[{"titre":"L’esthétique transductive de Gilbert Simondon. Vers une éthique de la culture","id":3237215,"pubDate":"Fri, 23 Oct 2026 14:09:24 +0200","description":"dc.contributor.author: Forget, Marilou dc.date.issued: 2026-10 dc.description.abstract: Gilbert Simondon est connu pour la richesse de ses réflexions sur l’individuation et la technique, mais de nombreuses facettes de son œuvre demeurent à explorer – en particulier sa pensée esthétique. Notre recherche a pour but de mettre en lumière cette dimension de la philosophie simondonienne, qui parcourt en filigrane l’ensemble de son œuvre. Les deux premiers chapitres du présent mémoire portent sur la théorie de l’individuation présentée dans L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information, et sur la place discrète mais cruciale qu’y tient la notion d’« esthétisme ». Le troisième chapitre s’intéresse à la place de l’esthétique au sein du devenir des phases de la pensée, dont la description occupe la troisième partie de Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Le quatrième chapitre aborde l’expérience esthétique à l’aune des cours de psychologie de Simondon, en particulier par rapport à sa théorie de l’imagination et de l’invention. Finalement, le cinquième chapitre tente une explicitation du sens axiontologique de l’esthétique simondonienne et de ses résonances actuelles, au prisme de la notion de techno-esthétique. Il apparaîtra que la question esthétique s’articule étroitement à celle du devenir de la culture.; Gilbert Simondon is known for the depth of his insights on individuation and technics, but numerous aspects of his work are still to be explored – notably his aesthetic thought. Our research aims to shed light on this dimension of simondonian philosphy, which implicitly goes through his work. The first two chapters touch upon the theory of individuation laid out in Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, as well as the crucial albeit subtle role held by the concept of « aesthetism ». The third chapter looks into the place of aesthetics in the becoming of thought, described in the third part of On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. The fourth chapter adresses the aesthetic experience in Simondon’s psychology courses, mainly with regard to his theory of imagination and invention. Lastly, the fifth chapter attempts an explanation of the axiontological meaning of simondonian aesthetics, and of its current resonance, through the concept of techno-aesthetics. Our research will show how aesthetics is linked to the becoming of culture. dc.type: Thèse ou mémoire / Thesis or Dissertation etd.degree.discipline:","source":"Faculté de droit Travaux récents","url":"https://hdl.handle.net/1866/46835"},{"description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","id":3198178,"titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","id":3194910,"titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT"},{"source":"BEREC Office","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/public-consultations-calls-for-inputs/public-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-work-programme-2027","titre":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027","id":3193166,"pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:34:17 +0200","description":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027 yannick.stephan Thu, 01/10/2026 - 09:00 Breadcrumbs Public Consultations & Calls for Inputs Deadline to submit contributions:  31 October 2026 In January this year, BEREC adopted the Outline BEREC Work Programme 2027 , which reflected BEREC's objectives for the upcoming year. BEREC launched a first Call for inputs on the Work Programme 2027 from 27 February to 15 April. During the call for proposals, several additional actions were identified. Considering the early input received, during the 68th BEREC ordinary meetings (1-2 October 2026), the Board of Regulators adopted the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027 [BoR (26) 142] for public consultation. Background BEREC prepares its annual work programme in accordance with Article 21 of the BEREC Regulation and the BEREC Strategy 2026-2030 to guide how it organises and prioritises its work towards clearly defined objectives. The 2027 draft work programme was developed inclusively and transparently, with contributions from various stakeholders. This approach helps ensure that BEREC remains responsive to market needs, regulatory developments, and end-user expectations. Aim The BEREC Work Programme 2027 aims to align with the BEREC Strategy 2026-2030 and its five strategic pillars: Promoting full connectivity and the Digital Single Market; Supporting competition-driven and open digital ecosystems; Empowering end-users; Contributing to sustainable, secure, and resilient digital infrastructures; Strengthening BEREC’s capabilities and continuous improvement. The work programme will also take into consideration priorities set for BEREC’s institutional and international cooperation. Furthermore, the 2027 work programme has been developed against the backdrop of the ongoing review of the regulatory framework and the European Commission’s proposal for a Digital Networks Act, published in January 2026. This piece of legislation is meant to be the cornerstone shaping the future of the sector in the EU. As an advisory body to EU institutions for electronic communications, BEREC is committed to providing expert, independent advice to co-legislators and the European Commission throughout the legislative procedure. BEREC also aims to provide support and advice on other relevant policy developments. In addition to the mandatory work foreseen in the EU regulatory framework, the BEREC work programme follows a multiannual approach, meaning some projects started in 2026 will be completed in 2027 and are therefore included as carryovers. Additionally, recurring items are considered by default. Submit your contributions The incoming BEREC Chair 2027, Alejandra de Iturriaga Gandini (CNMC, Spain), encourages all interested stakeholders to provide their views and contributions to the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027 by submitting them to BEREC-WP2027@DISTRO.BEREC.EUROPA.EU by 31 October 2026 . After submitting the contribution, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement email. If you do not receive this acknowledgement, please contact the BEREC Office. Contributions should be sent preferably in English, and, to facilitate processing of the responses, the comments provided should clearly refer to specific paragraphs of the document. In accordance with the BEREC policy on public consultations , BEREC will publish all contributions and a summary thereof, respecting confidentiality requests. In that regard, please clearly mark the parts you define as confidential. We strongly encourage all stakeholders to submit their contributions as early as possible. Contributions received after the above-mentioned deadline will not be taken into account. Privacy statement type Privacy Statement for Public Consultation Category Name Ongoing Public Consultations and Calls for Inputs Notify subscribers"},{"description":"Today, 22 states joined the Federal Trade Commission in filing suit against Amazon, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair practices that secretly inflated prices in its online search advertising auctions. The complaint   alleges that, for over seven years, Amazon has covertly and substantially increased the prices that more than one million brands and sellers were required to pay to advertise on its platform. As a result, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s scheme has likely extracted tens of billions of dollars from its unwitting advertising customers. “When one of the world’s largest online retailers engages in unfair and deceptive conduct, the impact can be staggering,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Amazon has millions of advertising customers who were misled into paying significantly higher prices. These higher costs were largely passed on to American consumers. The FTC under President Trump won’t allow this deception to continue.” The FTC, along with the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, allege Amazon has imposed undisclosed surcharges on its advertising customers, which include over 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that participated in auctions for advertising placements on Amazon.com and its mobile app. In these auctions, prospective advertisers bid to place Sponsored Product ads, Sponsored Brands ads and Display Ads alongside the results that appear when a consumer searches for a product using a keyword on Amazon’s store. Placements are auctioned to the highest-ranked bidder for each keyword. As described in the complaint, Amazon has represented to prospective advertisers for years that Amazon runs “second price” auctions where the winner of the auction would only pay “one cent more than the next highest bidder” for each successful bid for an advertising keyword. However, in practice, the complaint alleges that Amazon has charged its Sponsored Products advertisers their own winning bid close to 80% of the time and has effectively converted its nominally “second price” auction into a first price auction. According to the complaint, Amazon’s “second price” auctions have been described by Amazon, and understood by advertisers, to be run as generalized second-price, or GSP auctions, which have been the accepted industry standard for digital advertising placements. The complaint states that Amazon has made these or similar representations on its website, in training videos and in other public-facing materials, as well as in presentations made to advertisers by its hundreds of sales personnel.  The type of auction matters to advertisers because it impacts how they bid. In a sealed first-price auction—the type of auction where winners pay the amount of their winning bid—bidders run the risk that they might overbid. So, in repetitive auctions for the same goods, they will often reduce their bid to determine what the minimum amount needed to win future auctions might be. This is called bid shading. In second-price auctions, bidders are more likely to bid higher, closer to their true value for the product, because they will only be liable to pay the least bid amount needed to win under the auction’s rules.  As alleged in the complaint, Amazon told advertisers it ran a GSP, but for years its auction pricing had “a surcharge hidden in it,” in the words of one internal Amazon document. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2019, Amazon changed its auction rules without notice by adding an undisclosed surcharge that Amazon referred to internally as a “soft reserve price.” This resulted in advertisers paying substantially more than the price determined by the GSP auction.  According to the complaint, Amazon","titre":"FTC, States Sue Amazon Over Secret Ad Surcharge Scheme","id":3127461,"pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-states-sue-amazon-over-secret-ad-surcharge-scheme"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-finalizes-orders-cox-media-group-two-other-firms-settling-charges-they-deceived-customers-about","description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group (CMG) and two other firms to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting. In three separate complaints first announced in May , the FTC alleged that Georgia-based media and marketing company CMG Media Corporation, which does business as  Cox Media Group , and two marketing firms it worked with, New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC  and Wisconsin-based  1010 Digital Works LLC ,  deceived customers by claiming they used a special algorithm to listen in on and detect pertinent conversations from smart devices in order to target ads to consumers within a specific geographic region. Contrary to these companies’ claims, however, the marketing service wasn’t based on voice data, and consumers hadn’t opted into this service. If the service had functioned as advertised, this collection and use of consumers’ voice data without adequate consent would itself violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed orders settling the FTC’s allegations,  CMG must pay $880,000 while both  MindSift and  1010 Digital Works  must each pay $25,000, which will be used to provide redress to CMG customers impacted by these practices. In addition, each defendant is prohibited from making any misrepresentation about the qualities or features of its advertising or marketing services; the collection and use of voice data and whether consumers have provided their consent to collect, use or disclose their voice data; and the geographic targeting capabilities of its advertising or marketing services. After receiving two comments on the proposed settlement orders, the Commission voted 2-0 to give final approval to the consent","titre":"FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service","id":3120376,"pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +0200"},{"titre":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Report on Virtual Worlds and Web 4.0","id":2792998,"pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:32:59 +0200","description":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Report on Virtual Worlds and Web 4.0 yannick.stephan Tue, 17/03/2026 - 09:26 Breadcrumbs Public Consultations & Calls for Inputs Deadline: Monday, 20 April 2026 (17:00 CEST) During the 66th BEREC plenary meeting (12-13 March 2026), the Board of Regulators approved the Draft BEREC Report on Virtual Worlds and Web 4.0 (BoR (26) 39) for public consultation. The report in a nutshell Virtual worlds (VW) and web 4.0 are at the basis of a transition to the 4th generation of internet based services, leading toward industry 4.0 and smart society. This shift is driven by artificial intelligence (AI) integration in networks and services. Hence, web 4.0 and immersive services are meant to have a significant economic and social impact by transforming the way in which industrial production evolves and automates its processes. At the same time, they transform the fruition of online content and applications by users. This draft BEREC Report provides a fully-fledged analysis. The first part of the draft Report dives into the connectivity developments as well as the transition to network-as-a-service (NaaS). It also provides examples of use cases cutting across industrial and societal applications. The second part deals with challenges posed to electronic communications networks/services (ECN/S) operators related either to the investment lines or to business models and market positioning. In such a scenario, focus is dedicated also to regulatory challenges, for instance the need to guarantee openness and interoperability and to foster investment. The Report builds on previous BEREC work, including the high-level position on artificial intelligence and virtual worlds provided as a contribution to the call for inputs on competition in generative AI and VW issued in 2024 by the European Commission (EC). The report is framed in the following 5 chapters and Conclusion: Introduction Chapter by providing a definition for VW, based on its key characteristics; Chapter 2 provides some concrete examples of use cases; Chapter 3 describes the connectivity challenges faced to enable VW and the network upgrades; Chapter 4 assesses the potential role of electronic communication providers in the provision of VW/Web 4.0 services, as well as any possible future profit streams and incentives; Chapter 5 examines the potential electronic communications regulatory challenges that may arise. Submit your contributions Interested parties are kindly asked to send their contributions via email to berec_virtualworld_pc@distro.berec.europa.eu no later than 20 April 2026 (17:00 CEST). Contributions should preferably be sent in English. To facilitate processing of the responses, the comments provided should clearly refer to the certain chapters/paragraphs of the document. After submitting the contribution, you will receive an acknowledgement email. In case you do not receive it, please contact the BEREC Office via the same email. All stakeholders are strongly encouraged to submit their contributions as early as possible – those received after the above-mentioned deadline will not be taken into account. In accordance with the BEREC policy on public consultations , BEREC will publish all contributions and a summary of the contributions, respecting confidentiality requests. Any such request should clearly indicate information that is considered confidential and should be accompanied by a non-confidential version. Privacy statement type Privacy Statement for Public Consultation Category Name Ongoing Public Consultations and Calls for Inputs Notify subscribers","source":"BEREC Office","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/public-consultations-calls-for-inputs/public-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-report-on-virtual-worlds-and-web-40"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-challenges-anticompetitive-medical-device-deal","titre":"FTC Challenges Anticompetitive Medical Device Deal","pubDate":"Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:48:21 +0200","id":2298968,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today moved to block medical device supplier Edwards Lifesciences Corp.’s (Edwards) proposed acquisition of JenaValve Technology, Inc. (JenaValve) due to concerns that the acquisition would limit patient access to lifesaving medical devices used to treat a potentially fatal heart condition. The FTC alleges that over the span of two days in July 2024, Edwards executed agreements to acquire both JenaValve and JC Medical, the two leading companies competing to bring to market transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices that treat a heart condition called aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR devices). Edwards closed its acquisition of JC Medical in August 2024, and its proposed $945 million acquisition of JenaValve would combine the only two companies with ongoing clinical trials in the United States for a TAVR-AR device. The deal threatens to reduce competition in the TAVR-AR market, likely resulting in reduced innovation, diminished product quality, and potentially increased prices for consumers, according to the complaint. “ Edwards’ attempt to buy the U.S. market for TAVR-AR devices would eliminate the head-to-head competition that has spurred innovation for lifesaving artificial heart valves,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC is taking action to stop this anticompetitive deal and ensure that JenaValve and Edwards’ JC Medical subsidiary continue competing to innovate, expand treatment eligibility, and keep down costs. Americans deserve all the benefits that come from competition between medical device makers, just as they do in other markets.” More than 8 million Americans suffer from aortic regurgitation, which occurs when the heart’s aortic valve does not close properly, causing blood to backflow into the heart. Currently, surgical valve replacement via open heart surgery is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved procedure to treat aortic regurgitation, and TAVR-AR devices offer a new and less invasive way to treat the condition. JenaValve is poised to become the first company to bring a TAVR-AR device, called Trilogy, to the commercial market in the United States. If Edwards acquires JenaValve, Edwards would gain control over the two most advanced TAVR-AR devices, the FTC complaint alleges. FDA approval or commercialization of any other TAVR-AR device in the United States by another company, aside from Edwards and JenaValve, is not expected for the foreseeable future. Direct head-to-head competition between Edwards, through its now-subsidiary JC Medical, and JenaValve has driven the two companies to accelerate the development of their TAVR-AR devices, the FTC’s complaint alleges. Ultimately, patients will benefit if JenaValve and Edwards continue to directly compete to complete their separate TAVR-AR device clinical trials, product improvements, and commercialization plans. The competition concerns caused by Edwards’ dual acquisition strategy are predicated on Edwards owning both JenaValve and JC Medical simultaneously, but Edwards has elected to attempt to buy JenaValve while retaining its ownership of JC Medical. Edwards has not been willing to engage on divesting JC Medical to resolve the competition concerns with the proposed JenaValve acquisition, according to the complaint. The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was 3-0. The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. NOTE : The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal"},{"source":"EDPB News","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/european-patent-organisation-and-extension-adequacy-decisions-uk-edpb-adopts_en","titre":"European Patent Organisation and extension of adequacy decisions for the UK: EDPB adopts opinions","id":2099053,"pubDate":"Tue, 06 May 2025 15:51:59 +0200","description":"Brussels, 06 May - During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion on the European Commission’s draft adequacy decision under the GDPR concerning the European Patent Organisation (EPO) . In addition, the Board adopted an opinion on the European Commission’s proposal to extend the validity of the UK adequacy decisions under the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED) . Finally, the EDPB agreed to grant the status of observer to the Personal Data Protection Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   Adequate protection of personal data by the EPO At the European Commission’s request, the Board adopted an opinion on the Commission’s draft adequacy decision regarding the European Patent Organisation (EPO). Once formally adopted by the Commission, this will be the first adequacy decision concerning an international organisation and not a country or a region. An adequacy decision is a key-mechanism in EU data protection legislation which allows the European Commission to determine whether a third country or an international organisation offers an adequate level of data protection. The effect of such a decision is that personal data can flow freely from Europe to that third country or international organisation. EDPB Chair, Anu Talus, said: “The EDPB welcomes the Commission’s initiative to work on the first adequacy decision concerning an international organisation. This decision shows how the legal framework of such organisations can be recognised as ensuring an adequate level of protection on the basis of Art.45 GDPR. The EDPB underlines the importance of ongoing dialogue between the Commission and international organisations, with a view to developing this category of adequacy decisions in addition to those relating to third countries.” In its opinion, the Board positively notes that the EPO data protection framework is largely aligned with the European Union data protection framework, including on data protection rights and principles. This shows that the GDPR and, in particular, its transfer provisions, can facilitate safe data flows from Europe to international organisations, while taking into account their status.   Six-month extension of the UK adequacy decisions The EDPB opinion, requested by the European Commission, addresses the proposed extension of the two UK adequacy decisions under the GDPR and the LED, which are set to expire on 27 June 2025. The opinion only concerns the proposed 6-month extension of these adequacy decisions and does not address the level of protection for personal data afforded in the UK, which will be examined by the EDPB following the Commission’s assessment, and if the renewal of the UK adequacy decisions is proposed. Since the UK‘s data protection reform is still pending in the UK parliament, the EDPB recognises the need for a technical and time-limited extension of the adequacy decisions until 27 December 2025.This will give the European Commission sufficient time to evaluate the updated UK legal framework once it has been adopted.   The EDPB stresses that this extension is exceptional and is due to the ongoing legislative developments in the UK. It should not, in principle, be further prolonged. The Board recalls the validity of its opinions 14/2021 and 15/2021 on the two UK adequacy decisions, adopted in April 2021, and invites the European Commission to take them into account in its future assessments.  The Board also recalls the Commission’s obligation to monitor all relevant developments in the UK during the extension period.   New observer to the EDPB’s activities Finally, EDPB members agreed to grant observer status to the EDPB’s activities to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Data Protection Authority, in line with Art. 8 EDPB Rules of Procedure ."}]