Civil society urges EU negotiators to strengthen GDPR enforcement rules, warning against missed opportunity to rein in Big Tech
The groups argue that without clear, rights-focused procedures, the GDPR will remain strong in theory but weak in practice, leaving individuals without meaningful ways to enforce their data rights.
A broad coalition of civil society groups has called on EU lawmakers to fortify the proposed GDPR Procedural Regulation, arguing that the current negotiations risk weakening individuals’ ability to enforce their data rights and allowing large tech companies to continue evading accountability. In a joint letter sent to trilogue negotiators, the signatories warn that without robust procedural guarantees, the EU’s flagship data-protection law will remain powerful on paper but vulnerable in practice.
The organisations point to years of stalled complaints, unpaid fines, and legal delays that have enabled major companies to sidestep GDPR obligations. They note that while headline penalties may suggest a strong enforcement regime, many investigations drag on for years and sanctions are not effectively enforced. As a result, individuals’ rights to privacy and data protection are left in limbo, and the EU’s credibility as a global digital rights leader is undermined.
The letter frames the ongoing negotiations as a rare moment to correct deep structural weaknesses. The groups urge lawmakers to ensure faster, clearer, and rights-focused procedures, warning that proposals on the table risk adding complexity rather than reducing it, and could codify loopholes that large corporations have long exploited. They also stress the need for equal treatment of complainants and companies in cross-border cases, including fair access to case files and opportunities to be heard – protections that civil society says remain uneven and insufficient.
Why does this matter?
Strengthening enforcement mechanisms is portrayed as essential to safeguarding fundamental rights in areas ranging from employment and social protection to migration and online platforms. For civil society, the debate is not only about regulation but about the balance of power in the digital age: whether democratic oversight, human dignity, and equality can withstand concentrated private influence.
To these organisations, procedural rules are not technical footnotes – they are the guardrails that stop rights from becoming privileges and ensure that ordinary people, not only corporations, have agency in digital spaces. A weakened enforcement regime would signal that resources and influence, rather than rights and law, determine who prevails.
