It turns out Apple, Facebook, and Google were not as clever with their malicious compliance with the European Union’s DMA as they thought they were, as the European Commission has opened investigations into their compliance plans. Especially Apple, who has been most public about its malicious compliance, seems to be the target.
Today, the Commission has opened non-compliance investigations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) into Alphabet’s rules on steering in Google Play and self-preferencing on Google Search, Apple’s rules on steering in the App Store and the choice screen for Safari and Meta’s “pay or consent model”.
The Commission suspects that the measures put in place by these gatekeepers fall short of effective compliance of their obligations under the DMA.
In addition, the Commission has launched investigatory steps relating to Apple’s new fee structure for alternative app stores and Amazon’s ranking practices on its marketplace. Finally, the Commission has ordered gatekeepers to retain certain documents to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with their obligations.
↫ European Commission press release
This is entirely unsurprising. Google’s and Facebook’s compliance plans were less scrutinised in the press, but all still raised questions about whether they would pass mustard. Apple’s plans, meanwhile, were universally seen as deeply malicious and not compliant, and it seems the European Commission agrees. Apple’s continuous wild, flailing attacks on the EU and the DMA certainly aren’t helping, either.
There’s no denying Apple’s behaviour has been deeply unprofessional and anti-European Union, which contrasts strongly with how Apple and Tim Cook operate in China, where they face much stricter rules than they do in the EU. Tim Cook is currently in China praising and buttering up to the Chinese totalitarian regime, while the company has been attacking the European Union and DMA almost non-stop for months now. It really shows where Apple’s priorities lie.
Meanwhile, Facebook’s pay-for-privacy model was always going to be a hard sell at €10 a month, and as such, the company already announced it was going to cut that cost in half. Google’s plans are a bit more nebulous, since it’s a bit more difficult to see tangible results from things like search rankings, but it seems here, too, the European Commission has its worries about compliance.
The European Commission intends to complete its investigations within a year, and if found in violation of the law, companies can be fined for up to 10% of their worldwide turnover, which can grow up to 20% for repeated infringements.
I appreciate that EU are trying to make these companies play fair and to start to make competition viable. But whenever I see EU terms such as these it really rubs me the wrong way because IMHO they’re violating their jurisdiction. After all the EU would not want other countries issuing fines on activities inside the EU. Say China tried to pull something like this, we’d all be crying foul and with very good reason.. So even though I side with EU’s push to regulate antitrust abuses, I do not support them overstepping their jurisdiction…it sets an awful precedent that far worse governments might be tempted to copy.
That’s a fair point. It should be something like 50% of EU turnover instead.
The problem is that it is too easy to hide turnover in different countries. If we could start by closing all the budget loopholes normally tolerated, that could work. But until we have fixed that worldwide, we instead use the figure that is the hardest to tamper with: global turnover.
Carewolf,
A court can always argue it’s easier to ignore their jurisdictions, but what a slippery slope that is. One that’s ripe for abuse. Even if regulators conduct themselves in good faith I’d suggest there’s still moral problem here. After all, imposing laws on external countries without even a semblance of democratic representation is authoritarian by definition. While this may not be the EU’s intention, it definitely leaves a bad taste.
I would be more supportive of regulators cooperating together across international jurisdictions such that it complies all appropriate laws. Many treaties work like this and for that matter an international treaty covering antitrust cases could indeed have merit. In the absence of this though it still seems wrong for the EU to attempt to regulate and penalize commerce in countries outside the EU’s actual jurisdiction. I cannot support that.
To be clear, I’m eager for all our governments to finally put the breaks on abusive monopoly practices by tech companies…this is long overdue.