A milestone for EU's digital rulebook

On 28 April, the European Commission released its inaugural formal assessment of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), as mandated by the regulation. While the Commission reaffirmed its backing for a robust DMA—legislation with considerable capacity to shield citizens and markets from gatekeeper misconduct—the reality on the ground tells a different story. Meaningful digital market competition and genuine user autonomy depend on aggressive lawmaking coupled with swift, unambiguous enforcement against violators.

Strong principle, weak enforcement

Three years into the DMA's operation, certain achievements stand out. Gatekeepers have been compelled to implement substantive reforms: European smartphone owners now encounter choice screens allowing them to pick their preferred search engine and browser, and companies must obtain explicit permission before transferring personal data between platforms.

Yet these initial victories pale beside widespread breaches and calculated evasion tactics deployed by virtually every major gatekeeper. Consider the pattern:

  • Apple maintains tight control over iPhone applications, circumventing the DMA's mandate to permit independent app stores and alternative distribution methods.
  • Following Apple's example of consequence-free defiance, Google has signalled its intention to impose comparable restrictions on its Android marketplace, with both firms extracting fees for this gatekeeping function.
  • Google continues blocking Android users from deleting pre-installed applications, arguing that the DMA's language about "uninstall" does not actually require removal.

Opacity surrounding Commission enforcement decisions leaves observers uncertain whether Brussels recognises these violations or plans to investigate. The DMA's true measure lies not in its written objectives but in how rigorously it is applied. The chasm between stated goals and actual outcomes cannot be overlooked.

Compounding these concerns, Commission President Von der Leyen has reportedly postponed a finalised billion-euro penalty against Google. Should this prove accurate, such intervention at the political apex would constitute a grave violation of enforcement independence and factual grounding. The DMA cannot succeed if political considerations shape its implementation. Gatekeepers breaching the law must face uniform treatment, free from special consideration. Political interference corrodes both the DMA's standing and the EU's broader dedication to the rule of law—ultimately jeopardising public confidence in impartial administration.

Effective enforcement is a political choice

The Commission's assessment neglects to advocate for an essential reorientation: abandoning its favoured "regulatory dialogue" model in favour of more assertive enforcement strategies. Dialogue with gatekeepers has its place, yet relying on negotiation while major technology firms deliberately undermine legislation appears counterproductive.

The Commission must transition from "working with gatekeepers towards compliance" to simply demanding it. No other sector—nor individual citizens—receives the extraordinary forbearance extended to these firms for legal violations.

This pivot grows more urgent as the Commission shifts toward deregulation. Proposals like the Digital Omnibus threaten to erode protections hard-won through legislative struggle, while forthcoming Better Regulation guideline changes could further marginalise public oversight. Against this backdrop, any reluctance to enforce the DMA sends a troubling message.

Rigorous DMA enforcement transcends technical administration—it represents a political commitment. Europe has enacted landmark legislation to constrain digital gatekeepers and redistribute economic power, yet must now demonstrate the resolve to implement it with unwavering consistency and genuine autonomy.

Source: EDRi (European Digital Rights)