EU penalties against Apple and Meta: game, sentence, but by no means victory

In the eternal ping pong game about the EU regulation of tech companies, we finally approach the end of the first sentence: Since the issue of European digital laws, the EU Commission and the mostly US companies have been publicly back and forth. The fine notices against Apple and Meta with penalties of 500 and 200 million euros are now being challenged – the EU has thus thrown the feud shoe. An argument in court could finally ensure more clarity whether the EU Commission is really so attacking against Apple, Meta and Co. as they say-or whether you can rightly say in Brussels: “So, dear friends, it doesn’t go on.”

In the case of punished violations – Apple’s hurdles against alternative app stores and payment models and metas idea of ​​having users pay for the protection of their data in an alternative – the situation appears so clear at first glance that the EU has little to fear. But in court it is also about whether laws are proportionate and whether the form is preserved. So it is not clear from the outset that the EU is strongly evident from this argument.

So far, this comparison of reality has only taken place as a very large platform for the classification of the digital markets Act (DMA). Tiktok defended himself against his classification – and lost to court. The further provisions of the DMA, however, await a judicial confirmation. The fact that it did not happen was simply because the Tech companies showed at least to the outside world that they wanted to join the EU regulations.

US companies hope for support

The match ball in the years of discussion about the regulation of the digital space is far from being played with a judgment. The first reactions of Apple and Meta also leave no doubt about this, which, however, apparently speculates less on the help of the judges than dreaming of winning decisive victories in two other playing fields.

One playing field is international politics. The fact that Meta cuddles with the new US government is a development that was clearly recognizable at the beginning of the year. Apple boss Tim Cook also apparently has a short connection to the White House, which made it possible for him to get exceptions to the tariffs against China. The now chosen rhetoric, which fabulates from super-tariffs and subordinates discrimination against American companies, joins the horn of the new international trade policy in the United States. It seems more than questionable whether the EU can prevent a thunderstorm from Washington with its strikingly low penalties – but according to the old rules of diplomacy, it is explained that it has not immediately called up.

The definition of freedom

The other playing field has been serving Apple intensively for a long time: it is the life of the sympathy of the users. Regulation is presented as a endangerment of IT security, as an penetration into privacy and as the discussion of the self-determination of the customers. In this context, the EU guidelines appear as an unwanted intervention as a patronization-as something that contrasts the real interests of the citizens. And surprisingly many voices on the net duties.

So it is anything but agreed that EU policy stays on top, even if a court certifies its good manual work. The greater challenge is whether Europe is self -confident enough to preserve its attitude towards the United States, which – similar to a bull in the school yard – are no longer shy about taking Europe like the unpopular know -it -all classmate. And as a result, the question arises whether a majority of citizens are convinced of the need for regulation enough to endure this reaction, which could affect them and their everyday life.