The EU Pushes On Against Big Tech, But Has the Tone Changed?
Adam SatarianoReporting from London
It's March, so that must mean the European Commission is just coming back from the winter holiday:
The commission said a preliminary judgment found that Google had violated the 2022 law, called the Digital Markets Act, by using its dominant search engine to steer users to other Google services, giving it an unfair advantage over other online companies. Regulators also accused the tech giant of unfair restrictions on its Google Play app store that limited the offers customers could receive from app developers.
Apple was told to make it easier for makers of headsets, smartwatches and other connected devices to sync with Apple’s iOS mobile operating system.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure I actually agree with Satariano's read of the situation, which notes the EU has "ramped up" efforts. This new judgement is actually a continuation of one that was put in motion by the previous EU regime, as I concluded at the time:
It's a warning that Apple had better do something to make sure iOS and iPadOS are more "open" and "fully functional" with other "technologies" in the next six months or else! Somehow, they've managed to make demands that are even more vague than the ones they're currently making around the App Store. And again, why is this any different? My guess is that this is more about Apple working with other technologies on core iPhone components and services versus developers leveraging the App Store, but who knows. It's just not clear at all.
One thing that is clear: by March 2025, when the six month clock runs out on this warning, the European Commission is going to look quite different. We'll see if that matters.
Well, here we are in March 2025 and the Commission does indeed look quite different. And despite the headlines, I think that does matter. Just look no further than the statement Teresa Ribera, the executive vice president of the European Commission in charge of competition policy (still a mouthful), gave:
Today’s decisions mark the first time the Commission outlines concrete measures for a gatekeeper to comply with the Digital Markets Act. Companies operating in the EU, irrespective of their place of incorporation, must comply with EU rules, including the Digital Markets Act. With these decisions, we are simply implementing the law, and providing regulatory certainty both to Apple and to developers. Effective interoperability for third-party connected devices is an important step towards opening Apple’s ecosystem. This will lead to a better choice for consumers in the fast-growing market for innovative connected devices. Also, from now on, developers will enjoy more transparency as to how their interoperability requests are handled by Apple. Today moves us closer to ensuring a level playing field in Europe, thanks to the rule of law.
As John Gruber points out, "at least at a superficial level, the European Commission’s tenor has changed." This statement stands in stark contrast to the previous administration's showboating – in particular Margrethe Vestager when it came to Apple. I mean just look at what Henna Virkkunen, the Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy (another mouthful), had to say on the matter also in the press release:1
The EU puts innovation and choice at the centre of its policies. Interoperability is one of the most important tools in making this happen. The Digital Markets Act opens up opportunities in the digital market to companies, especially startups and SMEs, while preserving the gatekeepers’ space for innovation. The clear and targeted measures adopted today achieve this balance and maximise innovation opportunities for all digital players and bring a greater choice for consumers.
She doesn't even mention Apple! Going back to Ribera's statement, I want to specifically call out one sentence that stands out:
With these decisions, we are simply implementing the law, and providing regulatory certainty both to Apple and to developers.
"We are simply implementing the law" reads almost like an apology – or at the very least, an excuse. It's almost as if to say that they're issuing this ruling – which is really a second warning – because they had to, because they said they would. What's the alternative here for Ribera? Is she just going to ignore the law that was passed? I mean, who does she think she is, Donald Trump?
Speaking of... back to Satariano's piece:
The Trump administration said in February that it would consider retaliating if the American companies were targeted under the Digital Markets Act.
Yet the administration has also not always been fully supportive of the big technology companies. The Justice Department this month reiterated its demand that Google be broken up because of antitrust violations, continuing a policy started under the Biden administration.
While it's true that there are early signs that the Trump administration may not exactly be friendly to Big Tech despite the fealty payments and all the ring kissing, they're likely to take more of a "we'll deal with our own" approach here. That is to say, they're not going to just let the EU fine Apple and Google and all the rest, they'll be the ones who "police" them, thank you very much. (Something I guessed may play out this way a year ago.)
I still don't know how the EU can get around the laws they passed – which again, is my read for why they're following up here, even if it is "risking Trump's ire" as the NYT puts it – but perhaps there are ways to interpret them differently. Back to what I wrote in September:
Not only that, but it's starting to sound like the EU is going to be taking a different approach to regulation – or at least looking at if they should – following Mario Draghi's competition report, which was fairly damning of the ways the body currently operates and approaches regulation, among other things.
Recent stories on the forthcoming and proposed changes that European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is implementing for her new term both cite the Draghi report as having influence on new appointments and marching orders. You may have noticed that the most showboaty of the commissioners resigned in the most showboaty way possible the other day...
Now, this doesn't mean that the EU/EC is going to drop any of the current proceedings against Apple or Big Tech, but it could signal a change in tone. And perhaps a new willingness to talk/think through how best to remedy such things.
Especially if, say, tariffs come into the picture. So if I'm Apple (and Google) here, I may just sit back and let the parents fight a bit, as it were.2
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
1 Total aside, but don't these quotes with the little images of the people giving them on the site remind you a bit of The Onion's longstanding "American Voices" bit?
2 To be fair, I did couch my own guess here a bit six months ago with: "Or perhaps not – while, as an American, many things the commission does with regard to tech seems foolish and self-defeating to me, it's worth noting that at least some people in Europe seem to appreciate the approach – but the timing of such news sure feels like each of these things are related."