Ursula von der Leyen , President of the European Commission, announced the suspension of ongoing investigations against Apple, MetaTrader , and Elon Musk’s X platform . This decision temporarily halts proceedings that could have resulted in massive fines of up to 6% of these companies’ revenue .
Political and economic issues surrounding regulation
The investigations conducted by European authorities aimed to penalize practices deemed anti-competitive . In recent years, Brussels had intensified its efforts to impose new rules, notably through the Digital Markets Act (DMA) . The mission of this legislative framework was clear: to curb the abuse of dominant position by tech giants and promote a fairer environment for other market players.
By pausing these investigations, the Commission President could be accused of weakening this regulatory momentum. Indeed, several European countries believe that taking a firm stance against the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) is essential to protecting digital sovereignty and guaranteeing their local businesses the opportunity to grow without facing unfair competition.
International political influence on European decision-making
No political act of this magnitude is undertaken without consideration of geopolitical dynamics. According to some analysts, the decision to suspend the investigations could be linked to an attempt to improve transatlantic relations, particularly with the American administration and former President Donald Trump, whose return to the political arena is causing concern in parts of Europe. Furthermore, Alice Weidel, leader of the German far-right AfD party, is scheduled to be interviewed by Elon Musk on the X platform. This raises questions about the potential for these suspensions to be used as leverage in international negotiations.
On the other hand, some sources mention the tangible threat posed by a reduction or suspension of US aid to Ukraine, coupled with a possible increase in tariffs on European goods. Such measures could have significant economic repercussions for the EU, explaining why the Commission is aiming for a more conciliatory approach with large American companies.
Reactions from Member States and European stakeholders
This initiative has not gone unnoticed among European leaders. Jean-Noël Barrot, France’s Minister for the Digital Transition, expressed his displeasure in a public statement on January 8. He stressed the need for the Commission to take the strongest possible stance on laws aimed at protecting the digital public space. Otherwise, Barrot suggested, regulatory powers could revert to the Member States.
His speech resonates with many supporters of a more sovereign Europe, critical of the GAFAM companies. Emmanuel Macron, for example, while busy supporting certain American entrepreneurial initiatives, has never hidden his desire to see Europe assert its voice more strongly in the digital sector.
The United Kingdom, an autonomous post-Brexit regulation
Across the Channel, the United Kingdom is not remaining passive. Using its new post-Brexit powers, the British Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently launched independent investigations against Apple and Google, thus intensifying its efforts to limit the monopolistic practices of these tech giants.
These investigations take place within a context where London seeks to demonstrate its ability to continue playing a strict but fair regulatory role, despite its departure from the European Union. With this in mind, the CMA has seen its powers significantly expanded, including the authority to designate certain companies as having a “Strategic Market Status” similar to the category created by the European DMA.
In the short term, the suspension of EU investigations reduces the possibility of massive fines for Apple, Meta, and X. However, this pause could also serve to redefine the terms of the debate on digital regulation . Member states, frustrated by a lack of progress, could increase their pressure on the Commission.
In parallel, local initiatives, such as those seen in the United Kingdom, could become more common. If this is the case, regulatory fragmentation would be conceivable, with each country seeking to establish its own standards in response to the EU’s perceived capacity to effectively manage these issues at a continental level.