---
title: EU Lawmakers Demand Tougher Digital Markets Act Enforcement as US Pushes for Rollbacks
description: EU Parliament committee calls for faster DMA enforcement as the Trump administration pressures Brussels to weaken European tech rules.
author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief)
date: 2026-03-26T14:38:34.711Z
updated: 2026-07-02T10:54:53.834Z
canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/eu-lawmakers-digital-markets-act-enforcement-us-pressure
image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/imco-dsa-hearing-march-2026.webp
categories: Artificial Intelligence, Politics
content_type: Analysis
region: Europe
publication: Sovereign Magazine
about:
  - type: Organization
    name: European Parliament
---

The European Parliament's Internal Market Committee passed a resolution on 25 March calling on the European Commission to enforce the Digital Markets Act more consistently and more quickly. Members criticised what they called anti-competitive behaviour by large technology companies and accused the Commission of letting enforcement drift.

The resolution lands in the middle of a sustained campaign by the Trump administration to pressure Brussels into weakening or repealing its [digital regulations](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/eu-s-digital-networks-act-spares-big-tech-while-pushing-telecoms-for-infrastructure-overhauls), including the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the EU AI Act. The Committee's response is to push in the opposite direction: enforce harder, not softer.

## What the Digital Markets Act resolution asks for

Anna Cavazzini, the German Green MEP who chairs the Internal Market Committee, led the resolution. Alexandra Geese, another Green MEP on the committee, has described current enforcement as "too little, too late."

The complaint is specific. The DMA has been in force since March 2024, designating Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance as "gatekeepers" required to open up their platforms to competitors. It requires them to allow third-party app stores, stop self-preferencing in search results, enable interoperability in messaging, and give users genuine choice over defaults. But fines and compliance orders have been slow to materialise.

This is not the first time Parliament has pushed the Commission on pace. In January 2025, the DMA Working Group sent an open letter warning against enforcement delays. Twelve member states, including France and Germany, wrote separately to demand faster Digital Services Act enforcement, citing threats to election integrity. A coalition of civil society groups, including the Coalition for App Fairness, warned that designated gatekeepers were showing "disregard" for the law.

The Internal Market Committee resolution is the most formal escalation of that pressure so far.

## How US tech companies turned Trump into their enforcer

The American campaign against EU tech regulation has been remarkably explicit about its origins.

In January 2025, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced sweeping changes to the company's content moderation systems and said he wanted an ally in the White House to push back against foreign regulations he described as "institutionalising censorship." Weeks later, at the Munich Security Conference, Meta's policy chief Joel Kaplan said the company would take complaints about EU enforcement directly to Trump. "I don't think we're going to shy away from saying when we think that the enforcement of these laws is being directed at us goes beyond," he said.

> "These are American companies whether you like it or not. They shouldn't be doing that. That's, as far as I'm concerned, a form of taxation."
> — Donald Trump, World Economic Forum, Davos, January 2025

Trump took up the cause publicly at Davos, where he singled out Apple's EUR 13 billion Irish tax bill. From there, the pressure became institutional. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to EU competition chief Teresa Ribera arguing the DMA "may target American companies" and give European firms an unfair advantage. His committee subpoenaed Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Rumble, TikTok, and X for all communications with European Commission officials relating to content moderation.

The FCC's new chair, Brendan Carr, called the Digital Services Act "incompatible with our free speech tradition." In December 2025, the State Department sanctioned former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and leaders of disinformation research groups over what it called censorship.

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick tied the campaign directly to trade, calling for further Digital Markets Act rollbacks in exchange for lower steel tariffs.

## The Commission's position: firm in public, flexible in private

The Commission's official line has been consistent. Teresa Ribera told the Financial Times that the EU would not "undo our regulation just because you don't like it." She and Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen wrote jointly to Jim Jordan defending the DMA, stating that "the objective of DMA enforcement, as in any other piece of EU law, is to ensure compliance, not to issue fines." In February 2025, the Commission said explicitly that its tech laws were "not up for negotiation with Trump."

Sandro Gozi, an Italian MEP, led a parliamentary delegation to Washington to counter what he described as "a Mar-a-Lago boys' issue" fuelled by Big Tech lobbying, "starting with Elon Musk." Anna Cavazzini, who led the delegation, told Euractiv that the DMA was "neither targeting US companies nor restricting market access."

But the Commission has also been hedging. It proposed a digital omnibus regulation aimed at simplifying, and potentially scaling back, some tech rules to [make Europe more competitive](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/what-does-sovereign-tech-actually-mean-for-europe). The proposal did not satisfy Washington. After it was introduced, Lutnick called for further rollbacks as a condition of the tariff deal.

At the same time, the Commission opened new investigations in December into [potential anticompetitive behaviour by Meta and Google](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/google-eu-antitrust-fine-11-billion), signalling that enforcement is accelerating regardless of US objections.

## DMA enforcement as trade leverage

The [US-EU trade deal reached in July 2025](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/the-eu-gave-trump-his-trade-deal-then-rewrote-the-fine-print) included a commitment to address "non-tariff barriers" to trade, widely understood as a reference to digital regulations. But DMA and DSA enforcement was not resolved in that agreement. Analysts have described the technology issues, and in particular the enforcement of the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, as "the unfinished business of the US-EU trade deal."

That deal has had a turbulent few months. On 20 February, the US Supreme Court struck down Trump's IEEPA tariffs in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump*, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise the president to impose tariffs. Trump responded within days by imposing 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 instead. The EU froze ratification, citing the new tariff uncertainty and Trump's threats to annex Greenland.

On 25 March, the same day as the Internal Market Committee's DMA resolution, the European Parliament voted 417-154 to approve [the Turnberry deal](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/eu-focus-europe-s-strong-plan-in-response-to-washington-s-us-tariffs). But lawmakers attached three safeguards that did not exist in the original July agreement: a sunset clause that kills the deal in March 2028 unless both sides agree to extend it, a sunrise clause that makes tariff preferences conditional on the US honouring its Turnberry commitments, and a suspension clause that immediately revokes preferences if Washington introduces new tariffs above the agreed 15% ceiling. Member states still need to approve those safeguards before tariffs on US goods actually fall. The first trilogue is scheduled for 13 April.

The timing is notable. EU lawmakers approved the trade deal and demanded tougher DMA enforcement on the same day. The message is that Brussels is willing to do business with Washington on tariffs, but not at the cost of its digital rulebook. The safeguard clauses give the EU a mechanism to walk away from the trade deal if the US escalates. That makes it harder for Washington to use tariff threats as leverage over DMA enforcement, because the EU has already priced in the possibility that the deal collapses.

## Where the EU AI Act fits in

The EU AI Act, which began phased enforcement in 2025, adds another front. It applies to any company offering AI products or services in the EU market, regardless of where it is headquartered. US companies building or deploying AI in Europe must comply.

The regulatory philosophies are moving in opposite directions. The EU classifies [AI systems by risk level](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/who-is-taking-over-the-world-businesses-face-regulatory-uncertainty-in-the-ai-gold-rush) and imposes mandatory requirements, including transparency obligations and conformity assessments for high-risk systems. The US approach under Trump relies on voluntary industry commitments and executive orders that frame AI primarily as an innovation and competitiveness issue, with minimal binding restriction.

Neither side shows signs of shifting. Parliament wants stronger DMA enforcement. Washington wants rollbacks. The Commission sits between them, insisting the rules stay while exploring ways to simplify their application. The Internal Market Committee resolution makes one thing clear: for EU lawmakers at least, the direction of travel is more enforcement, not less.

## FAQ

**Q: Who does the Digital Markets Act apply to?**
The Digital Markets Act applies to companies the European Commission designates as "gatekeepers," meaning large platforms that control key digital services used by millions of Europeans. As of 2026, the designated gatekeepers are Apple, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance (TikTok). These companies must comply with obligations around interoperability, data portability, and fair competition, or face fines of up to 10% of their global annual turnover.

**Q: Does the EU AI Act apply to US companies?**
Yes. The EU AI Act applies to any company that places AI systems on the EU market or whose AI outputs are used within the EU, regardless of where the company is headquartered. US companies offering AI products or services to European customers must comply with the Act's requirements, which vary depending on the risk classification of the AI system in question.

**Q: What is the difference between US and EU AI regulation?**
The EU AI Act classifies AI systems into risk categories (unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal risk) and imposes mandatory compliance requirements at each level, including transparency obligations and conformity assessments. The US approach under the Trump administration favours voluntary industry commitments and executive orders promoting AI development with fewer binding restrictions. The EU treats AI regulation as a matter of consumer protection and fundamental rights; the current US administration frames it primarily as innovation policy.

**Q: What is the EU digital law 2025?**
Several major EU digital laws entered enforcement phases in 2025 and 2026. The Digital Markets Act (DMA), in force since March 2024, requires designated tech gatekeepers to open up their platforms to competition. The Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes content moderation and transparency obligations on online platforms. The EU AI Act began its phased rollout in 2025, with provisions on prohibited AI practices taking effect first. Together, these laws form the EU's comprehensive framework for regulating digital markets, online content, and artificial intelligence.