🎙️ NEW PODCAST 🎙️ Where should I start? I am launching a new academic podcast called “Scaling Theory”. I am of course incredibly excited, but more importantly, I hope you’ll find it interesting. I want to explore the power laws behind the growth of businesses, technologies, legal systems, and living systems. The podcast will feature scholarly discussions with select guests (I’ve already recorded a couple, to be published very soon!!) and deep dives into the academic literature. Everything is explained in the introductory episode. ➝ Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7o5GqR… ➝ Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas… ➝ YouTube: piped.video/channel/UCoxJ0e-…

The Draghi report diagnosed regulatory burden and fragmentation as the reason European firms stay small. The European Innovation Act repeals no Union obligation, reduces none of the 27 enforcement environments, and amends exactly one instrument: the EU trade mark Regulation. thecompetitionsystem.substac…

At the risk of oversimplifying, I see two camps: ➝ If you like 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 the most, you want these companies to do what they please, including agreeing among themselves and writing their own rules. ➝ If you like 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 the most, you deny them the right to do anything that can affect competition as a discovery procedure.

A short message to thank everyone on this platform for sharing so widely the three openings in my ERC project ATLANTIS, dedicated to building a legal regime for computational antitrust. It helped a lot. 398 people applied from all over the world. I will now conduct two rounds of interviews with a jury that will help me make difficult hiring decisions. I also take this opportunity to share the ATLANTIS website, where you will find the team’s publications, activities and findings... teamatlantis.eu/updates/phd-…

The question for AI is to what extend returns are increasing. A new paper by Tom Cunningham et al. puts a number on it. Self-sustaining acceleration needs each capability gain to lift AI R&D productivity by 15%. The estimate today is about 9%, and... it is rising! arxiv.org/abs/2609.15802 This has big implications for law. One does not regulate self-improved systems as others, see papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…

This regulation won’t work. What I share below is a deepfake: I used AI to change the logo and character colors. If you see the “deepfake” label on my post you’ll simply assume @DigitalEU never published this post. But they did.

The three policies Bloom, Van Reenen and Williams rate highest for innovation: R&D tax credits, skilled immigration, trade and competition. The European Innovation Act is silent on the first two and works against the third. I coded the 28 things the economics literature says make an economy innovative. The Act touches two. thecompetitionsystem.substac…

The fastest change we have ever recorded. Two editions ago, no competition agency reported an internal LLM assistant. This year, 19 of 30 run or build one. From nothing to the most common tool in the field in two years. Fifth report, free. shorturl.at/wmEaW #computationalantitrust

101 antitrust initiatives on generative AI by antitrust agencies, Feb 2023 to July 2026. ➝ 2023: United States 7, Europe 7. ➝ 2026 (ongoing): Europe 15, United States 1. Every enforcement action in the database since November 2025 is European. networklawreview.org/antitru…

Big companies want big regulation.

GREAT piece of journalism. I sum up: - @MistralAI is moving away from the desire to be a frontier lab - The company is now focusing on deployment within big companies (including the deployment of Chinese models). - These companies CEOs find Mistral strategy hard to follow… which they don’t like (makes it for an uncertain business partner). archive.ph/RNWs7

Small story with a bigger point. On 3 August I asked Anthropic to correct the email address on my account, under Article 16 GDPR. One field, one line in a database... Easy, right?! The answer, seven weeks later: the address cannot be changed. If I want the right address, I should open a new account, and leave the subscription, the projects... the conversation history behind. Article 25 GDPR asks controllers to build systems where these rights can be exercised. An identifier you cannot change, with an exit that costs you your own data, is a switching cost (competition law relevant). I have filed with the Dutch DPA. I would rather have been writing about the fix.

In 1845 Bastiat’s candlemakers asked France to shutter every window to stop unfair competition from the sun. Article 11 of the European Innovation Act would open R&D procurement only to firms of European origin. In 25 years of EU digital law, no instrument has ever excluded a firm for where it comes from. thecompetitionsystem.substac…

What do antitrust agencies actually do with AI? Thirty of them told us (it’s here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…) The Paris launch at the @Adlc_ of the fifth #ComputationalAntitrust report is out. ➝ YouTube piped.video/EXN4_dXiYBA ➝ Spotify open.spotify.com/episode/2tg… ➝ Apple podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcas….

OPEN.

Ursula von der Leyen announced this week that everyone in the EU must use the official EU age verification app to verify their age before they can log into or post on social media and other digital services. As an expert in online child safety, I'm here to expose the disinformation in each von der Leyen's statements. See below. 🇪🇺 The EU Kids Act is a pretext designed to enforce mandatory digital identity verification on everyone in Europe. The proposed legislation applies to any digital service featuring feeds, user generated content, or messaging: Social media networks, video platforms, online gaming services, AI tools, and media streaming apps like Spotify. (@TimSweeneyEpic) Under the proposal, digital services must enforce age restrictions across strict tiers. Tech companies must mandate age verification across all accounts to enforce these tiers legally. When Australia introduced its social media ban, the government conceded it failed because platform level age checks weren’t reliable. They now reject age estimation as inadequate and shifted to demanding "robust" age checking. 💡 If you eliminate every unproven estimation method, you’re left with exactly 1 functional mechanism: identity verification. There's not other way to ensure age checking is "robust". No government wants to admit citizens must prove their real identity just to access apps and basic streaming services like Spotify, so they hide behind the ambiguous phrase "robust age checking". This language is now used across Australia, the US, and Ireland to mandate identity checks while avoiding the public backlash of calling it what it is. I will research to see where else it’s being used. Below is what Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament in Strasbourg along with my analsyis: 🇪🇺 "Today, much of this power has been taken out of the hands of parents... What our children need is time... But when a child has a smartphone, all of this is taken away." 💡 This framing falsely presents smartphones as uncontrollable. Apple and Google built free OS controls into iOS and Android settings, covering virtually every smartphone on the market. These controls achieve every legitimate safety objective without collecting personal data or processing state credentials. 💡 Millions of parents use these parental controls to enforce screen time curfews, block app installations, and restrict communication. 💡 These settings operate at the device level. Teens can't bypass them when protected with a passcode. To bypass this technical reality, the European Commission uses public grief to shut down logical analysis: 🇪🇺 "Day and night, parents see the costs, loss of sleep, anxiety, even self-harm, and in a growing number of cases, even fatal tragedies… a 14-year-old girl living in Belgium who took her life exactly one month ago, victim of bullying online... Honourable members, enough is enough." 💡 Citing personal tragedies replaces software engineering facts with emotional rhetoric. State laws and age gates don’t alter human behaviour or prevent online harassment. Regulators exploit grief to pass surveillance legislation without explaining how the underlying software mechanisms operate. The Commission outlines specific age tiers to restrict access: 🇪🇺 "In sum, no social media under the age of 13. No personal account under the age of 15. That means from 13 to under 15, only mini accounts set up and supervised by parents or guardians with limited features and time restriction to one hour a day. And between 15 and 18, safe design will be an obligation for the platforms." 💡 Enforcing age tiers forces tech companies and service providers to rebuild their architecture around total access control. The must disable self-service account creation, purge unverified accounts, build supervised parental workflows, strip algorithmic feeds, and enforce strict session cutoffs. 💡 Social networks operate on open interaction algorithms that inherently expose people to unvetted content. Because software can’t dynamically filter these risks for minors, tech companies must block access for everyone until a person proves their real identity. 💡 It’s not just about social networks. They want the same bans for almost everything, including games and stream services. Even Spotify because it’s possible for customers to message people. The Commission claims its proposed zero knowledge proof app protects personal privacy: 🇪🇺 "Age will be verified using EU certified tools like our age verification app. This app is built on zero knowledge proof. That means that the platform only learns one single thing, and that's whether you're old enough to allow access or not." 💡 This framing describes what an app or service receives while hiding what everyone must give up. A zero knowledge proof provides a mathematical confirmation, but that confirmation requires an authoritative issuer. Before the app generates a proof, a state approved entity must verify the person's real identity. The Commission frames this shift as a victory against tech corporations: 🇪🇺 "I am aware that many perceive the power of Big Tech as overwhelming and impossible to roll back. I disagree... So we do not accept this. We are reversing the burden of proof. Now platforms will have to prove to us that they are safe. Because this is not about our minors accessing social media. It is about when and how we allow social media to access our minors." 💡 Social networks don’t access children; parents hand smartphones to children. Reversing the burden of proof forces everyone to verify their identity. The European Commission confirmed the broader scope of this mandate: 🇪🇺 "We also know that not only minors are at risk. Addictive design, for example, are harming everyone. This is why we need a wider framework too, the Digital Fairness Act that we will propose in autumn." 🚨 Child safety is merely the initial wedge. The Digital Fairness Act expands state mandated identity verification to adults across all online services. Binding real identities to online activity permanently eliminates pseudonymous access, private communication, and democratic accountability. 🚨 Senior state officials and regulators know their demands have nothing to do with child safety. They work closely with tech companies and understand that iOS and Android already provide complete authority to restrict devices locally without collecting personal data. State officials deliberately ignore well established parental controls because they keep internet access under family control. Child safety is a public pretext. 🚨 Governments and regulators use child safety to establish mandatory identity verification across every app and digital service, eliminating online anonymity. When tech companies and state agencies link every social media post, private message, search term, geographic location, and financial transaction to a verified identity, they create a permanent digital dossier on every citizen with a global social graph that makes Cambridge Analytica look like a 2nd grade school science project. 💡 Binding people’s identity to daily activity enables predictive behavioural modelling too. By feeding identity data into automated predictive AI, governments, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and tech companies move beyond surveillance past behaviour. They can map political affiliations, predict individual actions, flag dissent before it occurs, and control public opinion at scale. Eliminating online anonymity ends free speech, private communication, and democratic accountability. As Larry Ellison stated at Oracle’s Financial Analyst Meeting in 2024: "Citizens will be on their best behaviour, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on". 🙏🏻 Share this to expose how governments use child safety as a false pretext to force mandatory digital identity verification on everyone. paulfwalsh.substack.com/p/th…

When theoretical papers argue something (here: LLMs inventions) is impossible… while it is already being done in the real world. Classic. I remember similar papers arguing that smart contracts would never be used, back when they were already powering hundreds of millions of transactions…

Five errors in the Commission’s Booking decision, most of the increment calculation thrown out, nothing annulled. Commission v Tetra Laval, the closest authority in the graph, never named. My audit of the Booking/eTraveli judgment, citation by citation, is out: thecompetitionsystem.substac…