Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology

Esports and the Digital Services Act: Functional Classification of Gaming, Tournament and Streaming Services

Matúš Mesarčík — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0200

Electronic sports (eSports) have developed into a complex digital ecosystem combining competitive gameplay, private governance, live broadcasting, user communication, monetisation, and platform-based audience interaction. This article examines how the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) applies to that ecosystem not as a sectoral regulation of eSports, but through the DSA’s functional categories of intermediary services, hosting services, online platforms, and very large online platforms. The article argues that the central legal difficulty is one of functional segmentation meaning that the game itself, player accounts, in-game communication tools, user generated content (UGC) workshops, tournament portals, live chats, streaming interfaces, and recommender systems may attribute different legal labelling. Streaming platforms and public UGC infrastructures present the clearest cases of platform regulation, while publishers and tournament organisers require more careful analysis because many of their functions may be ancillary, closed, or attributable to the provider rather than to recipients of the service. The article therefore maps the boundaries ofDSA applicability in eSports and identifies specific compliance questions concerning moderation of live events, statements of reasons during short-lived competitions, public fan interaction tools, minors in competitive environments, recommender systems for eSports content, and the relationship between DSA obligations and private integrity governance.

Data Protection and Cybersecurity Governance for eVTOL Systems in the UAE: Comparative Lessons from the EU and US.

Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0200

The article investigates the data governance challenges arising from the integration of electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) systems into the United Arab Emirates’ emerging urban air mobility ecosystem. As eVTOL operations rely on continuous streams of biometric, geolocation and operational telemetry data, existing legal instruments, particularly the UAE Personal Data Protection Law (Federal Decree by Law No. (45) of 2021), national cybersecurity strategies and General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) advisories, remain underprepared to regulate these high-risk data flows. The article examines the extent to which UAE frameworks can accommodate the unique risks posed by autonomous, data-driven aviation, including the processing of sensitive passenger data, real-time cross-border transfers, AI-based navigation decisions and the vulnerability of interconnected systems to cyberattacks. Through a doctrinal analysis, it draws comparative insights from the European Union’s integrated data protection and aviation cybersecurity model and the United States’ decentralised, innovation-led approach. The article argues that aviation-specific data governance standards, enhancing algorithmic accountability and strengthening cybersecurity obligations are essential steps for aligning technological ambition with public safety. It concludes that a coherent, forward-looking regulatory model will be critical for ensuring trust, accountability and operational resilience as the UAE advances its eVTOL deployment plans.

Shut Down, Sued, and Silenced: Strategic Suppression Tactics of Technology Corporations

Lee Raudsepp, Kristjan Kikerpill — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0200

Technology companies have become defining actors in contemporary democratic societies, wielding structural, instrumental, and discursive power that extends far beyond the marketplace. Yet the full range of strategies through which these companies suppress dissent, neutralise critics, and resist accountability remains largely underexamined. This article addresses that gap by mapping the silencing repertoire of major technology corporations, including those collectively known as GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft), as documented and represented in media reporting. Based on a content analysis of61 media-reported cases from 2017-2025, we identify how tech companies silence journalists, employees, researchers, competitors, regulators, and democratic institutions. These mechanisms go beyond litigation to include legal intimidation, retaliatory dismissals, regulatory complaints, and legal challenges to legislation. While these actions may appear routine and lawful individually, collectively they create a deliberate suppression system that impacts public discourse and democratic participation. These findings matter less for court decisions than for the effects along the way: deterrence through litigation threats, resource strains on targets, and pressures on governments and regulators. The article adds to debates on platform power, corporate governance, and democratic accountability, emphasizing the need for regulations to counter the silencing influence oftech firms.