In a historic move, the European Commission this week issued the first-ever fines under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), slapping Apple with a €500 million penalty and Meta with €200 million. The DMA, which took effect in 2023, is designed to keep so-called “gatekeeper” platforms from abusing their dominance.
Unlike traditional antitrust cases that can drag on for years, the DMA establishes up-front obligations. Companies that fail to comply can be fined up to 10% of their worldwide revenue—and double that for repeat offenses.
The Commission’s inaugural penalties signal that the EU is serious about enforcing tougher digital rules. Officials hope this will level the playing field for smaller rivals, opening markets long dominated by a handful of U.S.-based tech giants.
Regulators around the globe are watching closely, wondering if Europe’s novel approach will inspire similar laws elsewhere.
Tensions with the United States
These actions have strained the already fragile ties between Brussels and Washington.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, now back in the White House, has railed against the fines, calling them a “non-tariff barrier” aimed at American companies. He has threatened retaliatory tariffs if the EU continues penalizing U.S. firms. European officials insist their measures are nationality-neutral. However, the fact that most DMA “gatekeepers” are American multinationals—including Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft—inevitably makes these enforcement actions politically charged.
The timing is especially awkward, coming amid broader EU-U.S. trade negotiations. EU regulators reportedly set the fines at a level they deemed “firm” but not so high as to spur a full-fledged trade war. That balancing act may be put to the test in the coming months, as U.S. officials consider how forcefully to push back.
Apple and Meta fight back
Both Apple and Meta plan to appeal, condemning the EU’s decisions in unusually candid language.
Apple’s ObjectionsApple says the EU is “unfairly targeting” the iPhone maker and that forcing it to allow alternative app stores—often called “sideloading”—undermines user privacy and security. Apple currently requires developers to use in-app purchases (and pay Apple’s commission), claiming it ensures a safe ecosystem. Under the DMA, Apple must let app makers show users off-platform subscription options and steer them to cheaper deals elsewhere. Apple argues such measures weaken its control over the user experience, harming the “walled garden” it says protects customers from fraud and malware.
Meta’s ObjectionsMeta’s criticism centers on the EU’s requirement that users be able to reject personalized ad tracking without being forced to pay a fee or endure a severely degraded service. Joel Kaplan, Meta’s head of global affairs, calls the DMA an attempt to “handicap successful American businesses,” noting that the real burden for Meta is having to overhaul its advertising model in Europe. Meta’s new approach—offering “less personalized ads” if users do not consent to full tracking—remains under scrutiny, with critics claiming it is a half-hearted fix that still pressures people into sharing more data.
Both companies accuse the EU of favoring European or Chinese competitors. Notably, ByteDance (owner of TikTok) has not yet faced fines under the DMA, though it too is classified as a gatekeeper.
Implications for competition and consumers
The DMA aims to increase choice for both consumers and developers. For iPhone users, that could mean discovering alternative app stores, potentially offering different payment systems, app curation, and pricing. Smaller developers also stand to benefit; they will no longer be forced to give Apple a 30% cut or face other restrictive terms.
Streaming service Spotify and game maker Epic Games have long complained of Apple’s tight grip on the App Store, so they welcome the EU’s new approach.
Meta’s situation highlights a different problem: the obligation to respect user privacy and data rights. Under the DMA, European Facebook and Instagram users should be able to opt out of deep-targeting ads without having to pay for the service. If Meta fulfills that requirement, it could spark broader changes across social media.
Competitors that emphasize privacy may no longer be at such a disadvantage, and Meta might eventually extend privacy-friendly features outside the EU as well—if only to avoid running two separate systems.
While consumers could see more options and potentially lower prices, there is also a risk that big tech firms might decide to charge Europeans more or withhold certain features in the EU. Historically, though, major tech firms (e.g., after the GDPR privacy law took effect) have often applied changes globally, finding it impractical to maintain multiple versions of their products.
Google, X, and the wider tech crackdown
Apple and Meta are just the opening acts. Other tech giants face ongoing investigations under the DMA:
Google: Already hit by multiple EU antitrust cases, Google now stands accused of self-preferencing its services and imposing unfair terms in the Google Play store. If the Commission finds violations, further fines—potentially in the billions—could follow. Google has hinted at making “pro-competition tweaks” in response, possibly to avoid immediate sanctions.
X (formerly Twitter): Though not targeted under the DMA (the EU concluded X is not a critical “gatekeeper” for business-to-consumer access), Elon Musk’s platform is under investigation through the Digital Services Act (DSA), a parallel EU law focused on content moderation and safety. Officials are concerned about illegal content and disinformation on X, especially after Musk cut back on moderation. The EU reportedly warned that a billion-dollar fine could be possible if X fails to correct problems related to the DSA.
The DMA and DSA together reflect Europe’s comprehensive strategy to regulate Big Tech. Traditional antitrust probes also continue: Amazon, Microsoft, TikTok, and others remain under various EU investigations, whether for privacy, competition, or content issues.
The core message is that the era of light-touch oversight is ending, and the EU is pressing for immediate compliance rather than prolonged legal battles.
Industry reactions
The response from smaller tech players and developers has been largely positive. Many see the fines on Apple and Meta as a critical step toward leveling a playing field tilted by restrictive gatekeeper policies. Spotify, Epic Games, and other vocal Apple critics have praised the EU’s action, hoping it forces changes that will benefit developers and consumers alike.
Meanwhile, trade groups and some U.S. policymakers voice concern about a “fortress Europe” scenario where American tech companies face daunting regulatory hurdles. They argue this might reduce investment, delay product releases, or force U.S. firms to operate costly, customized versions of their services in Europe.
The threat of retaliatory tariffs looms if negotiations between Washington and Brussels go poorly.
Even inside the EU, there is debate over whether these enforcement actions go far enough. Some European lawmakers warn regulators not to hold back, fearing that any sign of leniency in the face of U.S. trade pressure could undermine the DMA’s core mission. The EU Commission is therefore walking a tightrope—aiming to enforce its rules firmly but avoid prompting severe trade repercussions that could escalate into a wider economic conflict.
Next steps and long-term outlook
Apple and Meta have about two months to comply with the Commission’s orders—removing anti-steering rules and ensuring users aren’t forced into personalized ads—despite their appeals. Failure to comply could trigger daily fines on top of the initial penalties.
The appeals might last years in EU courts, but do not pause the requirement to change business practices immediately.
Meanwhile, the European Commission is far from finished. Additional fines against Apple could materialize if it continues requiring hefty commissions for apps outside its official App Store (some regulators call Apple’s new “Core Technology Fee” a disincentive to real competition). Google, Microsoft, and other gatekeepers are under close watch for self-preferencing or anti-competitive bundling, and the Commission has signaled it will move quickly when it detects non-compliance.
Outside the DMA, enforcement under the Digital Services Act is also ramping up. Elon Musk’s X faces possible penalties if found in breach of content moderation requirements. TikTok could face scrutiny over its handling of user data and algorithmic transparency.
All this points to a future in which European authorities actively monitor the biggest platforms—and issue sanctions more rapidly than was possible under older antitrust frameworks.
In the broader context, the EU’s approach may well shape global norms. With GDPR, Europe pushed the tech world toward stronger data protection standards; similarly, the DMA could encourage more open ecosystems and stricter limits on data collection.
Other jurisdictions, from the U.K. to parts of Asia, are already discussing laws inspired by the DMA. If those spread, Big Tech may decide it’s more efficient to make worldwide changes rather than run different versions for each region.
The greatest unknown is the U.S. response. Although American lawmakers have introduced antitrust bills targeting Google, Apple, and Amazon, progress has stalled amid fierce lobbying. But seeing Europe take the lead could energize U.S. officials to push new legislation, or it could widen transatlantic rifts. Trump’s rhetoric about “extortion by foreign regulators” suggests confrontation is likely, especially if more large EU fines roll out.
For consumers and smaller businesses, the immediate takeaway is that closed ecosystems and forced data tracking—long the hallmarks of Big Tech—are being challenged. Whether it leads to meaningful long-term changes will become clearer as appeals wind through European courts and as the Commission continues to enforce the DMA.
One thing, however, is evident: the EU has made good on its promise to intervene proactively, marking a significant turning point in global tech oversight.
