For years, the European Union has played the role of global regulator, setting standards and norms that often apply beyond its borders. Scholars have called this phenomenon the 'Brussels effect'. Today, however, argues Mateusz Łabuz, these norm-setting activities risk demonising the EU, and undermining its values
Anu Bradford first used the term 'Brussels effect' in 2012. She developed the idea in her book with the telling title The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. For Bradford, the raw power of the large, wealthy market and (often rigorous) EU regulations, force international corporations to adapt to EU standards, even outside its territory.
The reason is simple: it is cheaper and safer to operate on the basis of one high standard than to adapt to many different regulations enforced in different countries. It is, therefore, economic pragmatism that dictates choosing the highest standard and matching it.
Market size constitutes an obvious incentive: if you want to do business here, you must adhere to our rules. We can see this as the source of the EU’s economic hard power.
In the normative layer, exporting legal solutions allows for the indirect export of values the EU protects with its legislation. Other countries, guided by the same pragmatism, are willing to copy solutions that many consider standard. It is thus possible to export and externalise at least some principles rooted in the EU’s value system. This, in turn, constitutes a source of the EU’s soft or normative power.
Yet we are increasingly observing something I call the 'reverse Brussels effect'. Those who criticise EU regulations – their comments often tinged with disinformation or particular private interests – intend their critiques to weaken the impact and cohesion of the EU.
Those who criticise EU regulations intend their critiques to weaken the impact and cohesion of the EU
Big-tech companies, for example, perceive EU regulations as a threat to their business models based on profit maximisation. Such firms play a special role in this mechanism. Criticism of the EU at state level might arise because those states perceive the EU as a strategic competitor in the axiological dimension. Or it might simply be fundamental criticism of the EU as an entity, such as US Vice President JD Vance expressed bluntly in Munich.
In such an information environment, narrative exposes one of the key vulnerabilities of democratic systems.
A good example of this phenomenon is the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, adopted in 2024. The Act was a regulatory response to the growing challenges associated with the development of AI. Its introduction was particularly important for economic stability and social cohesion.
The idea of creating trustworthy AI and implementing ethical principles is deeply rooted in the EU’s concept of protecting fundamental values. Indeed, such values are the basis of how Europe understands democracy. The architects of the AI Act predicted that the Brussels effect would export these solutions into the realm of AI, thereby protecting the EU's ethical principles. They would certainly not have expected it to be criticised for stifling innovation. Yet detractors repeatedly contrast the EU's Act with the libertarian model of AI governance introduced in the US. 'The US innovates, China replicates, and the EU regulates' became a slogan denigrating the EU's lack of ability to advance. According to this narrative, the EU is a bureaucratic giant suppressing entrepreneurship and creativity.
'The US innovates, China replicates, and the EU regulates' became a slogan denigrating the EU's lack of ability to advance
Although constructive criticism of regulations is important, allegations are often based on simplifications or even false claims. This weaponisation of the narrative resonates among European start-ups, and is heavily echoed on social media. It acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy, reducing the EU’s capacity to innovate.
In such a debate, it is convenient to forget why the AI Act was introduced in the first place. Right now, 'bureaucracy' is not the main problem. Rather, it is the lack of control over technologies that may threaten democracy, equality, or privacy. At the same time, the EU's introduction of the AI Act contrasts with the approach of authoritarian countries, in that it prioritises the protection of human rights.
The 'reverse Brussels effect' is thus perverse in the extreme. By criticising EU 'overregulation', actors are trying to weaken it, discourage it from acting, and compromise it on the global stage.
When the EU introduced its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the legislation attracted criticism for being impractical and expensive. Subsequently, however, it became a model for legislation elsewhere in the world, creating key mechanisms for protecting people's data today.
Attacking regulations plays a dual role. Firstly, it hits the soft underbelly of the EU: its economic weaknesses, dependencies, and lack of competitiveness. Secondly, it fuels anti-EU and anti-bureaucratic resentment. In reality, it is the EU that is consistently trying to create a legal framework for modern technologies in a sustainable and responsible manner. 'Move fast and break things' has been a slogan to hide behind for too long. Indeed, we see the effects of this cavalier approach today, in the form of a digital ecosystem devoid of real oversight.
Attacking EU regulation lays bare its economic weaknesses, dependencies, and lack of competitiveness. It also fuels anti-EU and anti-bureaucratic resentment
The EU cannot afford to give up its role as a global standard-setter. The key is not simply to implement fewer regulations, but to make more effective adjustments to the market, care for internal coherence of provisions, and better communicate their purpose and meaning. Alongside this, the EU must tackle tangible weaknesses such as underfunding of the digital market, and European companies' lack of competitiveness.
Reports of loosening regulations or watering down the interpretation of AI Act provisions are disturbing. They may be evidence that the EU is submitting to pressure. The 'reverse Brussels effect' is not just a narrative problem. It is a threat to the EU’s sovereignty and ability to export fundamental values. To protect EU values, and to externalise them effectively, we must learn to recognise this threat, and fend it off before it neutralises the power and capability we still possess.
