European market – European rules

Contents

With the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Union has laid two cornerstones of its digital order: fairer markets, more competition, a less toxic network economy, and clear responsibility for platforms. This doesn't suit Big Tech—and so the US companies of all people, which generate billions in profits in Europe, are making the bizarre accusation that the EU is putting American companies disadvantaged and jeopardizing good relations. Translated, this means: please abolish your rules so that we can continue to dominate unchecked.

Dennis-Kenji Kipker englisch

Dennis-Kenji Kipker is a professor of IT security law at Bremen University of Applied Sciences, where he works at the intersection of law and technology in information security and data protection.

The move by Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the EU, is politically audacious, economically transparent, and legally unfounded. Firstly, no one is forcing US companies to do business in the EU, because anyone who wants to make money in Europe abides by European rules. Secondly, DMA and DSA are not anti-American sentiments but general standards that apply equally to all gatekeepers and platforms in the European single market. The fact that US companies in particular are affected is less due to their origin than to their actual market power. After all, anyone who builds an ecosystem based on lock-in effects and deliberately prices competitors out of the market must expect the legislator to draw boundaries. Thirdly, the EU has good reasons: it protects our fundamental digital rights, safeguards freedom of expression against manipulation, and forces market-dominating companies to be more open and apply uniform standards.

Swinging clubs and complaining at the same time

But instead of doing their homework, Big Tech is complaining that the DMA is allegedly delaying technical functions, jeopardizing cyber security, or stifling innovation. Ultimately, these are all just bogus arguments when you suddenly realize that regulation impacts returns. But that's not all: at the same time, lobby organizations in Washington are beating the drum that the EU is practicing “digital discrimination.” It should be clear to anyone who has taken a look at the DMA and DSA that this is not the case: Neither piece of legislation has anything to do with discrimination, but with neutral market regulation by applying the principle that the bigger the company, the greater its responsibility to society. And when the same US government that wields the tariff club under the banner of “America First” now accuses the EU of unfairness from this perspective, the irony is perfect.

European regulations work

But honesty also includes this: The transatlantic relationship is currently being further exacerbated by the US CLOUD Act. The law allows US authorities to access data located outside the USA under certain conditions—also in Europe. For European companies and authorities, this creates a hitherto unresolved area of tension between EU data protection law and US access claims. Anyone who wants to make us believe that Europe is harassing US companies should first explain why, conversely, central European legal principles that have been in place for years are regularly ignored or declared to be arbitrary political bargaining chips. Sovereignty is not a one-way street but requires dialog at eye level.

The threatening backdrop of recent months—from punitive tariffs to the imposition of European censorship laws—shows one thing above all: DMA and DSA work. They are breaking old habits, opening up closed systems, and creating clear liability where responsibility previously evaporated in the fog of vague usage agreements and community standards. Of course, the European regulations are not perfect either, and of course there is a need for ongoing reviews and precise implementation. But those who are now calling for Europe to clear away its rules so that Big Tech can deliver smoothly are asking for nothing less than the surrender of the European Union's ability to shape digital policy. And anyone who argues in this way is simultaneously confusing economic foreign trade with political subordination.

Opportunities for more openness

The actual core of the current debate on the regulation of big tech is therefore very simple: European market—European rules. And without asterisks, without footnotes in the small print, without permission slips from Washington. If you want the benefits of a market of 450 million people with purchasing power and the rule of law, you accept the laws that regulate it. And if you don't like it, you simply can't do business in the EU. This would certainly be inconvenient in the short term, but perhaps even beneficial in the medium term: in Europe, new ecosystems, open interfaces, and interoperable services would have better opportunities than before, at the expense of the monopolists.

The result would not be self-sufficiency but strategic autonomy. Europe does not have to justify itself because it protects its citizens and its markets. All those who regard democratic legislation as an annoying barrier to market entry must justify themselves. In fact, the opposite is true: it is the price for access—and the seal of approval of a continent that wants to be free out of conviction. Those who want to play along know the conditions. And those who reject them should not complain when the referee blows the whistle.

(pst)