They circumvented the rules without formally violating them. This is how critics describe the process that has brought the controversial measure known as Chat Control back into play in the European Parliament. It is not a definitive approval of blanket surveillance of all private messages, as is sometimes simplistically stated. However, the core of the dispute lies in the return of a temporary exemption from the ePrivacy rules, which allows online platforms to voluntarily search for and report materials related to child sexual abuse.
The word "voluntarily" is key throughout this debate. Proponents of the exemption argue that without it, technology companies may lose the legal basis for detecting illegal content. Opponents argue that even voluntary scanning of private communications creates a dangerous precedent and could gradually open the door to broader control of messages, including encrypted communication.
The controversial exemption expires on April 3, 2026. The European Parliament already rejected its extension in the first reading in March. However, the proposal then returned through another route. On July 2, the Council of the EU adopted the original proposal from the European Commission as its position, which means the matter has moved to the second reading in Parliament. And that is where the procedural twist lies.
In the second reading, a simple majority of MEPs present is no longer sufficient. To reject the Council's position or to make significant changes, an absolute majority of all members of the European Parliament, i.e., 360 votes, is required. Critics therefore speak of a procedural trick: a proposal that was politically blocked once has returned in a regime where its rejection is significantly more difficult.
The entire process was further accelerated by what is known as the urgent procedure. MEPs approved it on July 7 with a vote of 331 in favor, 304 against, and 11 abstentions. As a result, the proposal was quickly placed on the agenda of the plenary session, even within the same week.
The Parliament ultimately did not accept the Council's position unchanged. MEPs supported amendments that are intended to limit the scope of the exemption. Importantly, communication protected by end-to-end encryption is to be excluded from its application. This applies, for example, to services such as WhatsApp, Signal, or other applications where even the service provider should not have access to the content of messages.
Proposals to completely reject the Council's position were unsuccessful because they did not obtain the required absolute majority. The result is therefore a compromise, but still very controversial situation: Parliament did not stop the rules, it only amended them. The revised version is now returning to the Council of the EU, which has three months to decide. If the changes are not accepted, conciliation proceedings will follow.