Today, we’re thrilled to sit down with Chloe Maraina, a renowned Business Intelligence expert with a deep passion for crafting compelling visual stories through big data analysis. With her sharp insights into data science and a forward-thinking vision for data management and integration, Chloe is uniquely positioned to unpack the complexities of Europe’s evolving tech landscape. In this interview, we dive into the European Commission’s latest proposals on digital regulations, the urgent challenges facing the EU tech sector, and the broader structural issues impacting startups and innovation. From AI rules to market fragmentation, Chloe offers a nuanced perspective on whether these measures can truly position Europe as a global tech leader.
Can you walk us through the European Commission’s latest proposal on simplifying digital rules and what it aims to achieve?
Absolutely. The European Commission recently rolled out a set of proposals aimed at easing the regulatory burden on the digital sector. The core idea is to boost the EU’s competitiveness in the global tech race, where it’s been lagging behind players like the US and China. Key elements include tweaks to the AI regulation—specifically delaying some of the heavier rules around high-risk AI systems for at least a year—and clarifications to the GDPR to allow personal data to be used for AI training. They’re also introducing smaller measures like simplified data rules and fewer cookie pop-ups. The overarching goal is to create a more innovation-friendly environment, but there’s skepticism about whether these steps go far enough to address deeper issues.
How do you see the delay in the AI regulation impacting businesses operating in the EU?
The delay in enforcing parts of the AI regulation, particularly for high-risk systems, is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives businesses more breathing room to adapt, which can be a relief for smaller companies or startups that might struggle with compliance costs. On the other hand, it introduces a layer of uncertainty. Companies planning their strategies around these rules now face a moving target, which can stall investment or innovation. It’s a signal that the EU is trying to be flexible, but without clear timelines or guarantees, it risks undermining trust in the regulatory framework.
What’s your perspective on the GDPR amendments, especially regarding AI training data?
The GDPR changes are interesting but not groundbreaking. Essentially, the Commission is clarifying that personal data can be used to train AI models, aligning with interpretations already made by the European Court of Justice. While some authorities call this substantial, I see it more as a formalization of existing practices rather than a radical shift. It matters because it reduces ambiguity for companies developing AI, ensuring they’re not constantly second-guessing legal boundaries. However, it’s not a game-changer—it’s more about fine-tuning than revolutionizing how data privacy intersects with tech innovation.
Commissioner Henna Virkkunen has framed this as a ‘now or never’ moment for the EU tech sector. Do you share this sense of urgency?
I do, to a large extent. The EU is at a critical juncture. Compared to global competitors like the US, with its massive tech hubs, or China, with its state-backed innovation, the EU is struggling to keep pace. The urgency comes from the risk of falling further behind in areas like AI, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure. If the EU doesn’t act decisively—whether through regulatory reform or broader ecosystem support—it could lose its chance to shape global standards and instead become a follower. The stakes are high: missed opportunities now could mean decades of catch-up.
Beyond AI and GDPR, the proposal includes ideas like a digital corporate wallet and simplified data rules. How much of a difference do you think these can make for EU companies?
These additional measures are practical but limited in scope. The digital corporate wallet, for instance, is a smart concept—it aims to cut down administrative hurdles for companies operating across multiple EU countries, which could encourage cross-border expansion. Simplified data rules and reduced cookie pop-ups are nice for user experience and might lower some compliance costs, but they’re not transformative. They’re more like incremental improvements rather than catalysts for a tech boom. For real impact, these need to be paired with bigger structural changes.
There’s a debate about whether the EU is caving to big tech or not doing enough. Where do you stand on this balance?
It’s a tough tightrope. I don’t think the EU is outright caving to big tech—there’s still a strong push for regulation that holds large companies accountable. But the criticism that these measures are too weak has merit. Delaying AI rules and clarifying GDPR without bolder reforms can feel like a compromise that doesn’t fully address the power imbalances in the tech industry. At the same time, over-regulating risks stifling innovation. The EU needs to find a sweet spot where it protects consumers and smaller players without scaring off investment, and I’m not sure this package nails that balance yet.
Shifting to broader challenges, what do you see as the biggest hurdles for EU startups beyond just tech-specific laws?
Startups in the EU face a host of structural barriers that often outweigh regulatory burdens like AI rules or GDPR. Market fragmentation is a huge issue—operating across 27 different countries with varying rules and cultures is a nightmare for small companies. Then there’s access to capital; European startups often struggle to secure the kind of funding their American counterparts take for granted. Tax regulations and labor laws also create headaches that can deter growth. These foundational issues—more than any single tech law—shape whether a startup can scale or even survive in the EU.
One idea floating around is the ‘28th Order’ to streamline rules for startups. Can you explain what this means and why it could be a game-changer?
The ‘28th Order’ is a concept aimed at creating a unified set of simplified rules for startups across the EU, almost like treating the entire bloc as a single market for new businesses. It’s about reducing the legal and administrative risks of starting and failing, which is crucial for fostering innovation. Right now, the patchwork of national regulations makes it daunting for entrepreneurs to take bold risks. If implemented well, this could level the playing field, making it easier for startups to experiment, pivot, and grow without getting bogged down by red tape. It’s a bold idea that could shift the mindset from caution to ambition.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the future of the EU tech sector if these broader challenges aren’t addressed?
If the EU doesn’t tackle these deeper issues—like market fragmentation, funding gaps, and cultural self-confidence—I’m concerned we’ll see a continued brain drain and capital flight to more dynamic ecosystems like the US. The tech sector here has incredible potential, with talent and ideas in abundance, but without a cohesive strategy to support scaling and risk-taking, Europe risks becoming a secondary player. We could end up with a few standout companies, but not the broad, thriving ecosystem needed to compete globally. I hope these proposals are just the start of a more ambitious push, because the clock is ticking.
