Rain starting to fall on Big Tech's parade

Big Tech is being reined in by Europe and the US, and we're pretty excited about it. These are key moments of progress after years of work, but there's still more to be done.

The European Union Commission has issued the first fines for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) which came into effect last year. Apple and Meta, two of the Big Tech firms designated as 'gatekeepers' under the Act, were recently fined €500 million and €200 million respectively for failing to respect rules designed to protect people against abuse of dominance in online services. 

Apple's fine is due to its vice-like grip over its app store that prevents developers from signposting cheaper alternatives to their customers. Meta was also fined in Europe for their so-called 'pay or consent' model - their latest desperate effort to keep propping up their surveillance advertising business model. Rather than give people actual control about how their data is used, Meta instead gives people a stark 'choice': you must give up your money or your rights. There's little point passing laws and then leaving them unenforced - and so it's positive that the Commission has dipped its toe into the water here.

In the US, Google is in the hot seat, as courts have recently found that dominance in both their search and their AdTech businesses give them unfair advantages and too much control over how our online ecosystem operates. Meta is being taken on by the US Federal Trade Commission for its own anti-competitive practices, where a court last week heard about its hunger to acquire any company that challenges its dominance in the social media market (including now Meta-owned Instagram and Whatsapp). 

These actions, new laws and other court decisions all show a strong recognition of the need to protect people against the worst excesses of Big Tech dominance over how we interact and relate online. 

Fair competition matters

At PI we've long been demanding that regulators pay close attention to how Big Tech companies amass data and power online. That includes our interventions on mergers and acquisitions like Google-Fitbit and Meta-Giphy. Online products and services are regularly offered 'free' to consumers in exchange for their data - but this allows companies to then use that data to pursue their own business interests (at times at the expense of people's interests) and further incentivises the mass collection and consolidation of that data.

Yet, even as courts and regulators are starting to address the power of these companies, there's a new wave of pressure from both sides of the Atlantic to step back and let the markets take over. Industry seems to be finding allies in the White House, who are comparing fines for non-compliance with the law with tariffs imposed for political gain. That idea - that these fines are merely geopolitical jostling - is being picked up by at least Meta, who have also described the fine as a tariff.

What's next?

In that context, it raises the question as to whether last week's fines and court decisions be enough to create a change in the behaviour of Big Tech companies. The fines are unlikely to instigate an immediate overhaul in how Apple, Meta and others conduct their business. These companies have deep pockets and are likely accustomed to factoring the cost of fines into their balance sheets. The fines are relatively small in comparison to previous fines and company turnover. 

Though Big Tech may become emboldened by the political fights between Europe and the US, we must not get distracted by the economic politics. This is a fight about our data and our agency. And how in this market, our data fuels their dominance over us. The internet works at its best for people when our actions are not controlled and mediated by the interests of powerful companies. 

Of course it's no big surprise that companies like Google with access to reams of data and the ability to process have gained advantages from that. Remedies proposed by the US Department of Justice in the Google case include opening up access to certain aspects of Google's search data and selling off Chrome, Google's browser. Chrome is a notoriously powerful browser that feeds Google's data empire.

Almost inevitably, other companies began lining up to buy Chrome. OpenAI was first in line, and others were quick to follow. It's both alarming and obvious to us that other giants seek to be the beneficiary of this fount of data, and what it means for future technological innovations. 

Remedies and fines are by their nature backwards looking - you can't issue a fine for something that hasn't happened, yet. This is why we monitor and intervene as the damage is happening, to fight for our data autonomy and privacy before the real harms become difficult to roll back. We've already had success doing so: in 2023, we were party to the European Commission's investigation into Amazon's attempt to ingest iRobot, which Amazon ultimately had to abandon. This work and more like it is essential to curtailing this industry. And progress is being made. That's exactly why they're mustering opposition. 

See more of our work on Competition and Data. Join our mailing list to sign up for news on our next steps in this fight against domination.