Megan Kirkwood is a fellow at Tech Policy Press.

Tariff Threat Looms over March DMA Deadline

In March, the first non-compliance decisions against Alphabet, Apple, and Meta are due, which look at “Alphabet's rules on steering in Google Play and self-preferencing on Google Search, Apple's rules on steering in the App Store and the choice screen for Safari and Meta's 'pay or consent model.’” Since launching those investigations last year, the Commission has sent preliminary findings of non-compliance to Apple and Meta, which warned the gatekeepers over which behavior and policies the Commission found to be non-compliant. If the Commission now finds the gatekeepers to be infringing the DMA, the Commission can impose significant fines. In the midst of this, the US president has threatened measures to defend the gatekeepers against European legal action.

Trump and Congress’s Confrontation with the European Commission

Tensions continue to mount over the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act, as the new US presidential administration escalated the threat of a trade war. Last month, President Trump declared the US would “absolutely” impose tariffs on the European Union, accusing it of treating the US “terribly” by not buying enough US goods. He also called European regulations against Big Tech “a form of taxation” and signed a memorandum “to defend American companies and innovators from overseas extortion.”

The memorandum, like an executive order, has “the force of law on the executive branch.” In this case, it “directs the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to renew the [digital service taxes] (DST) investigations under Section 301 that were initiated during President Trump’s first term, and investigate any additional countries that use a DST to discriminate against U.S. companies.”

Aleksandra Bal explains that “many online businesses sell to customers in countries where they don't have a physical presence” and “often do not pay income tax in those countries, as sales activity is generally not sufficient to subject a foreign business to local income taxation.” In response, some countries have introduced DSTs, which “typically target large companies that meet specific revenue thresholds,” meaning they capture the biggest tech firms. The memorandum argues that this is an unfair practice that targets “American companies simply because they operate in foreign markets, even though those companies are generally not otherwise subject to foreign jurisdiction.”

However, according to the memorandum, it is not just DSTs that will be investigated. “[O]ther forms of unfair fines, practices, and penalties that undermine the ability of American companies to operate as intended and force them to incur additional compliance costs, lowering U.S. global economic competitiveness” could also trigger White House retaliation.

Specifically, the memorandum says that the “Administration will review whether any act, policy, or practice in the European Union or United Kingdom incentivizes U.S. companies to develop or use products and technology in ways that undermine free speech or foster censorship.” The memorandum also names “the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act” as two such regulations that “will face scrutiny from the Administration.”

Two days later, the Committee on the Judiciary of the US House of Representatives sent an open letter to Teresa Ribera, the European Commission’s Executive Vice-President in charge of competition. The letter stated that the House Judiciary Committee “is conducting oversight of how and to what extent foreign laws are being used to discriminate against innovative American companies.”

The letter takes quotes from European Members of Parliament as proof that the DMA is being weaponized against US companies, adding that “Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi admitted as much, calling on European regulators to use the DMA to harm American companies and build European champions.” However, the Draghi report cited in the letter makes no direct reference to harming American companies. The report calls on the EU to ensure the DMA is enforced to protect European consumers and businesses and highlights the importance of interoperability in breaking down barriers to entry in digital markets.

The European Commission’s Response

In response, the EU has largely continued to hold firm. Samuel Stolton reported for Bloomberg that the “European Commission said it would respond ‘swiftly and decisively’ if US President Donald Trump takes any ‘unjustified measures’ following his latest warning over the bloc’s tech rules.” Additionally, a delegation from the European Internal Market Committee (IMCO) immediately went to Washington “to meet with US policymakers and stakeholders” following these communications.

In a press release, the IMCO wrote that from that “mission to Washington and our discussions with civil society and business representatives, it became clear that these attacks are far from representative of the views of the majority of stakeholders, but rather only those of powerful tech giants in Silicon Valley.” The IMCO reiterated that the DMA is the “result of a democratic process. There is a broad consensus that we cannot backtrack on our digital rulebook, made with the European citizens and businesses in mind and not to appease American ‘Big Tech’ oligopolies.” They wrote that the “meetings were overall constructive and while some differences remain it helped to keep dialogue and direct exchange open to broaden each other's understanding.”

Ribera, prior to receiving her letter from the House Judiciary Committee, said in an exclusive interview with Reuters that “U.S. President Donald Trump has upended the ‘trustful relationship’ between the United States and Europe, and that Brussels should focus on providing the predictability and stability that is lacking in Washington.” She pointed out that the US has always been able to engage with the Commission and that characterizing these laws as a form of bullying was incorrect.

In the interview, she made it clear that "we need to be flexible, but we cannot transact on human rights nor are we going to transact on the unity of Europe, and we are not going to transact on democracy and values." She also made it clear that “the EU is ready to issue decisions next month on whether Apple and Meta Platforms have complied” with the DMA.

Though Ribera only mentioned Apple and Meta in her interview with Reuters, Foo Yun Chee exclusively reported for Reuters that Google is likely to be found non-compliant with the DMA for self-preferencing its own services in search. In addition, Javier Espinoza shared an exclusive report for Capitol Forum that “the European Commission is asking alternative iPhone app stores how Apple’s fees hurt their businesses as part of an investigation under the EU’s Digital Markets Act.” Therefore, even in the face of a tariff war, there is no sign that the Commission is slowing enforcement.

Civil Society Weighs In

There has been broad support for the EU to continue to uphold the rule of law and enforce its digital rulebook. The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) wrote a statement urging the Commission to “stand firm and enforce laws adopted by its sovereign and democratic institutions. These laws are crucial for the better functioning of digital markets and services in the EU. It is extremely worrying to see the US Administration threatening trade retaliation in response to lobbying by Big Tech companies.”

Georg Riekeles at the European Policy Centre, Dr. Pencho Kuzev at the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, and Max von Thun at the Open Markets Institute co-published a policy brief giving recommendations on how to respond to the threats posed by the current US Administration. They broadly call for stronger “political leadership” and unity in confronting such existential threats and defense of the EU’s digital rulebook.

Martin Sandbu wrote for the Financial Times that the focus of both the tech giants and the Administration on watering down the European rulebook is a sign that the threat to the tech giants is real.

“If, contrary to what they say, Europe’s tech regulations are necessary (if not sufficient) conditions for alternative products and technologies to emerge, Big Tech’s visceral opposition makes more sense. It is a sign that Europe is on the right track. It should plough on rather than be deflected.”

The next month will put that resolve to the test.

Other updates

Apple's Dispute with AltStore PAL

Mark Gurman reported for Bloomberg that Apple is using controversy around AltStore PAL to criticize the DMA. The company found that the third-party app store, AltStore PAL, offers a pornographic app called Hot Tub that, according to Gurman, “allows users to search for and view pornographic video from multiple online sources” and has “marketed the app as Apple approved.” Through app notarization, Apple only checks “for malware and device compatibility, but are not endorsed for quality or functionality.” In a statement, an Apple spokesperson said the company is “deeply concerned about the safety risks that hardcore porn apps of this type create for EU users, especially kids. [...] This app and others like it will undermine consumer trust and confidence in our ecosystem that we have worked for more than a decade to make the best in the world.” In response, games maker and an investor in AltStore PAL, Epic Games, said in a statement that “Apple continues to use safety as a pretext to protect their monopoly power and evade compliance with the DMA.”

Meta Marketplace Partner Programme

In response to the European Commission's €797.72 million antitrust fine last November, Meta has conceded to making some changes to open the marketplace platform. In January 2025, the company launched a test in Germany, France, and the US, allowing users to see listings from “eBay directly on Facebook Marketplace while completing their transaction on eBay.” Meta followed up on February 13, 2025, announcing that the company would be “launching the Facebook Marketplace Partner Program to enable eligible third-party partners to distribute listings on Facebook Marketplace to users in the European Economic Area.”

The new program extends the initial test to any “third-party partner” offering “online classified ad services” to “be able to list their consumer-to-consumer inventory on Facebook Marketplace,” meaning that users are not constrained to see only Facebook Marketplace listings but can “discover and purchase new content and products on the partners’ websites.” The announcement potentially means that users no longer have to list their products on Marketplace and could switch to another competing service while still reaching the substantial Marketplace user base. Foo Yun Chee reported for Reuters that the “Commission said it was currently assessing whether Meta has fully complied with the November ruling.”

ECJ Rules in Android Auto Case

Following the opinion by Advocate General Laila Medina at the EU Court of Justice on a dominant firm’s obligations to deal with competitors under Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court has issued its final judgment. The case centered on whether a dominant firm has a duty to enable interoperability with third-party rival apps, specifically Google’s Android Auto platform, which allows Android phones to connect to car displays. Since Android Auto comes pre-installed on Android phones, interoperability with the app is crucial for third-party app developers.

Google refused to allow Italian electricity provider Enel's electric vehicle charging station locator and booking app on Android Auto. The Italian competition authority, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), found Google guilty of abusing its dominance and ordered Google to ensure interoperability with Android Auto by designing a new template for Enel’s app to connect. Google appealed the ruling twice, leading the Italian appeals court to ask the Court of Justice for a ruling regarding Google’s refusal under the EU competition law.

In her opinion, Medina argued that a dominant platform provider can engage in abuse when it limits a third party's app's access, particularly when this harms consumers and lacks justification. While the Court of Justice was not obliged to adopt Medina’s reasoning, it largely upheld her view. On February 25, 2025, the Court of Justice found that Google's refusal to make Android Auto interoperable constituted an "abuse of a dominant position." Specifically, the court noted that:

Such an abuse of a dominant position is not limited to the situation where the platform is indispensable for carrying on the business of the entity applying for access. There can also be abuse where, as appears to be the situation in the present case, the undertaking in a dominant position did not develop the platform solely for the needs of its own business, but with a view to enabling third-party undertakings to use it and where that platform is not indispensable for the commercial operation of an app developed by a third-party undertaking but is such as to make that app more attractive to consumers.”

Competition lawyer Thomas Höppner wrote that the ruling is significant, noting that it is “relevant to a wide range of scenarios where the dominant operator of a digital platform selectively denies or terminates access in order to shield its own downstream operations from competition.” The ruling also complements the DMA, which mandates that gatekeeper operating systems be interoperable.

Spotify Urges DMA Decision on Apple

Samuel Stolton reported for Bloomberg that Spotify Technology SA’s CEO Daniel Ek has accused Apple of following a “‘well-established pattern of delaying and stalling’ its compliance with the DMA,” calling its compliance measures a “farce.” Ek specifically criticized Apple’s compliance with DMA Article 6(4), which requires Apple to allow third-party apps and app stores to be offered on its operating systems. He argues that the “way Apple ended up allowing for more stores was to make it almost universally impossible to create a new one, but then also by levying an enormous amount of fees so that it would be impossible for them to compete.”

The European Commission is currently investigating Apple’s compliance with 6(4) as part of an additional inquiry opened on June 24, 2024. The Commission is assessing whether Apple's Core Technology Fee and the “multi-step user journey to download and install alternative app stores or apps on iPhones” are proportionate and necessary. The Commission is also considering the “eligibility requirements for developers related to the ability to offer alternative app stores or directly distribute apps from the web on iPhones.” As Ek stated, it is not an easy feat to meet those requirements. Developers must either provide a standby letter of credit from an A-rated financial institution in the amount of €1,000,000 or “be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two (2) continuous years or more, and have an Application that had more than one (1) million First Annual Installs on iOS and/or iPadOS in the EU in the prior calendar year.” Spotify’s concerns align with those made by Epic Games I reported in last month’s roundup, which also criticize Apple’s Core Technology Fee and cumbersome “scare screens” that undermine the ability of consumers to opt for third-party app stores.