New Zealand's Council of Trade Unions has welcomed a Green Party proposal to scrap the country's lower training minimum wage ahead of the 2026 election.
Brazil's top electoral court has set new rules on when WhatsApp broadcast channels count as official campaign tools, a week before the October 25 presidential runoff between Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro.
China's government has proposed draft controls restricting exports of certain technologies used in solar panel manufacturing. The move is being read as part of Beijing's broader recent push to tighten export oversight of critical technology sectors.
Anthropic policy chief Jack Clark told US policymakers in Washington that artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly and could substantially boost American economic growth. Clark said transformative AI needs "unusual and serious rules" set through international cooperation.
Victoria's premier and opposition leader have unveiled competing pledges ahead of next month's state election. The premier proposed a $30 cap on toll road charges, while the opposition set out its own policy on household gas installation rules. The campaign is increasingly centred on transport and energy costs.
Two people have been taken into custody after occupying an offshore gas platform operated by Woodside Energy roughly 200 kilometres off Western Australia's coast. The demonstrators were protesting the company's gas operations. Australian Border Force personnel took part in removing them from the facility.
Nigerian civil society group SERAP has sued the Independent National Electoral Commission over its failure to account for ₦126bn in election spending. The lawsuit seeks a full public breakdown of funds meant for ballot boxes, devices and other materials. A ruling is expected ahead of Nigeria's 2027 elections.
The White House’s artificial intelligence task force adopted its charter Thursday, opening a 120-day window to advise on how much of an oversight role Washington should take.
President Trump’s primary legal fund is more than $1.9 million in debt, according to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Save America PAC, which Trump formed after he lost the 2020 presidential election, spent more than $5.4 million in the third quarter and had spent more than $14 million from the start…
The Australian government has introduced its digital duty of care legislation to parliament today. The bill includes an “off switch” to allow social media users to opt out of recommender algorithms. If passed, Australians could choose to switch off their algorithmic recommendation and consume a news feed populated by the accounts they subscribe to. It’s […]
On a recent episode of the Bulwark podcast, journalist Ron Brownstein described the election as a contest between “the wave versus the wall.” The wave being voter anger and President Donald Trump’s plummeting popularity. The wall being structural impediments to voters’ voices, such as gerrymanders and the Republican Party’s stark spending advantage. Now we know […]
For many Americans overseas, the scariest day this month is not Halloween, but October 15—the final extended deadline for filing income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
An estimated 3.3 million U.S. citizens live abroad, although the number is likely an undercount because the government doesn't keep a comprehensive list or require Americans overseas to register their residence. Still, American citizens and resident aliens living abroad must pay U.S. income taxes and comply with domestic tax filing requirements, regardless of where they live or work. They must also complete the dizzying process of reporting any foreign bank accounts, assets, and financial interests in foreign institutions.
When filing their income tax returns, most Americans living abroad have zero tax liability. In its 2025 Annual Report to Congress, the Taxpayer Advocate Service—an independent organization within the IRS that helps people navigate tax problems—found that for Americans overseas, "the percent of individual international tax returns reporting no tax liability is significantly higher than domestic taxpayers." Yet, the agency reports that the filing process is "complex, overlapping, and punitive." The report says failure to comply results in "harsh and disproportionate penalties…even when taxpayers make good-faith mistakes or owe no U.S. tax."
The U.S. income tax rate is low compared to other high-income countries, so Americans living overseas typically pay more in local taxes than they would here. Still, Brandon Mitchener, executive director at Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad, tells Reason that Americans living outside the U.S. are often oblivious to their income tax obligations, assuming they're exempt because they already pay taxes in their country of residence. He says that complex U.S. tax laws and financial regulations force many Americans living overseas to request an extension to October 15.
The date also coincides with the final deadline for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)—regulations that require Americans with foreign financial assets above a certain threshold to declare the value of their assets to the IRS or Treasury Department.
Under FATCA, Americans living overseas with foreign financial assets exceeding $200,000 at year-end or more than $300,000 at any point during the year must declare their assets when filing their income tax return. The law also requires foreign financial institutions to report information about U.S. account holders directly to the IRS. Originally enacted to catch Americans overseas engaged in tax evasion or other criminal financial activity, it has instead made American citizenship an impediment for expatriates looking to save or invest money outside the U.S.
"Because of FATCA, many foreign financial institutions shun American clients," Mitchener says. This includes Trade Republic, a German digital bank and online brokerage firm that doesn't accept U.S. citizens living abroad, a category of people it tellingly describes as "FATCA customers."
"Some charge a premium for banking-while-American," he adds, while some have "even de-banked American clients." The latter is a very real concern for Madison Berry, an American living in the Netherlands. She tells Reason she's "a little bit worried" that her European bank will one day "come back and be like, 'Oh, you're a U.S. citizen. We're gonna close your account.'"
This "reduces choice and raises the cost and complexity of everyday financial products for Americans abroad, from basic savings accounts to mortgages and retirement savings," Mitchener says, creating problems unique to America and Eritrea, the only two countries that tax citizens living outside their borders.
Compounding matters, Americans with foreign financial accounts exceeding $10,000 must file an FBAR with the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, even though the form duplicates much of the same information already reported through FATCA. The reporting requirements make investing or saving money abroad prohibitive for Americans and foreign financial institutions, with foreign banks opting to close existing accounts or outright denying Americans the opportunity to open a bank account, according to a 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office. Seven years later, little has changed. The IRS itself admits that its systems and functions are "inaccessible to or incompatible with the needs of taxpayers living abroad, creating unnecessary barriers to compliance."
Berry says figuring out her tax obligations and reporting requirements has left her "in a financial limbo." "I seriously considered renouncing my U.S. citizenship as part of the process just to make life easier." She's not alone.
Several Americans living overseas who spoke to Reason on condition of anonymity said they were also considering renouncing their U.S. citizenship rather than deal with the onerous annual tax filing process. One American living in Ireland who owns and operates a U.S.-based business says she uses a remote desktop and virtual private network to access her financial institutions to avoid scrutiny.
Another tells Reason she's considering renouncing her citizenship because America's tax system is "predatory in how complicated it is and how much responsibility it puts on ordinary people to figure everything out themselves."
A federal judge on Thursday agreed to toss a lawsuit from former CIA Director John Brennan, arguing he did not yet have standing to sue over an investigation targeting him for his role in reviewing the 2016 election. Brennan brought the suit in July, seeking to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to preserve records…
Thanks to a 2005 DUI conviction in Pennsylvania, Edward Williams permanently lost the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But he did not realize that until a decade later, and his confusion on that point is understandable.
The federal law that stripped Williams of his Second Amendment rights is commonly described as applying to "felons," and Williams' offense was a misdemeanor. But although his sentence did not include any time behind bars, his crime theoretically could have sent him to prison for up to five years. That was enough to trigger 18 USC 922(g)(1), which covers anyone convicted of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."
When a lawyer alerted Williams to that wrinkle, which made his continued ownership of firearms a federal felony, he got rid of his guns. But he did not think that requirement was fair, reasonable, or constitutional, and this week a federal appeals court agreed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recognized a historical tradition of disarming "physically dangerous individuals" whose possession of firearms would pose a threat to public safety. But it said Williams plainly does not fit into that category.
"The federal government spent nearly a decade trying to permanently disarm a peaceable man over a nonviolent misdemeanor—and it lost bigly," says Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which supported Williams' lawsuit. "The government does not get to turn a nonviolent conviction into a lifetime ban on exercising a constitutionally protected right."
The 3rd Circuit's en banc decision in Williams v. Attorney General affirms a 2023 ruling by a federal judge who likewise concluded that disarming Williams was unconstitutional. It elaborates on the logic of Range v. Attorney General, a 2023 decision that restored the gun rights of a Pennsylvania man who had been convicted of food stamp fraud. In both cases, the 3rd Circuit held that applying Section 922(g)(1) to the plaintiffs was not "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the Second Amendment test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Writing for the majority in Williams' case, 3rd Circuit Judge Paul Matey acknowledges that the Supreme Court has described "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons" as "presumptively lawful." But "those longstanding customs restricted the violently dangerous (within which some felons would be included), not felons writ large," he says. "Felons were restricted because they posed a physical danger, rather than for their offense of conviction."
Matey argues that "focusing on physical dangerousness corrects the erroneous argument" that "only law-abiding and responsible citizens can exercise the rights protected by the Second Amendment"—a claim that the Supreme Court rejected in the 2024 case United States v. Rahimi. "We find no history that supports disarming irresponsible people, where 'responsible' is defined by the whim of the sovereign or the will of the majority," he says, alluding to the danger of allowing legislators to whittle away at the Second Amendment by criminalizing an ever-widening range of conduct.
Matey emphasizes "the novelty of forever restricting all felons from possessing firearms for lawful purposes." The original restriction, which Congress approved in 1938 as part of the Federal Firearms Act, applied only to violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. In 1961, Congress expanded the ban to cover nonviolent crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.
Williams' 2005 DUI conviction qualified for two reasons. He had a prior DUI conviction, stemming from a 2000 arrest in State College. And when he was arrested again in Philadelphia four years later, his blood alcohol concentration was a whopping 0.223 percent. That made his second offense a first-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.
Since then, Williams has stayed out of trouble. "He has done nothing violent, let alone dangerous, for over twenty years, and has held steady employment at the same job for over three decades," Matey notes. Williams drinks only occasionally, and a psychological evaluation found he "has a normal personality, without psychopathology and without addiction or violent tendencies."
The Justice Department nevertheless argued that Williams' continuing disarmament is consistent with the Bruen test, which requires historical analogs that are "relevantly similar" in motivation and scope. In making that case, the government relied mainly on early laws aimed at "habitual drunkards"—the same analogy that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected last June in United States v. Hemani, which involved the federal ban on gun possession by "unlawful" drug users.
Although the Justice Department "acknowledges it may proscribe Williams's possession of firearms only if he 'presently poses a physical danger if armed,'" Matey says, it "offers no evidence to establish this as the aim of the habitual drunkard laws." Those laws, the Supreme Court noted in Hemani, "did not seek to protect the public from violence so much as to protect habitual drunkards from themselves and their families from financial devastation."
Nor did the habitual drunkard laws permanently disarm people, as Section 922(g)(1) does. "Most statutes capped the commitment of habitual drunkards to the state inebriate asylum, prison, or hard labor to a few months or years," Matey notes. "Others provided for an indefinite period of incarceration, but had no indication that upon release individuals continued to forfeit their arms. Rather, once someone was 'safe' to 'go at large,' they were restored to the status of a full rights-bearing citizen."
Contrary to the considerations that the Supreme Court deemed relevant in Hemani, Matey says, the Justice Department "fails to show that Williams threatens to 'misuse[] a gun while intoxicated,' or that he 'poses a danger to himself or others as a result' of
alcohol abuse. In fact, much like those nineteenth-century drunkards released from custody and restored their rights, the record shows that Williams poses no present physical danger from the use of a firearm, or anything else."
The 3rd Circuit is one of three federal appeals courts that have allowed people with nonviolent felony records to argue that Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to them. But such challenges have been blocked in six circuits, notwithstanding compelling historical evidence that the law reaches much farther than the Second Amendment allows. So far, the Supreme Court has declined to accept any of the many petitions asking it to resolve that circuit split.
The European Commission has proposed postponing new methane reporting and verification obligations for fossil-fuel imports by one year, responding to pressure from energy suppliers and member states amid disruption to global oil and gas markets.
The European Commission has proposed delaying key methane emissions requirements for imported oil, gas and coal by one year, acknowledging that the present energy crisis could make the original timetable difficult to enforce without threatening Europe’s fuel supplies.
The legislative proposal presented on 14th October would postpone obligations requiring importers to demonstrate that their overseas suppliers meet monitoring, reporting and verification standards equivalent to those imposed on European producers.
The requirements were scheduled to take effect on 1st January 2027. Under the revised arrangements, compliance would begin in 2028, with the first annual demonstrations to national authorities due by 31st May 2029.
The decision follows months of pressure from European governments, American energy companies and importers concerned that the regulation could complicate contracts and restrict access to alternative supplies during a period of exceptional international disruption.
Energy security takes precedence
The Commission’s explanatory memorandum places the decision directly within the consequences of the Middle East conflict, which has disrupted trade through the Strait of Hormuz since February.
According to the Commission, approximately 20 per cent of global liquefied natural gas supplies and 25 per cent of seaborne oil trade have been affected. Alternative producers have only partially compensated for the interruption, leaving European buyers competing for increasingly expensive supplies.
Brussels acknowledges that the disruption is likely to continue affecting energy markets after the immediate crisis subsides, partly because damaged infrastructure will require time to repair and restart.
Under these circumstances, importers have warned that they may be unable to obtain sufficient fuel meeting the original compliance requirements by January.
The development follows wider discussions about Europe’s energy costs. As EU Today reported during the Brussels summit, high energy prices have become a central concern for governments attempting to protect European industrial competitiveness.
Washington presses for regulatory relief
The United States has been particularly concerned about the effect of the methane rules on transatlantic energy trade.
American producers have become increasingly important suppliers of liquefied natural gas to Europe since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 accelerated the diversification of European energy imports.
According to the reporting on the Commission’s decision, American companies, including ExxonMobil, have raised objections to the requirements, while Washington has pressed Brussels to provide additional flexibility.
French President Emmanuel Macron has also expressed concern about the legal risks facing importers attempting to demonstrate compliance across complicated international supply chains.
The problem involves obtaining reliable emissions measurements from production facilities that may be located thousands of miles from Europe and operate under different regulatory systems.
European importers must then establish whether the information satisfies EU standards, even when the companies operating those facilities are not themselves subject to European jurisdiction.
For suppliers with several production sites, transport arrangements and intermediary contracts, collecting consistent and independently verified information can be a substantial undertaking.
Climate legislation remains in force
The Commission insists that the postponement does not represent an abandonment of its methane reduction objectives.
The original EU methane regulation entered into force in August 2024. It introduced requirements covering methane measurement, leak detection, reporting and restrictions on routine venting and flaring.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and emissions from oil and gas operations can arise through equipment leaks, deliberate releases and incomplete combustion.
The International Energy Agency estimates that more than 350 billion cubic metres of gas were lost globally through flaring, venting and leakage in 2024. Reducing those losses could increase the quantity of gas available for commercial use.
The Commission is therefore attempting to preserve its environmental objectives while allowing additional time for verification systems and national enforcement arrangements to become operational.
The proposal also postpones methane-intensity reporting obligations for EU producers and importers from August 2028 to August 2029. Requirements to demonstrate compliance with maximum methane-intensity values would move from August 2030 to August 2031.
Existing obligations to provide information about overseas emissions, in force since May 2025, would remain unaffected.
Parliament faces another regulatory confrontation
The proposed changes require approval from the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure.
That process could expose differences between governments seeking greater flexibility and lawmakers concerned about weakening the timetable for reducing fossil-fuel emissions.
Industry representatives have sought longer extensions, while environmental organisations argue that delaying methane reductions will not resolve the structural causes of Europe’s energy problems.
Brussels is also confronting the consequences of its decision to phase out Russian gas imports. As EU Today’s examination of the Nord Stream 2 legal challenge explained, the Union’s efforts to eliminate dependence on Moscow have already generated disputes over energy security and European regulatory authority.
The Commission now faces two competing requirements: maintaining a common environmental standard for imported fossil fuels while ensuring that suppliers remain willing and able to serve the European market.
Whether the proposed one-year extension proves sufficient will depend on the recovery of international energy supplies and the ability of producers, importers and national authorities to establish reliable verification arrangements before the revised deadlines.
The EU General Court has upheld the European Commission’s decision to classify Stripchat as a very large online platform, establishing important limits on how technology companies can challenge the calculation of their European user numbers.
The European Union’s General Court has rejected a legal challenge to the European Commission’s classification of adult entertainment platform Stripchat under the Digital Services Act, strengthening Brussels’ authority to determine which online services must comply with the legislation’s most demanding obligations.
In its judgment delivered on 14th October, the Luxembourg-based court dismissed the action brought by Technius Ltd, the company operating Stripchat, against its designation as a very large online platform.
The dispute centred on how the Commission calculated the platform’s average monthly active users in the European Union, which determines whether additional regulatory obligations apply.
Under the Digital Services Act, platforms exceeding 45 million monthly active recipients in the EU are subject to enhanced supervision, including requirements concerning systemic risks, transparency, content moderation and independent auditing.
The judgment addresses a fundamental question for European digital regulation: whether companies can exclude particular categories of website visits when calculating the number of people using their services.
How Brussels challenged the platform’s figures
In February 2023, Technius reported that Stripchat had approximately 31.8 million average monthly active recipients in the EU, placing it below the threshold for very large online platforms.
The company relied on information provided by Similarweb, a commercial service measuring website traffic and user behaviour.
However, the Commission questioned the methodology used to reach that figure. Technius had discounted certain visits on the grounds that users entered the website but departed without engaging with its content.
Such visits are commonly described as bounced visits and frequently appear in commercial website analytics.
The Commission concluded that the company’s deductions had significantly underestimated its audience because the original Similarweb calculation of unique visitors already incorporated a filtering process excluding many bounced visits.
On that basis, Brussels calculated that Stripchat had more than 62 million monthly unique visitors in the EU, well above the statutory threshold.
The Commission consequently designated the platform as a very large online service on 20th December 2023. Technius challenged the decision, arguing that the figures were unreliable and that the absence of a prescribed calculation methodology undermined legal certainty.
The EU General Court rejected both arguments.
Court rejects challenge to calculation methodology
According to the court’s official explanation, the Commission had adequately explained its calculation and was entitled to rely on the data available when the designation decision was adopted.
The judges found that Technius had effectively applied deductions to figures from which relevant traffic had already been filtered, producing an artificially reduced estimate of active recipients.
The judgment also addressed a potentially significant complication.
After the Commission adopted its decision, Similarweb revised its methodology. Using the corrected method, Stripchat’s estimated monthly active audience for the relevant period was approximately 37.3 million.
That figure was below the threshold for classification as a very large online platform. Nevertheless, the court held that the subsequent correction did not invalidate the original designation.
The judges determined that the Commission’s decision had to be assessed according to the facts, applicable law and permissible evidence available when the decision was taken.
The ruling therefore does not establish that Stripchat currently exceeds 45 million monthly users. It confirms that the later recalculation was insufficient to annul the Commission’s December 2023 decision.
A significant precedent for digital regulation
The consequences extend beyond one adult entertainment website.
The Digital Services Act covers online intermediaries operating in the European market, including social networks, marketplaces, hosting services and other platforms.
Its obligations increase according to the size and nature of a company’s operations. Very large online platforms must assess systemic risks associated with their services, introduce appropriate mitigation measures and submit to independent audits.
The Commission is responsible for supervising their additional obligations and can impose substantial financial penalties for established infringements.
The distinction between the two categories can therefore have considerable financial and operational consequences.
Companies falling below the 45 million threshold remain subject to relevant DSA obligations but do not face the same additional requirements imposed on the largest platforms.
The General Court’s ruling confirms that companies cannot escape designation by applying an unreliable interpretation of website traffic data.
At the same time, the Commission’s published supervisory framework allows a designation to be revoked when a platform remains below the threshold for a full year.
European technology enforcement faces growing scrutiny
The judgment comes as the Commission faces multiple legal challenges to its enforcement of Europe’s digital legislation.
As EU Today previously reported, Washington has sought to intervene in proceedings concerning the Commission’s €120 million Digital Services Act fine against X, introducing an additional diplomatic dimension to European regulatory disputes.
The Commission is also pursuing separate investigations into whether major platforms comply with obligations concerning the protection of minors, advertising transparency and the management of illegal content.
In another case examined by EU Today, Brussels reached preliminary findings concerning TikTok’s default privacy settings for children, illustrating the practical consequences of the stricter duties imposed on very large online platforms.
The Stripchat judgment concerns designation rather than a finding that the company breached any substantive safety obligation. Its immediate consequence is to preserve the Commission’s original classification decision.
Technius may still appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union on points of law within two months and ten days of notification of the judgment.
For European regulators, the decision provides judicial support for using established commercial analytics when assessing the reach of online platforms, provided that the methodology is adequately explained and the underlying evidence is reliable.
For technology companies, it confirms that the legal assessment of user numbers extends beyond the figures they choose to report to Brussels. The Commission can scrutinise those calculations and reject methods that fail to provide a reliable estimate of an online service’s European audience.
EU finance ministers have approved a compromise that would expand the European Securities and Markets Authority’s powers while exempting some major trading venues from centralised oversight. The agreement reflects continuing resistance to transferring financial supervision from national authorities to Brussels.
European Union finance ministers have reached an agreement to expand centralised supervision of financial markets, but Germany has secured provisions allowing important parts of Deutsche Börse to remain under national oversight, substantially narrowing the European Commission’s original reform proposals.
The compromise, agreed at a meeting in Luxembourg on 9 October, would transfer responsibility for supervising selected trading venues, clearing houses and securities settlement institutions to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
However, the agreement introduces exemptions and thresholds that reduce the number of institutions automatically subject to direct European supervision.
The result is a significant political compromise between governments seeking deeper financial integration and those reluctant to surrender oversight of nationally important market operators.
Berlin secures its exemption
The most contentious element of the negotiations concerned Deutsche Börse, the German financial-market group that operates the Frankfurt stock exchange and provides trading, clearing and other financial infrastructure services.
Germany opposed arrangements that would place all major market operators under direct ESMA supervision, arguing that institutions with predominantly domestic activities should continue to be regulated nationally.
The agreed compromise refines the criteria for determining which trading venues qualify for centralised oversight.
These conditions allow certain Deutsche Börse operations to remain outside the new supervisory regime.
The exemption had already become a point of contention during negotiations among European governments.
As EU Today reported in June, Berlin had sought to protect Deutsche Börse from mandatory European supervision despite Germany’s broader support for integrating EU capital markets.
The October agreement formalises a narrower approach within the Council’s negotiating position, although the legislation remains subject to approval by the European Parliament.
Europe’s fragmented financial markets
The European Commission has repeatedly argued that fragmented national supervision weakens the EU’s ability to compete with financial markets in the United States.
Although the Union operates a single market, many financial institutions continue to face differing regulatory interpretations, procedures and supervisory relationships across member states.
These differences can increase operating costs and discourage financial businesses from expanding across borders.
The Market Integration and Supervision Package is intended to simplify those arrangements and strengthen common oversight of financial infrastructure with significant cross-border activity.
Under the Council’s position, ESMA would assume direct supervision of selected trading platforms and institutions involved in clearing and securities settlement.
Such institutions perform essential functions in financial markets, including managing transactions, transferring securities and controlling risks between counterparties.
Differences in supervisory arrangements can complicate the operation of financial services that increasingly function across national borders.
The Commission argues that greater consistency would allow European capital to move more efficiently between member states and provide businesses with improved access to investment.
Compromise reduces original ambitions
The Commission’s original approach envisaged broader centralisation of supervisory responsibilities.
The Council agreement of 9 October introduces more restrictive criteria governing the institutions that would fall under ESMA’s direct authority.
In addition to the treatment of trading venues, ministers agreed that direct supervision of crypto-asset service providers should initially concentrate on businesses with the most significant cross-border operations.
The Council also supported changes to ESMA’s governance arrangements, including the creation of a full-time executive board.
The proposed board would strengthen the authority’s ability to make supervisory decisions independently of individual national regulators, while preserving mechanisms for cooperation with those authorities.
The compromise also introduces arrangements allowing national supervisors collectively to challenge certain decisions.
These provisions reflect concerns about concentrating regulatory powers within an institution that must oversee financial businesses operating under different national legal systems.
Why capital markets matter for European investment
The supervision reforms form part of the EU’s broader Savings and Investments Union initiative.
European policymakers want to increase the availability of private capital for companies investing in technology, defence, infrastructure and industrial development.
The Union has substantial household savings, but much of that money remains in bank deposits or is invested outside the European economy.
Companies seeking capital for expansion may consequently face higher financing costs or more limited investment opportunities than comparable businesses operating in larger and more integrated markets.
Financial-market supervision represents only one element of that programme.
Differences in taxation, insolvency law, national investment products and corporate governance requirements also influence where investors allocate their money.
Nevertheless, regulators regard consistent supervision as an important condition for reducing fragmentation.
Parliament faces a political decision
The agreement reached by finance ministers does not conclude the legislative process.
The European Parliament must adopt its position before negotiations can determine the final provisions.
Parliamentary discussions could revisit the exemptions secured by Germany and the criteria determining which institutions fall under direct ESMA supervision.
The debate will expose differences over whether European financial integration should proceed through incremental reforms or a more substantial transfer of regulatory authority.
Governments supporting national exemptions argue that supervision should reflect the actual geographic scope of a company’s activities.
Supporters of broader European oversight contend that major trading businesses can influence financial markets beyond their home jurisdictions even when individual operations appear predominantly domestic.
The Deutsche Börse exemption has become a prominent example of the conflict between those positions.
Europe’s largest economies broadly support the objective of deeper capital markets, but remain divided over the institutional powers needed to achieve it.
The final legislation will determine whether the expanded responsibilities granted to ESMA are sufficient to reduce fragmentation or leave important parts of Europe’s financial infrastructure operating under substantially different national supervisory systems.
The European Commission is assessing changes to Google’s search engine and app-store practices after imposing two substantial fines in July. Regulators must now decide whether the company’s response satisfies EU competition requirements or leaves it exposed to further enforcement.
The European Commission is continuing discussions with Google over the company’s response to €890 million in penalties imposed under the Digital Markets Act, as Brussels examines whether changes to its search engine and app-store practices are sufficient to address infringements of European competition rules.
Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier confirmed on Wednesday, 14 October, that officials remained in dialogue with the American technology company. The Commission is assessing the measures Google has introduced, taking account of feedback from businesses affected by its services before reaching a conclusion on compliance.
The review follows two decisions adopted on 23 July, when the European Commission found Google in breach of the Digital Markets Act. A €460 million fine concerned preferential treatment for Google’s own services in search results, while a separate €430 million penalty addressed restrictions preventing app developers from freely directing customers towards alternative purchasing channels.
Search rankings remain under examination
The first infringement concerns Google’s treatment of competing online services offering hotel reservations, shopping comparisons, transport information and sports results.
Regulators concluded that Google had placed its own services in more prominent positions, sometimes providing them with enhanced visual features and search functions unavailable to competing businesses.
The Digital Markets Act prohibits designated gatekeepers from giving their own products preferential treatment when ranking services that compete with those offered by other companies.
Google has already modified its European search results in response to the Commission’s decision. The changes include revised presentations of commercial information and greater prominence for independent comparison services.
The company maintains that direct information previously available through its search engine may become harder for consumers to obtain.
For competitors, however, the question is whether Google’s adjustments provide genuine commercial opportunities or merely alter the appearance of search results without changing the underlying distribution of traffic.
Google Play fees face scrutiny
The second case concerns the Google Play application marketplace, where developers have historically depended on Google’s infrastructure to distribute software and sell subscriptions.
Under the DMA, developers must be able to inform customers about alternative offers and direct them towards purchasing arrangements outside the platform, including their own websites.
The Commission found that Google’s restrictions and fees had limited that freedom.
Although the company may charge for certain services associated with acquiring customers, the Commission concluded that the level and duration of its steering-related charges exceeded what the legislation permits.
Google has since adjusted its external-offers arrangements. European officials are examining whether those changes provide developers with a commercially workable alternative to transactions processed through Google Play.
The issue has consequences for subscription services, digital publishers and software companies seeking to maintain direct relationships with their customers.
A formal ability to direct consumers elsewhere is of limited benefit if the financial conditions make such transactions uneconomic.
Enforcement enters a more demanding phase
The Digital Markets Act was designed to address market practices that conventional competition investigations often took years to resolve.
Rather than requiring regulators to establish a new infringement through lengthy proceedings in every instance, the legislation imposes specific obligations on companies designated as gatekeepers.
The Commission’s DMA enforcement framework allows regulators to examine whether those obligations are being followed and to impose financial penalties when they are breached.
Google’s July fines represented an important enforcement decision. The current review concerns the company’s subsequent conduct and the practical effects of its compliance measures.
The continuation of discussions does not itself establish a fresh infringement. Further penalties would require an additional regulatory determination.
Google also faces broader obligations concerning the sharing of search data with competing providers, an issue addressed in a separate Commission decision issued in July.
These obligations concern access to anonymised information about searches, rankings and user interactions that competing search engines may need to improve their own services.
Taken together, the measures represent a substantial intervention in how Google’s European business operates.
Transatlantic tensions complicate the dispute
The proceedings have acquired a political dimension because most of the largest companies affected by the DMA are American.
President Donald Trump has criticised European penalties against US technology companies and threatened trade measures in response to what his administration regards as discriminatory regulation.
Brussels maintains that the legislation applies according to market position and commercial conduct, regardless of nationality.
European regulators must nevertheless enforce their decisions in an environment where competition policy has become entangled with wider trade relations between the United States and the European Union.
Google’s financial exposure extends beyond the €890 million imposed in July. Continued non-compliance could lead to further regulatory proceedings, while changes to the company’s services may also affect advertising revenue and its relationships with commercial partners.
The immediate assessment will concentrate on whether competing search services receive fair treatment and whether application developers can direct customers towards alternative transactions without unjustified restrictions.
The Commission has not announced a date for its final assessment. Its decision will help establish how far Europe’s digital competition legislation can change the conduct of companies whose platforms occupy central positions in online commerce.
Anthropic, the maker of the Claude AI models, is preparing what could be the largest initial public offering in history, raising more than $100 billion, according to The New York Times, at a valuation near US$2 trillion. According to Reuters, which reviewed the draft prospectus (the document has not yet been made public), the company […]
Starting next week, Pennsylvania will begin enforcing a law prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes that have not been explicitly approved by the state. Supporters argue that it will protect public health, but it seems likely to do the opposite by preventing many former smokers from accessing the products that helped them quit.
Under the law, known as ACT 57, there are currently just six manufacturers of electronic nicotine delivery systems on the approved list that can be sold in the Keystone State, meaning many popular vaping products will be forcibly removed from shelves on October 19. Retailers who violate this law will face fines of $500 for each unapproved product. A second violation within a year will result in a civil penalty of between $750 and $1,000 per day per product, and a suspension of the dealer's license for at least 14 days. A shop's third violation within a year would result in a civil penalty of $1,000 to $1,500 per day per product, and the revocation of its license.
Politicians are touting this law as the latest way to protect the public, and of course, they claim it will especially protect children. "This law is about keeping harmful products out of the hands of both children and adults who may not realize what they are consuming," said Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday.
"I applaud the legislature for their bipartisan support of Act 57 to provide this important public health safety measure to the Commonwealth."
However, not all Pennsylvania residents are enthusiastic about the law's enforcement.
"This will be largely catastrophic," Chris Hughes, the former owner of Fat Cat Vapor Shop in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, tells Reason. Hughes predicts that the restrictions will encourage consumers to purchase vaping products across state lines, creating an illicit market. "Some people that are enterprising will drive across the border to Ohio [or] West Virginia, and bring a lot of products back and sell them to other people," he says.
Hughes is right to assume that the law will create an illicit market for vaping. In June, JAMA Network Openpublished a report on Alabama, Oklahoma, and Louisiana—three other states with constraints similar to Pennsylvania—finding that the restrictions were not associated with lasting reductions in e-cigarette nicotine sales. By the end of April 2025, products not listed in the states' approved directories accounted for 92.1 percent of measured e-cigarette nicotine sales in Alabama, 53.6 percent in Oklahoma, and 52.3 percent in Louisiana.
For people living further from the border, Hughes says that "a lot of them will return to smoking." "Half of those people will die prematurely from smoking.…It's a tragedy, really."
Indeed, evidence shows vaping to be one of the most effective tools to quit smoking. A 2024 study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2021–2022 alone, approximately 1.2 million American adults used e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking for at least six months, representing slightly more than 40 percent of all adults who successfully quit during that period. Meanwhile, a 2026 review from Cochrane, a global health nonprofit, found that smokers are more likely to quit when using e-cigarettes than with nicotine replacement therapy: 8 percent to 10 percent of smokers using e-cigarettes may successfully quit, compared with just 6 percent using nicotine-replacement therapy.
The impending restrictions have Pennsylvania vapers stockpiling products. Hughes says he has delayed paying his property taxes to make sure he has "two to three years' worth of e-liquid and coils while this shakes out." He also spoke to an employee at a vape shop recently who told him about a customer spending $500 on e-liquid after learning about the impending ban.
For vape shop owners across Pennsylvania, the new law will make business even more difficult. Hughes was forced to close down Fat Cat Vapor Shop in Williamsport after Pennsylvania introduced a 40 percent wholesale tax on vaping products in 2016. "The whole goal of my opening the business was to help get adult smokers off of cigarettes and transition them to something that I knew for a fact was much less harmful," he says. Hughes estimates that his shop helped approximately 8,000 adults quit smoking during its three years in business.
Now, he fears other independent vape shops will suffer the same fate as his own. "Most, if not all of them, will be bankrupted," Hughes warns. "It almost takes my breath away. I'm not even sure what to say."
Pennsylvania lawmakers may intend to protect public health, but their new law risks pushing adults away from healthier lifestyle choices. As is often the case, the government restricting the choices adults are allowed to make for themselves is likely to have deadly consequences.
Login
