**

America's Tech Giants vs. the EU's Digital Markets Act: Why Defanging Europe's New Tech Law Would Be a Catastrophic Mistake

The Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Union's groundbreaking legislation aimed at curbing the power of Big Tech, is poised to reshape the global digital landscape. However, mounting pressure from American tech giants and certain US policymakers threatens to weaken its effectiveness. This is a dangerous precedent that could stifle innovation, harm consumers, and ultimately undermine the EU's digital sovereignty. The United States must resist the urge to "defang" the DMA; instead, it should view it as a model for fostering a more competitive and equitable digital market, both domestically and internationally.

Understanding the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

The DMA, which came into effect in 2023, targets so-called "gatekeepers"—large online platforms with significant market power. These companies, often American tech giants like Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon, control access to critical digital infrastructure and services. The DMA aims to prevent these gatekeepers from abusing their dominance through various anti-competitive practices, including:

• Self-preferencing: Favoring their own services over those of competitors.
• Data exploitation: Using user data in ways that unfairly advantage their own services.
• Interoperability restrictions: Preventing users from easily switching between platforms or integrating different services.
• Pre-installation requirements: Forcing users to use specific apps or services.

These practices, often referred to as digital monopolies, create barriers to entry for smaller businesses, limit consumer choice, and stifle innovation. The DMA aims to dismantle these barriers by imposing obligations on gatekeepers, including allowing interoperability, data portability, and preventing the aforementioned practices.

Why American Pressure on the DMA Is Misguided

Pressure from US tech giants and some US policymakers to weaken or water down the DMA stems from concerns about the impact on American businesses. Arguments range from claims of unfair targeting to accusations of protectionism. However, these arguments miss the mark for several reasons:

• Leveling the Playing Field: The DMA is not about targeting American companies specifically; it's about creating a fairer digital market for all businesses, including European ones that are often outcompeted by the dominant US tech firms. It addresses a global problem, not a national one.
• Promoting Innovation: A more competitive market fosters innovation. By preventing anti-competitive practices, the DMA creates space for smaller, more innovative companies to thrive, ultimately benefiting consumers through more choices and potentially better services. This is directly related to digital competition policy and the wider debate about digital transformation.
• Protecting Consumer Rights: The DMA puts consumer interests at the forefront. By promoting choice, transparency, and interoperability, it empowers users and reduces their dependence on a few powerful platforms. This is crucial in the era of data privacy, as it helps protect users from exploitative data practices.
• Setting a Global Standard: The EU’s strong stance on digital regulation is setting a precedent for other countries. A weakened DMA would send a dangerous signal that anti-competitive practices are acceptable, potentially hindering efforts to establish global digital standards that promote fairness and competition.

The Economic and Geopolitical Implications

Weakening the DMA would have far-reaching economic and geopolitical consequences:

• Reduced Innovation: A less competitive market will stifle innovation, leading to slower technological advancement and reduced economic growth, both in Europe and globally.
• Increased Market Concentration: Allowing tech giants to maintain their dominance will result in further concentration of power, leading to less choice and potentially higher prices for consumers.
• Undermining EU Sovereignty: The DMA represents a significant assertion of the EU's digital sovereignty. Allowing external pressure to weaken the law would undermine the EU's ability to regulate its own digital space and maintain its economic independence.
• Global Impact on Antitrust: The success or failure of the DMA will have significant implications for antitrust enforcement globally. A weakened DMA could embolden similar anti-competitive practices elsewhere.

The Way Forward: Collaboration, Not Confrontation

Instead of trying to undermine the DMA, the United States should engage in constructive dialogue with the EU. This means focusing on:

• Sharing Best Practices: Both the US and the EU have valuable experience in regulating technology. Sharing best practices and fostering collaboration could lead to more effective regulation globally.
• Harmonizing Standards: Working towards harmonized global standards for digital regulation could help prevent regulatory fragmentation and create a more level playing field for businesses worldwide.
• Addressing Mutual Concerns: Open communication can help identify and address mutual concerns, ensuring that regulations promote innovation while protecting consumers and fostering competition.

The Digital Markets Act is not a threat to American businesses; it's an opportunity for a more equitable and innovative digital future. By embracing collaboration and resisting the urge to undermine the DMA, the United States can help shape a global digital ecosystem that benefits everyone, not just a handful of powerful corporations. The debate over the DMA is part of a broader conversation about digital policy, data governance, and the future of the internet. The time for constructive engagement is now.