News

Austin, Texas – A unique dining experience is gaining attention in the city’s vibrant culinary scene. L’Oca d’Oro, an Italian-inspired restaurant, is offering a “pay-what-you-can” model, allowing patrons to determine the cost of their meal based on their individual financial circumstances. This approach aims to make high-quality, locally-sourced food accessible to a wider range of diners.

The restaurant, located in Austin, has quickly become known not only for its innovative pricing structure but also for its commitment to farm-to-table dining. L’Oca d’Oro prioritizes sustainable practices, utilizing produce and meats from local farms and even crafting their own pasta, cheese, salumi, bread, vinegars, and liqueurs in-house. This dedication to local sourcing is a key component of their philosophy, ensuring both freshness and support for the surrounding agricultural community. The concept of paying what you can afford is a bold step in addressing food accessibility within Austin’s increasingly expensive dining landscape.

A Farm-to-Table Philosophy at the Core

L’Oca d’Oro’s commitment to local ingredients extends beyond simply sourcing from nearby farms. According to their website, the restaurant’s dishes are “prepared with sustainable, locally grown produce and meats,” reflecting a deep-rooted farm-to-table philosophy. L’Oca d’Oro emphasizes the importance of supporting local farmers and ranchers, and this ethos is evident in every aspect of their operation. This approach not only benefits the local economy but also ensures the highest quality ingredients for their customers.

Austin has a thriving farm-to-table restaurant scene, with numerous establishments prioritizing locally sourced ingredients. OpenTable lists several restaurants in the area that focus on this approach, highlighting the growing demand for sustainable and locally-focused dining options. So Much Life notes that farm-to-table restaurants in Austin are among the best in the city, offering cuisine that reflects the region’s natural bounty and supporting passionate chefs dedicated to showcasing local food providers.

How the “Pay-What-You-Can” Model Works

Details regarding the specific implementation of the “pay-what-you-can” model at L’Oca d’Oro are currently limited. Although, the concept aims to remove financial barriers to enjoying a quality meal. The restaurant trusts its customers to honestly assess their ability to pay, fostering a sense of community and mutual respect. This model is particularly relevant in a city like Austin, where the cost of living has been steadily increasing, potentially making dining out inaccessible for some residents.

L’Oca d’Oro also caters to larger groups, offering tailored private events with seasonal menus that showcase the best of Central Texas’ offerings. For parties of eight or more, the restaurant requests inquiries be directed to [email protected], demonstrating their flexibility and commitment to accommodating diverse dining needs. OpenTable confirms the restaurant’s ability to host both intimate and larger gatherings.

The restaurant’s innovative approach to pricing and its dedication to local sourcing are attracting attention and sparking conversations about food accessibility and sustainability within the Austin community. The “pay-what-you-can” model represents a significant step towards creating a more inclusive dining experience, although the farm-to-table philosophy reinforces the importance of supporting local agriculture.

Looking ahead, the success of L’Oca d’Oro’s model could inspire other restaurants in Austin and beyond to adopt similar practices, potentially leading to a broader shift towards more equitable and sustainable dining options. The restaurant’s continued commitment to quality ingredients and community engagement will be crucial in maintaining its positive impact on the local food scene.

What are your thoughts on the “pay-what-you-can” dining model? Share your comments below and let us know what you think!

European data protection authorities (DPAs) have identified seven recurring challenges in implementing the “right to be forgotten” – formally known as the right to erasure – across the European Union, according to a report released February 18, 2026, by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). The findings stem from the EDPB’s 2025 Coordinated Enforcement Framework (CEF) action, which focused on enforcement of Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The CEF action, which began in 2020, involved 32 member state DPAs and elicited responses from 764 European data controllers. Nine DPAs initiated formal investigations or continued ongoing ones, while 23 conducted fact-finding exercises. The EDPB report indicates that issues encountered mirror those identified in the 2024 CEF work on the right of access.

Among the challenges identified, data controllers often lack “appropriate internal procedures to handle requests, or the lack of sufficient information provided to individuals,” the report states. DPAs also found controllers struggling to assess and apply the conditions for exercising the right to erasure, particularly when balancing it against other rights and freedoms.

The report further highlights concerns over the use of anonymization as a substitute for deletion. “Participating DPAs reported specific findings related to the reliance by some controllers on inefficient anonymisation techniques to handle erasure requests as an alternative to deletion,” the EDPB stated. Difficulties were also noted in determining appropriate data retention periods and ensuring deletion from backup files.

Several DPAs have already issued follow-up guidance. France’s Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) issued two formal notices in 2025 as part of the CEF work, potentially leading to penalties. The CNIL’s guidance emphasized that an organization’s size and sector significantly influence its ability to comply with deletion requests, with larger organizations generally receiving more requests and possessing more formalized procedures.

Finland’s Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman sent a voluntary questionnaire to 61 organizations, receiving 37 responses, and subsequently published supplemental guidance on best practices for implementing the right to erasure. The Hellenic Data Protection Authority, after surveying 35 data controllers, found that some replaced deletion with anonymization without sufficient safeguards, struggled with exceptions to the right to erasure, and failed to consistently delete data from backup files. Despite these findings, the Greek DPA reported a “high” level of overall compliance.

Sweden’s Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY) surveyed 20 major public and private sector organizations, finding its observations aligned with the EDPB’s conclusions.

Alongside the CEF report, the EDPB released a report summarizing input from a stakeholder workshop held December 12, 2025, focused on anonymization and pseudonymization. The workshop, attended by 105 participants from various sectors, sought to clarify how regulators view a recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling on the topic. Participants called for more practical tools and guidance, particularly regarding the application of the ruling in joint controllership scenarios and the relationship between controllers and processors.

Stakeholders specifically requested clarification on assessing the identification capabilities of anonymized or pseudonymized data when transferred to third parties, determining what re-identification means are “reasonably likely” to be employed, and how controllers processing pseudonymized data can determine if it constitutes personal data. The EDPB has not yet announced a timeline for responding to these requests.

London Stansted Airport is facing increased scrutiny following the release of court documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with police now assessing information about private flights to and from the Essex airport. The renewed focus stems from allegations that Epstein used Stansted as a key hub for trafficking, taking advantage of lower airport charges compared to other European locations like Paris.

The examination of flight logs and records comes after former Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly urged police to urgently re-examine potential trafficking within and outside the UK, citing details within the released files. Brown specifically highlighted that Epstein’s jet made 90 flights to or from UK airports, including 15 after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a child. The allegations center on the possibility that Stansted was used as a transfer point for women, with some arriving on private planes without requiring British visas.

Epstein’s Use of Stansted: What the Files Reveal

Evidence uncovered suggests Epstein “boasted” about the comparatively low costs of operating at Stansted Airport, according to reports. Emails reviewed by authorities indicate discussions about charter flights originating in Paris and landing at Stansted. These communications, along with records of Epstein’s stays at the nearby Radisson Blu hotel, are now being assessed by Essex Police. The force is the third to launch a review of allegations into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and his relationship with Epstein, focusing on potential misconduct in public office and reports of sexual crimes.

The BBC reported last year that 87 flights linked to Epstein arrived at or departed from UK airports between the early 1990s and 2018. The recently released files have prompted a deeper seem into these flights, particularly those involving unnamed passengers labeled as “female” in incomplete flight logs. Three British women, who were allegedly trafficked, have been identified in Epstein’s flight records.

Police Response and Expanding Investigations

Essex Police confirmed on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, that it is assessing information about private flights into and out of Stansted following the publication of the Epstein files. This follows a period of repeated declines to comment on the matter. The Guardian reported that police are keen to demonstrate impartiality in their investigation, particularly given the allegations surrounding Prince Andrew.

Beyond Essex Police, at least three other British police forces are currently assessing claims related to Epstein. Thames Valley Police is evaluating two separate allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor, while Surrey Police is assessing another. Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Understanding Private Flights and Airport Operations

Private jets, too known as business or corporate jets, are used for transporting smaller groups of people for business or personal travel. Stansted Airport, located approximately 40 miles (65km) from central London, operates a terminal specifically for private aircraft. The airport’s relatively lower charges, as highlighted by Brown, may have made it an attractive location for Epstein’s operations.

The investigation is focusing on whether these flights were used to facilitate the trafficking of women, and whether any crimes were committed within the UK. Police are examining flight logs, passenger manifests, and other relevant documentation to determine the extent of Epstein’s activities and any potential involvement of others.

As the investigation unfolds, authorities will likely face challenges in piecing together a complete picture of Epstein’s activities, given the incomplete nature of some flight logs and the passage of time. However, the renewed scrutiny of Stansted Airport and the Epstein files underscores the ongoing efforts to uncover the full extent of his crimes and hold those responsible accountable.

The focus now shifts to the detailed analysis of flight data and related records by Essex Police and other forces. Further developments are expected as the investigation progresses, potentially shedding more light on the alleged trafficking network and the role of Stansted Airport. We will continue to follow this story and provide updates as they become available.

What are your thoughts on this developing story? Share your comments below and let us know what questions you have.