EU fights child abuse material online
The European Union’s years-long battle over how to combat child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has taken another sharp turn, with lawmakers reviving a contested temporary measure that would allow tech companies to scan private messages for illicit content.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental clash: privacy advocates warn that scanning private communications amounts to mass surveillance, while child safety groups and many tech firms argue that without such tools, CSAM will continue to spread unchecked. The debate reached a breaking point in March when the European Parliament voted against extending a temporary exemption that had permitted platforms to scan for CSAM, leaving companies without a clear legal basis to continue the practice.
An unexpected revival
On July 7, the Parliament invoked a special legislative procedure to resurrect the temporary exemption, a move spearheaded by Parliament President Roberta Metsola. The full chamber is now expected to vote on the measure on July 9.
Related: Trump tariffs divide American consumers
The exemption, first introduced in 2020, allowed companies to scan for CSAM without violating EU data privacy rules. But efforts to extend it failed earlier this year when lawmakers rejected a broader, longer-term version backed by the European Commission and Council. The standoff left tech platforms in legal limbo, though many—including Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Snapchat—continued scanning anyway, according to a joint letter from the companies.
That defiance has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers. “I’m frustrated by companies that say we decide which laws we respect, and which laws we want to ignore,” said MEP Birgit Sippel, the rapporteur on the temporary exemption.
What counts as CSAM—and how it’s detected
CSAM includes any content depicting the sexual abuse or exploitation of children, according to RAINN, a U.S.-based advocacy group. The scale of the problem is staggering: in 2024, the U.S. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) received over 20.4 million reports of CSAM. The Internet Watch Foundation estimates that 70% of all such content globally originated in Europe last year.
Most tech companies use a system called PhotoDNA to detect known CSAM. The tool works by comparing digital “fingerprints” of images against a database of previously identified material, allowing platforms to flag matches without requiring human review of the content itself. The method is widely seen as effective but has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over privacy and surveillance.
Related: Tech firms drive borrowing boom
The pushback against “chat control”
Opposition to mandatory scanning gained momentum in 2020, when digital rights groups like Stop Chat Control and Fight Chat Control began campaigning against what they called “mass surveillance.” The groups argued that exemptions to privacy rules—even for a cause as serious as combating CSAM—set a dangerous precedent. Their efforts included mobilizing citizens to flood lawmakers with emails.
“We allowed providers to check all personal communications of all users at any time,” Sippel said. “As a general matter, that is deeply affecting the rights of all the users, and most of them are not criminals, clearly.”
Patrick Grady, an EU policy manager at the Chamber of Progress, said the original temporary exemption—with its narrower scope—was the right approach. “Basic user privacy is incompatible with broad scanning mandates,” he said.
Related: Parliament’s July print edition released
With trilogue negotiations on new criminal laws still underway, the path forward remains uncertain. The July 9 vote could provide a temporary resolution—or deepen the stalemate.
What happens next may hinge on whether lawmakers can find a middle ground that balances privacy concerns with the urgent need to address the spread of CSAM. The temporary exemption, if approved, would buy time, but it’s unlikely to resolve the underlying tensions. For now, the debate remains as polarized as ever, with both sides digging in.
Final trilogue negotiations on the permanent framework continue, but the EU’s institutions show no signs of reaching consensus. The July 9 vote will test whether the temporary exemption can survive—or if the bloc will be forced to confront the issue without a clear legal foundation.
