Author: Vilma Margarit

CPDP 2026 Panel: ‘Rights of access to corporate documentations and the trade secrets defence’

On Thursday 21 May we will hold our CPDP panel centered around the ‘rights of access to corporate documentations and the trade secrets defence‘.

The EU digital rulebook strikes a balance between transparency for affected users and actors’ claims of confidentiality. The most prominent ex post transparency mechanism is the data subject access right to personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation. Yet, such access rights can be restricted in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including trade secrets. While jurisprudence about the balancing between conflicting positions of rights is consistent about the right to access corporate documentation such as log files in practice this often leads to a protracted legal battle. This panel will revisit experiences with trade secret claims by providers of digital technologies, the responsibilities of regulators and the impact of the digital omnibus on transparency rights.

The panel will be guided by the following questions:

  1. What qualifies as a trade secret and as confidential business information?
  2. How do trade secret claims affect transparency rights?
  3. What balance has the law struck between transparency rights and trade secret claims?
  4. What is the role of regulators, and what is the impact of the Digital Omnibus on transparency rights?

Moderated by Vilma Margarit (IViR) and in conversation with:

Organized by Dr. Kristina Irion and the Institute for Information Law (IViR).

The European Commission’s failure to reply to a submission raising concerns about the compliance of generative AI systems with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

The EU Ombudswoman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s failure to reply to a submission on ethical concerns about generative AI systems’ compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The central issues of the inquiry include the failure to follow the law (Art. 4 ECGAB) and failure to deal properly with requests for information (Art. 22 ECGAB).

Source: The European Commission’s failure to reply to a submission raising concerns about the compliance of generative AI systems with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

EU court adviser rejects Meta’s fight against EU antitrust demands for Facebook data

“In his opinion, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos proposes that the Court of Justice dismiss both appeals and uphold the judgments of the General Court”, the court said in a statement, adding that Rantos said in his non-binding opinion that the General Court “did not err in law in assessing the necessity of the information requested or in examining the safeguards for its provision.”

Source: EU court adviser rejects Meta’s fight against EU antitrust demands for Facebook data