The digital era has heralded an unprecedented concentration of power among a handful of technology giants. With their vast ecosystems spanning advertising, cloud computing, social media, and artificial intelligence, these companies influence every aspect of modern life. Governments and regulators worldwide are now confronting the challenge of prevent abuse of dominant positions while preserving the innovation that fuels the digital economy. From Brussels to Washington, a new wave of antitrust enforcement is reshaping how platforms operate, interact, and compete in the global marketplace.
In response to concerns over gatekeeper platforms, the European Union introduced the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DMA targets major players such as Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, ByteDance, and Booking, imposing stringent rules to guarantee fair competition and foster interoperability. Effective March 6, 2024, companies designated as gatekeepers must adapt their business models or face financial penalties that can reach 10 percent of global revenue, or even 20 percent in cases of recidivism.
Core obligations under the DMA include:
Complementing the DMA, the DSA focuses on content moderation and user safety. Since 2025, platforms must increase their transparency and accountability measures to combat misinformation, especially harmful to minors. Among the key DSA mandates are:
The enforcement phase in 2025 has already seen multiple inquiries into compliance. Apple, Google, and Meta face investigations over unfair closed ecosystem practices, while TikTok and Amazon are under surveillance for ad transparency. These probes exemplify regulators’ intent to monitor both established and emerging platforms closely.
In April 2025, the European Commission made history by imposing its first fines under the DMA after 13-month investigations. This action signaled regulators’ determination to back their rules with significant penalties.
Both Apple and Meta have appealed their respective fines, arguing that structural remedies would exceed legal requirements. Nevertheless, these decisions underline the EU’s willingness to enforce structural changes, including divestitures if necessary, to ensure compliance.
Beyond fines, the Commission can mandate structural measures, including the divestiture of problematic business units. While penalties serve as a deterrent, structural remedies could permanently alter market dynamics by dismantling entrenched monopolies. This approach mirrors strategies employed in traditional industries, signaling a maturity in digital antitrust enforcement.
Across the Atlantic, U.S. authorities have ramped up antitrust scrutiny against Big Tech. In April 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing key components of the advertising ecosystem. The court found that Google’s exclusionary auction mechanisms and restrictive contractual terms suppressed competition, paving the way for potential breakups or forced divestitures.
Google’s challenges extend beyond ad tech. Separate cases target its search dominance and app store practices, reflecting a broader shift in judicial attitudes. With regulators testing new theories and remedies, the U.S. enforcement landscape is evolving rapidly.
These actions have spurred discussions of breaking up tech conglomerates or separating services into standalone entities. Lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that such radical measures may be necessary to restore competition. However, opponents warn of unintended consequences for research funding and cross-platform innovation.
Recognizing the transformative potential of AI, the EU launched its AI Strategy for 2025 at the Paris AI Action Summit. President Ursula von der Leyen announced €200 billion in investments, largely from the private sector, to bolster gigafactories and data centers. These investments aim to reduce Europe’s dependency on American infrastructure and foster sovereign AI capabilities.
New EU rules require companies deploying algorithms in sensitive sectors—such as recruitment, finance, and content moderation—to demonstrate the absence of bias and offer user recourse. To comply, platforms must implement:
By embedding algorithmic transparency and accountability into law, regulators hope to balance innovation with the public interest and prevent discriminatory outcomes.
Critics caution that overly rigid rules could hamper European startups competing against global giants. To mitigate this risk, some propose sandbox regimes where innovative AI applications can be tested under regulatory oversight before full deployment.
Big Tech’s acquisitive strategies have long drawn scrutiny, but recent reforms heighten oversight of so-called killer acquisitions. Regulators now evaluate deals not only on market share but also on their impact on innovation pipelines and ecosystem health. This expansion of antitrust review aims to curb predatory buyouts that eliminate future competitors.
In parallel, U.S. authorities have opened investigations into acquihire deals that may have evaded Hart-Scott-Rodino filing requirements. High-profile inquiries include Microsoft’s acquisition of Inflection and Google’s purchase of Character.AI. These actions underscore a new vigilance over both large mergers and strategic talent acquisitions.
Furthermore, the EU’s revised merger guidelines solicit feedback on addressing “killer acquisitions” of nascent AI and biotech firms. By expanding the scope of review to include potential future markets and ecosystem effects, antitrust authorities aim to preserve dynamism and prevent premature consolidation.
Competition law is no longer confined to marketplaces and platforms. In Q2 2025, the European Commission launched its first labor market cartel case, revealing intertwined practices such as no-poach agreements, price information exchanges, and territory allocations. These agreements restricted worker mobility and suppressed salaries, harming employees across sectors.
Meanwhile, consumers and small businesses stand to gain from a more competitive digital economy. New EU rules force gatekeepers to offer:
Regulators also emphasize that protecting workers fosters innovation by reducing talent hoarding and promoting knowledge diffusion. A more fluid labor market can catalyze startup growth, ensuring that skilled professionals contribute to the widest array of ventures.
As regulators wield unprecedented authority to shape the digital landscape, a critical question emerges: how to foster innovation while ensuring fair play? The effectiveness of sanctions and structural remedies remains under scrutiny. Regimes that are too lenient risk perpetuating market power, while overly stringent rules may stifle the very ingenuity they aim to protect.
Looking forward, the EU aspires to export its regulatory standards globally, much like the GDPR set new benchmarks for data protection. Harmonizing rules on cloud computing, AI, and digital services could prevent regulatory arbitrage and foster a truly open digital single market.
Moreover, international coordination will be critical. As jurisdictions race to regulate technology, divergent standards risk fragmenting the digital single market. Collaborative efforts through organizations like the OECD and G7 can help align principles on competition, data governance, and consumer rights, forging a cohesive global framework.
Ultimately, success hinges on balancing control with innovation. By adopting flexible, principle-based frameworks and empowering independent oversight, policymakers can ensure that Big Tech serves society without dictating its terms. The current antitrust revolution promises not just to tame dominant platforms, but to revitalize the digital economy for years to come.
References
