Europe’s Big Tech Crackdown Under the DSA and DMA

Discussed by: European Commission officials, EU lawmakers critical of U.S. pressure, competition-law scholars quoted in Reuters and policy think-tank commentary

In this scenario, the Commission doubles down on aggressive enforcement despite Trump’s threats. It rejects weak behavioral remedies from Google and insists on substantial structural changes to the adtech stack if conflicts of interest persist, potentially forcing divestitures or functional separation. Apple and Meta are pushed into further opening their ecosystems and shifting advertising models to comply with the DMA, while X is compelled to redesign verification, recommender systems and transparency tools under close DSA supervision. Other large players such as TikTok, Temu and Shein face similar treatment, spreading compliance costs widely. Over several years, the DSA/DMA framework becomes the de facto global benchmark: third countries emulate key provisions, and multinational platforms adjust product design worldwide to avoid maintaining separate Europe‑only versions.

Discussed by: Trade lawyers, S&D Group statements, business press coverage of Trump’s Section 301 threats and tariff linkage

Here, U.S. retaliation moves beyond rhetoric. The administration opens a Section 301 investigation into EU digital regulation and imposes or threatens targeted tariffs or sanctions on EU officials involved in enforcement. This sparks a political backlash in Europe but also fears of a broader trade war among some member states and parts of the Commission. The result is not a repeal of the DSA/DMA, but a more cautious enforcement strategy: timelines slip, fines skew lower, and structural remedies (like breaking up Google’s adtech business) are delayed or converted into negotiated behavioral commitments. National regulators may push harder in privacy (GDPR) and consumer law to maintain pressure while Brussels balances legal rigor and diplomatic risk.

Discussed by: Platform lawyers, EU competition practitioners, analysts noting firms’ history of incremental compliance

In this outcome, major platforms decide that prolonged confrontation is too costly. Google offers far‑reaching adtech interoperability and data‑separation commitments that satisfy the Commission without a forced sale. Apple restructures App Store and sideloading terms to reduce effective control rents in the EU while preserving its global model. Meta settles its DMA and antitrust disputes by loosening access for rival AI providers on WhatsApp and refining consent mechanisms for ads. X, under investor or lender pressure, tones down anti‑EU rhetoric, overhauls its verification and ad‑transparency tools, and invests more in moderation for the EU market. Political tensions remain, but the story shifts from existential ‘war on Big Tech’ to a technical compliance regime, with the EU claiming victory while U.S. officials quietly move on to other issues.

Discussed by: Antitrust scholars, some U.S. and EU business lobbies, legal analysis comparing to past Microsoft and Google cases

Under this scenario, companies successfully challenge key parts of DSA/DMA enforcement in EU courts. The General Court and Court of Justice uphold the broad legality of the acts but narrow the scope of certain obligations or strike down especially intrusive remedies, much as U.S. courts curtailed breakup plans in the Microsoft case. Some headline fines are reduced, and the Commission becomes more cautious in pursuing structural measures. The laws remain in force, but their most aggressive applications are curtailed, limiting the EU’s ability to reshape global platform economics and reducing the deterrent effect on future tech giants.

Discussed by: Certain EU industry groups, political opponents of further tech regulation, commentators worried about innovation and competitiveness

If enforcement produces visible downsides — slower product rollouts, reduced features for EU users, or perceived disadvantages for European startups — a domestic backlash could emerge against additional layers of tech regulation, especially in sensitive areas like AI. Business groups already argue that high compliance costs risk pushing innovation elsewhere. Future legislative efforts (e.g., AI or data‑sharing acts) may be drafted more narrowly, and enforcement of existing rules might tilt toward negotiated solutions rather than high‑profile punishment. This would not undo current DSA/DMA cases, but it could make the 2020s crackdown look like a high‑water mark rather than a permanent baseline.