Innovation Law Insights

Artificial Intelligence  

Digitalization, AI and Algorithmic Management of Work: From Monitoring to Regulation

The study published on 24 October 2025 by the European Parliament’s Research Service examines the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic management (AM) systems in European workplaces, highlighting their widespread adoption well beyond the original domain of platform work. The report combines legal analysis, stakeholder interviews, and sector-specific case studies – for example, in logistics, healthcare, telecommunications, automotive, and manufacturing – revealing a fragmented regulatory landscape and protection gaps arising from the inadequacy of general-purpose instruments.

The research estimates that workers’ exposure to AM, currently around 42.3%, could rise to 55.5% in the medium term. This trajectory creates opportunities for efficiency and productivity – such as the automation of managerial tasks, dynamic scheduling, and automated compliance enforcement – while simultaneously generating significant risks related to working conditions, decision-making autonomy, work-life balance, and psychosocial and physical wellbeing. AI and AM can enhance physical safety, for example by substituting human workers in hazardous tasks or enabling data-driven prevention, yet the primary risk remains psychosocial intensification caused by continuous monitoring, automated performance metrics, and reduced managerial discretion.

The current relevant EU legal framework – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), the AI Act, EU occupational health and safety acquis (EU-OSHA), and Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions in platform work – provides a minimum level of protection but does not constitute a coherent, workplace-specific regime. Key challenges include uneven personal coverage (the definition of “worker” varies across Member States), information and consultation obligations not calibrated for AM systems and often inapplicable to SMEs, fragmented and asymmetric enforcement across competent authorities, lack of safeguards against algorithmic bias unrelated to protected characteristics, absence of explicit limits on algorithmic scheduling outside Directive (EU) 2024/2831, and weak collective protections in the context of automated processing.

The study considers three intervention options: a non-binding Council recommendation; a “package reform” of existing legislation (OSHA, information and consultation rules, working time, transparent and predictable working conditions, and the Platform Work Directive); and the adoption of a new legislative instrument specifically dedicated to algorithmic management. The first two options have evident limitations regarding legal certainty, proportionality, and compliance costs, as well as the risk of inconsistent application across Member States. The third option – a targeted legislative act on AM – is identified as the most suitable instrument to address the gaps without over-regulating sectors that are not affected, providing a clear perimeter of obligations, controls, and remedies.

From a policy and regulatory perspective, EU-level intervention is considered necessary not only for worker protection – ensuring uniform safeguards, reducing psychosocial risks, and guaranteeing fundamental rights under pervasive surveillance – but also for market reasons: preventing regulatory fragmentation, maintaining a level playing field, and reducing legal uncertainty and adaptation costs for transnational companies.

The policy takeaway is clear: algorithmic management has become a generalized workplace technology, no longer a sector-specific feature of platform work. The current legal framework, built on general and fragmented instruments, is insufficient to govern its systemic effects. In the era of AI at work, the regulatory question is no longer whether to intervene, but where to draw the line between algorithmic efficiency and human dignity, and which governance mechanisms – individual and collective – should enforce that line.

Author: Dorina Simaku

 

Data Protection and Cybersecurity 

Brussels strengthens the link between the DMA and the GDPR: first joint guidelines for digital markets

On 9 October 2025, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission published the first-ever joint guidelines clarifying the interaction between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).

This unprecedented initiative is the result of close cooperation between two of Europe’s main regulatory authorities and aims to ensure a coherent application of the rules while providing greater legal certainty for gatekeepers, business users, beneficiaries, and citizens.

The initiative is part of the EDPB’s 2024-27 Strategy and responds to the objectives set out in the Helsinki Statement, which focus on simplifying GDPR compliance and promoting uniformity in the application of the rules. As EDPB Chair Anu Talus emphasized, these guidelines are the product of constructive collaboration and represent the first example of a jointly prepared guidance document. According to the Chair, the joint approach maximizes the practical usefulness of the guidance, making compliance easier for businesses and strengthening legal certainty.

The DMA and the GDPR share the goal of protecting individuals in the digital environment, but they pursue complementary objectives. The GDPR safeguards fundamental rights and privacy, while the DMA addresses systemic risks in digital markets, promoting fairness and competitiveness. Several activities regulated by the DMA involve the processing of personal data by gatekeepers, and certain provisions explicitly refer to GDPR definitions and concepts. The joint guidelines provide practical guidance on implementing DMA obligations while complying with data protection requirements. A concrete example concerns Article 5(2) of the DMA in relation to the specific and valid consent required under the GDPR, offering orientation on how to lawfully combine or use personal data across core platform services. The guidelines also cover other areas impacting data protection, including third-party app distribution and app stores, data portability, access requests, and messaging service interoperability.

To ensure broad stakeholder engagement, the EDPB and the Commission have launched a public consultation on the draft guidelines, open until 4 December 2025. All contributions will be made public on the DMA website, with a link provided on the EDPB portal, and feedback collected during the consultation will be incorporated into the final text, which will be jointly adopted by both institutions.

The work does not stop here. The two bodies are already planning further joint guidelines to clarify the emerging cross-regulatory landscape and ensure consistent application of data protection safeguards. In particular, the EDPB is collaborating with the Commission’s AI Office to develop guidance on the interaction between the AI Act and EU data protection rules, aiming to preserve regulatory coherence and strengthen compliance guarantees.

It is worth noting that the Digital Markets Act is one of the first EU regulatory tools designed to curb unfair practices by gatekeepers – large digital platforms offering core services such as search engines, app stores, and messaging systems – and to make digital markets more contestable and fair.

Author: Gabriele Cattaneo

 

Intellectual Property

Trademark infringement and validity in the fashion sector: Dr. Martens case before the Brussels Court of Appeal

On September 30, 2025, Brussels Court of Appeal (ruling 65557/2025) ruled on the dispute between Airwair International Ltd., owner of “Dr. Martens” trademarks, and Retail Distribution Concepts BV (Redisco), distributor of the Mano and Pronti chains. whose marketing of footwear allegedly reproducing distinctive elements of the famous Dr. Martens shoes was challenged.

The case originated from the decision issued on 22 December 2022 by the Commercial Court of Brussels, which dismissed Airwair’s claims seeking to establish the infringement of some of its trademarks. In that proceeding, Redisco’s counterclaim for the invalidity of three Airwair trademarks was partially upheld: in particular, the shape mark of the sole was declared invalid for lack of distinctiveness.

Airwair filed an appeal, requesting the reversal of the decision and the recognition of trademark infringement by Redisco.

Brussels Court of Appeal, called to rule on the appeal, examined the four trademarks invoked by the company. The first concerned the “yellow stitching on black edge” characteristic of Dr. Martens footwear. This trademark had already been the subject of a separate proceeding before the Second Chamber of the Benelux Court of Justice, which, by judgment of February 6, 2024, had declared it invalid for lack of intrinsic and acquired distinctiveness. Following that decision, Airwair filed an appeal with the First Chamber of the same Court, which had suspensive effect on the contested judgment.

In light of this, Brussels Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings regarding this trademark, pending the final decision of the Benelux Court of Justice.

The second trademark concerned the protection of the DMS sole design, which had been declared invalid and not infringed at first instance. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision: according to the Court, which also relied on documentary evidence provided by the appellant, the sole design has a unique and recognizable appearance, clearly differing from models commonly available on the market, and is therefore valid. Regarding infringement, the Court recognized that the shoe models sold by Redisco closely resemble the registered trademark, creating a risk of confusion for the average consumer.

Regarding the third trademark at the center of the dispute, a position mark protecting the “yellow stitching along the edge between upper and sole”, Redisco had argued for invalidity, claiming that the stitching was merely decorative and functional. The Court, acknowledging the technical value of the stitching, produced according to the typical “Goodyear” construction, found that Airwair had used it consistently for decades. As a result, the yellow stitching has become a distinctive sign of the brand, and the related trademark cannot be declared invalid.

As for the last contested trademark, a figurative mark- a rectangle with the inscription “oil fat acid petrol alkali resistant” – the Court found that the sign used by Redisco on “Rolling Business” footwear shows visual and phonetic similarity to the registered mark, reproducing the same verbal elements in the same configuration. Considering the identity of the products, the distinctiveness of the mark, and the generally low level of attention of the relevant public, there is a risk of confusion. Therefore, the trademark is considered infringed.

Overall, the decision contributes to strengthening the protection of non-conventional trademarks in the fashion sector, recognizing the legal value of distinctive signs that, through prolonged and systematic use, have become reliable indicators of the commercial origin of the product in the eyes of consumers.

Author: Noemi Canova

---

Innovation Law Insights is compiled by DLA Piper lawyers, coordinated by Edoardo Bardelli, Carolina Battistella, Noemi Canova, Gabriele Cattaneo, Giovanni Chieco, Maria Rita Cormaci, Camila Crisci, Cristina Criscuoli, Tamara D’Angeli, Chiara D’Onofrio, Federico Maria Di Vizio, Enila Elezi, Laura Gastaldi, Vincenzo Giuffré, Nicola Landolfi, Giacomo Lusardi, Valentina Mazza, Lara Mastrangelo, Maria Chiara Meneghetti, Giulio Napolitano, Andrea Pantaleo, Deborah Paracchini, Maria Vittoria Pessina, Marianna Riedo, Tommaso Ricci, Marianna Riedo, Rebecca Rossi, Dorina Simaku, Roxana Smeria, Massimiliano Tiberio, Federico Toscani, Giulia Zappaterra.

Articles concerning Telecommunications are curated by Massimo D’Andrea, Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa and Arianna Porretti.

For further information on the topics covered, please contact the partners Giulio Coraggio, Marco de Morpurgo, Gualtiero Dragotti, Alessandro Ferrari, Roberto Valenti, Elena Varese, Alessandro Boso Caretta, Ginevra Righini.

Learn about Prisca AI Compliance, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to assess the maturity of AI systems against key regulations and technical standards here.

You can learn more about “Transfer”, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to support companies in evaluating data transfers out of the EEA (TIA) here, and check out a DLA Piper publication outlining Gambling regulation here, as well as Diritto Intelligente, a monthly magazine dedicated to AI, here.

If you no longer wish to receive Innovation Law Insights or would like to subscribe, please email Silvia Molignani.