委员会内部以及与欧盟各成员国首都进行非正式讨论，在正式通过之前，方案内容仍可能面临更 改。 有意思的是，《AI法案》（AI Act）也出现在了拟放宽的法规清单上。虽然《AI法案》名义上已于 2024年8月生效，但由于多项条款需分阶段实施，法案事实上尚未正式运行。例如，备受关注 的"高风险AI系统条款"将于2026年8月才正式生效。在这种情况下，法案本身就要面临修改，着 实有些令人意外。 当中美等国还在积极研究AI立法的必要性、可行性等问题时， 欧盟早早推进了相关立法进程，并率先通过了《AI法案》。而 短短几年之后，欧盟的立场就发生了如此重大的改变。这种先 紧后松的逆转，原因究竟何在？在修正之后，欧盟的AI监管到 底会是什么样？这对欧洲和全世界的AI产业发展会产生怎样的 影响？对于中国来说，这一事件又有何意义？ 作者： 陈永伟 封图：图虫创意 11月7日，英国《金融时报》爆出了一则大新闻：欧盟委员会正计划放宽部分数字监管法规。据报 道，欧委会已经拟定了一个"简化方案"，并将在11月19日对该方案作出决定。目前，该草案仍在 众所周知，在数字经济领域，欧盟素来以监管严格著称。坊间曾有一个说法：在数字经济发展上， 美 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the development and significance of public interest litigation by the People's Procuratorate in China, highlighting its role in protecting social and public interests through legal means [2][3][6] - The public interest litigation system has evolved over the past decade, with over 1.224 million cases handled by procuratorial agencies, indicating a significant expansion in the scope of public interest protection [2][3] - The draft of the "Procuratorial Public Interest Litigation Law" has been introduced, aiming to clarify the jurisdiction and procedural aspects of public interest litigation, which has garnered substantial public attention with over 15,000 comments received [3][4] Group 2 - The draft law emphasizes the investigatory powers of procuratorial agencies, allowing them to collect evidence while ensuring that they do not impose coercive measures, reflecting a cautious legislative approach [4][5] - There is ongoing discussion regarding the expansion of the scope of public interest litigation to include areas such as food security and online space, indicating a potential for further legislative development [4][5] - The current legal framework allows only procuratorial agencies to initiate administrative public interest litigation, positioning them as the primary force in this area, with a significant disparity in case numbers compared to social organizations [6]

Core Insights - The evolution of payment methods reflects societal technological changes, with facial recognition payment emerging as a key infrastructure in the digital economy, raising concerns beyond mere technical security and privacy issues [1][2] Group 1: Governance Principles - Establish a risk-based governance principle focusing on three core aspects: 1. Preventive principle: Regulatory measures should be proactive and adaptable to unknown risks associated with biometric data [3] 2. Proportionality principle: Regulatory intensity must correspond to the risk level of specific applications, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach [3] 3. Collaborative governance principle: Involvement of multiple stakeholders, including government, industry, and the public, to create a cooperative governance framework [3] Group 2: Regulatory Tools and Mechanisms - Innovate key regulatory tools and mechanisms by: 1. Upgrading the "regulatory sandbox" to test data governance rules and algorithmic ethics comprehensively [4] 2. Establishing mandatory algorithm audits and certifications by independent third parties to ensure fairness and robustness [4] 3. Implementing risk-based tiered management according to transaction amounts and application scenarios, requiring multi-factor authentication for high-risk situations [4] Group 3: Legal and Standard Foundations - Strengthen the legal and standard foundations for governance by: 1. Clarifying legal responsibilities and consumer protection measures, including the principle of "reversed burden of proof" in fraud cases [5] 2. Promoting industry self-regulation and the establishment of high-standard processing norms for biometric information [5] Group 4: External Environment for Governance - Create a favorable external environment for scientific governance by: 1. Enhancing public digital literacy and awareness of risks associated with facial recognition payments [6] 2. Expanding social participation and oversight channels in the formulation of technical standards and regulations [6] - The challenges posed by facial recognition payments necessitate a comprehensive regulatory framework to guide its healthy development, ultimately supporting inclusive finance and social equity [7]

Group 1 - The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court held a meeting focused on addressing administrative legal challenges faced by enterprises, with participation from 13 key companies across various sectors including culture, technology, commerce, and sports [1][3] - A significant administrative penalty case was discussed, where a small mushroom cultivation company faced a fine totaling nearly 5 million yuan for operating without a license. The court later deemed the penalty excessive and revoked it, citing the principle of proportionality [3][4] - The meeting established a closed-loop mechanism for addressing enterprise concerns, allowing for immediate responses to simple issues and a commitment to timely feedback for more complex problems [3][4] Group 2 - Representatives from over ten companies voiced concerns regarding high frequencies of administrative inspections, historical approval obstacles, and difficulties in credit restoration [4] - Suggestions included involving insurance companies as co-defendants in traffic accident disputes and balancing labor rights with corporate autonomy in labor disputes [4] - The meeting aimed to provide stable administrative guidance and government services for private enterprises through legal review of administrative actions [4]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the company unlawfully terminated the employment relationship with the employee, ordering the company to pay 120,000 yuan in compensation due to the employee's excessive workload and refusal to take on additional responsibilities [1][3][4]. Group 1: Case Background - The employee, Ms. Gao, had been working at the company for over two years and was responsible for order entry for offline retail and some major clients [1]. - Following personnel adjustments, Ms. Gao's workload increased significantly, with the number of sales personnel she needed to coordinate rising from 18 to 52 [1]. - After another colleague's departure, the company requested Ms. Gao to take over the e-commerce order responsibilities, which she felt was unmanageable given her current workload [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The company claimed that Ms. Gao's refusal to take on the additional work constituted a serious violation of company policy, leading to her dismissal without compensation [2]. - The court found that Ms. Gao was already handling a full workload and her refusal to take on more work was justified, thus not qualifying as a "refusal of normal work handover" [2][3]. - The court emphasized that unilateral termination of the employment contract is a severe measure and should only be applied when the employee's actions are significantly serious [3][4]. Group 3: Court's Ruling - The court determined that the company's actions lacked legality and reasonableness, as Ms. Gao had already taken on additional responsibilities prior to her dismissal [3]. - The ruling reinforced that employees have the right to refuse additional work based on genuine workload concerns, and companies cannot simply terminate employment based on such refusals [4].

Core Viewpoint - Harvard University has won a preliminary injunction allowing it to continue accepting international students during the ongoing legal proceedings against the Trump administration's actions to block such admissions [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Federal Judge Allison Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration's efforts to prevent Harvard from accepting international students, allowing the university to maintain its admissions during the case [1][3]. - Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security after it revoked the university's certification to accept foreign students and process their visa applications, which affected approximately 7,000 international students [3][4]. - The judge noted that the federal government retains the right to review Harvard's eligibility to accept international students through normal legal procedures [3][4]. Group 2: Government Actions and Responses - The Trump administration attempted to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard through a new announcement, which Harvard challenged in court [4][6]. - Harvard's legal team argued that the Trump administration's policies violated the university's rights to due process and academic freedom, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act [6][7]. - The university expressed that the government's actions created an atmosphere of "profound fear, anxiety, and confusion" among international students [6][7]. Group 3: Future Implications - Harvard anticipates a more binding ruling from the judge in the coming days, while continuing to develop contingency plans for international students [4][5]. - If the Trump administration persists with its actions, the case may escalate to the Supreme Court, where Harvard is expected to have a strong chance of success based on constitutional grounds [7]. - Harvard is also pursuing a separate lawsuit regarding the suspension of federal funding by the Trump administration, with the first hearing scheduled for July 21 [7].

Group 1 - Nintendo has updated its user agreement, warning that users who install pirated or modified devices may face severe consequences, including the potential for their Switch devices to become unusable, a condition referred to as "bricking" [1][3] - The bricking clause appears to be specific to U.S. users, as other regions, such as Japan and Germany, have less stringent penalties for similar violations [2][6] - The legal framework in the U.S. allows for some exemptions regarding the legality of jailbreaking devices for legitimate purposes, which contrasts with the more stringent measures Nintendo has implemented in its U.S. user agreement [3][5] Group 2 - The penalties outlined in Nintendo's user agreements vary significantly by region, influenced by local laws regarding consumer rights and contract freedom [6][7] - In jurisdictions with a focus on consumer protection, such as Germany and China, penalties for violations may be subject to a proportionality principle, which could challenge the severity of Nintendo's measures [6][9] - Nintendo's ultimate goal in enforcing these measures is to protect its commercial interests, and overly harsh penalties could alienate users and drive them towards competitors like Steam, Microsoft, and Sony [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard University, focusing on the implications for international students and the broader academic landscape in the U.S. [2][15] Group 1: Trump's Actions Against Harvard - The Trump administration has initiated a series of actions against Harvard, including freezing over $2.2 billion in federal funding and threatening to revoke the university's tax-exempt status [6][7]. - On May 22, the Trump administration announced the cancellation of Harvard's eligibility for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SVEP), effectively banning the university from enrolling international students [7][15]. - Harvard has responded by filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the government's actions violate the First Amendment and other federal laws, and have a "direct and devastating impact" on over 7,000 visa holders [7][8]. Group 2: Legal Implications and Harvard's Position - Legal experts suggest that Harvard has a strong chance of winning the case, as the Trump administration's actions may conflict with constitutional rights related to freedom of speech and academic freedom [9][15]. - The article highlights that the government's administrative measures must adhere to due process and proportionality principles, which may not be met in this case [8][9]. - The temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge indicates that the court may prioritize the protection of students' interests while reviewing the legality of the Trump administration's actions [8][9]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Higher Education - The conflict raises concerns about the future of international students in U.S. higher education, as they represent a significant source of tuition revenue and talent [15][16]. - The article notes that international students make up over 27% of Harvard's student body and contribute to the academic and financial vitality of U.S. universities [15]. - Experts warn that aggressive policies against international students could harm the U.S.'s global standing in higher education and its economic interests [15][16].