FR
A strict framework to build trust
Article 12 of the DGA sets out specific guidelines for the activities of data intermediaries: these intermediaries must guarantee strict neutrality, must not exploit the data they facilitate, and must ensure the transparency and security of data exchanges. The aim is to prevent conflicts of interest, particularly where such entities might have access to strategic information regarding the relationships between data producers and users.
This regulatory framework may have direct implications for EONA-X, as an organisation facilitating data sharing between economic actors without holding or exploiting the content at this stage. The DGA currently considers that the PSID status must be examined for any entity performing this function, which raises significant uncertainties: the precise scope of the status, the services covered and the criteria for compliance remain unclear.
A status currently undergoing reform
Three years after the adoption of the regulation, the status of PSIDs is now being re-evaluated by the European Commission through a proposal for a Digital Omnibus. Indeed, few stakeholders have registered, and the ecosystem has not taken shape as anticipated. Only around thirty organisations across all countries have applied for the label since 2023. Among the data spaces, the Legal Data Space is the only one to have declared itself a PSID late in 2026.
A reorientation of the status is now being considered and could lead, within a year, to the abandonment of its mandatory nature in favour of a voluntary label, which is more flexible and better suited to the realities on the ground. Whilst the neutrality requirement originally necessitated a strict legal and structural separation between the data intermediary service and other services, this would now involve only an organisational separation, and thus be less restrictive. This upcoming change echoes feedback from ARCEP, which points out that neutrality and transparency are, above all, matters of good practice.
In the context of the Digital Omnibus, meetings are currently taking place with ARCEP and the European Commission, which are seeking clarification on EONA-X’s position.
A regulatory framework that remains unclear and is ill-suited to the market’s current stage of maturity
The DGA aims to build trust and stimulate innovation by regulating data intermediation. However, as it currently stands, it is having the opposite effect: legal uncertainty, administrative red tape and a barrier to experimentation. The scope of the PSID status remains poorly defined: which services are covered? Where does neutrality end? How does it relate to data spaces, and what of the position of market players (and our members) who, at this stage, do not see the value of such a status? To date, 33 PSIDs have been notified at European level, compared to several thousand potential players. This disproportion highlights the urgent need for clarification.
A pledge of European sovereignty that fails to address the real issues
The DGA was designed as a tool to safeguard Europe’s strategic autonomy in the face of major digital platforms. However, its current application mainly affects local initiatives or emerging sovereign projects, such as data spaces, without really constraining the digital giants. There is an urgent need to recalibrate the approach so that it truly addresses the risks of concentration of access to data. ARCEP also lacks the resources to oversee such a broad and still-evolving field.
The lack of a viable business model and demand for PSIDs
The DGA imposes onerous (and as yet unclear) obligations on organisations that are still at the experimental stage, without offering any clear benefits in return (e.g. easier access to certain data, incentives for certification, etc.). No stable business model has emerged to date for PSIDs. The compliance burden is therefore perceived as a cost with no return on investment, all the more so as there is no clear demand from users for formal PSIDs.
Making the PSID a voluntary scheme
At this stage, it seems more sensible to transform the PSID status into a voluntary, recognised (the nature of this recognition to be defined) and progressive scheme, rather than maintaining a requirement that is difficult to enforce. This would enable stakeholders to test models, align their practices with the principles of the DGA, and embark on a controlled path to compliance, without penalising experimentation and the diversity of approaches.
A disruptive approach: rethinking the logic of certification
Rather than systematically certifying stakeholders, it would be more appropriate to certify data-sharing policies on a case-by-case basis for each contract, depending on the risk involved in data intermediation (sensitive data, etc.). This approach would enable the promotion of structured approaches through standard contracts, transparent governance rules and a clear separation of roles, whilst also identifying cases where certification is appropriate and those where it would be disproportionate.
If certification of stakeholders is retained (Plan B), it is essential to distinguish non-profit entities (such as EONA-X) from commercial operators. The status of a certified PSID should logically be held by the collective and neutral governance structure, in this case EONA-X.
Conclusion
It is also necessary to clarify the relationship between the DGA and other legislation (Data Act, Open Data, GDPR, AI Act and its risk levels:
– Understand the reasoning behind the AI Act’s decision to adopt risk levels rather than firm regulations.
– Align the obligations of the DGA with those of the Data Act, in particular Article 33, to avoid duplication, contradictions or ‘grey areas’.
EONA-X fully supports the DGA’s ambitions: to foster trust, facilitate data sharing and strengthen European digital sovereignty. However, to avoid stifling innovation at its earliest stages, Article 12 must be clarified, made more flexible and applied with discretion, taking into account the maturity of ecosystems and the willingness of stakeholders.