The European Greens are calling on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to step up enforcement of European digital rules against American tech giants, despite increasing political pressure from Washington and protests from Big Tech itself. According to GreenLeft MEP Bas Eickhout, the Commission must continue to use its "iron fist" in applying the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), even if this further fuels tensions in transatlantic trade relations.
Politico reports that the Greens explicitly support and encourage action against platforms such as Apple, Meta, and possibly other gatekeepers, calling for higher fines and structural measures where necessary.
The call follows new heavy fines for Apple and Meta for violating the DMA, with which Brussels wants to prevent gatekeepers from abusing their market power and making users unnecessarily dependent on their ecosystems. Apple was fined hundreds of millions of euros for restricting the freedom of app developers, while Meta's "pay or consent" model for personalized advertising is, according to the Commission, in violation of the DMA. At the same time, the Trump administration in Washington is accusing the EU of using digital rules as a de facto trade tariff and is putting pressure on it to tone down its enforcement, which directly affects the EU's digital sovereignty ambitions.
The discussion is no longer just about competition. It also touches on democratic control, privacy, and the strategic autonomy of a Europe that still relies heavily on American tech infrastructure. Analysts warn that the EU will remain vulnerable as long as so many digital services run on American servers. Strict enforcement of the DMA, DSA, and GDPR (AVG) is therefore one of the few means of protecting citizens and markets from concentration of power and political pressure.
At the same time, there are calls within the Commission for "less regulatory pressure" and simpler digital regulations. Critics fear that this will give Big Tech more leeway and that necessary structural interventions—such as the splitting up of certain services—will be postponed as a result.
Large platforms almost always challenge fines and obligations in the Court of Justice. This results in lengthy legal proceedings that test the predictability of the European digital regulatory framework. The DMA allows for fines of up to 10 percent of global turnover, and even up to 20 percent in the case of repeat offenses. Structural measures may also follow if behavioral changes do not work.
From a privacy and data perspective, it is important that these measures intervene in the core models of data-driven platforms: tying, self-preferencing, and enforcing data sharing with competitors. In doing so, they substantially complement the existing powers to impose fines under the GDPR.
The stakes in the battle between the Greens, the Commission, Big Tech, and Washington are high: will Europe be able to continue to determine its own digital rules in the coming years, despite trade pressure and intensive lobbying?
For data and privacy professionals, this means that compliance with the DMA, DSA, and GDPR increasingly requires an integrated approach, combining competition, privacy, cybersecurity, and digital sovereignty. Enforcement is thus no longer a cost item, but a structural part of the business model.
As Politico describes, the Greens are emphatically positioning themselves as political watchdogs: Brussels must continue to hit Big Tech where it hurts—in the wallet and in the power structure of their platforms—if the EU is to remain credible as a global standard-setter for digital rights.
