Recent lobbying disclosures have revealed South Korea’s deep lobbying network in Washington D.C. and beyond. The country's massive lobbying machine is particularly noteworthy because of the unfriendly environment American tech companies are facing in the Korean market.
The post Report: South Korea Has Spent $363 Million Lobbying U.S. Lawmakers appeared first on Breitbart.
European technology policy has become the focus of a dispute over corporate lobbying after researchers documented extensive contacts between major technology companies and political decision-makers during negotiations to revise EU data-protection rules.
An investigation published on 28 October by Corporate Europe Observatory and the German transparency organisation LobbyControl alleges that leading technology companies mounted a coordinated campaign to influence European governments and legislators.
The findings come one week after EU member states agreed a negotiating position on the Digital Omnibus, a legislative package intended to simplify aspects of European data-protection, privacy and cybersecurity regulation.
The campaigners argue that the proposed changes risk weakening existing safeguards in order to accommodate the commercial requirements of artificial intelligence developers.
Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, has rejected suggestions that its handling of the legislation was improperly influenced by technology companies.
The dispute exposes a fundamental disagreement over the balance between commercial innovation and the protection of personal information.
According to LobbyControl’s investigation, non-European technology companies recorded 103 meetings with representatives of Germany’s federal government between May 2025 and September 2026.
Google accounted for 28 meetings, Microsoft 18, Amazon 16 and OpenAI 11.
Germany’s Digital Minister, Karsten Wildberger, participated in 18 meetings with representatives of major technology companies, the researchers reported.
In Ireland, the organisations identified extensive engagement involving Meta, Google and politicians ahead of the country’s assumption of the EU Council presidency in July.
Their findings indicate that Meta engaged with 41 Irish parliamentarians over the Digital Omnibus, while Google recorded 30 meetings.
The researchers also identified 655 lobbying meetings concerning the legislation involving members of the European Parliament.
According to their analysis, approximately 83 per cent represented business interests, compared with 11 per cent involving civil society organisations or trade unions.
These figures demonstrate the intensity of corporate engagement, although the existence of lobbying meetings does not, by itself, establish that particular legislative provisions were adopted because of that activity.
The legislative package forms part of a broader European Commission initiative to reduce administrative burdens and improve competitiveness.
Its provisions address several areas of digital regulation, including the General Data Protection Regulation, commonly known as GDPR.
The proposals seek to simplify compliance obligations, clarify the treatment of personal information and revise rules governing certain forms of data processing.
One particularly contentious issue concerns the use of personal data in developing and operating artificial intelligence systems.
AI developers require large quantities of information to train and improve their models. However, the collection and processing of personal information remain subject to European legal safeguards.
Technology companies have argued that regulatory complexity can discourage investment and make it more difficult for European businesses to compete internationally.
Privacy campaigners maintain that simplifying regulatory procedures must not become a mechanism for reducing substantive protections.
The disagreement concerns not merely administrative paperwork but the legal circumstances under which companies may process information relating to identifiable individuals.
Ireland occupies a particularly sensitive position in the debate.
The country hosts major European operations of several American technology companies, including Google and Meta, and has substantial economic interests in the digital sector.
At the same time, its presidency of the EU Council requires it to coordinate negotiations between member states.
According to RTÉ’s reporting on the investigation, the Irish government strongly rejected the allegation that it had weakened data safeguards in response to corporate pressure.
A presidency spokesperson emphasised that Ireland’s responsibility was to facilitate agreement between member states and that the negotiating mandate approved on 21 October enjoyed broad support.
The Council has presented the proposed changes as a means of reducing compliance costs while preserving established privacy protections.
In its official statement, the Council said its mandate retains the existing definition of personal data and introduces additional provisions governing pseudonymisation.
It also includes safeguards relating to sensitive information used for biometric verification and AI systems.
These details are significant because they demonstrate that the negotiating text contains protections alongside proposed simplifications.
Germany has also emerged as an important participant in the controversy.
The investigation points to close contact between the German government and international technology companies during discussions about the future of European digital regulation.
Berlin has supported reducing administrative restrictions that it considers obstacles to innovation and the development of competitive AI technologies.
For Germany, the issue is connected to wider concerns about industrial competitiveness, investment and Europe’s dependence on foreign technology suppliers.
Yet an unresolved question remains.
Measures designed to assist European innovators may also benefit established American companies whose extensive computing infrastructure and data resources give them advantages over smaller competitors.
Consequently, easing restrictions does not necessarily guarantee a stronger European technology industry.
The Council’s negotiating position does not make the Digital Omnibus law.
The European Parliament must establish its own position before negotiations between the institutions can determine the final legislation.
Parliamentarians will therefore have an opportunity to examine the treatment of personal data, the safeguards attached to AI development and the relationship between regulatory simplification and individual rights.
The lobbying investigation is likely to become part of that debate.
Its central political significance lies in the competing interpretations of European technological sovereignty.
For governments seeking investment, regulatory flexibility may provide an instrument for improving Europe’s international competitiveness.
For privacy organisations, the same flexibility could increase the influence of companies already dominant in global digital markets.
The outcome will help determine whether Europe’s future digital framework preserves the existing balance between commercial data use and individual protections, or establishes a different relationship between the two.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee released in July an interim staff report accusing South Korea of “discriminatory attacks on American-owned businesses.” Seoul’s “practices include coercive investigation tactics, overly burdensome regulatory requirements, and massive fines and penalties intended to punish American businesses and make it harder for them to effectively compete against Korean companies,” the […]
The post South Korea’s rich lobbying spree isn’t paying off in DC appeared first on Asia Times.
New research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl shows that Big Tech lobbying is pushing the EU towards sweeping deregulation of data protection rules.
The new publication finds signs of an intensive lobbying campaign between Big Tech and Germany and Ireland which are helping to gut fundamental European data protection safeguards.
“The Big Tech campaign to kill data protection in Europe” documents how MEPs are meeting with Big Tech lobbyists under the guise of boosting AI tech innovation.
The report documents extensive contacts between Big Tech companies and European policymakers over the EU Commission’s proposed Digital Omnibus.
The aim is to change and influence how personal data are used to develop and operate AI systems, warns CEO.
“It is a really drastic change,” Bram Vraken researcher and campaigner at CEO told EUobserver.
Introduced by the commission last November, the Digital Omnibus forms part of the EU executive’s wider drive to simplify regulation and strengthen European competitiveness.
The commission has presented the proposal as a way to make Europe “simpler and faster” and to “adapt” its regulatory framework to a “more volatile world”.
The Digital Omnibus “provides a simple, innovation-friendly environment for our European AI ecosystem to grow,” said commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen.
But the proposed changes potentially create broad exemptions from existing data protection rules for AI companies.
“What we see is a creation [of] this huge backdoor, which in many cases will make the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) meaningless,” Vraken said.
If adopted by the European Parliament, the changes would allow companies to collect people’s personal data to train and operate AI systems without consent.
Under the parliament’s rules, all MEPs and their assistants must publicly declare scheduled meetings with lobbyists and third-country representatives and access to these information is public.
From November 2025, CEO and LobbyControl identified 655 meetings with lobbyists in the parliament, the report says. This comes as Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
A backlash is building against an EU ‘omnibus’ bill that seeks to make it easier to authorise and use pesticides across the bloc.
MEPs are still yet to set a date to vote on the European Commission’s proposal to extend how long pesticide active substances can stay approved in the EU, amid a series of protest letters from scientists, UN health experts, and divisions among member states.
EI parliament’s environment and agriculture committees were originally expected to hold a joint vote on a compromise text on 5 October, but shelved that date without proposing another as this article went to publication.
Sustained criticism has come from the scientific community.
Last month, a group of more than 500 scientists signed an open letter to the commission on 16 September demanding a pause on the file pending “an independent assessment, whether carried out by parliament’s own research service or by an equivalent independent body.”
And last week, a group of five UN health experts penned their own letter to the EU executive.
They warned that the commission’s plan to extend grace periods for products withdrawn on safety grounds, widen derogations for hazardous substances, and restrict the use of the latest independent scientific evidence “seem difficult to reconcile with the precautionary principle and with obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas”.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Login