If this year already looks like an annus horribilis for big tech in the EU, the months ahead could prove a winter of discontent as the bloc wields a fortified new legal armory to bring online titans to heel.
Since August last year, the world’s biggest digital platforms have faced the toughest ever tech regulations in the EU — which shows no sign of slowing down in enforcing them.
Brussels scored its first major victory after forcing TikTok to permanently remove an “addictive” feature from a spinoff app in Europe in August, a year after content moderation rules under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) started to apply. That followed a seven-day period earlier in the summer in which Brussels issued back-to-back decisions targeting Apple, Meta and Microsoft.
More is to come before this year is over, officials say.
The EU’s moves are all thanks to two laws, the DSA — which forces companies to police online content — and its sister competition law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) — which gives big tech a list of what they can and cannot do in business.
Since the DMA curbs kicked in in March, the EU has notably pressured Apple to back down in a spat with Fortnite maker Epic over a gaming app store.
“The European Commission is doing the job: It is implementing the DMA with limited resources and within a short timeframe compared to lengthy competition cases,” said EU lawmaker Stephanie Yon-Courtin, who focuses on digital issues.
Changes are already visible: The DSA giving users the “right to complain” when content is removed or accounts are suspended, or the DMA allowing them to select browsers and search engines via choice screens, said Jan Penfrat, a senior policy advisor at online rights group EDRi.
“This is just the beginning,” Penfrat said.
He said EDRi and other groups last month compiled a list of areas where Apple fails to follow the DMA.
“We expect the commission to go after those as well in time,” Penfrat said.
Apple is the biggest thorn in the EU’s side as the DMA’s chief critic, claiming it puts users’ security at risk.
The iPhone maker became the first company in June to face formal accusations of breaking the DMA’s rules and faces heavy fines unless it addresses the charges.
Apple announced changes to the App Store on Aug. 8 to comply with the DMA, although smaller tech firms under the Coalition for App Fairness slammed them as “confusing.” The EU is now evaluating Apple’s plans.
It is too early to say whether Apple would fall into line without the EU’s heavy hand, but one thing is clear: Brussels is ready for a fight.
Another high-profile test of the bloc’s new powers would be X, with regulators to decide as early as next month whether the former Twitter should be made to comply with the DMA.
The DSA’s rules on curbing disinformation and hate speech have already sparked a spectacular clash between X’s billionaire owner Elon Musk and EU Commissioner for Internal Market and Defense Industry Thierry Breton — with the specter of fines or an outright EU ban on the site if violations persist.
EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager has said that Brussels is going at “full speed.”
This was always the goal: To cut short the length of competition investigations, which lasted years, to a maximum of 12 months under the DMA.
However, companies can challenge fines or decisions in the EU courts, which could mean years of subsequent legal battles, lawyers say.
Difficulties can also come from elsewhere: Apple said in June it would delay the rollout of new artificial intelligence (AI) features in Europe because of “regulatory uncertainties.”
Penfrat accused Apple of fearmongering by blaming the EU for certain features not arriving in the bloc “to put pressure on the commission to not be too tough in the enforcement.”
Apple aside, big tech is not happy with DMA action so far.
“Instead of announcing possible punitive measures with political posturing, these probes under the DMA should focus on fostering open dialogue between the European Commission and the companies concerned,” Computer and Communications Industry Association senior vice president Daniel Friedlaender said.
Undeterred, Brussels is turning up the heat. In addition to potential new DMA curbs on X, the EU could soon add Telegram to its list of “very large” platforms, such as WhatsApp, that face the DSA’s strictest rules.
Brussels wants no corner of the digital sphere left untouched.
That includes the critical area of AI, with the EU looking into deals between giants and generative AI developers, such as Microsoft and its US$13 billion tie-up with ChatGPT maker OpenAI.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS