By Antonio Tejeda Encinas | CEO Meta Channel Corporation | President Comite Euro Americano de Derecho Digital -CEA Digital Law
I. A starting point that Europe has tried to gloss over
In 2024, Europe celebrated the approval of the AI Act as if it had marked a turning point. The narrative was simple: ethical leadership, protection of the citizen, and a regulation the world would admire.
The reality has been different. While the speeches were being delivered:
- The EU captured barely 10% of global AI investment in 2024-2025.
- The US concentrated 65%.
- Asia, 25%.
- European startups in critical sectors —health, fintech, automation— moved directly to the US in order to operate without blockages.
- Mistral AI, one of the few companies with global ambition born in Europe, opened a headquarters in San Francisco in order to grow.
This is not a problem of “complying” or not complying. It is a design problem: the framework created to protect has raised a wall that only Big Tech can climb.
And this brings us to the second piece on the board.
II. Before resolving the AI Act, Europe has already set another process in motion: the Digital Omnibus
In late 2025, the European Commission has pushed forward what it calls the Digital Omnibus: a package of coordinated reforms to “simplify” the European digital ecosystem, which includes:
- adjustments to the AI Act,
- modifications to the GDPR,
- a review of ePrivacy,
- coherence with DORA,
- and harmonization with MiCA and the DMA.
The formal presentation is scheduled for 19 November 2025, although much of the content is already circulating in drafts and leaks.
The official message is “simplification”. The political effect is another: acknowledging that the current European digital framework does not function coherently. And this confirms what the market has been perceiving for a year.
III. Europe does not have an isolated problem: it has four simultaneous fractures
1. Regulatory fracture: too many rules without coordination
The AI Act, GDPR, MiCA, DMA, DORA and sectoral regulation form a system that was never designed to coexist.
Clear examples:
Medical diagnosis with AI – The AI Act demands broad and representative datasets. – The GDPR demands strict minimization. The company must maximize and minimize at the same time.
Biometrics The same fingerprint may be ultra-sensitive data or not be “high risk”, depending on the use.
Finance – AI Act: high risk. – GDPR: mandatory human intervention. – DMA: interoperability. – Financial supervisors: statistical validation.
The European Parliament has already admitted it: “lack of coordination, duplication of costs and contradictory criteria”.
The Digital Omnibus attempts to correct part of the problem, but exposes a bigger one: Europe legislated before building an institutional architecture capable of sustaining that level of regulation.
2. Economic fracture: European costs impossible to compete with
- Complying with the AI Act at high risk costs €500,000 – €2 million.
- Aggregate EU impact 2025: 10.9 billion.
- Result: 90% of the European GPAI market in the hands of American companies.
The Digital Omnibus does not eliminate this imbalance. It only proposes partial and temporary relief for mid-caps and startups. It does not resolve the underlying asymmetry.
3. Temporal fracture: timelines that do not match reality
- High-risk obligations: August 2026.
- Technical standards: Q2 2026, in the best-case scenario.
- Notified bodies: most not yet designated.
- Regulatory guidance arriving after entry into force.
The Digital Omnibus contemplates delays and “clock-stops” But not because Europe wants to be flexible, rather because it is not arriving on time.
4. Global fracture: Europe competes alone
- US: light regulation and rapid adaptation.
- China: strict control + 50 billion in subsidies.
- Europe: rigid regulation + zero equivalent subsidies.
Foundational models in 2025: – Europe: 3 – US: 40 – China: 15
This is not a cyclical problem: it is structural.
IV. The softening of the AI Act announced by the press is not a reform: it is an acknowledgment
The leaks (FT, Reuters, Tech Policy Press) point to:
- delayed sanctions,
- exemptions for mid-sized companies,
- GPAI flexibilization,
- a clock-stop on high risk.
The Digital Omnibus is the formal channel for introducing these adjustments. But its origin is clear: Europe has realized that the rule, as it stands, is not sustainable in practice. Uncertainty, however, keeps growing: every leak generates paralysis. And the absence of clear political communication amplifies the sense of improvisation.
V. What actually works in 2025–2028?
- Intelligent defensive classification Preventing systems from “falling” into high risk by default.
- Avoiding open-source without contractual traceability Especially until 2027.
- Documentation automation from CI/CD It is not optional: it is the only way to withstand simultaneous audits.
- Active use of national sandboxes Spain, Germany and France are acting as zones of regulatory decompression.
- Honest communication with investors
“We are aligning evolving standards with traceable documentation from the pipeline”. In an unstable environment, this message builds trust.
VI. Who is executing, not improvising
This point is important.
Few organizations work at the real intersection of the legal, the technical and the operational. META Channel Corporation is one of them.
While others separate rules by department, META Channel Corporation translates the AI Act, GDPR, MiCA, DORA and sectoral regulation into a single operating model.
That makes possible something most do not even know where to begin with: making five regulatory frameworks function as if they were one, without internal contradictions.
It is neither theory nor marketing. It is architecture. And it is what makes it possible to build while others are still debating interpretations.
VII. Europe needs clarity, not more layers of regulation
The AI Act was born from a legitimate political conviction. The Digital Omnibus is born from an urgent institutional need. But a continent cannot sustain itself on principles alone. It needs coherent rules, realistic timelines and regulators that talk to one another.
If the Digital Omnibus stops at minor adjustments rather than a fundamental reform, Europe will prolong its uncertainty until the end of the decade. Meanwhile, companies cannot wait for Brussels to get organized.
The only sensible strategy is to prepare for the most realistic scenario: an AI Act partially corrected, partially diluted and applied by authorities that will continue to interpret it unevenly for years.
Those who adapt to that scenario will be able to compete. Those who do not will remain trapped between rules that do not fit together.
