EU debate over digital rights and disinformation sharpens as Robert Szustkowski initiative gains visibility

• Europe is facing a growing challenge from disinformation, widely seen as a threat to democratic stability and public trust.
• Public concern is high, with Eurobarometer data indicating that a significant share of EU citizens are worried about false or misleading online content.
• Robert Szustkowski’s initiative seeks to expand the GDPR “right to be forgotten” to include media organizations as data controllers, aiming to better protect individuals’ reputations.
• A ruling by Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court has strengthened the legal foundation for removing personal data from online publications, reinforcing digital rights.
• The European Commission acknowledges existing protections under GDPR but stresses the need to balance data protection with freedom of expression and journalistic independence.
• The Digital Services Act represents a broader EU effort to regulate platforms, improve transparency, and limit the spread of harmful content.
• Disinformation is increasingly viewed as a geopolitical and electoral risk, particularly in countries exposed to coordinated campaigns.
• Szustkowski’s proposal includes systemic reforms such as a central registry of rights violations and a Reader’s Rights Ombudsman to streamline complaints.
• Fact-checking initiatives and institutions like EDMO are becoming central to Europe’s strategy to combat misinformation.
• The debate highlights a broader shift toward strengthening individual control over digital identity while preserving democratic values and press freedom.

(NEWS) BRUSSELS, 31-Mar-2026 — /EuropaWire/ — A debate over how Europe should respond to online disinformation, reputational harm and the limits of digital accountability is gaining momentum as a cross-border initiative led by entrepreneur and philanthropist Robert Szustkowski pushes for broader use of the EU’s “right to be forgotten” in cases involving media publications, according to a press release published on EuropaWire.

The discussion comes at a time when concerns about false and misleading content remain high across the European Union. Eurobarometer surveys show that a significant majority of EU citizens view disinformation as a serious issue, with around 69% expressing concern and more than 80% considering misleading information a threat to democracy. Studies also indicate that a large share of Europeans regularly encounter false or distorted content online. The World Economic Forum has similarly identified misinformation and disinformation as among the most pressing short-term global risks, reinforcing calls for stronger legal and regulatory safeguards to protect individuals in the digital environment.

Szustkowski’s proposal argues that media organisations should be treated more explicitly as data controllers when they process and publish personal information online, particularly in cases where content is alleged to be false, defamatory, unsupported or no longer relevant. The initiative also calls for structural reforms including a registry of personal rights violations, a standardised complaint process and the creation of a Reader’s Rights Ombudsman to assist individuals seeking redress.

The initiative has unfolded over several stages. In 2024, Szustkowski presented his proposal to the European Commission, arguing that the existing framework should more clearly allow individuals to seek erasure of harmful digital references in media content. In its response, as reported by EuropaWire in October 2024, the Commission’s Data Protection Unit said the General Data Protection Regulation already contains protections applicable to journalists and media entities, including Article 17 on erasure, but stressed that the right is not absolute and must be balanced against freedom of expression and information.

That balance remains central to the issue. Supporters of stronger protections say legal remedies have not kept pace with the speed and scale of online amplification, particularly when harmful claims continue to circulate long after they have been challenged. Critics and regulators, however, have long warned that expanding removal rights too far could create tension with press freedom and the public’s right to know.

By early 2025, the debate had broadened to include disinformation as a democratic risk. In a March 2025 EuropaWire press release, Szustkowski argued that the European Union should invest more heavily in high-quality journalism and fact-checking tools, saying irresponsible digital platforms have helped create space for manipulation around elections, health, migration and public life. That report also cited warnings about Poland’s exposure to disinformation campaigns ahead of its 2025 presidential election, reflecting wider anxieties in frontline states about the political impact of coordinated false narratives.

In June 2025, the discussion intensified again when EuropaWire reported that a ruling by Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court had recognized the “right to be forgotten” as an autonomous legal basis for seeking the removal of personal data from online publications. If interpreted more broadly, such a development could strengthen arguments for extending practical remedies against reputational harm in the media environment, although the broader legal and policy implications would still depend on implementation by courts, regulators and lawmakers.

The initiative is advancing alongside wider EU efforts to regulate online platforms. Under the Digital Services Act, the European Union has introduced a stronger framework for addressing illegal content, increasing transparency and improving safeguards for users’ fundamental rights online, especially in relation to very large platforms and search engines. At the same time, the European Digital Media Observatory has continued to support networks of fact-checkers and researchers working to monitor and counter disinformation across the bloc.

For now, Szustkowski’s campaign appears to sit at the intersection of two major European policy debates: how to defend democratic discourse from manipulation, and how to protect personal dignity and reputation without undermining legitimate journalism. Whether his proposal evolves into formal legislative change remains unclear, but it is contributing to a broader argument now taking shape in Brussels — that the next phase of Europe’s digital rulebook may be judged not only by how it disciplines platforms, but by how effectively it protects citizens when harmful information persists online.