In 2026 and beyond, the EU and its regulatory bodies will prioritise “safety by design” of online environments. Legal expert Claire Pinson-Bessonnet anticipates an inevitable collision with Big Tech over its doctrine of “algorithmic control.”

It is long established that Brussels will not follow US courts with regards to the European Union’s (EU) governance of tech giants. 

Yet in both continents, sensitivities are rising on the accountability of tech’s biggest platforms to manage their online environments and keep audiences safe from growing risks and harmful content.

In 2026, political attention will turn to the architecture and design of environments brought in by the biggest tech firms, in which liabilities point towards an unavoidable confrontation.

Whether in Brussels or Washington, regulators are beginning to probe the protections offered by tech giants of audiences on their platforms, and how consumer engagements are determined by algorithms designed to prioritize consumption.

For adult and vice segments such as online gambling, liabilities catch the eye of Paris-bar lawyer and regulatory affairs expert for European gaming, Claire Pinson-Bessonnet of CPB Avocats.

The legal expert views the current conundrum as a regulatory paradigm about the design of online interfaces between the tech giants “architecture of control” versus the regulator;s demand of “safety by design” – two outcomes that are on a clear collision course.

Monitoring developments closely, for Bessonnet, the matter has recently reached new grounds, not by a European ruling, but by both a judgement of the LA County Court and a complaint filed in Pennsylvania. 

In the KGM vs Meta & YouTube case, a jury found that the tech giants were accountable for the harm of a young user’s mental health distress due to certain design features. The fallout saw the plantiffs (KGM) compensated with $3m each in damages, as Meta and Youtube were deemed to be negligent in the protection of users’ exposure to harmful content. 

In the recent complaint filed against DraftKings and FanDuel, the claim centres on what Bessonnet views as “design defects, negligence, failure-to-warn, emotional distress, and unjust enrichment claims” as well as a claim under unfair trade practices and consumer protection law. 

“The complaint relates to live in-game micro betting, parlays, push notifications, and in-app communications about betting opportunities,” she said.

The LA County Court’s determination pin-points to the next fault line, which has become visible: algorithmic accountability as the point of liability. 

Duty of design

Regardless of jurisdiction, courts and regulators are no longer satisfied with  ‘moderation commitments’. Instead, they are choosing to dig deeper on the often AI-led recommendation systems, prompts and engagement loops which many believe shapes a user’s behaviour in their given environment. 

“We are seeing a fundamental shift in legal reasoning,” Bessonnet explained. 

“The question is no longer limited to whether harmful content exists on a platform, be it gambling or other types, but whether the systems that prioritise and distribute that content are designed in a way that foreseeably amplifies harm. 

“Liability can attach not to a single act, but to the architecture of design itself grounded in the optimisation of algorithms.”

In contrast, the defence of Meta and its controls remained rooted in familiar territory. 

The Valley giant pointed to safety tools, parental controls and content filters embedded across its products, arguing that responsibility is shared between platforms and users. As such, Meta and others believe that self-control has always been provided to the user. 

Yet the defence is open to scrutiny, as Bessonnet noted: “The difficulty with self-regulation appears when it externalises responsibility.” 

“Platforms can demonstrate that safeguards exist, but if those safeguards depend on users activating them, or even understanding them,  they may therefore only offer partial protection. Regulators are increasingly turning to safety mechanisms embedded as default conditions, rather than features that can be bypassed.”

EU moves on digital fairness

In Europe, this shift is being codified through policy. Frameworks such as the Digital Services Act and the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act point towards a unified doctrine: “safety by design” must override engagement-led architecture. 

“What is emerging in Europe is a move towards a regulation whose objective is to intervene at the level of product design,” said Bessonnet. “The objective is to require platforms to anticipate risks linked to personalisation, recommender systems and interface mechanics. In practical terms, this means questioning certain features if their primary effect is to exploit behavioural vulnerabilities.”

This regulatory momentum is also being driven by broader societal concerns. Protection of vulnerable audiences, particularly minors, has become the political anchor of reform efforts. 

Across Europe, proposals to restrict/prohibit under-16 access to social platforms and tighten digital safeguards reflect a growing impatience with Big Tech. 

“There is a clear change in perception,” Bessonnet adds. “For many years, platforms benefited from a degree of regulatory goodwill, but that has eroded as evidence has accumulated on the impact of digital environments on mental health, especially among younger users. The political narrative is now centred on safety by design, and that significantly raises the bar for compliance.”

Yet Europe has been here before as once more the familiar tension between fragmentation vs harmonisation paradigm continues to define the bloc’s regulatory trajectory, with Member States advancing national measures while Brussels attempts to strengthen the EU framework. 

“The European Digital Fairness Act will be discussed in an ambitious context where some Member States raise high the bar of compliance” Bessonnet cautions.

If Member States pursue divergent approaches, particularly on issues like age restrictions, advertising or platform access, it risks creating legal uncertainty and enforcement gaps that sophisticated operators can navigate.

Accountability of behavioural triggers

What is different this time is the scope of intervention. Regulators are no longer confined to policing content or licensing regimes; they are entering the design layer itself. 

Case in point. National authorities such as Spain’s Directorate of Gambling (DGOJ) and France’s Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ), are actively examining how gambling products mechanics influence user behaviour. 

“We are moving towards a regulatory model where design is not neutral,” Bessonnet concluded. 

“Once you accept that online interface designs, timing of prompts and personalisation strategies shape behaviour, then it becomes logical that these elements enter the scope of supervision. That entails important implications not just for technology platforms, but for any sector built on digital engagement, including gambling.”

Costly disclosure 

The fallout is beginning to crystallise around a single, uncomfortable prospect for Big Tech: being forced to show its algorithmic hand. 

For Meta and Google, whose competitive advantage has long been built on opaque and unchecked systems, the disclosure is the ultimate cost. 

What has historically been guarded in boardrooms and defended in courtrooms via multi-million litigations, may soon be subject to formal obligations to promote gambling or any other adult/vice category. 

Bessonnet duly viewed this as a paradigm shift: “Given the decisions being made across the Atlantic and the ongoing initiatives – particularly legislative ones – in Europe, the issue of online interfaces’ design now appears to be urgent and sensitive everywhere.

“The question is not so much whether the current debates on online interface design foreshadow the trial of the attention economy, but rather to keep in mind, in the current context, the importance of the argument for technological and digital sovereignty in Europe … The era of self-regulation in online interface design may be coming to an end.”

Want to hear more stories like this? Check out the new SBC Media YouTube Channel, the new home of all things multimedia at SBC, where our team deep-dives into the biggest stories from across the sports betting, iGaming, affiliate and payments industries.