Spain has moved to open a new legal front against major social media platforms, asking prosecutors to investigate Meta, TikTok and X over allegations that AI-generated child sexual abuse material has circulated on their services. The announcement, made on 17 February 2026, signals a sharper turn in Europe’s response to the way generative AI can accelerate the creation and spread of illegal images online.

According to Reuters, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the Spanish state must act to protect children’s “safety, privacy and dignity,” pointing to a technical report drawn up across three ministries. The investigation comes as European governments debate stricter rules for adolescents’ access to social media and weigh the responsibility of platforms whose algorithms decide what content is pushed, recommended or amplified. (Reuters)

AI is changing the scale of the problem

At the heart of Spain’s move is a fear long flagged by child-protection experts: that generative tools can produce abusive material faster than traditional detection systems can keep up. Reuters notes that Spain is stepping in amid broader scrutiny of how platforms’ recommendation systems, moderation practices and design choices can contribute to harmful outcomes for minors. (Reuters)

This concern has been growing across Europe as regulators increasingly treat online safety as a “systems” issue — not only about individual posts, but about the product design and algorithms that can drive exposure. Earlier this month, The European Times reported on EU scrutiny of TikTok’s “addictive design”, where features like infinite scroll and autoplay were cited as risk factors, particularly for younger users.

Parallel regulatory pressure beyond Spain

Spain’s prosecutorial request lands in a wider European context of enforcement and investigations. Reuters reports that Ireland’s Data Protection Commission has opened a formal probe into X’s AI chatbot Grok, examining the processing of personal data and concerns about the generation of sexualised content involving minors. (Reuters)

Separately, Brussels has also been intensifying scrutiny of online services under its digital rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA), including cases focused on protecting minors from illegal and harmful content. The European Times previously covered how the EU began using the DSA to address minors’ exposure to pornography in formal investigations into major adult-content platforms.

What comes next

Spain’s prosecutors will now determine the scope and direction of the inquiry. The broader question is whether the combination of national investigations, EU-level enforcement, and data-protection oversight can meaningfully curb AI-enabled abuse — or whether the pace of innovation will continue to outstrip the safeguards built into today’s platforms.

For Europe, 17 February 2026 marks another step in a fast-emerging reality: child protection online is no longer only a policing or content-moderation challenge. It is also a governance test of how digital products are designed, how algorithms operate, and how quickly states can enforce the rules they have written.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is facing criticism after a T-shirt featuring design elements linked to the 1936 Berlin Olympics appeared in official Olympic online stores and quickly sold out. Holocaust organisations and German politicians argue the item echoes Nazi-era propaganda aesthetics and should not be commercialised without clear context. The IOC says the limited-run product is primarily about protecting trademarks from misuse, insisting that safeguarding Olympic heritage does not mean celebrating the regime that hosted the Games.

A “heritage” product that sparked a modern controversy

Coverage on 15 February 2026 drew attention to the shirt—marketed as part of an Olympic “heritage” line—using imagery associated with Berlin 1936, an Olympics widely recognised as a major propaganda showcase for Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The merchandise triggered political and civic backlash in Germany, where critics warned that packaging such visuals as lifestyle apparel risks softening public memory of how sport was instrumentalised during one of Europe’s darkest chapters.

Among the most vocal critics was Berlin Greens politician Klara Schedlich, who argued that the 1936 Games were a “central propaganda tool” of the Nazi regime and that selling a product echoing that period’s iconography is inappropriate—particularly if consumers encounter it without explicit educational framing. International coverage, including Euronews, reported that Holocaust-linked organisations also raised concerns.

The IOC’s response: trademark protection, not nostalgia

Speaking in Milan, IOC spokesperson Mark Adams defended the decision, saying the IOC is obligated to protect its trademarks and prevent uncontrolled use of Olympic-related designs. In the account reported by Reuters, the IOC framed the run as limited and rooted in legal stewardship rather than sentiment. Parallel coverage by RTÉ also highlighted the IOC’s view that history cannot be “rewritten” and noted references to museum-style contextualisation, including at the Olympic Museum in Lausanne.

Adams additionally pointed to sporting history from the period, including the achievements of athletes such as Jesse Owens. The IOC position, in essence, is that acknowledging the Games’ existence—and protecting the marks connected to them—does not equate to endorsing the politics of the host regime.

Why critics say the legal argument is not enough

Opponents counter that the debate is not about whether the IOC owns trademarks, but whether consumer merchandising is the right vehicle for contested historical material—especially when the visuals originate from an event intertwined with state propaganda and systematic persecution. Reuters noted that forced labour was used in building works linked to the Olympic stadium, while Nazi authorities were already incarcerating groups they targeted, including Jews, Roma, homosexuals, political opponents and others.

The controversy also exposes a broader institutional challenge: even if an item is produced for trademark reasons, its reception is shaped by local memory cultures—particularly in Germany, where public sensitivity to Nazi symbolism and its normalisation remains acute. German outlet Welt reported on the domestic political reaction and the intensity of public criticism.

What could change: context at the point of sale

Several observers argue that if institutions insist on selling historically sensitive designs, they should do so with clear, unavoidable context: prominent notes explaining why the item exists, what the imagery represents, and how the organisation addresses the harms associated with the period. Without that, critics say, “heritage” marketing can flatten meaning into aesthetics—especially on fast-moving e-commerce platforms where products circulate far from museums and curated exhibitions.

A wider European debate on remembrance and responsibility

The dispute lands amid wider European conversations about how institutions, brands and platforms treat contested history. In earlier reporting on remembrance and the ongoing duty to confront antisemitism, The European Times has noted that commemoration is not only about ceremonies, but about choices that shape public culture—especially in moments when symbolism and commerce intersect.

Whether the IOC’s trademark rationale satisfies critics may depend on the next steps: clearer criteria for what belongs in a “heritage” collection, stronger educational framing at the point of sale, and transparency about how the IOC assesses reputational and ethical risk when monetising designs from politically charged Games. For now, the shirt’s sell-out status has only intensified the question at the heart of the controversy: when history is painful, can it ever be “just a design”?

A complaint by Montenegro’s Human Rights Action, prompted by leaked preliminary findings linked to the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee, has put the Special Psychiatric Hospital in Dobrota back under scrutiny. Beyond denouncing alleged degrading conditions, the controversy is sharpening a wider European argument: that preventing abuse in closed psychiatric settings requires a rights-based shift away from institutionalisation toward community support, peer-led services, and independent safeguards.

An NGO complaint and a European watchdog’s shadow

On 28 January 2026, the Montenegrin watchdog Human Rights Action (HRA) issued a public complaint after what it described as leaked preliminary findings from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), a Council of Europe body that inspects places where people are deprived of liberty.

HRA said the leaked material—reported by the newspaper Vijesti—raised serious concerns about long-standing problems in closed institutions, including the Special Psychiatric Hospital in Dobrota. The watchdog’s central demand is transparency: publish the relevant CPT documentation and set out clear, public steps to prevent abuse and protect patients’ rights.

What is being alleged

The information currently in the public domain points to a familiar risk pattern in closed settings: overcrowding, poor living conditions, and the potential for neglect and degrading treatment when oversight is weak and people have limited ability to complain safely. Vijesti quoted Dobrota’s management disputing parts of the picture, while acknowledging operational pressures and referencing a “court hospital” solution—an approach that critics argue can reinforce reliance on institutional pathways rather than reduce them.

Because the CPT’s full report has not been officially published in this case, the public discussion is built on partial reporting and civil-society statements. Still, HRA’s message is unambiguous: when credible concerns arise in a closed psychiatric institution, secrecy is itself part of the problem, and independent scrutiny becomes urgent.

Why rights advocates say “reform inside” is not enough

Across Europe, allegations of abuse in psychiatric and forensic facilities repeatedly raise the same question: can closed institutions ever be made reliably safe for those inside them, or do they structurally generate risk? Disability-rights advocates increasingly point to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) General Comment No. 5 on Article 19 (“living independently and being included in the community”), which stresses choice, autonomy, and access to community support as prerequisites for full rights.

In its 2022 Guidelines on deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies, the CRPD Committee sets out how states should plan and deliver a transition away from institutions—building community-based supports and preventing new forms of segregation from replacing old ones. For many rights groups, the Dobrota controversy is therefore not only about conditions inside one hospital; it is about whether governments are willing to reduce and ultimately end dependence on institutional models that place people at heightened vulnerability.

Accountability first: what transparency would look like

HRA’s position is that credibility requires publication and follow-through. That means, at minimum, authorising disclosure of the relevant CPT findings (once finalised), answering publicly to any identified shortcomings, and enabling independent monitoring mechanisms to assess the situation on the ground. Where allegations indicate possible criminal conduct, rights groups argue that the response must include independent investigation and, if warranted, prosecution—because administrative “lessons learned” alone rarely deter repeat harm.

A broader European debate on coercion and safeguards

The Dobrota case lands amid an intensifying Europe-wide debate about coercion, safeguards, and alternatives. Advocacy networks have highlighted growing institutional resistance to approaches they view as incompatible with the CRPD’s direction, including proposals that could normalise coercive frameworks rather than reduce them. Within that wider landscape, previous reporting on The European Times has tracked how legal challenges and policy shifts are reshaping arguments over forced treatment and rights protections.

What to watch next

Three developments will determine whether this complaint leads to meaningful protection from abuse.

• Transparency: whether Montenegro permits publication of the full CPT report and responds publicly, in detail, to any findings.
• Independent accountability: whether credible allegations are investigated by bodies that are institutionally independent from the facility and the health authorities.
• CRPD-aligned transition: whether authorities adopt a measurable plan to reduce reliance on closed psychiatric institutions by shifting support toward community-based, voluntary, human-rights-centred services, including peer-led supports, independent advocacy, and protections that prevent coercion and segregation.

Until full documentation is published, the responsible conclusion is necessarily cautious. But the stakes are not: closed institutions concentrate vulnerability. If the aim is to prevent abuse—not merely respond after harm occurs—then transparency, independent safeguards, and a credible pathway away from institutionalisation are the measures that rights advocates say matter most.