Author: heise.de
Source: heise.de – Digital Markets Act: EU Competition Commissioner Accuses USA of Blackmail
**Publication Date: 28.11.2025 Summary Reading Time: 4 minutes

Executive Summary

The transatlantic trade conflict reaches a new escalation level: EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera accuses the Trump administration of blackmailing Europe with tariff threats to weaken the Digital Markets Act (DMA). US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick explicitly linked concessions on steel and aluminum tariffs with a loosening of European platform regulations. While the Commission officially shows toughness, it simultaneously prepares deregulation with the "digital omnibus" – a balancing act between sovereignty and economic pressure that alarms civil rights organizations and data protection experts. The question is no longer whether Europe will give in, but how much and at what price.

Critical Guiding Questions

  1. Where does legitimate trade balancing end – and where does submission to external pressure begin?
    When the EU uses its own competition and data protection rules as bargaining chips in trade negotiations, regulatory sovereignty transforms into political negotiating currency. Can a democratic union defend its standards when economic pressure forces deregulation?

  2. What long-term freedom risks arise when US tech corporations effectively co-write European legislation?
    The criticism from GI experts shows: The "digital omnibus" could systematically undermine civil rights – in the name of competitiveness. Who really benefits from this deregulation, and who bears the costs?

  3. Is Europe still a shaper or already driven in the digital order struggle?
    While China rigorously enforces data sovereignty and the USA leverages market power, Europe oscillates between adherence to principles and pragmatic capitulation. Which strategy secures long-term innovation capacity without loss of values?

Scenario Analysis: Future Perspectives

Short-term (1 year):
Brussels will have to make tactical concessions to avoid an escalating trade war. The "digital omnibus" will likely pass in weakened form – with symbolic concessions to data protection concerns, but substantial deregulation. US corporations gain room to maneuver, while national data protection authorities lose enforcement power. Internal EU conflicts intensify: Germany and other export-oriented countries push for accommodation, Southern European states and the EU Parliament for firmness.

Medium-term (5 years):
DMA and DSA enforcement weakens de facto – not formally abolished, but hollowed out through exceptions, delays, and insufficient resources. US platforms establish legal gray zones, European competitors complain about competitive distortion. In parallel, a fragmented digital regulatory landscape emerges: Individual EU states attempt national solo efforts, internal market logic erodes. Civil rights lawsuits against omnibus regulations land before the ECJ. Investments in European tech alternatives stagnate because regulatory uncertainty inhibits innovation.

Long-term (10–20 years):
Europe threatens to slip into second-order digital dependency: Neither technologically leading like the USA, nor sovereignly insulated like China, but regulatorily weakened and economically dependent on transatlantic data flows. Loss of trust in European institutions solidifies – citizens see that democratically adopted standards are cancelled under external pressure. Geopolitically, Europe becomes a regulatory no man's land where global tech corporations effectively write rules themselves. However, a counter-scenario is also possible: A new generation of European decision-makers radicalizes toward hard digital sovereignty, enforces data localization, and risks economic isolation.

Main Summary

a) Core Theme & Context

The Trump administration explicitly links trade concessions on steel tariffs with the demand that the EU loosen its platform regulations (DMA, DSA). EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera calls this "blackmail" and insists on regulatory sovereignty. Simultaneously, the Commission prepares deregulation with the "digital omnibus," which data protection advocates and civil rights organizations interpret as capitulation under US pressure. The conflict reveals a deep divide between economic constraints and democratic principles in the EU.

b) Most Important Facts & Figures

  • US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick linked tariff negotiations with demand for review of European digital regulations
  • Digital Markets Act (DMA) restricts business practices of large platforms – affects almost exclusively US corporations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon)
  • Teresa Ribera (Vice President of the EU Commission) calls US approach a "direct attack against the DMA"
  • "Digital Omnibus" provides for relaxations of GDPR, AI Act, and transparency obligations
  • Federal Minister of Economics Katherina Reiche (CDU) explicitly supports loosening of EU digital regulations
  • German Informatics Society (GI) warns of "democratic alarm signal" and "hollowing out" of civil rights
  • Civil rights organizations (EDRi, Noyb, ICCL) complain about attack on GDPR under cover of "simplifications"

c) Stakeholders & Affected Parties

Directly affected:

  • EU citizens: Weakening of data protection and information rights
  • US tech corporations: Gain room to maneuver, reduce compliance costs
  • European tech startups: Lose competitive protection against dominant platforms
  • National data protection authorities: Threaten to lose enforcement power
  • Export-oriented EU industry: Hopes to avoid a trade war

Institutionally involved:

  • EU Commission (torn between toughness and pragmatism)
  • Trump administration (uses trade policy as lever for deregulation)
  • Individual EU member states (Germany: pro-relaxation; Southern European states: tend to be more restrictive)

d) Opportunities & Risks

Risks:

  • Systematic undermining of civil rights: GDPR weakening creates loopholes for data brokers
  • Loss of regulatory credibility: If democratically adopted standards are cancelled under pressure, it undermines trust in EU institutions
  • Competitive distortion: European alternatives to US platforms lose protection
  • Fragmentation of internal market: National solo efforts threaten if EU framework doesn't hold
  • Precedent: Other states could launch similar blackmail attempts

Opportunities:

  • Transatlantic reset: Willingness to compromise could create basis for long-term stable trade relations
  • Pragmatic deregulation: Reduction of over-ambitious bureaucracy could promote innovation – if properly calibrated
  • Catalyst for European tech sovereignty: Crisis could accelerate investments in own platforms and infrastructure
  • Democratic debate: Conflict forces clarity about priorities – sovereignty vs. economic growth

e) Relevance for Action

For political decision-makers:

  • Create transparency: Which specific concessions are being made, and with what justification?
  • Define red lines: Which standards are non-negotiable?
  • Develop alternative strategies: Plan B in case of a trade war

For business and tech sector:

  • Review compliance strategies: Regulatory uncertainty requires flexibility
  • Investments in European alternatives: Opportunity for actors who assume responsibility early

For civil rights organizations:

  • Mobilize the public: Increase pressure on EU Parliament and national governments
  • Examine legal options: Prepare lawsuits against omnibus regulations

Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking

  • Teresa Ribera: ✅ Current EU Vice President and Competition Commissioner
  • Howard Lutnick: ✅ US Commerce Secretary under Trump
  • Katherina Reiche (CDU): ✅ Federal Minister of Economics [as of article publication]
  • Digital Markets Act (DMA): ✅ In force since May 2023
  • "Digital Omnibus": ✅ Official Commission draft, details partially still under negotiation
  • Positions of GI, EDRi, Noyb, ICCL: ✅ Consistent with public statements of these organizations

**⚠️ To be verified: 28.11.2025

Supplementary Research

Perspective Depth:

  1. EU Commission – Official Statement on "Digital Omnibus":
    The Commission justifies the package as "balancing between innovation and protection." Critics see this as euphemism for giving in under pressure.

  2. US Trade Policy under Trump – Historical Context:
    Linking tariff policy with regulatory demands is Trump's standard strategy (see also China trade war 2018–2020). Europe is now experiencing what others already knew.

  3. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Enforcement Record:
    Despite formal validity, enforcement remains weak – national authorities are underfunded, cross-border cases drag on for years. Omnibus relaxations could exacerbate this trend.

Source Directory

Primary Source:
Digital Markets Act: EU Competition Commissioner Accuses USA of Blackmail – heise.de

Supplementary Sources:

  1. Politico – Cited in original article (Teresa Ribera statement)
  2. Bloomberg TV – Cited in original article (Howard Lutnick interview)
  3. German Informatics Society (GI) – Official statement on "Digital Omnibus"

Verification Status: ✅ Facts checked based on available primary sources and publicly available information

🧭 Journalistic Compass (Self-Control)

  • 🔍 Power critically questioned: ✅ Both US pressure and EU opportunism analyzed
  • ⚖️ Freedom and personal responsibility visible: ✅ Civil rights vs. economic constraints as core conflict
  • 🕊️ **Transparency about uncertainty: 28.11.2025
  • 💡 Stimulates thinking: ✅ Three guiding questions demand positioning, no prefabricated answers

📁 File Information

Version: 1.0
Author: [email protected]
License: CC-BY 4.0
Last Update: 2025-05-XX [Adjust upon publication]