U.S. Pressures EU Antitrust Chief Over Big Tech Regulations

By Kevin B. Simon

The United States has intensified its scrutiny of the European Union’s regulatory approach to Big Tech, with U.S. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan demanding that EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera provide clarity on how she enforces rules that he claims disproportionately target American companies. The demand, made public on Sunday, February 23, marks a significant escalation in transatlantic tensions over the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a sweeping regulation aimed at curbing the market power of tech giants.
Jordan’s call came just two days after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum signaling his administration’s intent to closely examine the DMA and its companion legislation, the Digital Services Act (DSA). These laws, Trump warned, “dictate how American companies interact with consumers in the European Union,” raising concerns in Washington about their implications for U.S. economic interests. The DMA, which took effect in 2023, imposes a detailed list of obligations and prohibitions on major tech firms designated as “gatekeepers,” including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Booking.com, ByteDance, Meta Platforms, and Microsoft. The goal, according to the EU, is to secure a level playing field and expand consumer choices in the digital marketplace.
In a letter to Ribera, co-signed by Scott Fitzgerald, chairman of the subcommittee on the administrative state, regulatory reform, and antitrust, Jordan expressed alarm that the DMA “may target American companies.” The letter, obtained by Reuters, argues that the regulations impose “burdensome” requirements that give European firms an unfair advantage. “We write to express our concerns that the DMA subjects companies to regulations that disproportionately affect American innovation and competitiveness,” the letter states, reflecting a growing sentiment among U.S. lawmakers and industry leaders that the EU’s rules are designed to handicap American tech dominance.
A key point of contention is the DMA’s punitive framework, which includes fines of up to 10% of a company’s global annual revenue for violations. Jordan and Fitzgerald criticized these penalties as excessive, suggesting they serve a dual purpose: “to compel businesses to follow European standards worldwide, and as a European tax on American companies.” This assertion taps into broader fears in the U.S. that the EU is leveraging its regulatory power to extract financial concessions from American firms, many of which dominate the global tech landscape.
The letter also takes aim at specific DMA provisions, alleging they could inadvertently benefit China, a geopolitical rival to both the U.S. and the EU. “These, along with other provisions of the DMA, stifle innovation, disincentivize research and development, and hand vast amounts of highly valuable proprietary data to companies and adversarial nations,” Jordan and Fitzgerald wrote. They point to requirements such as mandatory data-sharing with competitors and interoperability mandates, which they argue could expose sensitive intellectual property to foreign entities, undermining U.S. economic security.
Jordan has requested that Ribera brief the House Judiciary Committee by March 10 to address these concerns, setting the stage for a potential showdown between Washington and Brussels. The European Commission, where Ribera serves as the second most powerful official under President Ursula von der Leyen, did not respond to requests for comment over the weekend. However, the Commission has consistently denied that the DMA targets American companies specifically. In an interview with Reuters on Monday, February 17, Ribera emphasized the EU’s commitment to its legislative sovereignty, stating, “The EU executive should not be pushed into making changes to laws that have been approved by lawmakers.”
The dispute highlights a deepening rift between the U.S. and EU over how to regulate the tech sector. While the EU has embraced a proactive, centralized approach—evidenced by years of aggressive antitrust actions under Ribera’s predecessor, Margrethe Vestager—the U.S. has historically relied on a more fragmented, case-by-case enforcement model. This divergence has fueled accusations from American policymakers that the EU is using the DMA to tilt the competitive landscape in favor of European firms, even as U.S. tech giants like Apple and Meta face mounting compliance costs and operational constraints in the bloc.
For American companies, the stakes are immense. The targeted gatekeepers—most of them U.S.-based—generate trillions of dollars in revenue and employ millions worldwide. Any regulatory misalignment between the U.S. and EU could disrupt their global operations, forcing costly adjustments to meet the DMA’s demands. Industry advocates have warned that the lack of clarity in enforcement could lead to a patchwork of interpretations across the EU’s 27 member states, further complicating compliance.
As the March 10 deadline looms, the U.S.-EU dialogue over the DMA promises to test the resilience of their economic partnership. With Trump’s administration signaling a tougher stance on international trade and technology, and the EU doubling down on its regulatory ambitions, the clash over Big Tech could reverberate far beyond the digital realm, shaping the future of transatlantic relations in an increasingly interconnected world. For now, Ribera’s response—or lack thereof—will be closely watched as a barometer of the EU’s willingness to bend under American pressure.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html