chapter 6). The work shows that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to implementing diversity. Furthermore, it notes that it is fundamentally unlikely that abstract theoretical concepts can be perfectly captured in technical applications. Instead, it argues that we should aim for consciously imperfect solutions that are understood and accepted by all different stakeholders within an organization; to look for workable simplifications, rather than reductive generalizations.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Een minimumleeftijd voor sociale media: juridische verkenning download

Abstract

Juridische verkenning naar een minimumleeftijd van 15 jaar voor sociale media.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Remuneration for AI Training: A New Source of Income for Journalists?

In: The Cambridge Handbook of Media Law and Policy in Europe, Cambridge University Press , 2026, pp: 433-464, ISBN: 9781009568159

Abstract

Generative AI systems threaten to usurp the market for human press and media productions. To enable journalists to act as ‘watchdogs’, highlight societal problems, and prompt necessary changes, remuneration rules should offer support for quality journalistic work by humans. In the EU, the rights reservation option following from Article 4(3) of the 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market – now flanked by the provisions of the AI Act – could support a remuneration system focusing on the use of human journalistic content for AI training. While AI training income would benefit media companies that own large repertoires of journalistic work, individual journalists might not receive an appropriate revenue share. This chapter suggests introducing a general output-based payment obligation on all providers and users of generative AI systems involved in media productions: both companies offering generative AI systems and companies using these systems in the media sector. Mandatory collective rights management could ensure payment directly to individual journalists, as in the repartitioning schemes of collecting societies. The remuneration could also finance funds that improve journalists’ working and living conditions. When distributing AI remuneration, social and cultural institutions could prioritise public interest journalism as a countermeasure to AI-generated misinformation and disinformation.

Artificial intelligence, Journalism, Media law, remuneration

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

No News Is Bad News: The Role of Government in News Markets in the Age of Aggregators and AI

In: The Cambridge Handbook of Media Law and Policy in Europe, Cambridge University Press , 2026, pp: 385-397, ISBN: 9781009568159

Abstract

Welfare economic theory seeks the justification for government intervention in markets, in market failure, and in distributional issues. An analysis of the market failures that exist in a specific industry or market can not only provide justification for government regulation or other kinds of intervention in general, but it can also suggest which type of intervention or regulation is optimal from a welfare economic perspective. This chapter addresses the question of how the emergence of news aggregator platforms and the introduction of generative AI in news production have affected the market failures that constitute the core problem underlying private investment in news production. The focus of the analysis is on the public good character of news and the positive externalities of news production. The question addressed is: Have the consequences of these existing market failures become more prominent or have they been resolved by these developments? Based on this analysis, the chapter discusses how this informs policy concerning these developments.

Artificial intelligence, Government, Media law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Big Tech’s Differentiated Lobbying: Analysing the Political Activity of Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft in EU Media Policy

In: The Cambridge Handbook of Media Law and Policy in Europe, Cambridge University Press , 2026, pp: 319-344, ISBN: 9781009568159

Abstract

By 2022, social media platforms had become more prominent access points to news than traditional news media platforms. Although news media also draw benefits from online platforms, they find themselves in an increasingly asymmetric relationship that appears to harm journalists and new media’s ability to generate revenues online. Remedying the uneven playing field between big tech and news media has been a recurring ambition of European media policy. In the context of literature on corporate political activity, this chapter investigates how three big tech companies, Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft, have positioned themselves in relation to EU policymaking that aims to strengthen the rights of journalists, news media and press publishers online. The chapter argues that while these big tech companies primarily seek to preserve their own business models and reputations, the media policy domain also reveals a split in their lobby narratives. Due to lower exposure to reforms in digital media policy, Microsoft has been less opposed to, and in fact has campaigned for, stronger protection for news media against digital platforms.

big tech, Media law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

European Media Policy Grounded in Fundamental Rights: Linking the Council of Europe and the European Union

Umek, U. & Drunen, M. van
In: The Cambridge Handbook of Media Law and Policy in Europe, Cambridge University Press , 2026, pp: 61-82, ISBN: 9781009568159

Abstract

This chapter explores the evolving interplay between the Council of Europe (CoE) and the European Union (EU) in safeguarding fundamental rights in the context of media policy. Both organisations have a long history in media policy, and both have extensively adapted their standards to counter recent threats resulting from digitisation and democratic backsliding. In this process the EU has significantly expanded its safeguards for fundamental rights, traditionally the CoE’s main focus. This convergence raises the possibility of conflict but also that of mutual reinforcement. In this chapter we first sketch the history of increasing convergence between EU and CoE media policy and provide an overview of each institution’s recent overlapping activities. We then argue for a closer relationship between the two institutions in the context of fundamental rights in media policy, focusing on the need for consistency between their respective standards, the normative guidance CoE standards can provide to the EU, and the practical implementation of fundamental rights standards EU enforcement can ensure. We close by suggesting ways in which a mutually reinforcing relationship between the two institutions can be operationalised through closer legal and organisational ties.

Fundamental rights, Media law, Policy

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib