Several key EU regulations are slated to impact startups in 2025. The Data Act will govern industrial data sharing, requiring companies to make data available to users and others upon request, potentially affecting data-driven business models. The revised Payment Services Directive (PSD3) aims to enhance payment security and foster open banking, impacting fintechs with stricter requirements. The Cyber Resilience Act mandates enhanced cybersecurity for connected devices, adding compliance burdens on hardware and software developers. Additionally, the EU's AI Act, though expected later, could still influence product development strategies throughout 2025 with its tiered risk-based approach to AI regulation. These regulations necessitate careful preparation and adaptation for startups operating within or targeting the EU market.
The author argues that relying on US-based cloud providers is no longer safe for governments and societies, particularly in Europe. The CLOUD Act grants US authorities access to data stored by US companies regardless of location, undermining data sovereignty and exposing sensitive information to potential surveillance. This risk is compounded by increasing geopolitical tensions and the weaponization of data, making dependence on US cloud infrastructure a strategic vulnerability. The author advocates for shifting towards European-owned and operated cloud solutions that prioritize data protection and adhere to stricter regulatory frameworks like GDPR, ensuring digital sovereignty and reducing reliance on potentially adversarial nations.
Hacker News users largely agreed with the article's premise, expressing concerns about US government overreach and data access. Several commenters highlighted the lack of legal recourse for non-US entities against US government actions. Some suggested the EU's data protection regulations are insufficient against such power. The discussion also touched on the geopolitical implications, with commenters noting the US's history of using its technological dominance for political gain. A few commenters questioned the feasibility of entirely avoiding US cloud providers, acknowledging their advanced technology and market share. Others mentioned open-source alternatives and the importance of developing sovereign cloud infrastructure within the EU. A recurring theme was the need for greater digital sovereignty and reducing reliance on US-based services.
The EU's AI Act, a landmark piece of legislation, is now in effect, banning AI systems deemed "unacceptable risk." This includes systems using subliminal techniques or exploiting vulnerabilities to manipulate people, social scoring systems used by governments, and real-time biometric identification systems in public spaces (with limited exceptions). The Act also sets strict rules for "high-risk" AI systems, such as those used in law enforcement, border control, and critical infrastructure, requiring rigorous testing, documentation, and human oversight. Enforcement varies by country but includes significant fines for violations. While some criticize the Act's broad scope and potential impact on innovation, proponents hail it as crucial for protecting fundamental rights and ensuring responsible AI development.
Hacker News commenters discuss the EU's AI Act, expressing skepticism about its enforceability and effectiveness. Several question how "unacceptable risk" will be defined and enforced, particularly given the rapid pace of AI development. Some predict the law will primarily impact smaller companies while larger tech giants find ways to comply on paper without meaningfully changing their practices. Others argue the law is overly broad, potentially stifling innovation and hindering European competitiveness in the AI field. A few express concern about the potential for regulatory capture and the chilling effect of vague definitions on open-source development. Some debate the merits of preemptive regulation versus a more reactive approach. Finally, a few commenters point out the irony of the EU enacting strict AI regulations while simultaneously pushing for "right to be forgotten" laws that could hinder AI development by limiting access to data.
Summary of Comments ( 3 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152937
Hacker News users discussing the upcoming EU regulations generally express concerns about their complexity and potential negative impact on startups. Several commenters predict these regulations will disproportionately burden smaller companies due to the increased compliance costs, potentially stifling innovation and favoring larger, established players. Some highlight specific regulations, like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and discuss their potential consequences for platform interoperability and competition. The platform liability aspect of the DSA is also a point of contention, with some questioning its practicality and effectiveness. Others note the broad scope of these regulations, extending beyond just tech companies, and affecting sectors like manufacturing and AI. A few express skepticism about the EU's ability to effectively enforce these regulations.
The Hacker News post titled "EU regulations to look out for in 2025" linking to a Sifted article about upcoming EU startup regulations generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments.
Several commenters discussed the potential impact of the EU's Data Act. One user expressed concern that forcing companies to share data with competitors could stifle innovation, arguing that companies may be less inclined to invest in data collection and analysis if they are required to share the fruits of their labor. Another commenter countered this point by suggesting the Data Act could foster innovation by enabling smaller players to access valuable datasets, leveling the playing field and promoting competition. This commenter also pointed out the potential benefit for consumers, who might gain more control over their data and benefit from new services built upon shared data. There was further discussion about the practical implications of the Data Act, with questions raised about how "fair and reasonable compensation" for data access would be determined.
The conversation also touched upon the Digital Services Act (DSA) and its impact on content moderation. One commenter expressed skepticism about the feasibility and effectiveness of enforcing the DSA's requirements for tackling illegal content online, particularly for smaller platforms. The complexity of defining and identifying "illegal content" across different jurisdictions was also highlighted.
The Platform to Business Regulation was mentioned, with a commenter noting the potential for increased transparency in platform-business relationships, which could benefit smaller businesses operating within these ecosystems.
Finally, the broader theme of EU regulatory overreach was raised by a few commenters. Some expressed concerns about the cumulative effect of these regulations on startups and the potential for hindering innovation. Others argued that the regulations were necessary to protect consumers and promote fairer competition.
While no single comment dominated the discussion, the thread provided a balanced overview of various perspectives on the potential impact of the upcoming EU regulations on the startup ecosystem and the digital economy as a whole.