Can the "chat control" proposal that is now in trilog still fail (not pass as law)?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Council approved a compromise on the so‑called “Chat Control” (Child Sexual Abuse Regulation) and the file has moved into trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, Commission and Council beginning December 9–12, 2025 — but several actors and prior votes show the proposal can still fail before becoming law (e.g., previous Council votes were blocked or postponed, Parliament opposes indiscriminate scanning) [1] [2] [3]. Trilogues are a final bargaining stage; outcomes range from a watered‑down compromise to outright collapse if negotiators cannot agree or national politics shift (sources note a narrow Council agreement and repeated prior failures) [4] [2].
1. What “in trilogue” means — final fight, not a done deal
“In trilogue” means Council, Parliament and Commission sit down to reconcile competing texts into a single law; it is the last formal negotiation phase before adoption (trilogue start dates cited December 9 and 12, 2025) [1] [5]. Trilogues can produce a final binding text — but only if the three institutions reach common terms. The Council’s recent agreement merely opens this round: it is a negotiating mandate, not final legislation [6] [7].
2. Why failure remains plausible — historical precedent and narrow margins
The proposal’s path has been repeatedly halted: votes have been postponed, blocked and revised multiple times over 2024–2025, showing the file is politically fragile (October votes stalled; COREPER/ Council compromise was narrow) [2] [8]. Sources say the Council position reached on 26 November 2025 passed by a close margin and that previous decisive votes failed — evidence that a deadlock or renewed blocking is possible if Parliament rejects Council changes or national governments reverse course [4] [8].
3. Where the pressure points are in trilogue — what negotiators will fight over
Three durable flashpoints appear in reporting: mandatory client‑side scanning vs targeted measures; preservation of end‑to‑end encryption; and new requirements like age verification or ID checks. Parliament has largely positioned against indiscriminate scanning and favours targeted monitoring, while Council texts moved to “voluntary” scanning and introduced age‑verification language — a core disagreement for trilogue talks [7] [9] [10]. The Commission’s stance is described as closer to Parliament on targeting in some reports, adding another variable [1].
4. Political levers that could sink the deal
Sources identify several ways the regulation could still fail: Parliament could refuse compromise and vote the text down; member states could reverse support inside Council if COREPER/Council mandates lack unanimity; or negotiators might time out without agreement, leaving no common text to adopt [2] [11]. Past behaviour — postponements and blocked votes — shows national politics and presidencies (e.g., Denmark’s late‑2025 role) materially alter outcomes [4] [11].
5. How the Council compromise changed odds — not a guarantee
The November compromise removed an explicit forced break of encryption in its most controversial form and made scanning “voluntary,” which some groups treat as retreat [10] [3]. But critics argue “voluntary” still risks coercion through market and enforcement pressure; that continuing controversy means Parliament may demand stronger safeguards or refuse to ratify the Council’s text, keeping failure on the table [3] [10].
6. What success would look like — and why proponents still push
If trilogue yields agreement, negotiators can stitch a final regulation that balances child‑protection objectives with targeted measures and legal safeguards; proponents frame this as protecting children rather than “Chat Control” surveillance [1]. Denmark aimed to conclude the text before its presidency ended, creating temporal urgency that can push negotiators to compromise rather than let the file die [4].
7. Bottom line for observers and advocates
The legislation can still fail: trilogue is a high‑stakes bargaining round where past narrow votes, Parliament’s opposition to indiscriminate scanning, and ongoing national divisions leave room for defeat or substantial revision [2] [7] [8]. Available sources do not mention final parliamentary votes or the ultimate outcome yet; current reporting places the file at the trilogue starting line with plausible routes to both adoption and collapse [1] [4].