Digital Markets Act (DMA)

The European Digital Services Act (DSA) lays down new rules for online platforms, seeks to strengthen user rights and intends to hold tech companies to account. But what specific measures does the DSA include and why is it under so much pressure from the new US government and big tech companies?

We’re at a climate tipping point, yet international trade rules remain a persistent barrier to climate action. Momentum is also quickly building toward a digital tipping point: one where Big Tech surveillance is too far out of control to reign in, and where human rights and democracy only exist at the whim of tech corporations. Recurrent trade pressures could impact the willingness of the EU and the US to take action to better protect consumers in the digital market, or even to act to fight against climate change. So how did we get here, and what role do the new US–EU cooperation venues have to play?

This paper analyses the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), which imposes a set of specific ex ante obligations on the largest digital players, including  interoperability and data access. It also analyses the UK's Digital Markets Unit (DMU), and whether it could be designed as a more flexible set of regulatory tools enabling a targeted approach to identifying emerging competition issues and market power in the digital field.

The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act aims to regulate emerging applications of AI in accordance with “EU values”. But for the most concerning of all such potential applications, the line between regulation and prohibition can be a tricky one to draw.

2022 is shaping up to be a big year for European digital policymaking. The Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts as well as the Artificial Intelligence Act will reverberate beyond the EU’s borders. For the EU’s comprehensive vision for platform regulation to become reality, it will be crucial to coordinate the enforcement mechanisms of these laws.

Big communication platforms like Facebook, YouTube and others do little to create safe spaces for users. On the contrary, the platforms make money with hateful and divisive content, which they use to capture their user’s attention and will keep them on the platforms for as long as possible. There is no doubt about this since the latest revelations of whistleblower Frances Haugen. Women and girls - like all people affected by digital hate - are defenceless on the platforms.

Disinformation and misinformation thrive in uncertainty and secrecy. While growing awareness within the European Union of the threat posed by malign disinformation campaigns to undermine support for democratic values, and the EU project as a whole, has elicited a number of robust responses, these have mostly targeted external actors. Addressing threats from within Member States poses a more acute challenge, one that will require great thoughtfulness and delicacy to resolve, and require a unanimous collective effort.

The concept of ‘digital sovereignty’ has become more prevalent over the last few years, although its meaning remains diffuse. Between Chinese techno-authoritarianism and the U.S. model of surveillance capitalism, Europe is heading towards a third way.