Photo of Kristof Van Quathem

Kristof Van Quathem

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty years and developed particular experience in the life science and information technology sectors. He counsels clients on government affairs strategies concerning EU lawmaking and their compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, and has represented clients in non-contentious and contentious matters before data protection authorities, national courts and the Court of the Justice of the EU.

Kristof is admitted to practice in Belgium.

Contact:Read more about Kristof Van QuathemEmail

On July 17, 2025, the European Commission launched a “call for evidence” and public consultation on the Digital Fairness Act (“DFA”), an anticipated new consumer protection law. The Commission seeks feedback on existing EU consumer protection laws and on proposals for how the DFA could address the following two problems with the existing laws, as identified through a “Fitness Check” of EU consumer law published in October 2024:

  • Lack of digital fairness for consumers. This particularly affects vulnerable groups such as minors, offering them suboptimal choices that can lead to financial harm, loss of time, negative health impacts, and indirect effects like environmental costs.
  • Unclear rules for businesses and market fragmentation. This results in increased business costs, hampers cross-border trade, leads to missed opportunities, and causes unfair competition, particularly from non-EU traders.

The Commission has also emphasized its objective to enhance the EU’s competitiveness, aiming for simplification of consumer protection rules and the removal of barriers within the EU Market. This includes efforts to achieve greater legal certainty regarding unfair commercial practices. The goal is to address enforcement deficiencies, regulatory gaps, and market fragmentation, as some Member States have regulated or are considering new regulation in these areas.Continue Reading Help Shape the New EU Consumer Protection Law: Join the Public Consultation on the Digital Fairness Act

On July 4, 2025, a non-paper from the Danish government signaled an intention to propose a targeted revision of the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive to reduce the compliance burden on companies and ensure their competitiveness.  Denmark recently assumed the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and will be in a privileged position to shape EU policymaking for the next six months.  Amending the GDPR forms part of the Danish presidency program.  During this period, the European Commission is also expected to publish a fitness check on EU digital legislation, along with a digital omnibus package (see our previous blog here).Continue Reading Denmark Proposes GDPR and ePrivacy Directive Revision

n June 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered important rulings clarifying the application of the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD), which protects consumers from unfair standard contract terms that have not been individually negotiated. The UCTD ensures such terms are transparent, clear, and balanced; unfair terms are not binding on consumers and may expose businesses to enforcement actions.

This blog post highlights four significant cases decided in June 2025. These cases involve preliminary references from national courts to the CJEU to clarify whether national laws are aligned with EU law.Continue Reading Overview of Key CJEU Rulings on EU Consumer Protection Law of June 2025

On June 26, 2025, the Council and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement on modernizing the EU’s framework for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in consumer matters.

The current ADR framework—established in Directive 2013/11/EU (ADR Directive)—has not been amended since its adoption in 2013. As noted in our previous blog, the European Commission recognized the need to modernize the system and, on October 17, 2023, proposed a legislative package to (i) amend the ADR Directive, and (ii) repeal the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Regulation, which created the European Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Platform, on the basis that this platform was infrequently used. The ODR repeal regulation was formally adopted on November 19, 2024 and the ODR Platform will be discontinued on July 20, 2025. Since then, the focus has shifted to finalizing a reformed ADR framework.Continue Reading Council and Parliament Agree on Key Reforms to the EU ADR Framework

On June 19, 2025, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published two recommendations for AI developers.  The first recommendation covers reliance on the GDPR’s legitimate interest legal basis for developing an AI model.  It provides examples of legitimate interests that can justify the use of personal data for AI development.

Continue Reading CNIL Publishes Recommendations on Legitimate Interest as a Legal Basis for AI Training

AI chatbots are transforming how businesses handle consumer inquiries and complaints, offering speed and availability that traditional channels often cannot match.  However, the European Commission’s recent Digital Fairness Act Fitness Check has spotlighted a gap: EU consumers currently lack a cross-sectoral right to demand human contact when interacting with AI chatbots in business-to-consumer settings.  It is still unclear whether and how the European Commission is proposing to address this.  The Digital Fairness Act could do so, but the Commission’s proposal is only planned to be published in the 3rd quarter of 2026.  This post highlights key consumer protection considerations for companies deploying AI chatbots in the EU market.

AI Chatbots Cannot Be the Only Contact Channel

Under EU law–particularly the Consumer Rights Directive (“CRD”) and the eCommerce Directive–consumers must have access to traditional communication channels such as the trader’s postal address, telephone number, and email address.  The Court of Justice of the EU has made clear that consumers must be able to contact traders directly, quickly, and effectively (Case C-649/17).  While chatbots can assist, they cannot replace mandatory human contact options.

AI Chatbots as Supplementary Communication Channels

The CRD requires traders to disclose their primary contact details before concluding a contract, but does not prohibit offering AI chatbots as additional communication tools.  Where chatbots enable consumers to retain durable records of their interactions – including timestamps – traders should inform consumers about that.  Durable records are defined as information stored in a medium accessible and unalterable for future reference, such as emails or downloadable files.

In any event, certain communications, such as the acknowledgment of a consumer’s right of withdrawal, must be provided in a “durable medium,” ensuring consumers have a stable and accessible record of important contractual information.

Human Oversight and the Right to Human InterventionContinue Reading Digital Fairness Act Series: Topic 2 – Transparency and Disclosure Obligations for AI Chatbots in Consumer Interactions

On March 20, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on the fairness, under EU consumer protection law, of a contractual clause allocating a percentage of an athlete’s income to a professional services provider (Case C‑365/23 [Arce]).  This ruling sets an important precedent and strengthens the protection afforded by consumer protection law to minors who enter into professional service contracts, whether in sport or elsewhere.

Background

The case was referred to the CJEU by a Latvian court.  It concerns a contract whereby a company undertook to provide career support services – including coaching, training, sports medicine, sports psychology, career guidance, club contracts, marketing, legal services, and accounting – to a basketball player, who was a minor at the time and therefore represented by his parents.  In exchange for the company’s services, the athlete agreed to pay 10% of any net income (plus VAT) he would receive over a period of 15 years from the signing of the contract.  At the time of signing the contract, the athlete was not a professional.  Some years later, however, he became a professional athlete.  When the athlete refused to pay the percentage to the company, the company sued him to enforce the contract.  The Latvian courts asked the CJEU, whether it could assess the fairness of this long-term financial commitment under the Latvian legislation implementing Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“UCTD”).

Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive

Under the UCTD, a contractual clause in a business-to-consumer contract (not negotiated by the consumer) is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.  The CJEU ruled that the UCTD, as transposed into Latvian law, applies to the contract between the professional services provider and the athelete because the athlete was not yet engaged in professional sport at the time the contract was signed.  The status of “consumer” must be assessed at the time of the conclusion of the contract.  Consequently, the athlete was a “consumer” within the meaning of the UCTD.  The CJEU ruled that the UCTD applies even if the individual later embarks on a professional career.Continue Reading CJEU Rules on Fairness of Remuneration Clause in Sports Contract

On March 21, 2025, the European Commission announced that the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (“CPC-N”) had initiated enforcement proceedings against an online gaming company, for allegedly violating EU consumer protection laws and engaging in practices that could pose a particular risk to children.  The gaming company now has one month…

Continue Reading Consumer Watchdogs Turn Their Attention to the Online Gaming Industry