The debate over the European Union’s bold Chat Control framework has entered a new phase, as a temporary measure adopted in 2021 edges closer to long-term status. The law, known formally as Chat Control 1.0, authorized providers to scan private messages for child-abuse material. It was introduced as an interim exception while the EU gathered evidence on its effectiveness.
That evidence has now arrived in the form of the Commission’s 2025 evaluation. The document, obtained ahead of the political discussions now under way, presents an unusual picture: extensive activity, uneven reporting, and conclusions that stop short of demonstrating clear results. The report acknowledges that it lacks complete data, and it notes that the variety of formats supplied by companies and authorities made comparison difficult.
According to the evaluation, providers generated more than 700,000 reports in 2024, although several member states were unable to verify how the alerts proceeded through their systems. France received a large volume of reports from NCMEC, but the national follow-up remained unclear. Germany and Spain did not supply figures that could be used to measure outcomes.
The Commission stated that it could not establish a demonstrable connection between the reports and subsequent convictions. It also recorded that error rates in automated detection remained significant. One platform, Yubo, reported declining error levels between 2023 and 2024, though the figures did not include the results of human review. Former officials and national police representatives have previously suggested that the actual error rate may exceed the reported levels.
In its assessment of proportionality, the commission remarked that “the available data are insufficient to provide a definitive answer,” before concluding that it had found no indication that the measure should be considered disproportionate. The reasoning reflects
Supporters of making the measure permanent point to the scale of online child-abuse material and argue that tools for detection must be maintained. Critics highlight that the current arrangement produces large quantities of material for police to review without demonstrating its impact on case resolution.
As the Council weighs its next steps, the discussion continues on whether a temporary framework with incomplete reporting, high variance in detection accuracy, and largely unverified outcomes can meet long-term regulatory standards. The coming months will determine how the EU adjusts the balance between privacy, enforcement, and evidence-based policymaking.
