Dead people live longer. This is obviously true in gaming for tough bosses and in EU policy for the so-called Chat control.
Do you remember last March and the Debates last autumn? For the time being, the highly controversial bill on mass surveillance of private communications seemed to have failed.
But those who thought that the topic was off the table, made the calculation without the political string pullers in the Brussels meta-game. The European People's Party (EPP) has reached deep into the parliamentary trickbox and brought the procedure back to the server with a skilful knack.
The starting point: What is the core loop about?
At its core, the dispute revolves around a temporary exemption, which not only allows tech giants such as WhatsApp, Signal or the Facebook messenger, but should push them in the long term to automatically scan all private chats for depictions of child sexual abuse (CSAM). The noble and undeniably important goal: Child protection in the digital world. However, this method is an absolute nightmare for every data protection and IT security expert.
Critics have always aptly dubbed the project ‘chat control’. Because in order to find illegal content, even end-to-end encrypted messages would have to be screened before transmission. The principle of confidential communication would thus be effectively undermined by system updates.
‘Children are protected by targeted prosecution, not by sifting through private messages from millions of innocents.’, Ignazio Marino, Greens/EFA MEP to Euronews
Chronology since 2022
‘Chat control’ is a controversial legislative proposal of the European Union aimed at enabling occasionless scanning of private communications to combat child abuse. The heated debate spans several years: [1, 2] My first contribution to this can be found here.
- May 2022: The European Commission has presented a draft regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. A mandatory screening ("chat control") of all private messages and files by messenger services is planned. [1, 2]
- 2022-2024: Strong criticism from data protectionists, civil rights activists and IT experts. Messenger services such as signal threaten to withdraw from the EU, as the measures would break end-to-end encryption. The European Data Protection Supervisor also warns against massive surveillance. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- November 2025: The Council of the European Union agrees on a compromise: Messaging services will no longer be required to search private messages. Instead, they move Voluntary on-call checks and the focus on hosting providers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
- December 2025: In a first reading, the German Bundestag deals intensively with the topic and calls for the majority to reject any form of chat control. [1]
- Early 2026: A temporary exemption expires, which previously allowed companies to voluntarily search private communications for prohibited content. [1, 2]
- March 2026: Voting on the resumption of the previous derogation with slight amendments was rejected by a majority of 311 to 228. [1]
- June 2026: The trilogue between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council is entering a crucial phase. It discusses the extent to which communication services can be required to track content. [1, 2]
- July 2026: The years of resistance of certain Member States are crumbling; Austria, for example, is abandoning its previous blockade course. The debate on the compromise and a possible implementation of the controversial measures is entering the next round. [1, 2, 3]
The EPP procedural cheat code (or does it count as an exploit?)
How could a text rejected in March with 311 votes against and 228 votes in favour suddenly end up on the ballot paper again? This is where the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ comes into play. This is a mechanism that despite its name is extremely rarely used in this form, but has now been used as a lever by EPP Group leader Manfred Weber.
In March, the extension failed mainly because left-wing and social-democratic MPs wanted to severely restrict and limit the scope of the scans. The EPP then voted against because it did not want the weakened text. Now the EPP has turned the tables: It has reactivated the original, unchanged draft of the EU Commission via the EU Council (Member States). And now there are completely new rules of the game for Parliament.
The changed Rules of Play (2nd reading)
By switching to the second reading, the so-called Burden of Proof (the burden of proof) in Parliament drastically to the detriment of data protectionists. The hurdles for rejection have increased massively:
- March 2024 (1st Start-up): The goal was the acceptance of the text. A simple majority of the members present was enough. With a stalemate or too many abstentions, the thing was off the table.
- July 2026 (current trick): The goal is now the rejection of the text. For this, there will be a Absolute majority of all elected members (at least 361 votes) needed. If this number is not reached, the law automatically applies as accepted.
Here is the critical factor: We are just before the parliamentary summer break. It is highly questionable whether there are enough Members in the Chamber to achieve this absolute majority physically. A clever timing maneuver of the proponents.
A critical look: Democracy feature or bug?
You have to analyze the situation neutrally: The EPP uses perfectly legal procedures enshrined in the EU Treaties. From the point of view of the proponents, it is a legitimate parliamentary initiative to address an urgent problem of child protection without further delay. If the democratic process envisages such paths, one should not be surprised if they are followed.
On the other hand, the action leaves an extremely bland aftertaste. If a Parliament has already clearly rejected a proposal to introduce the exact same text through a procedural back door in such a way that a non-attendance of MEPs is automatically counted as a ‘yes’, this is tantamount to undermining the parliamentary spirit. Green MEP Markéta Gregorová is harsh about this and warns that this approach "challenges the core of democracy".
Conclusion: High-stakes crime in Brussels
No matter how one stands for chat control, whether one sees it as a necessary evil in the fight against heinous crimes, or as an inadmissible mass surveillance of innocent citizens: The EPP tactical maneuver shows how professionally network policy debates at European level are now played as hardcore chess.
If Parliament approves the urgent motion, the system will go into showdown on Thursday. Can the opponents break the magic limit of 361 voices, or will the chat control now be waved through by autopilot by 2028?
We'll stop you level92.fun Definitely up to date. Unpack the popcorn, it's going to be a damn close final battle for our privacy.