By Antonio Tejeda Encinas | CEO META Channel Corporation | President Comité Euro Americano de Derecho Digital — CEA Digital Law
I. A starting point that Europe has tried to disguise
In 2024, Europe celebrated the approval of the AI Act as if it had marked a before and after. The story was simple: ethical leadership, citizen protection and regulation that the world would admire.
The reality has been different. While speeches were being made:
- The EU barely caught 10% of global investment in AI in 2024-2025.
- USA concentrated the 65 %.
- Asia, he 25 %.
- European startups in critical sectors—healthcare, fintech, automation—moved directly to the US so they could operate without lockdowns.
- Mistral AI, one of the few companies with global ambition born in Europe, opened a headquarters in San Francisco to grow.
It is not a problem of “complying” or not complying. It’s 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 of the board.
II. Before resolving the AI Act, Europe has already activated another process: the Digital Omnibus
At the end of 2025, the European Commission has promoted what it calls Digital Omnibus: a package of coordinated reforms to “simplify” the European digital ecosystem, including:
- adjustments to AI Act,
- modifications to the RGPD,
- ePrivacy review,
- consistency with DORA,
- and harmonization with MiCA and DMA.
The formal presentation is scheduled for November 19, 2025, although much of the content is already circulating in drafts and leaks.
The official message is “simplification.” The political effect is different: recognize that the current European digital framework does not work coherently. And this confirms what the market has perceived for a year.
III. Europe does not have a specific problem: it has four simultaneous fractures
1. Regulatory fracture: too many rules without coordination
AI Act, RGPD, MiCA, DMA, DORA and sectoral regulation form a system that was never designed to coexist.
Clear examples:
Medical diagnosis with AI – AI Act requires large and representative datasets. – RGPD requires strict minimization. The company must maximize and minimize both.
Biometrics The same fingerprint may be ultra-sensitive data or not be “high risk,” depending on the use.
Finance – AI Act: high risk. – RGPD: 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 tries to correct part of the problem, but it reveals 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
- Complying with the AI Act at high risk costs €500,000 – 2 million.
- EU 2025 aggregate impact: 10.9 billion.
- Result: 90% of the European GPAI market in the hands of US 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: calendars that do not coincide with reality
- High risk obligations: August 2026.
- Technical standards: Q2 2026, in the best scenario.
- Notified bodies: most undesignated.
- Regulatory guides arriving after to come into force.
The Digital Omnibus contemplates delays and clock-stops. But not because Europe wants to be flexible, but because does not arrive on time.
4. Global fracture: Europe competes alone
- USA: light regulation and rapid adaptation.
- China: strict control + 50,000 million in subsidies.
- Europe: rigid regulation + zero equivalent subsidies.
Founding models in 2025: – Europe: 3 – USA: 40 – China: 15
It is not a temporary problem: it is structural.
IV. The flexibility of the AI Act announced by the press is not a reform: it is a recognition
The leaks (FT, Reuters, Tech Policy Press) note:
- delay in sanctions,
- exemptions for medium-sized
- GPAI flexibility,
- clock-stop at high risk.
The Digital Omnibus is the formal way to introduce these adjustments. But its origin is clear: Europe has realized that the rule, as it stands, is not sustainable in practice. Uncertainty, however, continues to grow: each leak generates paralysis. And the absence of clear political communication amplifies the feeling of improvisation.
V. What really works in 2025–2028?
- Smart defensive rating Prevent systems from “falling” into high risk by default.
- Avoid open-source without contractual traceability Especially until 2027.
- Document automation from CI/CD It’s not optional: it’s the only way to resist simultaneous audits.
- Active use of national sandboxes Spain, Germany and France are acting as regulatory decompression zones.
- Honest communication to 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 legal, technical and operational. META Channel Corporation is one of them.
While others separate regulations by department, META Channel Corporation translates AI Act, RGPD, MiCA, DORA and sectoral regulation into a single operating model.
This allows something that most people don’t even know where to start: make five regulatory frameworks work as if they were one, without internal contradictions.
It is not theory or marketing. It is architecture. And it is what allows us to build while others continue to discuss interpretations.
VII. Europe needs clarity, not more layers of regulation
The AI Act was born from a legitimate political conviction. The Digital Omnibus was born from an urgent institutional need. But a continent does not stand on principles alone. You need consistent rules, realistic timetables and regulators that talk to each other.
If the Digital Omnibus remains in minor adjustments and not in a fundamental reform, Europe will prolong its uncertainty until the end of the decade. Meanwhile, companies can’t wait for Brussels to get its act together.
The only sensible strategy is to prepare for the most realistic scenario: a partially corrected, partially diluted AI Act and applied by authorities who will continue to interpret it unevenly for years.
Whoever adapts to that scenario will be able to compete. Who doesn’t, will be trapped between rules that don’t fit.
