A new investigation into the activities of Google, Meta and other technology companies has intensified scrutiny of EU plans to revise data-protection legislation, placing Ireland and Germany at the centre of a dispute over corporate influence and European digital sovereignty.

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.

The scale of the lobbying campaign

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.

Why the Digital Omnibus matters

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 rejects allegations of improper influence

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’s role in the negotiations

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 European Parliament holds the next decision

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.

Meta Platforms, Alphabet’s YouTube, TikTok parent ByteDance and Snap are facing thousands of lawsuits brought by US states, school districts and individuals alleging the companies intentionally designed their platforms to keep young users hooked.

The companies have denied allegations that their products have contributed to depression, anxiety, body-image issues and a broader youth mental health crisis, saying they take action to protect the youngest users of their platforms.

The companies also have argued that Section 230 of a federal law called the Communications Decency Act shields them from claims based on the content their users post.

Here is a look at the current state of the litigation in US courts.

States seek billions over alleged harm

Nearly every US state filed claims against social media companies over the alleged impact on children of their platforms. The lawsuits seek damages or financial penalties, as well as court orders directing the companies to make significant changes to their platforms.

In August, Meta resolved nearly all of the state lawsuits against it with settlements worth up to $18 billion over the next decade. As part of the deal, Meta agreed to limit how teenagers can use Facebook and Instagram.

The deal made $5 billion of the payout contingent on YouTube, TikTok and Snap reaching similar agreements with the states.

New Mexico and Florida did not join the settlement.

Florida has an ongoing lawsuit against Meta in state court.

New Mexico has sued Meta twice. Earlier this year, jurors and a judge ordered the Facebook and Instagram parent company to pay more than $940 million to the state after finding that Meta failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation on its platforms.

In October, another New Mexico jury agreed with the state that Meta had misled consumers about how it handles data privacy. The judge overseeing the case ordered Meta to pay the state $25 billion in penalties. Meta has said it will appeal both verdicts.

TikTok, facing lawsuits by at least 27 states, settled with Alabama in September, days before that lawsuit was slated for trial. TikTok agreed to pay Alabama up to $300 million if the majority of states reach similar agreements with the company.

Schools seek compensation for social media harm

More than 1,000 US school districts have filed lawsuits over claims that social media companies designed their platforms to be addictive, contributing to ‌anxiety, depression ⁠and self-harm and leaving schools to deal with the fallout. The schools are seeking compensation for what they say they have spent dealing with social media’s effects on students, plus additional funding to limit its impact going forward.

A small school district in rural eastern Kentucky was selected as the first school district case to go to trial. But the June trial was canceled after the companies reached settlements with the district. Public records revealed that the district was set to receive $27 million under the agreements.

Lawsuits brought by school districts in Charleston, South Carolina, and Tucson, Arizona, have been chosen for trial next.

Teenagers take tech giants to court

On Wednesday, two teenagers who have said Instagram and Snapchat caused them serious mental health problems will take Meta and Snap to trial in Los Angeles.

It is the second trial in more than 3,300 lawsuits brought in California state court by young people and their families alleging that Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive. TikTok and YouTube settled with both plaintiffs before trial and Meta settled with one.

The lawsuits were selected as bellwethers, or test cases, for the state court cases. Attorneys often use bellwether verdicts to gauge how juries may view similar claims, helping them assess the potential value of remaining cases and guide settlement negotiations.

Jury verdicts test companies’ liability

In the first trial to test an individual’s claims that social media caused personal harm, a young woman alleged that her addiction to social media led to depression and anxiety.

In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent and ordered Meta to pay $4.2 million in damages and Google $1.8 million. Both companies have appealed.

The second trial over an individual’s claims against the companies, scheduled for July in Los Angeles, was canceled after the plaintiff reached settlements with TikTok, Snap and YouTube and dropped his claims against Meta.

In August, a third teen whose case was chosen for trial dropped her case against Meta, Snap and YouTube after she settled with TikTok.