In further European antitrust news, EC Competition Commissioner Ribera warns that Google break-up is still on the table.

Google for their part, have been fully transparent, and submitted a complete proposal to address the concerns without causing the kind of business disruption that has forced US Courts some hesitation in this most extreme of remedies. https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/european-commission-ad-tech-response/?utm_source=semafor 

For her part, Ribera signalled her desire to break-up Google even before receiving the remedy proposal https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/de/statement_25_2034

But as is part of the usual process, the EC will market test these remedies, in this case having already signalled that more than 200 companies will be involved. https://pro.politico.eu/news/209074

But what's pernicious here is that the EC is signalling that if the results of the market test are "bad" for Google, then it will move to a structural remedy (break-up of the company). So what do you think competitors are going to say? https://pro.politico.eu/news/209564

By signalling so strongly that she wants a break-up and effectively polling competitors whether they want Google broken up, that is setting the remedies up for failure.

It's almost a given that competitors will be lined up demanding break-up.

But the EC has a responsibility here to analyse the responses to the market test taking into account the bias of the respondents.

It's something that Judges in the US take due account of, but in Europe, the EC has a bias because it wants to issue fines, which fund its budget

This has of course caused pushback from the US administration, designed to push the EC to make its decisions more objectively, not purely in light of its own financial interest (in issuing fines). https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/trump-threatens-more-tariffs-and-export-ban-on-countries-with-digital-taxes/articleshow/123513862.cms?from=mdr

But here the threat is even larger, a break-up. Which again the EC has some interest in (short-sighted protectionism, despite the massive disruption that it will cause to European businesses that use Google's Ad-tech tools). 

One of the benefits of the US system is that these kinds of massive decisions go to a neutral arbiter (the judge), but in Europe they can be ordered by the EC itself, so it is really on the EC to exercise self-restraint.

It's a massive responsibility.

Signalling to the market that the remedy depends on what rivals demand, is bad news. It's an abdication of responsibility. 

I just hope it's not the end of the story ...

Google Ad-tech Remedies Market Testing Update

Europe competition authorities are going to war against privacy! 

Wait what?

No, you didn't misread. Several competition authorities are deep into investigations against Apple's "App Tracking Transparency" (ATT) measures, designed to protect and empower users vs malicious apps 

This latest news come from Germany, where the authority is officially market testing compliance solutions that Apple has proposed. The Bundeskartellamt back in February identified  concerns that ad-tracking companies weren't getting "fair" access to data  https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/02_13_2025_ATTF.html

In the BKA's view, Apple was wrong to describe third-party tracking (which means that data can go to a variety of third-party companies, ad-tech service providers, auctions, etc.) as "tracking", but not its own first-party service (where everything is done internally by Apple).

So, by equivocating two things that are (actually in reality) quite different, the BKA identifies a problem of "discrimination", i.e. that the two different things (first-party and third-party advertising) are treated differently. 

This is all in an effort to get more data for rivals (primarily publishers and Meta), so now the BKA is consulting on changes  that Apple has proposed to make it easier for advertisers to get data processing consent from users. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/12_02_2025_ATTF.html

This follows a number of other jurisdictions that have investigated Apple for ATT, in order to make it easier for advertising-based companies get data processing consent.

Last week the Polish competition authority opened a case, stating that Apple going beyond GDPR protections for users could open it up to antitrust liability.  https://uokik.gov.pl/en/is-apple-restricting-competition-president-of-uokik-brings-charges

In May of 2023 with the Italian competition authority opened a case, it focused on how advertising tech companies needed more access to data so they could boost their revenues, and that Apple's ad solutions had better access to data https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2023/5/A561-A561B

Romanian authorities got in on this in October of 2023, trying to make life easier for digital advertising companies and making it harder for Apple to distinguish between its own ad services and those of the ad tech industry https://globalcompetitionreview.com/article/romanian-enforcer-probes-apples-app-tracking-policy

France went as far as fining Apple €150 million in March of this year for the same conduct. https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/targeted-advertising-autorite-de-la-concurrence-imposes-fine-eu150000000-apple

Apple's response reminds us about how popular these privacy features are. But if they're creating antitrust liability, Apple might have to pull them from the European market. https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2415124

That would be a loss for privacy protection, imposed by competition authorities looking to give digital advertising companies like Meta and Newscorp a competitive boost in Apple's ecosystem. 

I've talked about this tension between privacy objectives and competition before. Regulators are working at cross-purposes, and it puts big tech companies in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But to some extent that may be by design.
https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1803841123921924423?s=20

The ability to fine US tech companies with one instrument or another, depending on where they fall on the line of privacy protection vs data for third-parties, might be a feature, not a bug, acting as an indirect way of taxing US tech whatever they do.

On the bright side, Apple has offered commitments to the BKA to try and address the issues, rather than pulling ATT completely and abandoning its privacy protections for European users. 

Interestingly, the BKA is also instrumentalising Apple to obtain GDPR compliant consent on behalf of third-parties, reducing their GDPR liability. 

Finally, and importantly, Apple did not offer to give third-parties more access to data, hopefully it holds firm here and the BKA doesn't try to force more data sharing, making Apple's ecosystem less protected. But that is open to consultation.

The BKA press release is here again, you can probably contact the BKA directly to tell them you care about privacy and don't want third-parties to have an easier time getting your data btw, https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/12_02_2025_ATTF.html

Competition Authorities vs Apple ATT and Privacy Protections

This one flew under the radar last week, but it's significant.

Competition Commissioner hits back at Tech Companies for Negative Impacts of the DMA

Now let me break it down 👇

(Reporting by @lewis_crofts)


At the end of September a group of right-wing European Parliamentarians posed questions to the EC on the impact the DMA was having on users, and whether it was resulting in fewer innovative services or delays in product launches.  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003802_EN.pdf

The short answer is that, yes, it has. We've done a study on this @progresschamber, it's unequivocal. Some services, like iphone mirroring, still aren't available. Various AI features and personalisations aren't available. There's more friction. https://thedigitalcurtain.eu/

But what's interesting is that the EC has thus far taken a "let's wait and see" approach, a "it's too early to tell" approach. The official line in all the conferences I've been to is that the DMA is creating some positive outcomes, and the remainder is work in progress

But here, from the very top of the mountain of DMA enforcement, we have the tacit admission that the DMA is making things worse for European users, that it is causing delays, and that European consumers are being deprived of the most cutting edge tools and services.

This isn't like GDPR, where the EC can say that some websites not being accessible in Europe is a good thing because we are "protecting" Europeans from "harmful" data processing.

The DMA unfortunately isn't about protecting European users from "harm" (quite the opposite)

This is an admission that the way the DMA is working is making it too costly, difficult, or legally uncertain, for the most advanced digital services in the world to launch new features and functionalities in Europe.

But it gets worse, for two reasons.

First, the EC implies that it engaged with Apple to get the translation service launched in Europe as quickly as possible following the announcement of the delays.  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003802-ASW_EN.html 

Why is that bad? Because it shows how much the EC is now in control of product development and product launches in Europe. 

Want to launch new features? That's at the mercy of DMA enforcers in Brussels. Try doing it around the holidays? Build that into your development timeline.

Nearly 5 years ago I warned that the DMA could end up installed the European Commission as the biggest roadblock to innovation in Europe, that it would be deciding, on a feature by feature basis, what could and couldn't be released by big tech companies. http://project-disco.org/competition/020921-the-eu-digital-markets-act-five-questions-of-principle/

Unfortunately, my DMA fears have come true.

Second problem: despite this approval processes that companies need to go through in order to launch new services in Europe, the EC is blaming the tech companies for the delay. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003802-ASW_EN.html

This is a "stop hitting yourself" kinda moment

Of course the tech companies want to launch services to all their users as quickly as possible across the world.

blaming them for the EC's own failings in providing regulatory clarity in a timely fashion is a very bad outcome, for what it portends: abdication of responsibility.

I've previously described this as one of those dangerous decision points that could make things worse. https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1783631151803871423

The EC needs to grapple with tradeoffs if it wants to make things better. If it's publicly just blaming industry for negative effects, then it's hard to see how it will be able to make things better for European consumers.

For every harm, it will just say "gatekeepers' fault"

Pressure from the US administration this week probably isn't helping the dynamic. https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1993792795916771586?s=20

The EC needs to better own up to the DMA's role in negatively impacting European users. 

But the silver lining is that the EC does appear to have acted quickly to help get live translations available in the EU through the interoperability mechanism. 

But there's a problem here as well, and that's the implication of the second line from the EC.

In fact it's a bit underlying one of the main flaws of the DMA's logic, and why the US administration is in opposition.

The statement actually explains the EC's position quite clearly, and the first time I've seen it put like this in black and white. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003802-ASW_EN.html

The premise of Europe's industrial policy here is to use the regulatory tool of the DMA to force US companies to create interoperability solutions so European companies can free-ride on those innovations.

That anything else is "unfair" 

The premise is that European innovators can't innovate without a regulatory helping hand, forcing technology to be transferred for their benefit, building on foreign ecosystems, with Government backing.

The premise is that EC needs to step in to prevent gatekeepers from "withholding" their property for the benefit of European innovators.

No wonder the US administration objects. Anyone would. 

The EU would, if the same were being applied to EU companies abroad.

I'd love to see the EC come out and clarify if this isn't what they mean. 

Because it's a startling admission otherwise.

I want to live in a Europe that has the ambition and determination to build tech giants not off the back of foreign companies, but through creating a regulatory environment that enables European founders to scale and grow across a single market and then fairly compete globally.

I want to live in a Europe where regulators take responsibility for their interventions and do their best to clear any legal uncertainty so that companies can launch and users get access to the best services and technologies alongside their international counterparts.

The DMA has become a flashpoint for European tech policy, and I fear that it is increasingly getting us further away from where we need to go.

Political lines are being drawn.

But in the end, it's the European users who are losing out.

Commissioner's DMA Admissions

The EU's trade-woes are heating up this week, as US/EU negotiators quarrelled over some familiar issues left unresolved from the summer's trade deal.

The EU wants lower steel and aluminium tariffs, the US wants the EU to stop discriminating against US tech companies. 

Neither side seems to want to budge. The EU continues to assert its regulatory supremacy, and the US isn't willing to lower tariffs without seeing a more "balanced approach" to enforcement. Reporting by @POLITICOEurope 

What's remarkable in the latest round of public negotiations is the US is now also dangling $1 trillion in digital investments for Europe, but EU leaders refuse to back down on their insistence to target US companies with the DMA

Last week in fact, the EU opened a new DMA investigation into Google for anti-spam policies that were allegedly "unfair" to spam content of European publishers https://x.com/ProgressChamber/status/1988956569044938779

The EC also also opened DMA investigations into Amazon and Microsoft in the Cloud sector, an area already under competition law scrutiny, but one that European policymakers see as key to Europe's "digital sovereignty" https://x.com/ProgressChamber/status/1990808969535754684?s=20

So with regulatory intervention against US tech companies accelerating, on ever more tenuous grounds, it's quite remarkable that the EC is asking for tariffs to be lowered. Actually they should be happy they're not increasing.

Still, the US was in Brussels offering investments

Lutnick reminded Europeans that the US is seeing GDP growth because of massive capital investments being made, that could also be made in Europe, if the regulatory framework for the big tech companies was less hostile https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-11-24/lutnick-says-eu-digital-rules-must-change-for-steel-tariff-deal

But European policymakers are adamant, almost prideful: they've crafted their legislative tools and instruments, and they will use them to assert dominance over US tech.

And it's true, it's their right to do that, but just because they can, doesn't necessarily mean they should.

There was a big "digital omnibus" proposal last week to simplify digital legislation, and make Europe more hospitable to business,  following the Draghi report recommendations to address Europe's flailing competitiveness.

The DMA is not touched. (h/t @pieter_haeck)

Multiple Commissioners came out in support of the DMA's targeting of US tech, basically arguing that it's not discriminatory that all the big US tech companies are getting caught up by the rules, because there are no EU companies of a similar size.

It would be a bit more believable if the DMA wasn't being extended to areas for which there is clearly very little evidence of consumer harm (spam policies), or sectors that are already covered by other areas of law (cloud). 

If the DMA was only being used to address established competition harms, with clear and proportionate obligations tailored to hose harms, it wouldn't be as objectionable, neither from the US administration nor from industry.

But it's not.

The DMA is a series of broken promises. 

We were promised one set of rules, but national enforcers have been gold-plating and holding up product launches with a plethora of additional competition investigations.

We were promised a concise list of clearly problematic practices, but now we see new investigations being opened into practices that have never been found to be harmful, and constantly shifting goalposts on compliance requirements and moving targets on expectations

We were promised rules that wouldn't lead reduce big tech innovations in Europe, but they have.

We've done a whole report on this problem @ProgressChamber , how the DMA has put a digital shroud over European citizens, who have access to fewer innovations and degraded integrations. https://thedigitalcurtain.eu/

EU leaders say they want to "stand by the promises made" on the DMA, but there are a lot of promises that the EC doesn't seem to want to keep

Maybe if it did, we would see better consumer outcomes, more investment, and perhaps a more agreeable US as well. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/11/25/eu-must-stand-by-the-promises-made-on-digital-rules-vestager-tells-euronews

EU-US Trade Dispute and the DMA's Broken Promises

New competition enforcement news out of Italy, but is it really competition enforcement? and why Italy?

Just another example of how the DMA has failed 

While the AGCM will want to paint this as a victory for consumers (more consent pop-ups, yay!) there's a severe enforcement failure here.

Because this investigation is tied to Google's DMA compliance mechanism.

Google already rolled out its consent screen compliance (DMA Art 5(2)) over a year ago when the DMA obligations became applicable. It presented its compliance solution publicly at the DMA workshop, but even then there were national authorities taking bites at it

https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1770726001451942218?s=20

A German antitrust case resulted in remedies on top of the DMA solution, all the way back in October 2023. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2023/05_10_2023_Google_Data.html

So now there's an Italian decision on top. But questions remain.

Has this been cleared by the Italian data protection authorities? By the European Commission's DMA team? By other national data protection authorities? Or by other national competition authorities? 

Indeed, on the very second page of the DMA's proposal the Commission had explained that the DMA would consolidate enforcement of these platform rules at the EU level.

Maybe the German case could have been excused because the DMA wasn't operational yet, but now, more than two years later?

It's unbelievable that national authorities are still preferencing their individual approaches, gold-plating the DMA provisions, and introducing new obligations that further fragment the internal market.

And a few days after the EC announced a big push to simplify digital rules.

These national actions make the EC lose credibility.

How can the EC seek to harmonise and simplify digital rules when Member States continue to fragment the market and pursue their individual approaches?

How can companies be expected to make compliance plans with the EC when any Member State (DPA or NCA) could jump in and overrule them at any moment in the future?

I know everyone loves to get a headline bashing big tech, force them to comply, bring them to heel, get pats on the back and positive reactions from the anti-tech commentariat, but come on, you're breaking the system here.
What we need is what was promised https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dsadma-myths-eu-regulation-create-legal-uncertainty-thierry-breton/

The AGCM should have never opened this case. The EC should have provided clear answers on the compliance requirements, and gotten alignment with Member States. The threat of additional sanctions should have never arisen (except if there was genuine non-compliance). 

Until we get to that point, where there are clear rules being applied from the top, then the DMA is still a far ways away from what was promised, and the EC has a LOT more work to do if it wants to generate any of the benefits that the DMA is meant to provide.

AGCM's DMA 5(2) Enforcement Failure

Potentially a big move from the EC to make Europe a bit more hospitable to AI, trying to put a stop to all the data protection authority investigations into AI model development and deployment in Europe

There have been dozens of privacy investigations in Europe against AI, Google, Meta and OpenAI have all had to delay or cancel product and service launches because of "regulatory uncertainty" and concerns over privacy investigations

Data protection authorities across Europe have been lobbying to become AI enforcers, but they don't have a great track record of encouraging technological advancements https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1813709526320955520

After numerous calls from different member states pushing the EC to be a bit more pro-AI, it seems we're finally seeing some progress, with a possible amendment to codify the applicability of the legitimate interests exemption, which would remove some of that legal uncertainty. 

We'll obviously have to wait until Nov 19 to see what that codification looks like, if there are any unnecessary limitations in its scope, which would mean uncertainty remains, but hopefully it goes in the right direction.

And of course, this doesn't impact the uncertainty around copyrighted content, this is just a subset of training data, but still important, particularly for European model deployers who want to be able to improve their services based on users' interactions with the service.

LAst year the EDPB released a guidance opinion that was supposed to provide some clarity and EU level harmonisation, but it didn't really move the needle on uncertainty and left too much discretion to national DPAs to block legitimate AI training. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-opinion-ai-models-gdpr-principles-support-responsible-ai_en 

This amendment would help fix that missed opportunity, and reign in the anti-tech DPAs a little bit.

So it's a good sign (if it comes to pass), that the Commission is showing some responsiveness to Member State concerns that Europe is falling dangerously behind on AI, and that EU rules and overly cautious enforcement, are dragging European competitiveness down.

Full article here: https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2407305

Codifying the GDPR Legitimate Interest Exemption for AI Training

🇪🇺 Europe’s consumers don't need more regulation that could limit digital services in Europe. 

@ProgressChamber we're committed to the consumer impact of digital regulation, so of course we had thoughts on the EC's ideas for a Digital Fairness Act (DFA) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14622-Digital-Fairness-Act/public-consultation_en

European consumers already face fewer digital services than users elsewhere — from AI services to personalised tools. Why? Because the EU’s regulatory stack is already complex and risk-heavy. The DFA could push even more services out of Europe.

The Commission’s own Fitness Check found no systemic gap in EU consumer law. But instead of fixing enforcement, the DFA risks adding new, overlapping rules which could means fewer options, slower launches, and higher prices for consumers. https://medium.com/chamber-of-progress/assessing-europes-digital-fairness-act-17cf3ff3f7d8

The EC is also involved in some suspicious evidence-making , their consultation questionnaire has a bunch of leading questions basically forcing respondents to give the EC justification for new rules https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/10/19/public-consultation-for-digital-fairness-act-exposes-europes-survey-sore-spots

But Europe ALREADY has the world’s gold-standard protections 📜:
DSA, GDPR, UCPD, CRD, DMA, AI Act — six major laws governing everything from data use to advertising and UX design. All in force or coming online now. More rules won’t really make consumers safer. 

As one analysis by Freshfields put it: “All the key themes potentially addressed by the DFA are already regulated - most being covered by multiple legal acts.” 

Europe doesn’t need more paperwork — it just needs enforcers that get to work. 

https://albert.apps.lsp.freshfields.com/index.html

There are already numerous EU-level regulations designed to strengthen consumer protection.

Europeans are already the best protected in the world.

Europe doesn’t need more paperwork — it just needs enforcers that get to work.

 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law_en

The real risk? Legal uncertainty. Each new rule creates conflicting definitions and double obligations. “Dark patterns,” “addictive design,” “vulnerabilities,” “unfair personalisation” — all already covered under the DSA, AI Act, GDPR, and UCPD.

When different regulators can’t agree what’s allowed, companies over-comply or exit the market. The result isn’t stronger protection — it’s fewer services for consumers.

🎯 Nowhere is that clearer than on free trials.
The DFA hints at treating free trials with suspicion — but they’re how consumers test, compare, and choose. Without them, Europeans lose access to one of the few risk-free ways to discover digital products.

Free trials are pro-consumer and pro-competition.

They reduce information asymmetry, help smaller firms reach new users, and give consumers confidence to buy. Restricting them means fewer startups, fewer options, and higher switching costs.

And the law already covers abuse:
CRD → clear consent & withdrawal rights.
UCPD → no misleading marketing.
DSA & Omnibus → easy cancellation.
If firms break these, CPC authorities can already act.

Don't get me wrong. Users should definitely be protected from scammy trials that trick users, or that make it impossible to cancel after becoming paid, but European consumer law already does this!

Europe doesn’t need more paperwork — it just needs enforcers that get to work.

So let’s be honest: a DFA that curtails free trials would make European consumers worse off — less choice, less innovation, less flexibility. No other region is even debating banning them.

🇪🇺 Europe’s goal now should be smart enforcement of existing laws, not over-regulation. Simplify, harmonise, and let consumers enjoy the benefits of the digital single market without suffocating it in red tape.

As the Draghi Report warned, Europe’s competitiveness depends on cutting internal friction and regulatory over-reach. The DFA should heed that advice. https://x.com/tunguz/status/1833478861813657787

The DFA proposal is precisely what Draghi has warned about https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1844789226614759930

Our message to the Commission is simple:
✅ Focus on coordination, clarity, and enforcement.
🚫 Don’t re-legislate what’s already covered.
💡 Keep Europe open to innovation so consumers can choose.

European consumers are already the best protected in the world. Let’s not make them worse off by layering on unnecessary bureaucracy that limits what they can access and enjoy online.

You can read our full submission here: https://progresschamber.org/resources/submission-to-ec-consultation-digital-fairness-act-call-for-evidence/


Digital Fairness Act: Chamber of Progress Submission on the Call for Evidence

Saw this last week but didn't see much commentary, there should be more, because it's an example of how industry concerns about the workability of regulation are often shot down, but ultimately prove true. 

Solid reporting by @egreechee 

The EU regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (TTPA) (Regulation 2024/900) was proposed all the way back in 2021, and had a few years of negotiations before it was finalised. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021PC0731

After participating in the consultation process and not getting very far, Google shared concerns publicly on how some of the TTPA drafting left too much uncertainty and unknowns for easy compliance, especially given the massive penalties for non-compliance (6% of global revenue).

These concerns weren't addressed, so already last year Google announced that they were pulling all kinds of "political ads" from Europe (an overbroad category given the uncertainty in the law's definitions. https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/political-advertising-in-eu/ 

Meta followed suit, as the other big digital advertising platform, also highlighting the uncertainty and lack of necessary legal guidance from enforcers (complicated here by the multiplicity of national issues) https://about.fb.com/news/2025/07/ending-political-electoral-and-social-issue-advertising-in-the-eu/

Predictably, European lawmakers are now raising concerns, that the law that was said to be unworkable, is actually unworkable, and that the companies aren't able to offer their services in Europe anymore, as they had previously predicted and warned.

Civil society groups which also pushed for the law are now aghast that the companies are withdrawing from the market rather than trying to comply with vagaries of the law and accepting the uncertainty.  https://www.voxpublic.org/Open-letter-to-Meta-and-Google-regarding-their-decision-to-stop-political.html

Politico notes that Guidelines from the Commission came woefully late. They still don't provide the clarity that companies need.

Euractiv journalist @anupriyadatta96 picked up the story as well  https://www.euractiv.com/news/big-techs-political-ad-blackout-tests-new-eu-transparency-law/  

She notes that even civil society groups that advocate for transparency recognise that vagaries of the law make it difficult to "properly identify political ads", especially when backed by a fine that could reach tens of billions of euros.

To me, this is another example of #nerdharder, where policymakers dismiss industry concerns by thinking that technical challenges can just be overcome by more engineering and technical efforts.

Forgetting that sometimes the opportunity cost just isn't worth it.

When the cost (or in this case legal liability) is high, and the value is low, it's mostly easier to just sunset a service, rather than go through the efforts (and risk) of trying to comply (especially when Commission services aren't being helpful along the way).

But in the end, that's one of the main costs of regulation. Services that Europeans miss out on, because they're just not profitable or worth deploying in Europe anymore. 

You can use legislation to prohibit anything but the perfectly desirable digital service, but if that perfectly desirable digital service can't actually be deployed, you'll just end up without any service to begin with.

And for what it's worth, I don't think we're going to have European alternatives popping up to provide these services in a way that can fill the gap of the big platforms withdrawing from the market. 

So what we end up with is less service at the end of the day.

That's a loss.

EU's TTPA Overregulation and the Loss of Services

Apple's new M5 silicon is a wonder, and a prime example of how vertical integration can allow for incredible technological advances, create new competitive pressure on incumbents to innovate, and ultimately, why the EU's DMA is bad for consumers. https://x.com/MKBHD/status/1978450994393387238

I have an M4 Macbook Air. It's the first Macbook I've ever purchased. The reason I finally switched over was that my Microsoft Surface with an Intel CPU had a fan that was just getting louder and louder. I had owned 3 generations of the Surface, but Apple offered something better

It wasn't because of the iPhone, it wasn't because of Airpods or the Watch, it wasn't because of the Apple ecosystem, in fact I wasn't in the ecosystem, and still am not fully (my primary phone is still Android, and I still have a desktop PC). It was because of Apple Silicon. 

And especially because Apple Silicon is fan-less. It's quiet. It's a completely different user experience compared to the noisy fans of the more modular "wintel" platform. 

And Apple has been able to offer this because it is tightly integrated, because it builds all the hardware

Apple Silicon works because Apple was able to invest in something for itself, and design it as part of an integrated hardware and software solution. 

We've had decades of dominance by the wintel platform, and while they have gotten more powerful, Apple is blowing past them now

This is a kind of tight integration that is deemed to be anticompetitive leveraging by the logic of the EU's Digital Markets Act, and antitrust regulators in Europe.

They want Apple's platforms to be modular, and accessible to rivals, by design and by default.

They already killed Apple's proprietary charging technologies, Apple now needs to use USB-C in Europe.

They've also attached Apple's peripherals integration with recent DMA specification decisions.

It's not hard to see them going after Apple Silicon as well.

I can hear them say "Why is Apple only using Apple Silicon? Why aren't third-parties being used as well? That's unfair to the third-parties" (they'd be more likely to say this if there were actually European chipset providers who demanded entry into Apple's systems). 

They've given themselves the power to intervene in other areas of Apple's business.

The logic is the same, and you'll be hard-pressed to find an EU antitrust regulator to explain the difference (other than saying that Apple's hardware isn't designated a "core platform service")

Apple has had trouble launching new services in Europe because of this (like live airpod translation); the requirement to design it to be interoperable for third-parties creates an engineering challenge and changes the nature of the product itself https://x.com/ProgressChamber/status/1966156763482177938

Forcing compatibility with third-party CPUs in these new Apple devices would mean having to install fans, changing the power requirements, creating bulkier systems, and would destroy benefits for consumers.

The same principles apply to other interventions into Apple systems.

I like to keep having nice things, and the fact that Apple was able to create this new silicon, which itself puts massive new competitive pressure on established suppliers like Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. It's new competition, that wouldn't be possible without Apple integration.

Product integration is a good thing in many situations. Antitrust regulators shouldn't be automatically suspicious of it. But here we are.

But I'll be here to keep reminding regulators of the benefits that we might lose with excessive intervention against it.

Apple's M5 Silicon - Integration Innovation

Fantastic news for safety and accessibility of riders on London roads, Waymo has announced that they will start driving in the UK next year.

Big thanks to the UK Government for their forward thinking approach and support for AVs in the UK https://x.com/ProgressChamber/status/1978468822651719713

A year ago, I wrote that "A lot of work still needs to be done by the incoming Government in order to actually get AVs on the road."  and estimated that if done right, cars could arrive as early as 2027.

Well it looks like the UK has excelled recently  https://medium.com/chamber-of-progress/what-european-policymakers-need-to-do-next-to-unleash-autonomous-vehicles-ba5a3f001fba 

In fact, today's announcement shows the significant commitment by the UK Government to get these cars on the road and start earning the benefits for society at large https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/15/driverless-taxis-from-waymo-will-be-on-londons-roads-next-year-us-firm-announces

The benefits go far beyond industry and innovation.

The truth is, Waymos are incredibly safe, and the sooner we get them on the road, the more lives we save.

https://x.com/ethanteicher/status/1967980602965246145

AVs are also a big improvement for accessibility

I've been in a Waymo myself and can personally attest to the quality of the ride. AVs are the future, and we want to bring the future to as many people as quickly and safely as possible https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1723924154599002376

We @progresschamber have been advocating with the UK government to help get these AVs on UK roads, including recent comments to the UK consultations on the Automated Passenger Services (APS) Permitting Scheme and AV Safety Principles

It's rewarding to see some of that hard work paying off and we look forward to working with Waymo and other AV partners to help unlock the benefits of AVs for UK citizens https://waymo.com/blog/2025/10/hello-london-your-waymo-ride-is-arriving