European lawmakers can't seem to help themselves. They make laws, that's their job, it seems. So when even when there is massive political support (and necessity) for simplifying laws and reducing compliance burdens, European Parliamentarians can't seem to help themselves... 

The proposed "digital omnibus" risks being hijacked by Parliamentarians who want to add in a bunch of bells and whistles, rather than simplify, to address new high-profile issues, without even considering that these issues may be already covered by existing law.

The sexual deepfakes issue is already covered by the DSA, by the AI Act, and by the 2024 Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which needs to be transposed by Member States by next year. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/07/council-adopts-first-ever-eu-law-combating-violence-against-women/

All these concerns are covered! And just to avoid any misunderstanding, I totally think they should be applied! 

My point is we have existing laws that can be enforced https://x.com/ProgressChamber/status/2010773761658687665

But the EU law making machine can't help itself, when they see an opportunity to "gold plate" or add new edge cases to the law, even in a law that is meant to simplify and make Europe more competitive, they can't help but propose new laws.

This knee-jerk bias towards adding regulation, is a major long-term problem for Brussels, and it seriously needs to be addressed.

Otherwise we'll never be able to make Europe as competitive as it needs to be to act independently on the global stage.

Addressing EP's Bias Towards Regulation (Digital Omnibus Edition)

Big news for the regulation of market power out of the UK today, with the first Conduct Requirements proposed by the CMA against Google's Search services. 

So what's the UK focusing on, and has it learned from the mistakes of other authorities? Let's take a look 👇

First off, this has been a relatively quick process. The UK's DMCCA only came into force in 2024, the CMA began the process to designate Google Search as having "Strategic Market Status" and subject to the regime a year ago, and has already today proposed conduct changes. 

These company specific "conduct requirements" are tailor built regulation addressing competition concerns and trying to mitigate potential future harms before they happen. They're much more calibrated and targeted than the EU's Digital Markets Act, and give the UK flexibility.

At certain points last year, it seemed like the CMA was inclined to impose very far reaching and potentially damaging interventions, which I commented on at the time. https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1938243303033774375

Full disclosure, we at @ProgressChamber has been heavily involved in the process, providing our views in the consultations, and trying to ensure that the UK doesn't follow the EU in making decisions that ultimately end up harming consumers, evidenced here https://thedigitalcurtain.eu/

Looking at the press release (there are hundreds of pages in the draft conduct requirement decisions themselves, so that will have to await further study...) and a select few documents, well, there's some good, but still a lot of open questions.

The CMA very transparently published a blogpost with details about the proposal, it's a good summary of the four conduct requirements, I'll leave the most controversial one for last though. https://competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk/2026/01/28/improving-the-way-google-delivers-search-services-in-the-uk/

Starting with the "Fair Ranking" requirement, it would greatly increase transparency for websites in how they are ranked on Google search. Could this be useful to them? perhaps to dispell doubts unfair ranking. But there's a downside that could harm users.

This level of transparency will strengthen the hand of Search Engine Optimisation (SEOO players and those who try to spam our search results with irrelevant results by gaming the system. The more transparency, the easier it will be for these players to game. 

SEO is already a massive industry and this might accelerate its growth. But is this good for consumers? Will UK users end up seeing worse search results and more spam as a result of this policy? 

It will be an interesting test case that's for sure.

Next, choice screens. These seem to be very similar to what the EU has done with the DMA. Expand on existing choice architecture by prompting users to switch their default search engines. 

This has had mixed results in Europe. While many people still pick Google as the default, smaller players have seen significant jumps in new users (a small portion of a very large number is still significant). 

But are these users sticky, or will they switch back? We haven't seen long term figures yet. It could be that users will ultimately migrate back to Google because they feel it is the best (and remains one big open questions when it comes to enforcer efforts to nudge users away)

It will also be interesting to see if the CMA ultimately does ask for more than what is in the DMA, or if they land in the same place. I'll have to take a closer look at the proposal itself and this ultimately depends on the results of the consultation as well.

Next, Data Portability, which touches on another big open question: will making big tech platforms share their data lead to a bunch of new business models and smaller startups that are able to generate new value from this data? Or are users not really interested in this either?

The regulator assumption (and special pleadings from ad targeting firms that want access to this data) has always been that there are tons of innovative services just waiting in the wings and users are ready to jump over to them, but for gatekeeper intransigence. 

So this is another bit of an experiment, and we'll have to see how it plays out. 

Personally, I don't think Google's quality is based so much on your search history, and I don't think this data has so much value as such. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Now finally, the most interesting conduct requirement, and the real headline, is on AI Overviews and Publisher Content.

At the very least, it shows how quickly the CMA's process can be.

While the EU is now considering changing the DMA to incorporate more rules covering AI, and has recently opened an investigation into some aspects of Google's AI services (see my earlier commentary below), the CMA is already acting https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1998417523356897655

And I'm pretty confident the CMA will get to imposing conduct changes with a more holistic perspective as to the conduct required much faster than the EU. That's a sign of good regulatory outcomes. 

The fact that Google is also conceding its willingness to work with the CMA on this is also a testament to the effectiveness of the CMA's approach. https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/search-ai-features-controls/

However, there are some dangers here as well, and the CMA has to be careful. It's getting its hands dirty with a very nascent technology, where competition is still thriving, and looking at potentially dictating how AI overviews integrate third-party content, i.e. product design

Can the CMA act proportionately here, given the strong lobbying power of publishers in the UK? Indeed Publishers appear to be very happy with the CMA's proposal https://newsmediauk.org/blog/2026/01/28/nma-welcomes-cma-proposals-on-google-search-but-stronger-remedies-are-needed/ 

There is some sign of hope, the CMA in their report on Publisher Content has revealed that some complainants demanded that Google create a separate webcrawler to crawl the open web for AI overviews as opposed to search results. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6979d0bf75d44370965520a0/Publisher_conduct_requirement.pdf

The CMA actually did the work to estimate what this would cost, not only for Google but also for third-parties, and found that it would be disproportionate given the minimal added benefits to competition.

It's precisely the kind of assessment that the European Commission hasn't been doing under the DMA (costs to the wider ecosystem) and what makes  the UK approach much more refined.

I'll have to dig in further into these reports, but the volume of work the CMA has done is impressive here, the proportionate approach is both reflective of their responsibility, and their appreciation of the wider economic context. It should be commended. 

In the meantime, you can also consider responding to the consultation on these Conduct Requirements at the link below. The deadline is 25 February https://connect.cma.gov.uk/google-search-conduct-requirements

UK Proposes Google Search Conduct Requirements

At the end of last week we got a bit more detail on exactly why Apple and other Gatekeepers are complaining about the DMA's "moving targets" and "shifting goalposts", and how these changing compliance standards could be a tactic to increase fines on US companies.

The details emerged after MacPaw announced they were shutting down the Setapp Mobile iOS store, an alternative to the AppStore that relied on new access for 3rd Party distribution that Apple granted in complying with the DMA https://www.theverge.com/news/863978/setapp-mobile-ios-store-shutdown

This of course pissed off some users because the withdrawal of the service meant that users who tried it out would lose their ongoing updates and potentially their access to the apps they purchased as well. 

The Commission hit back, blaming Apple in a statement shared with the press, saying that it was Apple's fault for not having rolled out changes to the business terms in time. (Reporting by J Parry in Politico https://pro.politico.eu/news/the-dmas-app-store-blues) 

But Apple hit back, in a letter seen by the press, stating that the delayed rollout was the Commission's fault. 

Apple was ready to go, but the Commission stalled, they didn't respond, they didn't give feedback, and then they moved the goalposts. 

In fact, the EC itself was ready to give a verdict back in September of last year, according to press reports, but it has delayed, often times this is because it's seeking feedback from complainants or, as Apple describes, trying to build a prosecution  https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1968940256629055770?s=20

As others, like Wesley Hillard at Apple Insider have pointed out, the complainants will never be satisfied, because they want a totally free ride on Apple infrastructure and technology. They want to pay nothing. https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/01/23/ec-apple-play-the-blame-game-with-macpaw-alternative-app-store-failure

The Commission knows this, it's not trying to negotiate a solution or find a compromise. It's not trying to help Apple to achieve compliance. And why would it, not when it can achieve its other objective, balancing the EU budget https://x.com/da_fant/status/1998090511807381613

It's shocking to read about Apple executives feeling the need to point out that the EC is preparing to fine Apple on the grounds of its own failure to provide timely feedback and regulatory dialogue. Things have really broken down.

But according to Mlex's reporting, the EC continues to absolve itself of any responsibility.

At the end of the day, the real problem for the Commission just might be that there isn't a real market , any real user demand, for these third-party distribution methods. 

The EC will just end up as a price regulator for big tech. And that's not really sustainable.

EC's DMA Delay Tactics and Politics Lead to Fines

In a move that seems to be designed to avoid scrutiny and the ire of the Trump administration, the Italian competition authority (AGCM) has concluded its competition investigation into Apple's privacy controls (ATT) with a nearly €100 million fine.

Dropping on the eve of holidays (indeed most people in Europe, including myself, are already off), this fine follows several recent enforcement actions at Member State level against ATT, which I've covered earlier. https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1995904550730129714

If a GDP proportionate fine were to be issued across the EU, Apple would be liable for (Italy is around 12% of European GDP) $9.6 Billion, 26.6% of its European profits (based on $36 billion "Europe" profit in FY23).

That's a massive, massive tax on a leading US company. 

So what is it that European competition authorities think should cost Apple over a quarter of its profits?  

Per the press-release "restricting the collection, linking and use of [personal] data."

Apple is empowering users against tracking and being punished for it.

There's a 199 page decision linked at the press release, which deserves a full review, but that will have to wait for the new year.

In the meantime, two things to note: (1) in the AGCM's view, Apple should have relied on the consent obtained by third-parties.

That's a classic "gatekeeping" issue, being enforced under competition law, and gives rise to the "beneficial gatekeeping conundrum": pro-consumer ecosystem governance being treated as anti-competitive.

But in multi-sided markets everything has tradeoffs. 

Hence the conundrum.

Giving users the power to directly control 3P data tracking is an immensely popular feature, and a competitive differentiator. It's a selling point. 

Apple gives simple and easy OS level control over 3P tracking. https://www.forrester.com/blogs/apple-sales-and-profits-analysis-for-fy-2023-top-10-insights/

Apple's entire business is about protecting your privacy. It doesn't send data to 3P ad-exchanges and auctions and data arbitrage or data brokers, or create massive user-profiles to be monetised with ads. https://youtu.be/rEWeA7qDV4k?si=7a2tfgmi2o4W_Wxz

OF COURSE that's bad for companies that rely on advertising revenues. But that doesn't mean it should be a competition issue, not in Europe at least.

The idea that Apple should just defer to 3P consent, and give 3Ps access to users' device-level data, is bad for consumers.

As if GDPR enforcement is so consistent that all 3Ps will abide by GDPR compliance consent in all circumstances. 

Why NOT have Apple be able to push that compliance by empowering users? 

This is just bad policy.

Second (2) this appears to be part of a coordinated campaign, involving multiple Member States, DPAs, and the European Commission. This isn't just a rogue action, but it reveals the incredible complexity of dealing with European regulation.

Again, note that this is under competition law, not DMA, so this applies to EVERY digital business in Europe. Multiple authorities, multiple competing objectives. What if a different National Competition Authority reaches a different conclusion, or a different DPA? or the EC? 

US companies are facing triple or quadruple jeopardy in Europe, conflicting and ambiguous regs, that give authorities the power to fine away all their profits. It's not sustainable, and it's why US authorities have been pushing back so vigorously lately.

https://x.com/USTradeRep/status/2000990028835508258

Don't expect this to go unnoticed by the USTR simply because it dropped on the eve of Christmas holidays. There will be pushback.

It's startling that this consumer-hostile move was made to protect advertising companies that most users don't want to to be tracked by.

Unfortunately, this is part of a wider trend of European authorities being "tough on big tech", in ways that are increasingly self-destructive, value-destructive, and which are making Europeans worse off.

Here's the full AGCM press release btw: https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/12/A561

Italian AGCM Fines Apple for ATT

Commission officials appear to be using public pressure to extract further concessions from Google, something we've seen in the past when it comes to DMA enforcement. 

Threat of fines and legal ambiguity used to extract commitments beyond the legal requirements.

The underlying issue here is a constant push from the EC to force platform changes in an adversarial way without considering the differences between platforms, a "one size fits all" approach of the DMA ill suited for  dynamic digital markets. 

In this case, it's manifested in the approach to alternate distribution of apps, and side-loading, disregarding the differences between Android and iOS, I've written about it before. https://x.com/KayJebelli/status/1887524679017173040?s=20

Per sources, the EC is viewing Apple's compliance as a benchmark. It's good to make sure things are proportionate across different gatekeepers, but differences in ecosystems warrant different treatment and different solutions. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/google-faces-fines-over-google-play-if-it-doesnt-make-more-concessions-sources-2025-12-10/

But legal ambiguity gives the EC this discretion, and it can pressure firms to do things that harm users, make them more vulnerable to fraud and privacy risks, and given the massive potential fines and the needs of ongoing regulatory oversight, companies are hard pressed.

I would totally understand if Google gave up trying to protect users, especially after this additional public pressure and further threats, but that's not a good outcome for European users.

It's also not a good sign if the EC is more interested in extracting concessions than in finding solutions tailored to the circumstances of each individual gatekeeper. 

We'll have to wait and see how this finally gets resolved by the EC, and also ultimately, by the Courts, but I hope that instead of playing for the crowds, amid rising transatlantic tensions and efforts to "punch back" at the US, it's not European users who end up losing out.

Further EC Pressure on Google's Link-outs

The European Commission opened another front in its regulatory oversight of strategically significant digital markets. This time it's using competition tools to investigate Google's AI training.

It's emblematic of the EC's unique approach to market power. https://x.com/EU_Competition/status/1998307177593979264

The Commission is investigating whether Google has imposed "unfair terms and conditions" on publishers and YouTube creators that gave it advantages in training AI models.

There's so much wrong with this, it's obvious why US companies feel targetted and why US officials cry foul.

To put it simply, the EC is using competition tools to police market power as such, not the competitive abuse of market power

It's a "big is bad" theory that criminalises pro-competitive behaviour, criminalises using competitive advantages that create value for users.

Backwards

It also goes far outside of traditional antitrust theories of harm. It's a major departure from US case law. It's a stretch for EU jurisprudence as well.

Let me explain.

First of all, training on publisher content is generally legal under fair use laws in the US, as they currently stand. So to the extent the models are being trained in the US, there is no obligation to enter into an agreement to license the content.

It's not a copyright issue.

Using competition law to go after the company is a "creative" workaround to that fact, but it fails on its own terms as well.

Because there's no competition issue here.

This is because, Google, and every other AI company, can train on the content that is publicly available on the web. Google isn't getting any unfair advantage as compared to rivals, so there's no competitive harm.

"You're innovating new products" is not a legit competitive harm.

In fact, innovating new products generates consumer welfare, it's pro-competitive. The EC is going to have a difficult time showing that publishers in this case are facing competitive harm due to a pro-competitive practice.

It's also going to have a hard time showing that rival AI companies are suffering, when they've all trained on the open web as well.

Publishers can already opt-out of the use of their data for training AI. Google committed to the EU's AI Act General Purpose AI Code of Practice.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai

Given the amount of scrutiny Google is under in the EU, I doubt that they would have been training on data in Europe without respecting European publishers opt-outs. Google has been paying European publishers for years. https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-google-paying-more-than-300-eu-publishers-news-more-come-2022-05-11/

Google even entered into an antitrust settlement in France a few years ago to resolve similar publisher complaints. It's hard to imagine them not being super careful here.

This all signals that this EC investigation exists on the outer fringes of the law. https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/related-rights-autorite-accepts-googles-commitments

When it comes to YouTube, that is proprietary data. YouTube has terms and conditions that content creators consent to in order to use the platform and reach YouTube's users. They get free hosting of their videos, free monetisation services, they can build entire businesses on it.

It will be hard to show that these content creators are somehow getting an "unfair deal" when it comes to Google training on YouTube data. 

Plus there's that problem of showing competitive harm. Even an "unfair" deal isn't a competition issue unless it harms competition.

Content creators can always upload to a myriad of other video hosting platforms, and most do (Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc.) 

Nor is it clear that YouTube data is somehow an exclusively important data set that rival AI platforms need in order to train their models. It's not an "essential facility", we know that. 

Plus I've seen reporters of competitors having trained on YouTube data in any case.

So there are a lot of legal hurdles to bringing a successful case and surviving an appeal. 

But this investigation is about more than just bringing a successful case.

It's a press release, and a headline grabber, that comes at a time when the EC is finding it increasingly necessary to assert itself vis-a-vis US tech companies and the US administration. 

It's a return to the European Competition Commissioner making big announcements at big antitrust conferences about big new cases (today was the opening of CRA's 2025 conference, with Ribera delivering the keynote) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_2989

It's also a play to European publishers, promising to protect them from changing market dynamics, and getting them some of those AI revenues

European Publishers are of course happy about this development. They want to get paid, and using their political leverage to get a piece of AI revenues that they aren't entitled to under copyright, is a great strategy for them. https://www.epceurope.eu/post/epc-welcomes-ec-investigation-into-google-unfair-ai-practices

As others have pointed out, it's nakedly redistributive antitrust: using antitrust tools to reapportion and dictate market outcomes https://x.com/AuerDirk/status/1998353738621165710?s=20

It's legally questionable, and unfortunately also very bad policy for the EU.

Because this isn't just about getting money from Google. The complainants have made it clear that this is just the beginning, they're going after all AI development https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7404119482945908736/

But AI is so much bigger than publishers. 

Think about it. How many of these AI Mode searches or AI Overviews are about news content?

My sense is that users are not using AI to get news content

They're using AI to solve problems, to answer questions, to synthesise information.

Recent surveys confirm this. People just aren't using AI to get the news. https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2025/03/12/survey-52-of-u-s-adults-now-use-ai-large-language-models-like-chatgpt/

And even when they do get the news, facts are not copyrightable. Publishers do not have a monopoly on facts, on reality, on what is happening.

Anyone can write about it, including AI. 

We shouldn't let publishers gatekeep the news! 

But that seems to be where the EC is going.

The EC is signalling that it is going to handicap the entire AI space in Europe, and all the benefits that AI can generate, in order to give publishers, a group with incredible political power, an additional future revenue stream.

That should chill every pro-innovation person.

Hopefully this is less a declaration of EU policy, and more a power move to push back on recent US administration criticism and provocation, but even if it's only the latter, it's an unfortunate signal of the deteriorating transatlantic relationship.

Hopefully the investigation itself is the move, and it can be resolved reasonably, without succumbing to publishers' demands for an AI tax.

But with tensions enflamed, and further escalation from the US possible, I fear things are going to get worse before they get better.

EU Investigates Google's AI Training Data

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