On December 2, the Supreme Court will consider constitutional challenges to "assault weapon" bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, that cover widely owned rifles, including the AR-15. As the plaintiffs in those consolidated cases see it, such laws plainly violate the Second Amendment because they prohibit arms in common use for lawful purposes. In briefs filed on Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County urge the justices to reject that test, saying a weapon's popularity is not dispositive. The relevant question, they say, is whether their rifle restrictions fit a historical tradition of banning "unusually dangerous weapons."

Cook County and Connecticut have the burden of showing that their laws are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On the face of it, that is a daunting challenge.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to own "bearable arms" that are "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense." That description indisputably encompasses "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles," the firearms at issue in these cases. But Heller also recognized "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Cook County and Connecticut argue that the rifles they have deemed intolerable fall into that category.

"There is a robust historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons that
compromise public safety," Cook County says. "Such regulations, which long
predate the founding, have included outright bans and other restrictions on exceptionally dangerous weapons like launcegays, trap guns, Bowie knives, and slung shots."

Cook County argues that its ordinance is "relevantly similar" to those historical restrictions because it targets "exceptionally lethal weapons that are disproportionate to the end of self-defense." AR-15s are "offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality and are not customarily used for self-defense," the brief says. "The purpose and operation of the ban is consistent with our Nation's historical tradition and accounts for the exceptional dangerousness of these technologically advanced weapons."

The ban is "an appropriate contemporary restriction implemented by the legislature in response to dramatic technological change and unprecedented societal concern," the brief says. "It is tailored to respond to the particular dangers presented in areas with mass casualty exposure and acute public safety risk."

Connecticut offers a similar argument. One problem with this defense is the premise that "assault weapon" bans focus on "exceptionally lethal weapons." As critics of such laws have been pointing out for decades, the features they target, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, do not affect a rifle's basic operation. With or without them, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. And because AR-15s use intermediate-caliber ammunition, they are arguably less lethal than shotguns and many hunting rifles that are not classified as "assault weapons."

Cook County's emphasis on technological developments is also questionable. Constitutional guarantees establish principles that courts routinely apply to technologies that did not exist at the founding. Although the Framers did not have radio, television, or the internet, for example, the First Amendment nevertheless constrains government regulation of those media.

More specifically, Heller rejected the idea that modern weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment by recognizing a constitutional right to own semiautomatic pistols. The Supreme Court said "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." The Court confirmed that point in the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, which involved a state ban on stun guns.

Cook County also asserts that AR-15s are not suitable for self-defense, a claim that would be hotly contested by many owners of such rifles, who commonly report using them for that purpose. "Plaintiffs have shown that AR-15s are well-adapted for self-defense," U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan wrote in 2024, when he reluctantly concluded that New Jersey's AR-15 ban was inconsistent with Heller while expressing his dismay at that result. "Evidence has been presented to the Court that the build of the AR-15 makes it well-suited to self-defense because it is 'light weight, [has] very mild recoil, and [has] good ergonomics'; it is a weapon which is 'well suited to younger shooters, female shooters, and other shooters of smaller stature.'"

Sheridan added that "the AR-15's design features—including the effectiveness of its cartridge for self-defense use and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines—make the AR-15 a good choice for self-defense." And he noted that "the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma."

Cook County and Connecticut are also wrong in suggesting that self-defense is the only "lawful purpose" that matters. While Heller emphasized the use of handguns "in defense of hearth and home," it did not say that was the full extent of the Second Amendment right. To the contrary, the phrase "lawful purposes like self-defense" implies that the right extends to other uses, such as hunting, pest control, and target shooting. The decision explicitly mentioned hunting as a "reason Americans valued the ancient right."

The briefs are misleading in another way that may prove decisive. They conflate "dangerous and unusual" with "unusually dangerous," which is not the same thing.

During the 19th century, state legislators restricted (and sometimes banned) weapons such as Bowie knives, spears, sword canes, slungshots, and brass knuckles. But the historical evidence suggests those weapons were not targeted simply because they were "unusually dangerous." Legislators were also concerned about how the weapons were typically used.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who filed a brief supporting the challenges to the AR-15 bans, notes that the 19th-century laws targeted weapons associated with "duels, brawls, and other criminal activities." And in reviewing those laws, state courts distinguished between arms favored by criminals and arms commonly used for lawful purposes.

In 1871, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that legislators could ban weapons that were "not usual" but could not ban "the usual arms of the citizen." The top courts of Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan concurred that the right to arms encompassed weapons commonly owned by law-abiding people, including rifles.

AR-15s and similar rifles readily pass that common-use test. In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million "modern sporting rifles," its preferred term for the models covered by "assault weapon" bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. Last year, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as "the most popular rifle in the country."

According to Cook County and Connecticut, however, none of that matters. "Once it is established that a regulation pursues a legitimate public safety objective in a permissible manner, raw ownership numbers cannot immunize a firearm from regulation," Cook County says. It argues that opponents of its ordinance have misconstrued the significance of the common-use test and misunderstood how it interacts with Bruen.

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," the Supreme Court said in Bruen. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"

The common-use question, Cook County argues, figures only in the first Bruen step: "the inquiry whether the weapon at issue is one 'the Second Amendment protects.'" But even if ownership of AR-15s is covered by "the Second Amendment's plain text," it says, that does not resolve the question of whether they can be banned, which depends on the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test.

"This Court's decision in Bruen confirms that the Second Amendment's step-two inquiry does not insulate popularly owned firearms from regulation," the brief says. In
Bruen, it was "undisputed" that "handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," including "outside the home." But "instead of being the end of this Court's inquiry, that observation was just the beginning." The decision also included an "extended analysis" of the historical laws that New York cited to justify its "proper cause" requirement for carry permits. "If lawful common use alone were enough to forbid regulation," Cook County argues, "there would have been no need to engage in that careful and prolonged analysis."

The question in Bruen was not whether the Second Amendment precludes "regulation." It was whether New York's specific approach, which required residents to demonstrate a "special need" before they were allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, was consistent with the historical tradition. That is why the Court considered (and rejected) the purported historical analogs that New York offered.

Cook County conflates requirements for carry permits, the issue in Bruen, with an outright ban on ownership, the policy it is defending. Connecticut likewise blurs the distinction between carry restrictions and complete prohibition.

"The Bowie knife was 'widely carried by Americans of all stripes,' including 'upstanding citizens and villains' alike," Connecticut's brief says. "The widespread use of Bowie knives and other weapons for lawful purposes did not prevent dozens of States from restricting those weapons." But those laws generally restricted or banned public carry. They rarely made it illegal to acquire or possess a Bowie knife, which is the approach that Connecticut and Cook County have taken with AR-15s.

That policy is hard to reconcile with Heller. I will quote Sheridan again, since his comments made it clear that he would have preferred to uphold New Jersey's AR-15 ban. Under Heller, he said, "a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful." Given "the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point," he concluded, New Jersey's law "is unconstitutional" as applied to "the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home."

Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed and went further, extending that conclusion to "the full class of semi-automatic rifles" banned in New Jersey. "Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation," Judge Arianna Freeman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. "That principle resolves our inquiry here."

To beat back the challenges to their laws, Connecticut and Cook County will have to persuade the justices that the 3rd Circuit's understanding of Heller and Bruen is wrong, meaning they are free to ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That seems like a tall order, and Cook County's position is especially puzzling. According to its brief, the fact that a weapon is covered by the Second Amendment does not mean Americans have a right to possess it. The more you think about that claim, the less sense it makes.

The post Defending Its AR-15 Ban, Cook County Urges SCOTUS To Ignore the Rifle's Popularity appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Australia's largest renewable energy project, Snowy 2.0, now costs an estimated $25 billion and has slipped to late 2029.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says investors are backing the Australian economy even as domestic concerns over inflation and productivity persist.

Senegal's unions extended a 72-hour general strike into a third day, disputing planned changes to the country's labour and social security codes.

Like most of American healthcare, kidney care has for decades been plagued by red tape. The Trump administration says it wants to change that. On Tuesday, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his department's Kidney Care National Plan, which promises to introduce more competition, reduce regulatory barriers, expand patient choice, and overhaul America's kidney transplant system.

Much of the plan focuses on barriers to entry in dialysis care, which treats nearly 558,000 Americans. While dialysis can be performed at home, most patients receive treatment at specialized facilities, which must comply with federal certification requirements governing equipment, staffing, water quality, and patient safety in order to participate in Medicare.

Kennedy argues that regulatory barriers have discouraged competition and innovation, leaving patients with fewer dialysis treatment options. "Dialysis technology is an extraordinary technology," said Kennedy at the press conference, but "because of monopolies in the system and the barriers to new entrants, we have not seen any real improvements in that technology."

Of course, the existence of large or even monopolistic companies is not in itself evidence of a problem, but government regulation can often entrench those companies' positions in the market. "I like the fact that they're recognizing that a lot of regulatory…barriers are contributing to the problem, and that's refreshing to hear," says Jeffrey Singer, a practicing general surgeon and senior fellow at Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Singer says that removing barriers that prevent new companies from competing with established providers could not only increase choice but also drive down prices.

HHS says that two companies, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, control approximately 74 percent of the American dialysis market. As of 2019, roughly a third of Americans lived in areas where the only available dialysis provider was one of those two companies, according to the agency. The administration argues that government regulation has helped entrench this dominance by making it difficult for new providers to enter the market.

To address this, the Kidney Care National Plan suggests a number of reforms, including simplifying certification requirements. HHS also plans to investigate whether dominant dialysis providers have used payment arrangements and legal strategies to secure higher reimbursements without delivering better care.

The 17-page report calls for a review of existing requirements, but it does not specify which regulations will be repealed, nor does it establish a timeline for doing so. It also does not propose any significant reduction in the government's role in financing the distorted market. Instead, the plan largely seeks to make existing government-financed systems such as Medicare more competitive and efficient.

Kennedy has also correctly identified the need for reform regarding kidney donations. Nearly 90,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant at any given time in America, and 11 people die every day waiting for a kidney. The transplant process is currently managed by Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs), which are federally certified nonprofits responsible for recovering organs from donors and coordinating their transfer. There are currently just 55 federally designated OPOs operating in the United States, and HHS argues that they behave as "regional monopolies." Since no new OPOs have been approved in the last year, the Kidney Care National Plan suggests fast-tracking certification.

The plan also seeks to make living kidney donation easier by reducing financial barriers. Following the passage of the Honor Our Living Donors Act in February, HHS revised federal reimbursement rules so that a donor's eligibility for financial assistance is no longer determined by the transplant recipient's income. Eligible donors can receive up to $6,000 to cover expenses, including travel, lost wages, and childcare.

However, the reforms proposed stop short of allowing kidney donors to receive direct compensation for the organs themselves, which remains prohibited under federal law. "I can sell my blood. Why can't I sell my kidney?" Singer asks.

Peter Jaworski, director of the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group, feels similarly, arguing that financial incentives are available to nearly everyone involved in kidney transplantation except the donors themselves. "According to this plan, it's OK to use incentives to encourage them to be more productive, to actually do a better job," Jaworski tells Reason, referring to transplant surgeons, hospitals, and organ procurement organizations. "The only exception, once again, is the donor who is offering a kidney."

Better solutions exist, according to Jaworski, who points to the proposed End Kidney Deaths Act. The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R–N.Y.) last year, would offer living kidney donors a $50,000 refundable tax credit, distributed over five years. "We have those systems in order to make sure that we can treat patients. That's the point of blood donation. That's the point of plasma donation. That's the point of kidney donation too."

America's plasma market is an excellent example of financial incentives encouraging donation. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. allows plasma donors to be compensated, and despite accounting for just over 4 percent of the world's population, it supplies approximately 68 percent of the plasma collected globally for manufacturing medicines.

"Why do you think America does it? Is it because in America there's way more altruism than in France or Italy or Belgium? No, it's because in the United States you can be paid to donate plasma," argues Jaworski.

The Trump administration appears to recognize that government overreach has stifled competition and restricted patient choice. It also recognizes that living adults donating kidneys will be part of the solution to the long, deadly waiting lists. But its plan leaves the government's outsize role in kidney care largely untouched. For patients facing years on dialysis or waiting for a lifesaving transplant, recognizing the problem is not enough.

The post RFK Jr. Wants To Cut Red Tape in Kidney Care. He Should Go Further. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla., is asking the Atlantic Coast Conference to disclose its policies governing online sports betting by conference employees, referees and other individuals connected to its competitions.

In a letter sent Thursday to ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips and the conference's board of directors, Patronis said the request was prompted by the ACC's support for the Protect College Sports Act, a sweeping federal proposal addressing NIL rights, revenue sharing, athlete health and safety, transfers and other issues in college athletics.

"Seeing as the ACC is asking Congress for help with NIL, I believe we must have transparency regarding each body's policies and how they navigate online betting," Patronis wrote.

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: COUNTDOWN IS ON AS SENATE RACES TO PASS CRYPTO, COLLEGE SPORTS BILLS

The Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act, S. 4668, by a 77-22 vote on Sept. 28. The legislation now awaits consideration in the House. Supporters describe the bill as an effort to establish national standards for NIL compensation, revenue sharing, scholarships, medical coverage and the preservation of women's and Olympic sports.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW: UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!

Patronis asked the ACC to provide its online gambling policies before Congress returns in November, including rules governing staff members, officials and "other interested parties." He also questioned how the conference is protecting the integrity of college sports as sports betting becomes more widespread.

SENATE MOVES TO REIN IN COLLEGE SPORTS 'WILD WEST' WITH SWEEPING NEW RULES FOR PLAYERS, SCHOOLS

The NCAA has continued to enforce restrictions on wagering that could affect the integrity of college competition. The association says violations can result in severe penalties, including the loss of athletic eligibility, while warning that betting-related harassment and pressure can affect athletes, coaches and officials.

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY OUTKICK NEWSLETTER

At the same time, the NCAA's Division I Administrative Committee has moved toward allowing athletes and athletics staff to bet on professional sports, while preserving restrictions involving college competitions. The NCAA said conferences and schools may impose additional rules of their own.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The ACC has been involved in lobbying efforts surrounding the Protect College Sports Act, which conference leaders have described as a way to create more consistent national rules for college athletics.

Australia's federal government has extended its ban on KPMG bidding for new government contracts until at least the end of February, citing what it called serious ethical failings. The move follows allegations that audit partners at the firm misused client data and then mishandled a whistleblower's complaint about the matter.

The European Union has taken a significant step towards revising its digital regulatory framework after member states agreed proposals to amend the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), simplify cookie consent requirements and overhaul cybersecurity reporting obligations.

The Council of the European Union adopted its negotiating position on Wednesday, 21st October, clearing the way for negotiations with the European Parliament once MEPs establish their position.

The measures form part of the European Commission’s Digital Omnibus package, introduced in November 2025, and represent one of Brussels’ most substantial attempts to simplify the regulatory obligations imposed on businesses operating across the single market.

Changes to GDPR and personal data rules

The proposed reforms would modify several provisions of the GDPR, which has governed the processing of personal data across the EU since May 2018.

Rather than replacing the legislation, the Council wants to clarify existing obligations, particularly those concerning pseudonymised information, requests for access to personal data and the use of information in scientific research.

The agreed position retains the existing definition of personal data while introducing provisions intended to clarify when pseudonymised information can be linked to an identifiable individual.

Companies would also benefit from simplified procedures for handling manifestly unfounded or excessive data requests and from reduced information requirements in certain low-risk circumstances.

Another proposed change would extend the deadline for notifying authorities of personal data breaches, while establishing more consistent reporting templates across the EU.

For multinational companies, which currently navigate different interpretations of data protection obligations by national authorities, these provisions could reduce compliance costs and administrative duplication.

However, the changes have raised concerns among European privacy regulators.

In a joint opinion published in February, the European Data Protection Board and European Data Protection Supervisor warned that parts of the Commission’s original proposal could create legal uncertainty and undermine existing protections.

They were particularly concerned about proposals affecting the definition of personal data and the Commission’s potential role in determining when pseudonymised information falls outside GDPR requirements.

The Council’s decision to retain the existing definition addresses part of that debate, although the final legislative text remains subject to negotiations.

Fewer cookie banners for internet users

One of the most visible changes would affect the consent notices encountered by Europeans when visiting websites.

Under the Council’s proposal, additional categories of cookies and similar tracking technologies could be used without obtaining explicit consent, provided the relevant legal conditions are satisfied.

The proposed exemptions include technologies necessary to deliver a service, maintain device security or conduct audience measurement.

For website operators, publishers and online businesses, the changes could reduce the number of consent requests displayed to visitors and simplify technical compliance.

The current system has generated extensive legal disputes over whether consent is genuinely voluntary and whether tracking technologies collect information beyond what users have authorised.

EU Today has previously examined the enforcement of these obligations, including a Belgian court ruling concerning the legality of the advertising industry’s consent framework.

The latest proposal would not abolish consent requirements for commercial tracking or behavioural advertising. Technologies falling outside the permitted exemptions would remain subject to the applicable privacy rules.

Cybersecurity reporting and artificial intelligence

The package also addresses the growing number of reporting obligations imposed on European businesses under overlapping cybersecurity legislation.

The Commission originally proposed a single European reporting mechanism for certain data and cybersecurity incidents.

Member states have instead agreed to establish national entry points, supported by an EU-level information system and provisions for coordinating cross-border notifications.

The Council’s position would also clarify the legal grounds for certain uses of personal data in artificial intelligence systems and introduce safeguards for processing sensitive information in specified circumstances.

These provisions follow increasingly complicated disputes over the application of European privacy legislation to AI development and automated decision-making.

As EU Today reported in its coverage of a major GDPR enforcement case involving Uber, automated processing already presents substantial compliance risks for companies operating within the bloc.

Competitiveness drives regulatory reform

The Commission estimates that its wider digital simplification initiative could save European businesses up to €5 billion in administrative costs by 2029.

The initiative reflects pressure from European governments and business organisations to reduce the regulatory fragmentation that makes operating across multiple EU jurisdictions more expensive.

The Digital Omnibus is part of a broader legislative programme influenced by the competitiveness reports produced by former Italian prime ministers Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi.

Under the Council’s negotiating mandate, several existing data-related rules would also be consolidated, while provisions governing the protection of trade secrets would be strengthened.

The European Parliament must now determine its negotiating position before formal discussions between the institutions can begin. Until the legislation is agreed and adopted, existing GDPR, cookie consent and cybersecurity requirements remain in force.

The European Union has moved to reduce the administrative burden imposed on smaller businesses by its packaging legislation, agreeing a negotiating position that would relax requirements for companies selling limited quantities of packaged goods in other member states.

The Council adopted its position on 21st October, proposing an exemption from the obligation to appoint an authorised representative in another EU country when the amount of packaging placed on that country’s market remains below one tonne per calendar year.

The measure addresses complaints from small and medium-sized enterprises that the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, which became applicable on 12th August 2026, creates unnecessary expenses for companies engaged in relatively modest volumes of cross-border commerce.

The proposal forms part of the EU’s eighth legislative simplification package and will now be negotiated with the European Parliament.

Cross-border compliance costs under scrutiny

Under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, businesses placing packaging or packaged products on the European market are subject to obligations concerning waste management and extended producer responsibility.

The extended producer responsibility system requires producers to contribute to the management of waste generated by products and packaging placed on the market.

For businesses operating across borders, the framework also includes requirements concerning authorised representatives in member states where producers are not established.

These representatives perform specified compliance functions and provide a point of contact for national authorities.

The system can create substantial administrative obligations for businesses trading in several countries, particularly when the quantity of packaging supplied to individual markets is limited.

A small Belgian retailer, for example, may sell products to customers in Germany, France and the Netherlands without maintaining physical operations in those countries.

The requirement to arrange representation separately across different markets can add compliance costs regardless of whether the volume of trade justifies them.

Under the Council’s proposal, eligible EU-based producers placing less than one tonne of packaging annually on another member state’s market could be exempted from appointing a representative there.

The threshold would be assessed by reference to the quantity placed on the market of the member state concerned.

However, the proposed exemption would not abolish the wider principle of extended producer responsibility or automatically release businesses from their other environmental obligations.

Packaging reform follows early implementation problems

The regulatory changes come only two months after the EU’s revised packaging framework began applying across the single market.

The legislation, Regulation (EU) 2025/40, is intended to reduce packaging waste, improve recyclability and establish more consistent requirements for products and packaging materials.

It covers an extensive range of commercial activities, including manufacturing, retail, food distribution, transport packaging and online sales.

As EU Today reported when the regulation began applying in August, the legislation introduces new requirements affecting packaging design, materials and waste prevention.

However, the practical implications for smaller firms have generated pressure for modifications.

In September, EU Today examined the emerging campaign for simplification, as business organisations questioned whether the compliance system adequately reflected the circumstances of smaller producers.

The Council’s latest agreement represents a further legislative step, replacing general calls for administrative relief with a specific negotiating position.

The Commission also issued detailed implementation guidance in June 2026 after receiving numerous questions from member states and businesses about how the regulation should be interpreted.

Safeguards and temporary exemption

The proposed exemption would not apply without conditions.

The Council’s negotiating mandate includes a safeguard allowing the relevant authorities to respond when a producer fails to comply with extended producer responsibility obligations.

It also provides for the European Commission to review the duration of the temporary suspension by 31st December 2030, ahead of its scheduled expiry in 2032.

The timetable reflects the possibility that broader reform of producer responsibility arrangements could replace the temporary measure.

The Commission is preparing a Circular Economy Act intended to address additional problems affecting Europe’s recycling and secondary raw materials markets.

That initiative could provide a more comprehensive framework for the administration of producer responsibility systems across member states.

For now, the Council has opted for a narrower intervention designed to reduce the immediate burden on smaller companies without reopening the entire packaging regulation.

Single market objectives and environmental obligations

The proposal also reflects a broader problem with European regulatory integration.

Although companies can sell goods throughout the single market, compliance requirements often remain administered through national systems, requiring businesses to deal with separate authorities and procedures.

For multinational corporations, such costs can be distributed across substantial commercial operations. For smaller exporters and online retailers, similar administrative requirements can consume a much greater proportion of turnover.

The Council argues that removing unnecessary representation requirements would support cross-border trade while preserving the objectives of European environmental legislation.

The Irish presidency will now seek agreement with the European Parliament on the proposed amendment.

Until that legislation is adopted and becomes applicable, businesses must continue to comply with the existing rules, including relevant national producer responsibility requirements.

The European Union has reached a provisional agreement on reforms to its securitisation framework, potentially allowing banks to release more capital for lending to businesses, households and infrastructure projects.

The agreement, announced on Wednesday, 21st October, follows negotiations between the Council and European Parliament over changes to prudential requirements and the regulation governing securitised financial products.

The reform package agreed by EU negotiators would reduce capital requirements for lower-risk transactions, introduce a new category of resilient securitisations and simplify administrative procedures for financial institutions and investors.

It forms part of the EU’s Savings and Investments Union initiative, which aims to channel more private capital into the European economy.

Banks offered greater flexibility

Securitisation allows banks and other lenders to combine financial assets, including mortgages, consumer credit and corporate loans, into securities that can be purchased by investors.

By transferring some of the financial risks associated with these assets, banks can reduce the amount of regulatory capital they are required to maintain against particular exposures.

This can increase their capacity to extend new loans, although it does not guarantee that additional lending will follow.

The provisional agreement would recalibrate capital requirements according to the risk of individual transactions.

Lower-risk securitisations would receive more favourable treatment, while higher capital requirements would continue to apply to riskier structures.

A new category of resilient securitisations would be introduced alongside the existing framework for simple, transparent and standardised transactions, commonly known as STS securitisations.

The agreement would also strengthen supervision of independent organisations responsible for verifying compliance with the STS criteria.

The Council said that third-party verifiers would become subject to EU-level supervision, with the aim of improving consistency across national markets.

European financial markets remain fragmented

The reforms address a long-standing concern that European banks face higher administrative and capital costs for securitisation than competitors operating under other regulatory systems.

Following the financial crisis of 2008, European authorities introduced tighter rules governing structured financial products, including restrictions intended to improve transparency and ensure that lenders retained appropriate exposure to credit risks.

The resulting framework, which began applying in 2019, strengthened investor protection but also increased compliance costs.

The European Commission proposed the latest review in June 2025, arguing that the existing arrangements had constrained the development of securitisation as a financing tool.

According to the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, approximately €252.3 billion in securitised products was issued across Europe in 2025, with €156.3 billion placed with investors.

Those figures cover the wider European market, including activity outside the EU.

Brussels regards the development of deeper financial markets as necessary to finance infrastructure, technological investment and industrial development.

As EU Today previously reported, the EU’s largest economies have also been examining proposals to strengthen supervision and reduce fragmentation across European capital markets.

Will banks lend more to businesses?

The potential benefits of securitisation are not automatic.

Research published by economists on the European Central Bank’s website in September 2026 found that banks using synthetic securitisation increased corporate lending only modestly, while also distributing more capital to shareholders.

Synthetic securitisation allows banks to transfer credit risk to investors without necessarily removing the underlying loans from their balance sheets.

The researchers found that a one per cent increase in synthetic securitisation issuance was associated with an increase of approximately 0.02 per cent in corporate loan growth.

Their findings also indicated that banks participating in the synthetic securitisation market made greater use of capital released through these transactions to increase dividend payments.

The study suggests that easing capital requirements alone may not generate the substantial expansion in business lending envisaged by European policymakers.

Credit demand, economic conditions and banks’ commercial decisions will also influence whether the reforms produce measurable increases in investment financing.

Broader investment rules to change

The provisional agreement includes additional measures intended to encourage participation by institutional investors.

Investment limits for certain regulated funds, known as UCITS, would be increased, while targeted changes would allow insurers and reinsurers greater participation in specified synthetic securitisation transactions.

The package also seeks to facilitate securitisation arrangements used to finance infrastructure projects before they become operational.

Together, these provisions could widen the investor base and make financing structures available to a broader range of businesses and projects.

However, transferring credit exposure between banks and investors does not eliminate the underlying risk.

If borrowers default or the financial institutions providing protection encounter difficulties, losses may still emerge within the wider financial system.

European regulators will therefore have to assess whether the new classification and supervisory arrangements adequately reflect the risks of different securitisation products.

The political agreement now requires legal finalisation and formal approval by the Council and European Parliament.

The new arrangements would then form part of the EU’s wider programme to strengthen financial markets and reduce barriers to investment across the single market.

A South African court has denied bail to Shadrack Sibiya, the country's former deputy national police commissioner, who faces charges of rape, trafficking and sexually grooming a child. Prosecutors argued his seniority in the police service put accusers at risk if he were released. His legal team has not commented.

Meta has been fined $25 billion over allegations that it lied to users about how it handled their personal data. BBC Business describes the penalty as the largest yet imposed on Facebook's parent company, surpassing an earlier $18 billion privacy settlement Meta reached with the state of California. Meta has not yet issued a public response.