By the CyberWire staff

7-minute read | 1,550 words

What to know this week

Europe scales up pressure on Big Tech.

Nations across Europe are continuing to increase their oversight and pressure on big tech companies as governments look to curb social media’s impact on their youth.

The State of the Net Conference.

Recently, the Internet Education Foundation hosted the 21st annual State of the Net conference, where numerous panels and guest speakers spoke about artificial intelligence (AI), electricity grids, and broadband.

This week's full stories

Big tech faces increasing scrutiny in Europe.

THE NEWS

On Tuesday, Europe continued to crack down on Big Tech companies. Specifically, Spain ordered its prosecutors to begin investigating X, Meta, and TikTok for allegedly spreading AI-generated explicit deepfakes. Ireland also launched a formal probe into X’s AI chatbot, Grok, and its handling of personal user data and the chatbot's generation of explicit images.

With these two new efforts, Spain and Ireland join the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia in launching investigations into big technology companies. Additionally, Germany is debating launching similar measures of their own.

For many of these investigations, lawmakers and prosecutors have routinely cited concerns about impacts on minors alongside concerns about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Outside of Europe, Australia has also increased pressure on these same companies after imposing a ban on minors under 16 from accessing social media accounts.

THE KNOWLEDGE

As more European nations continue to launch investigations into and take actions against big tech companies, these moves underscore greater international tensions. One of the key reasons why so many European countries could be acting individually rather than through the European Union (EU) is due to the multinational organizations' hesitancy to address these problems, given the current threats from the Trump administration.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has threatened to impose tariffs and sanctions on the EU for enforcing the region’s Digital Services Act (DSA). For context, the DSA allows the EU to impose fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover on platforms that fail to curb regulated content.

While the European Commission has pushed back on these claims, emphasizing that it has actively launched investigations of its own into these platforms as well. However, for European leaders, these efforts are not enough. French President Emmanuel Macron called Europe’s resistance a “geopolitical battle,” alongside Spain’s Consumer Rights Minister Pablo Bustinduy, calling for a crackdown on these companies in an effort to “break free from digital dependence on the [US].”

THE IMPACT

As European nations continue to launch new investigations into the technology companies, each of these nations is increasing the pressure on technology companies and raising significant questions about Europe’s overall technological strategy and how the US will respond to these efforts.

In the near term, these probes raise the risk of significant fines, forced product changes, and stricter regulations, especially around AI and its impacts on minors. While there may not be a coordinated EU-wide action at the moment, parallel national investigations can make up for this lack.

In the long-term, these disputes could reshape not only how global technology firms operate in Europe but also how digital regulation factors into broader trade and diplomatic relations. Whether through regulatory tariffs, sweeping fines, or forced product changes, these investigations are positioning Europe as a central battleground over digital power and influence.

Recapping the State of the Net Conference.

On February 9th, 2026, the Internet Education Foundation held its twenty-first annual State of the Net conference. Throughout the day, numerous interviews, speeches, and panel discussions were held covering a wide range of topics. These topics included those about AI, electricity infrastructure, governmental policies, and media marketplace competition. Below, you can find further information from several of the panels that took place:

30 for 30: 30 Years of Broadband Competition, 30 Years of What’s Next:

The Telecommunications Act of 1994 was a foundational piece of legislation designed to function as both an antitrust bill, while simultaneously promoting stronger competition and creating a competitive marketplace.
A core aspect of this bill involved Section 10, which granted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forbearance authority. Meaning, the agency is able to forbear certain statutory or regulatory requirements on its own without Congressional permission.
This section has been critical for policies related to broadband deregulation, net neutrality, and discretionary agency powers.
For all its positive impacts, Congress has failed to pass a similar law to regulate or address other key foundational parts of the internet stack.
Additionally, the Telecommunications Act needs to be revised to reflect the modern market landscape.
For example, the concept of Universal Service was designed to function when landlines were a foundational aspect of communications, which have since largely disappeared.
A core aspect looking forward involves getting ahead of AI.
Currently, AI is being addressed by every agency in its own respective ways. Instead, a new agency may be needed, as when the FCC was created, to better address the emerging technology and bring regulatory actions under a centralized roof.

The Future of AI Infrastructure: Affordably Securing Energy for Innovation:

Currently, there are significant questions regarding the future of America’s energy grid and its ability to support AI and other emerging technologies.
One of the largest hurdles involves the permitting process within the United States (US) for zoning, where new projects can take over a decade to finish.
A solution to this problem is the SPEED Act, which has been passed by the House of Representatives and is currently being debated in the Senate.
For context, the SPEED Act aims to modernize the permitting process for federal projects.
These efforts include limiting judicial review, setting firm decision deadlines, and restricting the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews.
Outside of permitting challenges, another key problem involves upgrading existing infrastructure, such as replacing current outdated conductors with high-capacity ones.

Sovereign AI and the New Internet Order: Governing Intelligence Across Borders:

When discussing AI, there is significant discourse over what sovereignty means. Is it a nation’s ability to fully control the technology stack? Or is it related to how much control the nation has over how the AI functions?
Regarding impactful laws and controls, there is significant room for improvement, as many existing laws still have undefined definitions or uncertainties associated with them.
For example, with the European Union’s AI Act imposing significant regulations, which at the time, whose definitions at the time were largely vague, leading companies to avoid investing in the region until clarity was provided.
To determine these critical AI uncertainties, three core questions need to be answered:
What are our definitions of AI, and where are these definitions defined? (Laws, standards, or frameworks)
Who's participating in these discussions and who is leading these efforts?
How will the relevant AI systems be used, and what intellectual property will be involved?

This Week's Caveat Podcast: Wired for the future.

Dave Bittner and Ben Yelin sit down with N2K’s Lead Analyst, Ethan Cook, to discuss the State of the Net Conference detailed above. Throughout this conversation, the team breaks down these panel discussions and the event as a whole into greater detail, explaining the complexities of these topics and how they are already impacting the world today.

Listen to the episode now.

The Pentagon is reviewing its Anthropic partnership.

What: The Pentagon is reviewing its relationship with Anthropic regarding its terms of use for its AI model.

Why: On Monday, the Pentagon announced that it intends to review its relationship with Anthropic. With this announcement, Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell stated:

“The Department of War’s relationship with Anthropic is being reviewed. Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight. Ultimately, this is about our troops and the safety of the American people.”

This review was prompted after concerns related to supply chain risks emerged when Anthropic stated it wanted to make sure its tools were not being used to develop weaponry or for mass surveillance purposes.

An Anthropic spokesperson stated:

“Claude is used for a wide variety of intelligence-related use cases across the government, including the DOW, in line with our Usage Policy. We are having productive conversations, in good faith, with DoW on how to continue that work and get these complex issues right.”

FEB 16, 2026 | Source: The Hill

Texas sues TP-Link.

What: Texas has sued TP-Link for allegedly making deceptive networking devices and allowing China to access American consumer data.

Why: On Tuesday, Texas announced that it was suing TP-Link systems over its alleged ties to the Chinese government. When announcing the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated:

“Despite its claims of privacy and security, TP-Link’s products have been used by (China)’s state-sponsored hacking entities to launch multiple cyberattack operations against the United States.”

This lawsuit followed an October 2025 Texas investigation.

FEB 17, 2026 | Source: Reuters

Supreme Court adopts new software for conflicts of interest.

What: The Supreme Court has adopted new software, which looks to help better identify potential conflict of interest issues.

Why: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced that it has adopted a new software system, which was created by the court’s information technology office. This new software will compare information about lawyers and parties involved in a dispute to information provided by the offices of the justices to better identify and review conflicts of interest.

The court also announced that it would increase requirements for court filings to include more information on involved parties and on relevant stock tickers.