The fines were for violations of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the bloc\u2019s flagship attempt to check the power of big tech<\/a>. Apple was found to have restricted app developers from steering users to external payment options. At the same time, Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, was fined for its \u201cpay or consent\u201d model, which many saw as a Trojan horse for privacy-invasive advertising<\/a>.<\/p>\n Yet, for all their symbolism, are the fines too modest? Some wanted Brussels to bite harder<\/a>, given how big tech has consistently used its size to muscle out market rivals.<\/p>\n \u201cThe levels of these fines are low. There is little for US big tech to complain about,\u201d said Yale economics professor Fiona Scott Morton, who was briefly the EU\u2019s chief competition economist in 2023.<\/p>\n Under the DMA, the EU can impose penalties of up to 10 per cent of a company\u2019s global turnover, a sum that, in Apple\u2019s case, would have exceeded \u20ac35bn (\u00a330bn). That regulators chose a path of measured enforcement over financial shock therapy raises a question: is Europe affirming its regulatory authority or blinking in the face of geopolitical pressure?<\/p>\n The EU Commission\u2019s executive vice president, Teresa Ribera, insisted the fines were \u201cfirm but balanced\u201d given the nature of Apple and Meta\u2019s infringements. \u201cToday\u2019s decisions send a strong and clear message,\u201d she said. \u201cAll companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.<\/p>\n She was echoed by the powerful European consumer group, BEUC, which said the commission had no choice but to enforce so that gatekeepers complied. \u201cToday\u2019s decisions are important to show big tech that if they choose to operate on the EU\u2019s single market <\/a>they must play by our rules,\u201d said BEUC director-general Agust\u00edn Reyna. \u201cApple and Meta have had ample time to comply with the Digital Markets Act but instead have delayed compliance and tried to twist the rules to their advantage.\u201d<\/p>\n But the wider context complicates that claim, as the EU grapples with how to enforce its digital rulebook amid a swirling trade war with the United States. President Donald Trump<\/a> has framed Europe\u2019s tech rules<\/a> as a form of economic nationalism disguised as consumer protection: non-tariff barriers aimed squarely at Silicon Valley<\/a>. His Vice President, JD Vance<\/a>, went further, saying on the campaign trail in September that Washington could stop supporting Nato <\/a>if allies \u201ccensor\u201d American platforms. <\/p>\n The EU\u2019s softer-than-expected penalties may thus reflect a precarious diplomatic calculus: to be seen enforcing the rules without provoking the wrath of Washington.<\/p>\n To that end, the fines operate more as an opening salvo than a climactic verdict. They serve as a legal placeholder, clearly articulating that the DMA has teeth, even if it bites lightly for now. Apple\u2019s anti-steering practices and Meta\u2019s coercive consent mechanisms were always low-hanging fruit for enforcement, and the commission chose not to reach for the more explosive tools at its disposal, such as ordering structural changes or business divestments.<\/p>\n The penalties serve as a regulatory line in the sand. Apple and Meta must comply with the commission\u2019s rulings within 60 days or risk harsher punishment. Both firms have responded with the usual corporate choreography: protests of unfairness, hints of appeals, and veiled threats about reduced investment.<\/p>\n Other tech investigations loom, however. Google and Elon Musk<\/a>\u2018s X may be next, with the search giant seen as prioritising results for its own services, while the social media platform is failing to police content. There are separate investigations into why digital giants pay little tax in Europe. And Silicon Valley could be hit with retaliatory measures<\/a> if Trump follows through on threats to impose tariffs on the EU<\/a>, in the first use of a Brussels \u201cbazooka\u201d tool known as the Anti-Coercion Instrument.<\/p>\n Despite the EU\u2019s claims of impartial enforcement, the spectre of American retaliation looms large. Trump has already signalled he may deploy trade tariffs <\/a>in response to European regulatory actions. The political temperature has risen enough for Germany\u2019s finance minister to publicly caution against jeopardising Europe\u2019s access to essential American tech services.<\/p>\n Against this backdrop, the commission\u2019s restraint may be tactical rather than timid. By opting for relatively mild fines in the first round, Brussels can show it is enforcing the law without escalating into a full-blown trade dispute. Yet such pragmatism comes with reputational risk. The EU has spent the better part of a decade cultivating an image as the world\u2019s premier tech regulator<\/a>, whereby European rules influence global norms.<\/p>\n![\"FILE](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/SEI_248514546.jpg\")
Apple was found to have restricted app developers (Photo: Reuters)<\/p>\n