The Digital Markets Act (DMA), a key European legislation targeting large online platforms – so-called gatekeepers – is “ultimately intended to target and rein in US tech titans,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a non-profit think tank, says.
The ITIF has released a few publications lately that mirror US big tech dissatisfaction with European regulation.
“The DMA’s structure, legislative history, and enforcement patterns suggest that while its goal might be “fair competition,” it is ultimately intended to target and rein in US tech titans. This has significant consequences. If Europe continues down the path of targeting American firms, the US may retaliate, escalating regulatory and trade disputes,” an analysis by Lilla Nóra Kiss, PhD, a Senior Policy Analyst at ITIF, reads.
The think tank argues that five of the seven designated gatekeepers are American: Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft.
The ITIF itself is largely supported by all of these and other big tech companies. Notable supporters contributing more than $10,000 include Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (formerly Facebook), Microsoft, Nvidia, and Intel. ITIF claims that none of the contributions are used for lobbying purposes.
“Heavy-handed DMA enforcement threatens the unshakeable transatlantic alliance at a time when US-EU unity is crucial – particularly in countering China’s global quest for techno-economic dominance,” ITIF warns.
None of the European companies meet the bar
The European Commission designates gatekeepers by setting high revenue, market cap, and user base thresholds. No European firms meet them.
“This contrasts with countries like Brazil and India, which have set lower thresholds, resulting in a more balanced approach that subjects numerous domestic firms to regulation,” ITIF argues.
“Every DMA non-compliance investigation to date has been of an American tech company.”
The think tank also sees the regulations as part of a broader pattern of “economic lawfare,” used strategically to curb foreign competitors.
However, ITIF doesn’t specify what competition American tech companies face in Europe, which lacks any homegrown big tech firms.
In February, US president Donald Trump signed a memorandum “to defend American companies and innovators from overseas extortion.”
The White House said that DMA and Digital Services Act, regulations “that dictate how American companies interact with consumers in the EU,” will face scrutiny from the Administration.
“The Commission’s heavy-handed approach to DMA enforcement will not go unnoticed by the Trump administration,” ITIF warns.
ITIF suggests that the EU should apply the DMA “in a reasonable, light-touch way.” The think tank criticizes EU rules on Apple and Google, believing they will burden the companies, harm privacy and security, and stifle innovation.
Over the past fifteen years, the EU has imposed billions in competition-related fines on American companies. Apple was fined €1.8 billion over App Store rules for music streaming providers, and the Court of Justice of the European Union ordered the company to pay €13 billion for tax benefits it received from Ireland. Google has been fined over €8 billion on antitrust grounds, while Meta has been told to pay nearly €800 million.
However, many European consumers enjoy uniquely robust protections and benefits compared to American users, including GDPR-enforced data privacy rights, mandatory app sideloading, third-party platform interoperability, right-to-repair laws, all-inclusive pricing, etc.
This is not the first time ITIF attacked European regulations. Last week, following EU decisions specifying Apple’s interoperability requirements and preliminary findings that Google failed to comply with DMA’s obligations, ITIF also released a statement saying that the EU’s DMA actions “send troubling signals across the Atlantic.”
European think tank suggests the opposite
Meanwhile, the European think tank Bruegel, using game theory, suggests the complete opposite – the European Commission should increase rather than reduce DMA fines for the US tech giants. The Commission cannot legally opt out of sanctioning clear infringements.
“It would make no sense for the European Commission to back down from DMA fines in the face of US pressure,” Mario Mariniello, a non-resident fellow at Bruegel, said.
“Bowing to foreign pressure is not good policy. Softening the enforcement of EU laws undermines competition in European markets. Vacillating over the DMA would generate uncertainty, undermine the credibility of the EU as a regulatory power, and make the EU subordinate to the US.”
The European think tank explains that “any fine amount would be used by the US administration as a pretext for retaliation,” and there is no mechanism to ascertain whether a fine is fair because the US sees the whole EU regulatory framework as unjust.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are markedmarked