The German competition authority hit Amazon with a €59 million fine on Thursday after finding the e-commerce giant’s pricing rules for third-party vendors to be in breach of national and EU competition rules. The authority determined that Amazon’s practices, and in particular its use of algorithms to influence pricing by sellers and the enforcement of its Fair Pricing Policy, are in breach of Germany’s digital dominance rules as well as EU competition law. “Amazon competes directly with marketplace sellers on its platform and influences the prices of its competitors, including through price caps, which is problematic from a competition standpoint,” Andreas Mundt, president of the Federal Cartel Office, or Bundeskartellamt, said in a statement. The agency takes issue with Amazon’s pricing restrictions, and in particular its pricing cap, on what third-party sellers can charge without being penalized under the platform’s rules. “We will vigorously challenge the FCO’s conclusion, which is based on unique German regulation and directly conflicts with EU competition law consumer standards,” said Rocco Bräuniger, Amazon’s country manager for Germany, in a statement. Per Bräuniger, the agency is forcing Amazon to promote uncompetitive prices to customers. The decision follows a preliminary assessment sent to Amazon in June 2025, after which the company submitted comments. The Bundeskartellamt had designated Amazon as a company of paramount significance for competition across markets in July 2022, a finding upheld by the Federal Court of Justice in April 2024. 

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into whether Google breached EU competition rules by using the content of web publishers, as well as video uploaded to YouTube, for artificial intelligence purposes. The investigation will examine whether Google is distorting competition by imposing unfair terms and conditions on publishers and content creators, or by granting itself privileged access to such content, thus placing rival AI models at a disadvantage, the Commission said on Tuesday. In a statement, the EU executive said it was concerned that Google may have used the content of web publishers to provide generative AI-powered services on its search results pages without appropriate compensation to publishers, and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. Further, it said that the U.S. search giant may have used video and other content uploaded on YouTube to train Google’s generative AI models without compensating creators and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. The formal antitrust probe follows Google’s rollout of AI-driven search results, which resulted in a drop in traffic to online news sites. Google was fined nearly €3 billion in September for abusing its dominance in online advertising. It has proposed technical remedies over that penalty, but resisted a call by EU competition chief Teresa Ribera to break itself up.

Apple has started to roll out a series of changes to its rules for app developers, the firm announced Thursday as it seeks to stave off a new round of EU fines. The Cupertino-based company faced a Thursday evening deadline to act on a cease-and-desist order issued by the European Commission in April or face daily fines for breaking the EU’s Big Tech competition rules. The EU executive already fined the firm €500 million. Apple’s rules for app developers like Epic Games and Match Group — in particular those governing how such developers can transact with their customers — have been under EU scrutiny for the past year.  The EU executive said in April that Apple’s rules, which were revised last year, were in breach of the Digital Markets Act. Separately, Apple faces further scrutiny under the DMA concerning the tolls it charges on transactions conducted via the App Store. App developers will from Thursday evening face fewer limitations on how they communicate with users, according to Apple. The firm said it will reduce the number of warning labels — billed by consumer groups as “scare screens” — that users have to navigate. The company is also restructuring the commissions it tacks onto on-device transactions, another major point of contention with the EU executive. Developers who wish to avoid Apple’s fees for App Store transactions will now face a baseline 2 percent fee, and then a further set of charges depending on what App Store services they wish to use.  Developers who wish to avoid Apple’s fees for App Store transactions will now face a baseline 2 percent fee. | Oliver Hoslet/EPA Apple has warned, however, that apps that go for the most basic option may find their users face a “degraded experience,” compared with other App Store services. Apple said that its new plan addresses the Commission’s concerns, even though the company disputes the underlying decision that led to the initial fine and plans to file an appeal by July 7. “The Commission takes note of Apple’s announcement and will now assess these new business terms for DMA compliance,” said Commission spokesperson Lea Zuber. “As part of this assessment the Commission considers it particularly important to obtain the views of market operators and interested third parties before deciding on next steps.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union has missed a key milestone in its effort to rein in the riskiest artificial intelligence models amid heavy lobbying from the U.S. government. After ChatGPT stunned the world in November 2022, EU legislators quickly realized these new AI models needed tailor-made rules. But two and a half years later, an attempt to draft a set of rules for companies to sign on to has become the subject of an epic lobbying fight involving the U.S. administration.  Now the European Commission has blown past a legal deadline of May 2 to deliver.  Pressure has been building in recent weeks: In a letter to the Commission in late April, obtained by POLITICO, the U.S. government said the draft rules had “flaws” and echoed many concerns aired in recent months by U.S. tech companies and lobbyists.  It’s the latest pushback from the Trump administration against the EU’s bid to become a super tech regulator, and follows attacks on the EU’s social media law and digital competition rules. The delay also exposes the reality that the rules are effectively a bandage measure after EU legislators failed to settle some of the thorniest topics when they negotiated the binding AI Act in early 2024. The rules are voluntary, leading to a complicated dance between the EU and industry to land on something meaningful that companies will actually implement. POLITICO walks you through how a technical process turned into a messy geopolitical lobbying fight — and where it goes from here. 1. WHAT IS THE EU TRYING TO DO? Brussels is trying to put guardrails around the most advanced AI models such as ChatGPT and Gemini. Since September, a group of 13 academics tasked by the Commission has been working on a “code of practice” for models that can perform a “wide range of distinct tasks.”  That initiative was inspired by ChatGPT’s rise to fame in late 2022. The instant popularity of a chatbot that could perform several tasks upon request, such as generating text, code and now also images and video, upended the bloc’s drafting of the AI Act.  Generative AI wasn’t a thing when the Commission first presented its AI Act proposal in 2021, which left regulators scrambling. “People were saying: we will not go through five more years to wait for a regulation, so let’s try to force generative AI into this Act,” Audrey Herblin-Stoop, a top lobbyist at French OpenAI rival Mistral, recalled at a panel last week.   Brussels is trying to put guardrails around the most advanced AI models such as ChatGPT and Gemini. | Klaudia Radecka/NurPhoto via Getty Images EU legislators decided to include specific obligations in the act on “general-purpose AI,” a catch-all term that includes generative AI models like OpenAI’s GPT or Google’s Gemini. The final text left it up to “codes of practice” to put meat on the bones.  2. WHAT IS IN THE CODE THAT WAS DUE MAY 2? The 13 experts, including heavy hitters like Yoshua Bengio, a French Canadian computer scientist nicknamed the “godfather of AI,” and former European Parliament lawmaker Marietje Schaake, have worked on several thorny topics. According to the latest draft, signatories would commit to disclosing relevant information about their models to authorities and customers, including the data being used to train them, and to drawing up a policy to comply with copyright rules. Companies that develop a model that carries “systemic risks” also face a series of obligations to mitigate those risks. The range of topics being discussed has drawn immense interest: Around 1,000 interested parties ranging from EU countries, lawmakers, leading AI companies, rightsholders and media to digital rights groups have weighed in on three different drafts.  3. WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIONS? U.S. Big Tech companies, including Meta and Google, and their lobby group representatives have repeatedly warned that the code goes beyond what was agreed on in the AI Act. Just last week, Microsoft President Brad Smith said “the code can be helpful” but warned that “if too many things [are] competing with each other … it’s not necessarily helpful.”   The companies also claim this is the reason the deadline was missed.  “Months [were] lost to debates that went beyond the AI Act’s agreed scope, including [a] proposal explicitly rejected by EU legislators,” Boniface de Champris, senior policy manager at Big Tech Lobby CCIA, told POLITICO. Digital rights campaigners, copyright holders and lawmakers haven’t been impressed with Big Tech’s criticism.  “We have to ensure that the code of practice is not designed primarily to make AI model providers happy,” Italian Social Democrat lawmaker Brando Benifei and the Parliament’s AI Act lead negotiator said in an interview — a clear hint that the Parliament doesn’t want a watered-down code.  Benifei was among a group of lawmakers who resisted a decision in March to remove “large-scale discrimination” from a list of risks in the code that AI companies must manage.  Brando Benifei was among a group of lawmakers who resisted a decision in March to remove “large-scale discrimination” from a list of risks in the code that AI companies must manage. | Simona Granati – Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images There have also been allegations of unfair lobbying tactics by U.S. Big Tech. Last week, two non-profit groups complained that “Big Tech enjoyed structural advantages.”  “A staggering amount of corporate lobbying is attempting to weaken not just the EU’s AI laws but also DMA and DSA,” said Ella Jakubowska, head of policy at European Digital Rights.  Tech lobby CCIA resisted that criticism, saying AI model providers are “the primary subjects of the code” but make up only 5 percent of the 1,000 interest groups involved in the drafting.   4. WHAT HAS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SAID? The U.S. administration has been less public in its pushback against the EU’s AI rules than in its attacks on the EU’s social media law (the Digital Services Act) and the EU’s digital competition rules (the Digital Markets Act).  Behind the scenes, the positioning has been strong. The U.S. Mission to the EU filed feedback on the third draft of the code of practice in a letter to the European Commission echoing many of the concerns already aired by U.S. tech executives or lobby groups. “Several elements in the code are not found in the AI Act,” the letter read. The mission piggybacked on the European Commission’s own pivot toward focusing on AI innovation, and said that the code must be improved “to better enable AI innovation.”  5. HOW WILL THIS PLAY OUT? Ultimately, the success of the effort hinges on whether leading AI companies such as U.S.-based Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic and French Mistral sign on to it.   That means the Commission needs to figure out how to publish something that meets its intentions while also being sufficiently palatable to Big Tech and the Trump administration. The Commission has repeatedly stressed that the code is a voluntary tool for companies to ensure they comply — but more recently warned that life could be more complicated for companies that don’t sign it. Those who do sign the code will “benefit from increased trust” by the Commission’s AI Office and “from reduced administrative burden,” said European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier. Benifei too said that it’s “our challenge to make sure that the obligations behind the code are somehow applicable to those that don’t sign the code.” Under the timelines set out in the AI Act, providers of the most complex AI models will have to abide by the new obligations, either through the code or otherwise, by Aug. 2.

An apparent setback for the U.S. tech sector — nearly $800 million in European Union fines against Apple and Meta — could be just what the industry needs to get its global anti-regulation campaign back onto President Donald Trump’s radar. Tech lobbyists have long wanted Washington to push back forcefully on the European Commission’s 2022 Digital Markets Act, a package of antitrust rules that lobbyists claim unfairly targets American tech companies. On Wednesday the first penalties came down under the act: €500 million against Apple and €200 million against Meta, along with significant requirements for both companies to change their business practices. Now that the EU’s tech competition rules have finally hit U.S. companies directly, “we’re starting to see the rubber hit the road,” said Katie Harbath, a longtime former public policy director at Meta. Just hours after the penalties were announced, lobbyists for Meta and top tech groups attacked the fines — notably referring to them as “tariffs,” a legally debatable point seemingly designed to get Trump’s attention. In a Wednesday statement, Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, said the EU’s €200 million fine — along with required changes to Meta’s advertising model — “effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service.” The EU’s fines mark an “escalation” in the transatlantic trade conflict, said Kay Hazemi-Jebelli, senior director for Europe at tech lobbying group Chamber of Progress, which is funded in part by Apple. He said the new penalties against Apple and Meta “should focus the U.S. administration’s attention on the DMA in particular.” The Trump administration appears ready to take the bait: In a statement to POLITICO, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes called Wednesday’s fines against Apple and Meta a “novel form of economic extortion” that “will not be tolerated by the United States.” “Extraterritorial regulations that specifically target and undermine American companies, stifle innovation, and enable censorship will be recognized as barriers to trade and a direct threat to free civil society,” said Hughes, calling for an end to “the EU’s regulatory death spiral.” Harbath called Kaplan’s invocation of tariffs a “very clear” attempt to tie Europe’s tech regulations — including the DMA, which passed in 2022 and took effect in 2024 — into Trump’s 2025 trade war. The tech industry’s record with Trump so far is mixed at best. While top tech CEOs have publicly cozied up to the administration — and in some cases appealed directly to the president — the Trump administration continues to press forward its antitrust cases against Meta, Apple and other tech giants. “For Trump, it’s all about what’s in the best interest for Trump and the administration,” Harbath said. “All these companies are just trying to do whatever they can around the edges to sort of impact that.” Asked whether Meta wanted Trump to target the DMA in upcoming trade negotiations, spokesperson Andy Stone did not comment directly, but flagged a report released last month by the U.S. Trade Representative that called the law a non-tariff trade barrier. He also pointed to Kaplan’s February claim that Meta “won’t shy away” from asking the Trump administration to defend the U.S. tech sector against EU rules. Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s top economic minister, is slated to meet on Friday with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. An Apple spokesperson declined to comment when asked if the DMA should be a negotiating point in U.S.-EU trade negotiations. The spokesperson called the bloc’s €500 million fine against Apple, and mandated behavioral changes, “bad for the privacy and security of our users” and said they “force us to give away our technology for free.” Harbath said the EU may need to target additional tech companies, perhaps with higher penalties, before Trump threatens the bloc with tariffs specifically over the DMA. “I think there’s going to need to be potentially more,” she said. Harbath suggested the White House won’t really start to pay attention until the EU comes down on companies like X — the Elon Musk-owned social media platform that conspicuously avoided DMA fines on Wednesday.

BRUSSELS — The Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament said Wednesday that the European Commission shouldn’t stop at fining American tech giants under the bloc’s digital competition rules. The S&D group welcomed the Commission’s decision to fine Apple €500 million and Meta €200 million via the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). But it also pressed EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen to conclude investigations into TikTok, Meta and Elon Musk’s X under the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU’s flagship content moderation rulebook. The Commission’s competition chief, Socialist Teresa Ribera, has shown that “the EU can stop abuse of market power by Apple in their App Store,” said Maltese S&D lawmaker Alex Agius Saliba in a statement. He added that it’s now up to Virkkunen, who hails from the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to wrap up EU investigations and crack down on U.S. tech behemoths through the DSA. “We want to see the same approach from … Virkkunen, when it comes to the Digital Services Act, and the conclusion of the investigation into breaches by X, TikTok and Meta of the rules that protect our citizens online,” Saliba said. Ribera and Virkkunen jointly oversee DMA enforcement, while Virkkunen has sole responsibility for DSA enforcement. Brussels has opened content-moderation probes into companies such as X, Meta, and TikTok over a wide array of issues, such as deceptive design, failing to protect minors and election interference. Last summer, X was found in preliminary breach of the DSA for deceptive design and insufficient access to data and transparency, but that finding hasn’t led to a fine yet, feeding suspicions that Brussels is holding off because of close ties between U.S. President Donald Trump and X owner Elon Musk. U.S. tech executives, like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, have pushed back against the EU’s tech probes, arguing they can be compared to tariffs in a bid to tie enforcement of tech rules into Trump’s unfolding trade war. Earlier this week, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told POLITICO that the bloc stands ready to enforce its full digital rulebook, referring to probes under both the DMA and the DSA.

LUXEMBOURG — The European Union is negotiating with a trade bazooka in its hand, but can’t agree on whether to pull the trigger just yet. Beyond a carefully-crafted message of a “proportional” and “united” response from all of the bloc’s trade ministers at their meeting in Luxembourg on Monday, the key question of how to respond to Donald Trump’s trade broadside threatens to open cracks in the bloc’s fragile cohesion. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking in Brussels just as the trade ministerial was wrapping up, made it clear that the EU wants first to negotiate. The EU was offering a “zero-for-zero” tariff scheme on industrial goods, she said, covering autos, drugs, chemicals, plastics and machinery among other things.  That’s the carrot. (And it’s a fairly easy carrot to dangle as transatlantic industrial tariffs have traditionally been low.) When it comes to sticks, the EU wants to create the impression that it is negotiating from a position of strength (while hoping that the financial market turmoil unleashed by Trump’s tariff broadside will sap his fighting spirit). But EU capitals are divided over exactly which one they should use. The Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), a nuclear option which has yet to be deployed in practice, would empower the EU executive to hit U.S. service industries such as tech and banking.  Trump’s tariffs — which would affect €380 billion worth of EU exports — are exactly the kind of economic bullying that the EU had in mind when it designed the ACI. But just because his “reciprocal” tariff of 20 percent on all EU goods is imminent (along with 25 percent levies on steel, aluminum and autos already in force) that doesn’t mean the 27-nation bloc is ready to activate it. That, as one minister put it, would mean the bloc really is in a trade war. The Europeans view the arguments justifying Trump’s tariffs as fallacious on the face of them — these include considering value-added taxes, EU tech regulation and phytosanitary standards to be non-tariff barriers. And the formula used to calculate them is equally nonsensical: The EU charges average tariffs on industrial goods, for example, of 1.6 percent. The final list of countermeasures prepared by the Commission to respond to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, which entered force on March 12, will not fully match their estimated impact of €26 billion on EU exports, Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said after the talks. That’s less than originally intended after EU countries lobbied to remove items — like Kentucky bourbon — from the original hit list.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH  Countries such as France, Germany and Spain have led calls for the bloc not to take any options off the table in dealing with the U.S. president.  “One also has to look closely at [the Anti-Coercion Instrument],” Germany’s outgoing Economy Minister Robert Habeck said on his way into Monday’s meeting. “These are measures that go far beyond customs policy. They have a broad palette. They then include digital services, but have a wide range of instruments, much more than just via a digital tax.”  “One also has to look closely at [the Anti-Coercion Instrument],” Germany’s outgoing Economy Minister Robert Habeck said on his way into Monday’s meeting. | Jean-Christophe Verhaegen/AFP via Getty Images His Spanish counterpart Carlos Cuerpo agreed. “The Anti-Coercion Instrument is there for us to use it in case we find it necessary. But again, the message that the EU should just take today is a positive one,” Cuerpo told POLITICO in an interview. “We need to explore the use of all the instruments that are at our disposal. That’s for sure. We should not rule out anything.”  A senior EU diplomat aware of the meeting told POLITICO that when Šefčovič, the EU trade chief, took a straw poll on which tools Brussels should use, only a handful of EU ministers called for all options to be put on the table — including the trade bazooka.  “He wanted, of course, to test the member states’ unity and what instruments that were on the table. Most member states said that we were in favor of countermeasures if we were forced to,” the senior diplomat said. They noted that about 20 percent of countries called for the EU executive to make use of all the tools it had at its disposal, including the anti-coercion instrument.  Specifically, Ireland and Italy — whose pharmaceutical and wine sectors are in the eye of the tariff storm — were more cautious over escalating trade tensions with Trump.  Irish Foreign and Trade Minister Simon Harris expressed particular caution on invoking the ACI or targeting U.S. services. “I think if you were to get into that space it would be an extraordinary escalation at a time when we must be working for a de-escalation. It is in many ways the nuclear option if you start talking about the use of the Anti-Coercion Instrument and the likes,” said Harris, who flies to Washington on Tuesday. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani went as far as floating a delay of the entry into force of the EU’s countermeasures on steel and aluminum — from April 15 to April 30.  More broadly, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Europe’s leaders who is closest to Trump, is showing signs of wobbling on a range of issues — from trade to defense — where the bloc is trying to present a united front. She is due to visit Washington next week, Corriera della Sera reported.  NO WAY BACK When you put your most powerful trade weapon to the table so early on, it’s hard to take it off again when things turn really sour.  For one, the European Commission is due to take a decision on whether to fine Apple and Meta as soon as this week for violating the EU’s digital competition rules, in what could add fuel to the trade fire between Washington and Brussels.  “At this stage, I wouldn’t go into the precise definitions or the speculation on what kind of instrument we would use or how we would describe the reasoning for the use of this or that instrument,” Šefčovič told reporters during Monday’s closing press conference.  “Our response is very gradual, just reacting to steel and aluminium … It’s kind of stretched over time because we want to create the necessary negotiating space.  “At the same time, until now, despite our efforts and opening, we haven’t seen the real engagement, which would lead to the mutually acceptable solution,” the trade chief added. Additional reporting by Koen Verhelst, Laura Hülsemann and Ben Munster.

BRUSSELS — The American tech sector has a big, fat target on its back as Europe looks to respond to Washington on tariffs. If only Brussels agreed on how to hit it.  As United States President Donald Trump rolled out a roster of tariffs late Wednesday, European top officials and lawmakers noted that Big Tech firms and digital services could be Washington’s Achilles heel. The European Union has a €157 billion trade surplus in goods, which means it exports more than it imports, but it runs a deficit of €109 billion in services, including digital services. Big Tech giants like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Meta dominate all sorts of parts of the market in Europe.  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen mentioned technology as one of the “cards” the bloc can play when she addressed the looming tariffs in a European Parliament session on Tuesday.  But the EU is conflicted on what to do about it.  Its flagship tech laws like the Digital Markets and Digital Services acts (DMA and DSA) aren’t designed to serve as retaliation tools. Attempts to slap higher taxes on tech giants previously failed. Governments could decrease their spending on Big Tech firms by revising public procurement policies, but in many cases Europe doesn’t have its own alternatives to turn to instead. And some capitals, like Dublin, are already warning that hitting U.S. tech would badly damage the bloc’s own economy.  Directly targeting Big Tech is all but certain to trigger the ire of tech CEOs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, who have cultivated close ties with Trump.  Europe could also deploy its strongest trade weapon yet, the Anti-Coercion Instrument, to target U.S. tech firms specifically. But as a tool the ACI is untested: It was designed as a “trade bazooka” following the first Trump administration from 2017 to 2021 and has never been used.  LAWS VERSUS TRADE WARS The EU has yet to land some of the landmark probes it has been conducting under the DMA (on digital competition) and DSA (on content moderation).  The Commission is set to fine Apple and Meta for violating digital competition rules, the first such fines to be issued under the DMA, late this week or early next week.  Brussels has also found Elon Musk’s X in preliminary breach of the EU’s content moderation rules, which could result in fines of 6 percent of the company’s annual global turnover. Meta is also under investigation under the same rulebook.  Directly targeting Big Tech is all but certain to trigger the ire of tech CEOs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, who have cultivated close ties with Donald Trump. | Pool Photo by Demaree Nikhinson via Getty Images EU officials have been at pains to stress that enforcement under these laws shouldn’t be considered part of a trade war.  “The DMA is not a bargaining chip,” said French Renew lawmaker Stéphanie Yon-Courtin. “This regulation is conceived to establish fair rules of the game in Europe, not to be leveraged in a trade agreement with the United States.” The lead lawmaker on the DMA, Andreas Schwab of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), said the Commission should have been quicker to issue its imminent decisions on Apple and Meta, precisely to show that “there is nothing political about them.” The core argument is that the EU’s tech laws exist to uphold European values, not to discriminate or to target a given country. Any suggestion to the contrary could hurt the Commission when Big Tech firms inevitably litigate the first fines and penalties under the laws. Washington, however, has suggested the opposite. The Trump administration in February threatened retaliatory tariffs against the EU tech regime specifically, citing perceived risks for U.S. companies and freedom of expression.  Wednesday’s tariff announcements from the White House have reupped calls for Brussels to pull the trigger on investigations under the rulebooks.   Since Trump is “open for negotiations, I fear that he will try to use the digital services as a negotiating tool. But I hope the European Commission will be firm,” Danish socialist MEP Christel Schaldemose said.  Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese agreed: “Let’s strongly enforce DSA and DMA.”  TAXES AND LEVIES Proponents of a bullish response to Trump’s tariffs see several other forms of retaliation: slapping higher taxes on digital services, and excluding U.S. tech firms from bidding for government contracts. Brando Benifei, a social democrat lawmaker who leads the Parliament’s delegation to the U.S., flagged the need for “broad countermeasures that hit where it really hurts,” with “targeting services, such as big tech firms,” as one option. In a written comment he suggested retaliating against intellectual property rights or excluding U.S. companies from public procurement. Digital services will “inevitably come into focus,” said Finnish EPP lawmaker Aura Salla, who is also a former top lobbyist for Meta in Brussels. EPP President Manfred Weber said on Tuesday that the “digital giants only pay little to our digital infrastructure where they benefit so much.”  Some EU countries are adding to the chorus. On Thursday French government spokesperson Sophie Primas said the EU’s next wave of retaliation could target “digital services that are currently not taxed. ”  The Commission is set to fine Apple and Meta for violating digital competition rules, the first such fines to be issued under the DMA, late this week or early next week. | Oliver Douliery/Getty Images French liberal European lawmaker Sandro Gozi, meanwhile, mentioned “taxing American digital giants” as among the options.  The issue of a digital services tax has been simmering for a while in the EU, but the bloc’s 27 member countries have no unanimity on the issue, and taxation policy requires all EU countries to agree on joint policy. Some member countries have thus gone solo. Most recently, Belgium’s ruling coalition deal contained an agreement to install a digital tax by 2027 if there’s no deal at the international or EU level. Ireland, the European home base of several U.S. Big Tech companies, pushed back right away on Tuesday. Targeting U.S. digital services is not the EU’s position, said Irish Trade Minister Simon Harris, adding it could be very damaging for Ireland.  Gregorio Sorgi contributed reporting.

One of Donald Trump’s chief antitrust enforcers unleashed a blistering attack on the European Union’s flagship law that regulates big tech firms, in the latest war of words ahead of the announcement of sweeping U.S. trade tariffs. Andrew Ferguson, the chair of the United States Federal Trade Commission, said EU fines expected in the coming days were merely a tax on American companies and their behavior should have nothing to do with Brussels. “I am very suspicious of laws that appear to have been written to get at American companies abroad,” he said Wednesday. “I definitely don’t want the Europeans basically levying taxes on American firms no matter what the conduct is.” The EU’s Digital Markets Act, which entered into force in 2022, aims to ensure the biggest tech firms don’t crowd out smaller rivals. The European Commission is expected to fine the U.S. companies Apple and Meta, which owns Facebook, in the coming days for allegedly violating DMA rules. While these fines aren’t technically tariffs, they are being seen as such by the White House. Trump is to announce sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on the EU and other countries later on Wednesday in a package of measures he has described as “liberation day.” “The fines under the DMA are not tied to the business being conducted by the firm in Europe,” Ferguson, a Trump appointee, said. “It starts to look like the DMA is sort of like a form of taxing American companies.” To fall into the category of what the European Commission calls a “gatekeeper” and so be caught by DMA rules, digital platforms need to meet certain revenue and user number criteria in the EU. Ferguson’s words echo a memo issued last month by Trump, in which he said the DMA would face scrutiny and could lead to reciprocal tariffs. The U.S. is also expected to target EU regulations that it considers to be non-tariff barriers, including the DMA. QUESTIONS ABOUT ‘DUE PROCESS’ The FTC chair also questioned whether the EU should have the responsibility of disciplining U.S. companies. “If we think that Americans are suffering from anticompetitive conduct at home, we should address it here at home,” Ferguson said. “I don’t want the Europeans doing it for us.” The FTC oversees antitrust enforcement along with the Department of Justice. Ferguson was speaking at the Little Tech Competition Summit hosted by startup catalyzer Y Combinator. He also said he was concerned about “due process” in the EU’s application of the rules. “I am really wary about Brussels bureaucrats being given the power basically to level fines,” said Ferguson. In the U.S., “if I think someone has committed an antitrust violation, I have to prove it in court.” While noting that “the goal of the DMA is to unlock innovation in Europe,” he said “we don’t have a DMA equivalent here, and we’re innovating.” “And so I’ve got my doubts about whether this is, you know, really about that.” The European Commission was approached for comment.