The Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on is curr­ent­ly working on a com­pre­hen­si­ve packa­ge to reform and con­so­li­da­te Euro­pean digi­tal law entit­led the “Digi­tal Omni­bus”. The Com­mis­si­on wants to eli­mi­na­te over­laps bet­ween data pro­tec­tion, data and AI law, sim­pli­fy regu­la­ti­ons and redu­ce the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve bur­den for com­pa­nies and aut­ho­ri­ties, but of cour­se wit­hout wea­k­e­ning the pro­tec­tion of fun­da­men­tal rights.

Drafts, who­se offi­ci­al publi­ca­ti­on has been announ­ced for Novem­ber 19, 2025, are available. This will be fol­lo­wed by the ordi­na­ry legis­la­ti­ve pro­ce­du­re in the Coun­cil and Par­lia­ment. The drafts show sur­pri­sin­gly far-rea­ching chan­ges to the Data Act, the GDPR and the AI Act.

Spe­ci­fi­cal­ly, the Com­mis­si­on is plan­ning two omni­bus regu­la­ti­ons (docu­ments via netzpolitik.org):

  • Omni­bus I (“Digi­tal Omni­bus for the digi­tal acquis”)Con­so­li­da­ti­on of the Data Act, Open Data Direc­ti­ve and Data Gover­nan­ce Act and adjust­ments to the GDPR.
  • Omni­bus II (“Digi­tal Omni­bus on AI”)Adjust­ments to the AI Act.

noyb warnsthe draft could dama­ge the basic prin­ci­ples of the GDPR, for exam­p­le by rest­ric­ting the con­cept of per­so­nal data. The draft pur­sues a “death by a thou­sand cuts” stra­tegy that syste­ma­ti­cal­ly wea­k­ens exi­sting pro­tec­tion standards.

Omni­bus I

Data Act

The exi­sting Data Act tog­e­ther with the Open Data Direc­ti­ve and the Data Gover­nan­ce Act will be mer­ged into a con­so­li­da­ted legal act. This will include the fol­lo­wing innovations:

  • Reten­ti­on of the ban on data loca­lizati­on requi­re­ments within the EU;
  • streng­the­ned pro­tec­tion mecha­nisms against unaut­ho­ri­zed dis­clo­sure of trade secrets to third countries;
  • Exten­si­on of exi­sting sim­pli­fi­ca­ti­ons for SMEs to small mid-caps (SMCs);
  • hig­her fees and stric­ter con­di­ti­ons for the reu­se of public data by very lar­ge com­pa­nies and gate­kee­pers within the mea­ning of the Digi­tal Mar­kets Act (DMA);
  • Stan­dar­dizati­on of the rules on open admi­ni­stra­ti­ve data, pro­tec­ted data and data altruism;
  • In addi­ti­on, the Regu­la­ti­on on a frame­work for the free flow of non-per­so­nal data in the EU be inte­gra­ted into the Data Act;
  • Data access by aut­ho­ri­ties should only be per­mit­ted in “public emergencies”;
  • the chap­ter on smart con­tracts is deleted.

GDPR

The GDPR is also to be amen­ded with the aim of cla­ri­fy­ing key terms and redu­cing obli­ga­ti­ons for harm­less pro­ce­s­sing. The main chan­ges are:

  • Spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­on of the Defi­ni­ti­on of per­so­nal datacla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on that the per­so­nal refe­rence requi­res a rea­li­stic pos­si­bi­li­ty of identification;
  • Cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on of the Con­cept of health data (only data “direct­ly reve­al­ing infor­ma­ti­on about health sta­tus” – a depar­tu­re from the Case law of the ECJ);
  • Exemp­ti­on from use bio­me­tric data “to con­firm iden­ti­ty under the sole con­trol of the per­son concerned”;
  • Per­mis­si­bi­li­ty of pro­ce­s­sing spe­cial cate­go­ries for Deve­lo­p­ment and ope­ra­ti­on of AI;
  • Noti­fi­ca­ti­on of secu­ri­ty brea­ches:
    • Exten­si­on of the man­da­to­ry report­ing peri­od to 96 hours;
    • Report­ing of secu­ri­ty brea­ches via a sin­gle ent­ry point system (“Sin­gle Ent­ry Point for Inci­dent Report­ing”). This should enable report­ing obli­ga­ti­ons to be ful­fil­led simul­ta­neous­ly in accordance with the NIS2 Direc­ti­ve, the GDPR, DORA, the Digi­tal Iden­ti­ty Regu­la­ti­on and, if appli­ca­ble, the CER Directive;
  • EU-wide stan­dar­di­zed nega­ti­ve lists for pro­ce­s­sing ope­ra­ti­ons that are not Data pro­tec­tion impact assess­ment require;
  • Right of refu­sal in the event of obvious misu­se or abu­se Request for infor­ma­ti­on.

The Com­mis­si­on also pro­po­ses that the Trai­ning of AI models with per­so­nal data in future on the basis of the legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest pur­su­ant to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR (which shows the pre­vious bad fee­ling on this topic).

Coo­kies and online tracking

The pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data on or from ter­mi­nal equip­ment – i.e. the Track­ing – should only be based on the GDPR. The basic con­sent requi­re­ment under the ePri­va­cy Direc­ti­ve (Art. 5 (3)) would no lon­ger app­ly. Instead, a machi­ne-rea­da­ble pre­fe­rence system for coo­kies and track­ing via brow­ser or app set­tings, which web­site ope­ra­tors must respect (except media providers…).

Omni­bus II: AI Act

The Digi­tal Omni­bus on AI is inten­ded to sim­pli­fy the AI Act. Feed­back from imple­men­ta­ti­on to date has shown delays and ambi­gui­ties. The Com­mis­si­on pro­po­ses the fol­lo­wing measures:

  • a pos­si­ble adjust­ment of the Imple­men­ta­ti­on dead­linesto take account of delays in stan­dar­dizati­on and the naming of authorities;
  • Tran­si­tio­nal peri­od for the labe­l­ing obli­ga­ti­on (“Water­mar­king”) for AI systems that were pla­ced on the mar­ket befo­re this obli­ga­ti­on came into force;
  • Exten­si­on of the faci­li­ta­ti­ons for SME on small mid-caps (e.g. sim­pli­fi­ed docu­men­ta­ti­on requi­re­ments, con­side­ra­ti­on for any sanctions);
  • Com­mit­ment of the Com­mis­si­on and the Mem­ber Sta­tes, AI Liter­a­cy its­elf instead of just making the deployers responsible;
  • Reduc­tion of the Regi­stra­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons for AI systems that are used in high-risk are­as but only per­form pro­ce­du­ral or nar­row­ly defi­ned tasks;
  • Per­mis­si­bi­li­ty of use Spe­cial cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data by pro­vi­ders or deployers for the pur­po­se of detec­ting and cor­rec­ting bias;
  • Expan­si­on of the use of test envi­ron­ments (“AI sand­bo­xes”) and real-world tests;
  • Cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on of the Inter­play bet­ween the AI Act, Cyber Resi­li­ence Act and DSA;
  • Cen­tra­lizati­on of the Super­vi­si­on about AI systems in very lar­ge online plat­forms and search engi­nes at the AI Office.