{"id":61967,"date":"2025-12-16T16:46:49","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T15:46:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=61967"},"modified":"2025-12-16T16:47:16","modified_gmt":"2025-12-16T15:47:16","slug":"apple-in-focus-us-criticism-of-europes-new-digital-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-im-fokus-us-kritik-an-europas-neuen-digitalgesetzen","title":{"rendered":"Apple in focus: US criticism of Europe's new digital laws"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple and other major US technology companies are facing increasing international regulatory pressure. European regulations, in particular, are a focus of US policy. In Washington, there is a growing perception that new laws and penalties are less about promoting fair competition and more about deliberately disadvantaging American companies. A recent hearing in the US House of Representatives addresses precisely this development.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

US authorities and government officials have long maintained that large US tech companies like Apple, Meta, and Google are being treated unfairly abroad. Europe, in particular, is accused of pursuing its own economic interests through new digital legislation. The debate is not new, but it is intensifying due to the potential impact of billions of dollars in fines, trade agreements, and global innovation strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hearing in the US House of Representatives on foreign regulation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

On December 16 at 10:00 a.m., the Subcommittee on Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Law of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee began an official hearing. The topic was the targeted regulation of American companies by foreign states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the committee, the purpose of the hearing was to examine<\/a> the threat that discriminatory foreign regulations pose to American innovation and competition. The official description of the hearing made it clear that the committee assumed actual discrimination. The website explicitly stated that the hearing was intended to highlight the committee's efforts to combat the spread of such foreign regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House's stance and political reactions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The White House had previously made it clear that the US government would not accept fines imposed by the European Union on companies like Apple and Meta. This position underscores the growing political tension between the US and the EU in the area of the digital economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a concrete means of exerting pressure, the US government also suspended a previously agreed technology deal with Great Britain. The deal was worth approximately $200 billion. The aim of the suspension was to secure additional concessions. This move, too, was interpreted as a signal that the US is prepared to use economic policy levers to protect its tech industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statements from the invited experts<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Three experts testified at the hearing. They submitted written statements totaling more than 60,000 words. All three expressed a critical view of European and international regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dirk Auer, Director of Competition Policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, stated that the EU regulations are undeniably politicized. He argued that the Digital Markets Act not only pursues regulatory goals but is also deliberately aimed at hindering the economic success of American companies. According to Auer, the law was even promoted by its own authors as a tool against American success. Apple is thus systematically disadvantaged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aurelien Portuese of the George Washington Competition & Innovation Lab concurred with this assessment. He stated that the Digital Markets Act had been explicitly drafted with discriminatory intent. In his view, it was not neutral competition regulation, but rather a political tool that primarily targeted large US platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shanker Singham of the Competere Foundation raised another point. He argued that Europe, China, and other regions had failed to build their own digital companies comparable to Apple or other US corporations. Instead of fostering innovation, these markets had hindered their own development. In response to this lag, an attitude had emerged that he described as "big is bad"\u2014a fundamental rejection of large, successful US companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lack of international counter-positions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

It was striking that only these three experts were called as witnesses. No representatives from Europe or other affected countries were listed on the committee's official website. An international or European counter-argument was therefore not part of the hearing. The discussion remained clearly limited to the US perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further hearing and no consequences<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The committee held another hearing on a different topic. Whether this concluded the discussion on the alleged discrimination against American companies remained unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it was clear that no vote was taken during the hearing. No mandates were awarded, and no timetable for further investigations or concrete measures was presented. The hearing was therefore primarily symbolic and political in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple & Co.: Increasing tensions between the US and Europe in the tech sector<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Apple is at the center of a fundamental dispute over global regulation, economic power, and political influence. The hearing in the US House of Representatives clearly demonstrates that the US does not view European digital laws as a neutral regulatory framework. Instead, they are accused of deliberately hindering the success of American companies. Even without immediate political consequences, the debate makes it clear that the conflict surrounding Apple and other US tech giants will continue to grow in importance. (Image: rafapress \/ DepositPhotos.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n