The aim of the regulation is to protect consumers from confusing AI content with real, human-generated information. 

In the following article, we will explain when you are affected by the AI regulation and how you can protect yourself from sanctions.

Which companies are affected by the AI regulation?

The EU AI Regulation (AI-VO) generally applies to all companies that develop, provide, or use artificial intelligence, provided that the AI systems are used in the EU or their results affect individuals within the EU. This includes not only IT companies but also businesses that use AI for purposes such as marketing, workforce planning, customer communication, or content creation.

The AI Regulation distinguishes between different legal roles, each with its own specific obligations. These roles can change depending on the type of use. For example, if an imported AI component is integrated into the company's own software and distributed under its own name, the company is legally considered a supplier.

Providers develop AI systems themselves or have them developed and market them under their own name. Among other things, they must ensure compliance with the AI Regulation, conduct risk assessments, and provide technical documentation.

Operators use AI systems as part of their business activities. They are subject to labeling and transparency obligations, particularly regarding AI-generated content or deepfakes.

Importers and dealers also have obligations to inspect, inform and due diligence.

Important: There is no general exemption for SMEs. The only exceptions are purely private, non-professional use and specific areas as defined in Article 2 of the AI Regulation.

Risk groups under the AI Regulation: Which AI applications are particularly regulated?

The EU AI Regulation (AI Regulation) assigns AI systems to so-called risk groups. The decisive factor is the potential risk to health, safety, and fundamental rights posed by an AI application. The higher the risk, the stricter the legal requirements for providers and operators.

AI systems with unacceptable risk

Among the impermissible AI systems are, in particular, applications that are incompatible with the fundamental rights of the European Union. These include, for example, social scoring models, systems for the targeted cognitive or behavioral manipulation of individuals, and methods for emotion recognition in the workplace. The use of such AI applications is prohibited under EU law and has been since [date missing]. Completely banned from February 2nd, 2025.

High-risk AI systems

High-risk AI systems are those that have a significant impact on the health, safety, or fundamental rights of individuals. This applies particularly to AI applications in sensitive areas such as medicine, transportation, human resources management, education, and the financial sector. Examples include AI systems for evaluating MRI images or for analyzing and assessing loan applications. The use of such high-risk AI is subject to strict legal requirements, including comprehensive risk assessments, ensuring transparency, high technical robustness, and effective human oversight.

AI systems with limited risk

These AI systems interact directly with people and therefore pose a manageable risk. Typical use cases include chatbots in customer service. Transparency obligations apply to such systems: users must be clearly and unambiguously informed that they are communicating with an AI and not a human.

AI systems with minimal risk

This category includes everyday AI applications without any significant risk potential. Examples include spelling and grammar checkers, spam filters, and AI-powered games. No additional legal obligations exist for such systems; only voluntary adherence to codes of conduct is recommended.

Use and integration of basic models (GPAI systems) according to the AI Regulation

The EU AI Regulation (AI-VO) contains specific rules for so-called GPAI systems (General Purpose Artificial Intelligence), also known as basic models. These are AI systems with a general purpose, trained on large datasets, and flexibly deployable for various tasks. GPAI systems can also be integrated into other AI applications and, depending on their area of application, may fall under different risk categories. A well-known example of a GPAI system is ChatGPT.

The AI Regulation distinguishes between GPAI without systemic risk and GPAI with systemic risk. The latter applies when an AI system is particularly powerful, widely deployed, and can have significant impacts on the economy, society, or security. In these cases, more stringent regulatory requirements apply.

This distinction primarily concerns providers of GPAI systems, who may be subject to additional documentation, transparency, and risk mitigation obligations. For operators or users of GPAI systems—that is, companies that use or integrate such AI models—the AI Regulation does not stipulate any separate special obligations. The general role and usage obligations under the AI Regulation remain applicable.

Supervision and sanctions under the AI Regulation

The EU AI Regulation (AI Regulation) provides for state oversight of the use of AI systems. Each EU member state is obliged to designate competent supervisory authorities to which potential violations of the AI Regulation can be reported and prosecuted. 

Companies must therefore expect their AI applications to be subject to regulatory oversight in the future. Violations will result in severe penalties: fines can reach up to €35 million or up to 7 million of a company's global annual revenue, whichever is higher. 

Therefore, an early legal review of the use of AI is strongly recommended.

Entry into force of the AI Regulation and relevant transitional periods

The EU Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Regulation) has been formally in force since August 1, 2024. However, its practical application will be phased in gradually over several years to give companies the necessary time to adapt internal processes, systems, and compliance structures. The following key dates are important in this regard:

From the February 2, 2025 The use of AI systems that pose an unacceptable risk is prohibited. This applies in particular to applications that are incompatible with the fundamental rights of the European Union. At the same time, companies are obligated to ensure that the individuals involved in the use of AI systems possess sufficient expertise and application skills.

For the August 2, 2026 For the first time, the specific regulations for general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems come into force. These include, in particular, so-called basic models, such as those used in large language models. At the same time, this date marks the point at which the AI regulation is, in principle, fully applicable.

However, for certain high-risk AI systems, the legislator provides for an extended transition period. In these cases, the corresponding obligations only apply from [date]. August 2, 2027.

Early legal assessment is recommended to minimize implementation and liability risks.

What additional things need to be considered when using AI?

In addition to the EU AI Regulation (AI-VO), companies must comply with other legal requirements when using artificial intelligence. Particularly relevant are labor law, data protection, and intellectual property law (copyright and trademark law).

In employment law, AI offers numerous applications, particularly in recruitment and human resources management, such as creating job postings, pre-selecting applicants, and internal communication. At the same time, risks exist under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), as AI systems can adopt discriminatory patterns from their training data. Human oversight of the results is therefore essential. 

Furthermore, Article 22 of the GDPR limits the use of fully automated decisions: personnel decisions may not be made exclusively by AI.

The co-determination rights of the works council may also be affected, for example according to Section 87 Paragraph 1 No. 6 of the Works Constitution Act, especially if AI is used for performance or behavior monitoring.

Copyright law states that purely AI-generated content is generally not protected. However, protection may arise if AI is used only to support other functions. Additionally, the terms of use of the AI tools and potential trademark infringements must be examined.

Finally, there are labeling requirements, primarily for deepfakes or AI-generated content with the potential to mislead. A legal review is therefore recommended.

Recommendations for companies on the use of AI

Companies should take organizational and legal measures early on to comply with the requirements of the EU AI Regulation (AI Regulation). A key requirement is that employees who use or monitor AI systems have an adequate understanding of AI. In addition, the introduction of an internal AI policy is recommended, which clearly defines usage limits, responsibilities, and legal requirements. Existing co-determination rights of the works council must be taken into account. Here are the most important recommendations:

Companies should first conduct a comprehensive inventory of all deployed AI systems and assign them to the respective risk classes and their own roles according to the AI Regulation. Based on this, compliance with legal requirements must be ensured. Extensive obligations exist, particularly when using high-risk AI systems, for example, regarding risk assessments, effective control mechanisms, and detailed documentation requirements.

Furthermore, a high degree of transparency and robust documentation are essential. Comprehensible documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with the AI Regulation during official audits. In addition, companies should conduct regular training and awareness campaigns to ensure that employees are familiar with the legal and practical requirements and can implement them correctly in their daily work.

The AI Regulation aims to ensure the responsible and safe use of AI. Companies that prepare early not only reduce liability and fine risks, but also strengthen the trust of customers and business partners.

Have your AI implementation legally reviewed. We would be happy to assist you with classifying your AI systems, creating an AI policy, and implementing the AI regulation in practice. Schedule a free consultation now.

Der Beitrag KI-Kennzeichnungspflicht ab dem 2. August 2026: Neue Transparenzpflichten für Unternehmen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Criticism comes from authors, artists, and producers in the music and video industries, among others. They complain that AI systems were trained on their copyrighted works – and are now competing with them with automatically generated texts, images, music, or videos.

The new EU law aims to address these concerns: providers of large AI models will in future be required to disclose which internet sources they use to train their systems – especially if these contain copyrighted content.

Legal scholar Philipp Hacker of the European University Viadrina explains: "This regulation would be particularly relevant if providers actually admitted that they had used so-called shadow databases – i.e., platforms that illegally provide copyrighted material." However, voluntary openness is hardly to be expected.

EU regulations aim to prevent legal disputes

A recent case from the US demonstrates the risks facing AI companies: Three authors sued the company Anthropic for allegedly using their book content to train the AI model Claude without permission. The court upheld the claim. The exact amount of damages is still pending – but according to lawyer Philipp Hacker, it could reach into the hundreds of billions.

Such lawsuits could also increase in Europe in the future, Hacker believes. However, the new EU regulations are intended to prevent such disputes: providers of powerful AI systems will in future be required to provide standardized proof that their training methods are compatible with European copyright law.

EU Digital Commissioner Henna Virkkunen emphasizes that this not only protects rights holders but also benefits companies themselves: "In doing so, we are creating legal certainty for innovation and investment." While many countries do not yet have comparable rules, the EU is deliberately sending a signal: "We are clearly showing developers what is expected of them – and thereby simplifying the process."

Extended safety requirements for AI systems

Since February, the EU AI Act has fundamentally prohibited the use of facial recognition in public spaces. The use of AI systems for so-called "social scoring," i.e., the evaluation of people based on their social behavior, is also prohibited.

The current extensions to the regulation now add additional security requirements for so-called General Purpose AI (GPAI) – i.e. large, versatile AI models such as GPT-4 (OpenAI), Llama (Meta) or Claude 4 (Anthropic), which often form the technological basis for many AI applications.

"In the future, these models will have to undergo a security check similar to a stress test," explains legal scholar Philipp Hacker. Experts will analyze the potential damage posed by the systems. Companies are obligated to take concrete measures to prevent misuse—for example, through technical protection mechanisms and transparent security concepts.

USA pursues opposite course – focus on deregulation

Implementing the new EU regulations on artificial intelligence is challenging: With the help of scientific expertise, the EU Commission has developed a "Code of Practice" – a practical guide designed to help companies implement the legal requirements in a meaningful way in their everyday lives.

Companies that adhere to this voluntary code of conduct benefit from reduced reporting requirements. However, broad voluntary participation by large US technology companies is questionable: Meta AI has already signaled its unwillingness to participate.

The reason: The political approaches on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly diverging. While the EU is committed to regulation and transparency, the US – especially under Donald Trump – is pursuing an opposite strategy. Immediately after taking office, Trump rescinded the AI regulations of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

With his new AI plan, Trump is now explicitly committing to deregulation: states that enact their own strict AI laws will be excluded from receiving federal funding in the future. The goal, Trump says, is to create "the largest and fastest AI ecosystem in the world."

What happens if the new AI rules are violated?

One thing is certain: Anyone wishing to operate in the European market, with its approximately 450 million consumers, must now comply with the new EU AI law. Companies that do not wish to adhere to the guidelines are still obligated to meet the legal requirements by other means.

A one-year transition period is intended to give companies the opportunity to adapt their processes accordingly. Starting in August 2026, the EU Commission will then be granted official enforcement powers and can impose sanctions such as fines for violations, explains legal scholar Philipp Hacker.

But even before that, legal consequences are looming: As early as next year, affected citizens could file lawsuits for violations of the rules – as could competitors who feel disadvantaged by unfair advantages when other providers circumvent EU regulations.

Overall, the new rules mark another important step on the European Union's path to clearly regulate the use of artificial intelligence, prioritizing legal certainty and consumer protection.

Der Beitrag EU-KI-Gesetz: Neue Vorschriften für ChatGPT, Gemini und ähnliche Systeme treten in Kraft erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Dummy cameras are only permitted if they don't appear deceptively real and don't monitor unfamiliar areas. Doorbells with camera functionality are permitted if they only transmit images after the doorbell is pressed and if they are not permanently stored.

Recordings may not be stored for longer than 72 hours, and the storage technology used must comply with data protection requirements. Following these rules can help avoid legal problems and fines.

Read more about this in this Article.

Der Beitrag Überwachungskameras am Haus: Was ist erlaubt? erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Tesla's Sentinel Mode, which records the vehicle's surroundings, is at the center of a debate about data protection and legal issues. Police authorities are using the recordings as evidence, while consumer organizations and data protection advocates are raising concerns about Tesla's data protection practices. A lawsuit by the German Association of German Automobile Manufacturers (vzbv) resulted in a cease-and-desist order forcing Tesla to change its advertising policies, while simultaneously raising questions about the legality of such technologies.
Read here the whole article.

Tesla Guardian Mode and GDPR: Court ruling clarifies data protection obligations

A ruling by the Austrian Federal Administrative Court sheds light on the data protection challenges posed by Tesla's Sentinel Mode. The court found that by activating Sentinel Mode, vehicle owners become "controllers" within the meaning of the GDPR, which requires an obligation to inform data subjects. This applies even if no recordings are made. The decision underscores the need for transparent communication about video surveillance, which could have far-reaching consequences for the use of such technologies in private vehicles within the EU.
Read here the whole article.

How to protect your data and privacy as a Tesla owner: Opt-out options and risks

Tesla collects a significant amount of data through sensors, cameras, and apps to enable features like Autopilot and Sentry Mode. To protect your privacy, you can disable data sharing in the settings. However, doing so will result in limited vehicle functionality, including the loss of safety features and software updates. Despite the ability to minimize data collection, there remains a risk that Tesla could share data with third parties, including law enforcement. In some cases, experts recommend switching to a different vehicle or completely resetting the car before selling it to erase all stored data.
Read here the whole article.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions

Der Beitrag Aktuelle Meldungen zum Tesla Wächtermodus erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Despite Tesla's success and the launch of the Model 3, quality defects have repeatedly been discovered, generating negative headlines. Many customers are disappointed with the quality of their vehicles after delivery. However, as a Tesla owner, you are entitled to repairs.

Don't ignore defects such as paint defects, inaccurate gaps, or a potentially limited range. Assert your rights! The dealer is liable for material defects in your electric vehicle for 24 months. As of January 1, 2022, consumer rights regarding material defects have been further strengthened. If repairs fail or are refused by the manufacturer, you have options such as a price reduction, withdrawal from the purchase contract, or compensation. We are happy to assist you with any defects in your Tesla!

The electric car market is growing rapidly

In 2021, the market share of pure electric vehicles already reached 13.6%, an increase of over 83% compared to the previous year. Plug-in hybrids also recorded a market share of 12.4%, which also represents a significant increase of over 62% compared to the previous year.

Tesla leads the electric car market! The Tesla Model 3 ranks first in electric vehicle sales in Germany, with over 29,000 units registered in 2021. The Model 3 is also the best-selling electric car in Europe. Globally, Tesla also has another successful vehicle in its portfolio: the Model Y, which ranks third.

Tesla defect list: The most common quality defects

We'll inform you about the most common defects that can occur in Tesla vehicles and what you should pay particular attention to. The dealer is legally obligated to provide you with a 24-month warranty on a new vehicle. Within this period, they must repair any defects at their own expense. So don't let your joy over your new Tesla blind you – insist on having any defects remedied!

Poor paintwork
A common problem with new Tesla vehicles is poor paintwork. This includes defects such as paint chips, paint spots, or unsightly paint runs. There are also frequent reports of paint overspray or clogged charging ports. Quality assurance at Tesla appears to be either inadequate or too lax, which means that these defects often go unnoticed.

Incorrect gap dimensions
Irregular or excessively large gaps in the doors, trunk, or headlights are also a common point of criticism. These defects primarily affect the appearance of the vehicle, which is particularly disturbing when the purchase price is high. Furthermore, larger gaps can also increase the noise level in the vehicle.

Black screen
Another common problem with Tesla vehicles is the sudden loss of the screen, especially while driving. A black screen can result in important information such as speed or gear selection no longer being displayed, and the camera also stops working. It's also common to report that the turn signal is no longer visible or audible.

Scratches and dents
Many buyers of new Teslas report cosmetic defects such as scratches or dents that are already visible upon delivery. These defects cast a negative light on Tesla's quality assurance and suggest that Tesla doesn't place sufficient emphasis on thorough final inspection.

Faulty traffic sign recognition
In some Tesla vehicles, the traffic sign recognition system malfunctions. For example, place-name signs or speed limits are not recognized or are implemented too late, which can lead not only to fines but also to dangerous traffic situations.

Failing cameras
The cameras, especially the rearview camera and those for Autopilot, can fail in Tesla vehicles. This significantly compromises safety. Recalls have already been issued in the US and China due to problems with the rearview camera in the Model 3. This problem has also been identified in Germany.

Crooked doors and tailgates
Tesla doesn't seem to have high quality standards when it comes to the assembly of doors, tailgates, and door handles. There are repeated reports of crookedly installed parts, which can lead to problems like scratched bumpers or doors that don't close properly.

Less range than stated
The range of Tesla vehicles is often significantly shorter than that stated by the manufacturer. Similar to gasoline or diesel vehicles, the stated range is often not achieved. The ADAC found a deviation of up to 30% for the Model 3.

Exterior mirrors
Another common problem is that the exterior mirrors don't automatically unfold when driving off. This can affect either the driver's mirror, the passenger mirror, or both. In some cases, the problem can be resolved by folding and unfolding them several times while driving, but this isn't very convenient.

Problems with the rain sensor and automatic windshield wipers
In some vehicles, the windshield wipers continue to wipe even when it's not raining, for example, when getting into the car or driving through a tunnel. When it's raining, they sometimes wipe too infrequently, which impairs visibility.

These and other defects have repeatedly occurred in Tesla vehicles. When you pick up your new Tesla vehicle, you should pay particular attention to these issues and request repairs if necessary. Tesla's quality problems have been known for years and were also confirmed in a US survey, in which Tesla had the most defects per vehicle delivered. Even CEO Elon Musk has now acknowledged these problems and advises potential buyers to wait and see when it comes to newly introduced models.

Affected Tesla models and their defects

Several Tesla models are affected by various defects, and recalls have already been issued in the US and China. The problems primarily affect the Model S and Model 3, but other models also have serious defects.

Tesla Model S
The Model S is particularly notorious for its frequent defects. According to the TÜV (German Technical Inspection Agency), one in ten Model S vehicles fails its first major inspection, with a defect rate of 10.7%. Defects in the control arms, fog lights, and low beams are particularly problematic. The front trunk lock also poses a hazard, as it can suddenly open and impair the driver's view.

Tesla Model 3
The Model 3 is one of the most popular electric cars in Germany, but even it frequently experiences problems. Models from 2017 to 2020 are particularly affected, with the rearview camera and the hood locking mechanism being particularly problematic. Irregular gaps and improperly fitted components can damage the rearview camera's wiring harness, leading to camera failure. These defects also affect the Model S.

There were also problems with the driver assistance system. A Model 3 owner filed a lawsuit against Tesla in the Darmstadt Regional Court because the system wasn't functioning properly. Tesla had sold him a software package that was incompatible with the hardware, which led to problems with automatic overtaking and steering behavior. The recognition of traffic lights and stop signs also didn't work correctly.

The list of defects in the Model 3 is long and includes problems with incorrectly routed cables, condensation in headlights, defective tires and missing emergency call buttons.

Tesla Model Y
The Model Y, similar to the Model 3, had issues with a software update that caused the computer to overheat during fast charging. This caused some vehicle functions to malfunction. There were also reports of improperly secured control arms, with bolts not tightened correctly.

Tesla Model X
The Model X was also subject to recalls, primarily for vehicles built between September 2015 and July 2016. These affected loose roof moldings that were not properly bonded due to a missing primer. Although the roof moldings serve a purely cosmetic purpose, they pose a hazard to other road users if they become detached.

Our recommendations:

The dealer is liable for material defects in your Tesla for 24 months!
Demand a repair!
Car buyers have comprehensive rights in the event of material defects, which have been made even more consumer-friendly as of January 1, 2022.
If Tesla refuses to repair the defect, you have the following options:

• Purchase price reduction
• withdrawal from the purchase contract
• damages

We are here to help you with any problems with your Tesla!

Der Beitrag 10 Tesla Mängel: Worauf Sie beim Kauf achten sollten erschien zuerst auf R&U.

The court clarifies: The use of guard mode violates key regulations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in particular regarding the information obligations under Article 13 GDPR. Vehicle owners who use this function therefore risk not only a data breach, but also official sanctions.

Tesla Guardian Mode: Data protection explained for clients and companies

Sentry Mode in Tesla vehicles is an automatic monitoring feature that uses a camera to record the area around the vehicle as soon as people approach – even without touching the vehicle.

Since a software update at the end of 2022, recordings are only saved if additional sensors detect vibrations. The storage time has also been reduced from ten to a maximum of two minutes.

Particularly critical from a data protection perspective: The recordings are stored locally on a USB stick, which only the vehicle owner has access to – with no control options for affected third parties. Data protection lawyers therefore question whether the use of sentinel mode is compatible with the GDPR, particularly with regard to the information obligations under Art. 13 GDPR and the right to erasure (Art. 17 GDPR).

Unsure whether your Tesla or dashcam recordings are GDPR compliant? Avoid legal risks and protect yourself from data protection violations. Have your vehicle monitoring legally reviewed now – competently, comprehensively, and individually.

Background to the decision: Data protection complaint against Tesla guard mode

The data protection review was triggered by an incident in which a Tesla, with sentry mode activated, flashed its lights as an innocent bystander walked past. The vehicle's reaction suggested that video recording was taking place – without prior warning or apparent consent.

The data subject felt their personal rights had been violated and subsequently filed a complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority. The case led to a judicial review of whether the use of Guardian Mode was compatible with the principles of the GDPR, in particular data minimization and the obligation to provide transparency pursuant to Art. 13 GDPR.

Do you use Sentry Mode in your Tesla or another vehicle with camera surveillance? We'll check whether your use complies with data protection regulations – and how you can avoid fines. Request legal advice now – for more clarity when using vehicle cameras.

Legal assessment: Tesla sentinel mode and liability under GDPR

The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) clarified in its decision: Vehicle owners who activate Tesla Sentinel Mode are considered controllers within the meaning of the GDPR. They are therefore subject to all obligations associated with this data protection role – most notably the obligation to provide information pursuant to Art. 13 GDPR.

It's worth noting that the mere possibility of data collection is sufficient to classify the controller as responsible – regardless of whether video recording actually occurs. Even the mere activation of guard mode and the vehicle's reactive response (e.g., flashing indicators) trigger legal obligations.

Vehicle owners are therefore required to display clearly visible data protection notices on their vehicles that comply with the requirements of Article 13 GDPR. These notices must include, among other things, the following information:

• Name and contact details of the person responsible
• Purpose and legal basis of data processing
• if applicable, legitimate interests pursuant to Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR
• Recipients or categories of recipients of the data
• if applicable, information on third country transfers including adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards

Conclusion: Anyone who uses the guardian mode without fulfilling these information obligations risks violations of the GDPR – including fines and injunctions

Do you use Tesla Sentry Mode or a dashcam? We'll check whether your vehicle monitoring system complies with GDPR requirements and help you create legally compliant data protection notices. Get advice now and avoid data protection risks.

Tesla Sentinel Mode: Data protection risks from remote access via app

Tesla has expanded the functionality of its Sentinel Mode: Vehicle owners can now access their vehicle's exterior cameras in real time via a smartphone app and stream the camera feed remotely. While this technological enhancement increases surveillance security, it raises significant data protection concerns.

Remote access enables continuous monitoring of public spaces—including the potential recording of uninvolved passersby. This significantly increases the risk of unauthorized processing of personal data.

Furthermore, it can be assumed that when using the app, personal data will be transferred to the USA via cloud services. This constitutes a third-country transfer within the meaning of Articles 44 et seq. of the GDPR – associated with additional requirements for data security and transparency. Without appropriate safeguards or a valid legal basis, this can lead to significant legal consequences.

Do you use the Tesla app to remotely monitor your vehicle? We'll check whether your use complies with data protection regulations – and help you avoid fines and complaints. Request legal advice now – competent, personalized, and GDPR-compliant.

Impact of the decision: GDPR obligations for private vehicle monitoring

The ruling of the Austrian Federal Administrative Court makes it unmistakably clear: Activating Tesla Sentinel Mode entails specific data protection obligations – regardless of whether video recordings are actually saved.

Vehicle owners are considered responsible parties within the meaning of the GDPR and must ensure that persons in the vicinity of the vehicle are actively and transparently informed about data processing. This means that the mere possibility of recording data obliges them to comply with the information obligations under Art. 13 GDPR.

The decision has implications beyond the individual case: It could serve as a guideline for the assessment of private surveillance technologies in vehicles throughout the EU. Above all, the need for clear, public communication of data protection measures is coming more into focus.

Do you use camera or surveillance systems on your vehicle? We'll show you how to comply with data protection regulations and avoid legal risks. Contact us now for a legally compliant solution for GDPR and vehicle monitoring.

Der Beitrag Tesla Wächtermodus: Verstoß gegen DSGVO – Urteil des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts Österreich erschien zuerst auf R&U.

"The digitalization of the German healthcare system has been slow over the past 20 years. With the introduction of the electronic patient record on January 15 for 70 million insured persons, significant progress is now being made. It forms the heart of digitalization in the healthcare system and will dramatically improve patient care," promised the Federal Minister of Health.

Currently, X-rays and doctor's letters are often still transported physically, which can lead to incomplete information and impair the efficiency of doctor-patient consultations, which typically last only four to six minutes. According to Lauterbach, patients often have difficulty understanding and summarizing medical findings, which can lead to misdiagnoses.

Germany has the most expensive healthcare system in Europe, but according to Lauterbach, there are significant quality deficits. "For the first time, we have a life expectancy that is below the EU average," he noted critically.

Karl Lauterbach aims to address these deficits through comprehensive reforms in digitalization, hospital care, and medical research. He emphasized the importance of the electronic patient record and the Research Data Center for Health (FDZ Gesundheit) at the Federal Institute for Drugs and Therapy Safety as key elements for future developments in the healthcare system.

Lauterbach on the valuable data treasure of the electronic patient record

Karl Lauterbach emphasized the enormous importance of the electronic patient record (ePA), which will serve as the central repository of health data in the future. This record will routinely integrate laboratory findings, imaging data, hospital data, medication data, nursing information, and digital health applications. Lauterbach emphasized: "If you just consider the sheer size of this treasure trove of data – we have a billion doctor-patient contacts in our practices every year."

Thanks to the ePA and the option to opt out of data collection, this treasure trove of data is continuously growing. It is particularly important that the data treasure of the Research Data Center for Health (FDZ Gesundheit) is increasingly being expanded to include additional data from more than 400 medical registries as well as genomic data.

The health insurance billing data is already stored in the FDZ Gesundheit (Health Data Center), and in the future, all data will be linked via a pseudonymized health insurance number. This comprehensive database is intended not only to facilitate individual treatment decisions but also to support clinical studies, epidemiological evaluations, and improved health policy. According to Lauterbach, artificial intelligence (AI) will be used to efficiently utilize this dataset. The dataset was structured from the outset to be "AI-ready." Lauterbach sought advice from Israel to ensure optimal compatibility between data protection and data usage.

The research data center enables secure access to data through "confidential computing" without the data leaving the protected space. Researchers can evaluate the data using AI methods, with access granted only for the specific research purpose. According to Lauterbach, it is crucial that the dataset never escapes this secure environment.

With the introduction of the ePA and the FDZ Health starting in 2025, health data from birth to old age will be collected – representative of the entire population. Lauterbach described the ePA as the largest digital project in German history and a groundbreaking innovation. The goal is to create the "largest," "most representative," and "most interesting" health data set worldwide.

Lauterbach on the global interest in health data and the role of artificial intelligence

Karl Lauterbach reported on the growing interest of leading tech companies in the health data collected by the electronic patient record (ePA) and the Research Data Center for Health (FDZ Gesundheit). According to Lauterbach, Meta, OpenAI, and Google are already in discussions to train and develop their AI models with this data. He assured that German solutions are also being supported, but international interest in this data is enormous.

Another topic Lauterbach emphasized is the use of AI for early disease diagnosis. In the future, very early stages of cancer could be detected through fingerprints reflected in the protein structure of blood. Lauterbach sees great potential for AI to ease the burden on the healthcare system, particularly in the area of second opinions. This could also lead to less invasive treatments such as full-blown chemotherapy being necessary, and more targeted therapies being used.

Lauterbach also has high hopes for innovative treatments such as gene therapy and CAR T-cell therapy. He cited AlphaFold and EvolutionaryScales ESM3 as further positive examples. Lauterbach predicts that 15 million baby boomers will retire from the workforce in the coming years and increasingly become patients. This presents a challenge, but also offers an opportunity to develop improved and more efficient medicine.

In conclusion, Lauterbach emphasized that medicine as an economic sector continues to offer growth opportunities despite economic stagnation in other areas. Sectors such as medicine, digitalization, medical technology, and pharmaceuticals continue to experience positive growth.

TK boss praises Lauterbach's reforms, but also criticizes digitalization

Jens Baas, head of Techniker Krankenkasse, praised Karl Lauterbach for the progress he made with his reforms, particularly the introduction of e-prescriptions, which Baas said was largely successful – apart from a few "minor hiccups." Despite this positive assessment, Baas emphasized that Lauterbach had made many important advances, but that it was crucial to continue to keep an eye on costs.

However, Baas expressed criticism regarding digitalization. He argued that a "fundamentally different approach or mindset" is needed to effectively address the challenges in this area.

Discussion about the visibility of billing data and criticism of the pace of digitalization

Jens Baas, head of the Techniker Krankenkasse (health insurance company), expressed criticism during a discussion with the government regarding the planned automatic filling of the electronic patient record (ePA) with billing data. This data is to be visible to every treating physician in the future. Baas pointed out that there were concerns that sensitive information such as an HIV diagnosis could be displayed in the record, which sparked discussions. He criticized the fact that such considerations could suddenly lead to doctors no longer being able to access all necessary data. Baas called this a "stupid idea" and warned that such discussions would not advance digitalization. He argued that Germany lacks a clear mindset that would involve everyone, including skeptics.

In a recent Bitkom survey, 7 out of 10 respondents stated that digitalization in the healthcare sector is progressing too slowly. However, 83 percent of respondents feel that doctors are generally open to digitalization. Furthermore, 77 percent see Germany lagging behind internationally.

Despite this criticism, Dr. Bernhard Rohleder, CEO of Bitkom, praised the progress made under Lauterbach's leadership. He emphasized that, with the Digital Act and the Health Data Use Act, two important projects were implemented during the shortened legislative period, overcoming years of stagnation in the healthcare system. Rohleder sees digitalization as the key to keeping the healthcare system efficient and affordable in the future.

Der Beitrag Lauterbach betont die Bedeutung der Gesundheitsdaten für KI-Innovationen und Reformen im Gesundheitswesen erschien zuerst auf R&U.