U.S. House Judiciary Chair Questions EU’s Stance on Big Tech Regulation

In an unfolding diplomatic and regulatory dispute, U.S. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has called on European Union antitrust chief Teresa Ribera to clarify her enforcement approach regarding the EU’s stringent regulations on Big Tech. Jordan’s concerns stem from the belief that these laws disproportionately target American technology giants, potentially disadvantaging them in the European market.

Jordan’s demand came just days after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum announcing that his administration would closely examine two significant EU regulations: the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). These laws, aimed at regulating how large technology firms operate within the European Union, have raised alarm in Washington, where officials view them as a direct challenge to American businesses operating abroad.

The Digital Markets Act establishes specific obligations for leading tech firms, including Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Apple, Booking.com, ByteDance (the parent company of TikTok), Meta Platforms (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), and Microsoft. The EU argues that these regulations are essential to ensuring a level playing field in the digital economy and giving consumers more choices. However, Jordan and his allies contend that the act places an unfair burden on American companies while allowing European firms to navigate less restrictive regulations.

In a letter addressed to Ribera on Sunday, Jordan expressed his apprehensions about the impact of the DMA, arguing that the act appears to single out American tech giants. The letter, co-signed by Scott Fitzgerald, chairman of the subcommittee on the administrative state, regulatory reform, and antitrust, describes the act as imposing excessive compliance requirements on U.S. firms. Jordan further pointed out that the penalties for violating the DMA are alarmingly steep, with fines reaching up to 10% of a company’s global annual revenue. This, he claims, functions as a form of indirect taxation on American businesses, potentially compelling them to conform to EU standards even beyond European borders.

“These severe fines appear to have two goals: to compel businesses to follow European standards worldwide and to act as a European tax on American companies,” Jordan and Fitzgerald wrote in their letter. They also expressed concerns that some provisions within the DMA could inadvertently benefit China, arguing that such regulations could stifle innovation and deter investment in research and development.

Moreover, the lawmakers suggested that the DMA’s data-sharing requirements could expose proprietary information to foreign adversaries. “These, along with other provisions of the DMA, stifle innovation, disincentivise research and development, and hand vast amounts of highly valuable proprietary data to companies and adversarial nations,” the letter stated. The concern is that stringent regulatory mandates could weaken American firms’ competitive edge while allowing non-U.S. competitors, including those based in China, to gain strategic advantages.

Jordan and Fitzgerald urged Ribera to provide a briefing to the U.S. Judiciary Committee by March 10, seeking further transparency on how these regulations are enforced and whether they disproportionately affect American companies. Their request underscores the broader transatlantic tensions regarding digital governance, with the U.S. government increasingly wary of Europe’s regulatory push against Silicon Valley’s biggest names.

Despite these concerns, the European Commission has stood by its regulatory framework, insisting that it does not unfairly target American firms. Ribera, the second most powerful official in the European Commission after President Ursula von der Leyen, defended the EU’s stance in an interview with Reuters last week. She emphasised that the laws were meticulously crafted and approved by EU lawmakers, arguing that the European executive branch should not be pressured into modifying legislation based on external diplomatic or corporate lobbying.

The broader context of this dispute reflects the growing friction between the U.S. and the EU over how to regulate the digital economy. While American policymakers worry about the economic ramifications for their leading tech firms, European officials remain focused on curbing monopolistic practices, ensuring data privacy, and protecting consumer rights. The EU has long been at the forefront of tech regulation, previously introducing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which set a global benchmark for data privacy.

As the March 10 deadline approaches, the response from Ribera and the European Commission will be closely watched. If tensions escalate, the matter could evolve into a larger trade dispute, further complicating U.S.-EU relations. While the European Commission has yet to issue an official response to Jordan’s request, this regulatory battle highlights the ongoing struggle to balance innovation with fair competition in an increasingly digitalised world.

Meanwhile, on a different note, sustainability efforts in Cyprus are taking a creative turn. A grassroots initiative known as the ‘frying pan movement’ is gaining traction, transforming household waste into an opportunity for environmental education. This movement is an example of how communities across Europe are innovating in areas beyond technology regulation, demonstrating a commitment to sustainability that aligns with the EU’s broader environmental agenda.

The digital regulatory conflict between the U.S. and EU serves as a crucial reminder of the challenges governments face in managing the rapid expansion of technology. While the EU sees its legislative approach as a necessary check on the power of tech giants, U.S. lawmakers are pushing back, determined to safeguard their nation’s business interests. How this debate unfolds in the coming weeks will shape the future of digital trade and international cooperation in tech policy.