Normally, regulators would enforce a law by looking purely at whether its targets were abiding by the letter of the law.
But that's not what the EU is going to do here.
Instead they are measuring how happy DMA proponents are with the "results."
The EU's next step in "enforcement" is a series of workshops where "stakeholders" (i.e. complainant companies) will inevitably tell the EU that the platforms' compliance plans are inadequate.
We know this because they are *already* saying so.
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events/workshops_en
- Search engine Ecosia isn't happy with the "ballot screens"
- Spotify isn't happy with Apple's alternative app store changes
- Yelp is upset that Google's changes aren't delivering more traffic
- Expedia is unhappy that Google's redesign isn't delivering more traffic
The complainants have already dubbed this "malicious compliance."
The reality is that platforms are doing exactly what DMA required.
But the complainants are engaging in strategic anger. It's in their interest to never be satisfied here.
twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1765041755496370623
As @KayJebelli put it, competition law is supposed to ensure a "fair process."
But the complainants clearly want "fair outcomes" - and won't be satisfied until they can redesign platforms' products and business to achieve that.
truthonthemarket.com/2024/02/13/dma-setting-the-goalposts/
The crazy part here is that @vestager has seen this movie before, in both the EU's Google Shopping and Android cases.
EU adopted remedies to give complainants "equal access."
But the complainants complained b/c the remedies didn't guarantee more traffic or revenue.
So, prepare yourself for months - maybe years - of headlines of the complainants saying that the DMA "isn't working" - because it's not ensuring "equal outcomes" for them.
The EU will have created this problem for itself, by setting "helping complainants" as its objective.