Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has concluded that the mobile browser market, led by Apple and Google, is not functioning effectively for consumers and businesses. The findings support the regulator’s decision to launch an investigation into the sector earlier this year.
Concerns are largely focused on Apple’s policies regarding internet access through its Safari browser, which dominates its devices with an 88% market share. Google’s Chrome browser holds a 77% share on Android devices.
The UK CMA’s independent inquiry group suggested that if Apple and Google are found to have ‘strategic market status’ (SMS), regulatory interventions may be necessary to encourage competition. These could include measures allowing rival browsers to introduce new features.
Apple has defended its approach, arguing that proposed remedies could undermine security and user experience, while Google highlighted Android’s openness in fostering competition and innovation.
The investigation forms part of a broader effort to assess competition in mobile ecosystems, with final decisions expected later this year.
The inquiry group’s chair, Margot Daly, stated that limited competition between mobile browsers is stifling innovation, reinforcing the need for regulatory action.
The CMA’s ongoing probe into the dominance of Apple and Google aims to ensure a fairer and more competitive digital marketplace.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The tech industry remains concerned about a newly released draft of the Code of Practice on General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), which aims to help AI providers comply with the EU‘s AI Act.
The proposed rules, which cover transparency, copyright, risk assessment, and mitigation, have sparked significant debate, especially among copyright holders and publishers.
Industry representatives argue that the draft still presents serious issues, particularly regarding copyright obligations and external risk assessments, which they believe could hinder innovation.
Tech lobby groups, such as the CCIA and DOT Europe, have expressed dissatisfaction with the latest draft, highlighting that it continues to impose burdensome requirements beyond the scope of the original AI Act.
Notably, the mandatory third-party risk assessments both before and after deployment remain a point of contention. Despite some improvements in the new version, these provisions are seen as unnecessary and potentially damaging to the industry.
Copyright concerns remain central, with organisations like News Media Europe warning that the draft still fails to respect copyright law. They argue that AI companies should not be merely expected to make ‘best efforts’ not to use content without proper authorisation.
Additionally, the draft is criticised for failing to fully address fundamental rights risks, which, according to experts, should be a primary concern for AI model providers.
The draft is open for feedback until 30 March, with the final version expected to be released in May. However, the European Commission’s ability to formalise the Code under the AI Act, which comes into full effect in 2027, remains uncertain.
Meanwhile, the issue of copyright and AI is also being closely examined by the European Parliament.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Indian authorities have arrested Aleksej Besciokov, an administrator of the Russian cryptocurrency exchange Garantex, at the request of the US.
Besciokov, a Russian resident and Lithuanian national, was taken into custody in Kerala on charges of money laundering and violating sanctions. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said he was planning to flee India, and Washington is expected to seek his extradition.
The arrest follows a joint operation by the US, Germany, and Finland to dismantle Garantex’s online infrastructure.
The exchange, under US sanctions since 2022, has processed at least $96 billion in cryptocurrency transactions since 2019. The US Justice Department recently charged two administrators, including Besciokov, with operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business.
Experts warn that sanctioned exchanges often attempt to bypass restrictions by setting up new entities. Blockchain research firm TRM Labs called the Garantex takedown a significant step in combating illicit finance but emphasised the need for continued vigilance against evasion tactics.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Singapore prosecutors revealed on Thursday that a fraud case involving local firms accused of illegally supplying US servers to Malaysia involves transactions worth $390 million.
Three men—Singaporeans Aaron Woon and Alan Wei, along with Chinese national Li Ming—have been charged with deceiving tech giants Dell and Super Micro by misrepresenting the servers’ final destination.
The case has been linked to Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which is under US scrutiny over the potential use of banned Nvidia chips.
While Singapore authorities confirmed the servers may have contained Nvidia components, they did not specify whether these were the restricted high-end semiconductors subject to US export controls.
Singapore’s Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam declined to comment on the alleged connection.
Prosecutors claim Wei paid himself tens of millions in dividends, while Woon received a multimillion-dollar bonus. Singaporean authorities are investigating a wider network of 22 individuals and companies suspected of similar fraudulent practices, with six additional arrests made.
The accused are set to reappear in court on May 2, while Malaysian authorities are also probing potential legal violations.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Wednesday that it does not need to delay its September trial against Amazon, contradicting an earlier claim by one of its attorneys about resource shortages.
Jonathan Cohen, an FTC lawyer, retracted his statement that cost-cutting measures had strained the agency’s ability to proceed, assuring the court that the FTC is fully prepared to litigate the case.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson reaffirmed the agency’s commitment, dismissing concerns over budget constraints and stating that the FTC will not back down from taking on Big Tech.
Earlier in the day, Cohen had described a ‘dire resource situation,’ citing employee resignations, a hiring freeze, and restrictions on legal expenses. However, he later clarified that these challenges would not impact the case.
The lawsuit, filed in 2023, accuses Amazon of using ‘dark patterns’ to mislead consumers into enrolling in automatically renewing Prime subscriptions, a program with over 200 million users.
With claims exceeding $1 billion, the trial is expected to be a high-profile battle between regulators and one of the world’s largest tech companies. Amazon has denied any wrongdoing, and three of its senior executives are also named in the case.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The UK government, through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), has commissioned research to evaluate best practices for managing risks associated with open-source software (OSS). The study assesses existing guidance on OSS security and resilience, examines its effectiveness across sectors, and provides recommendations for strengthening software supply chain security. That research is part of the government’s wider work to improve the UK’s cyber defences and protect and grow the economy.
The report outlines key recommendations for organisations using OSS, including:
Establishing an internal OSS policy to manage the adoption of OSS components.
Creating a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) to track OSS components and their dependencies.
Continuously monitoring the software supply chain with software composition analysis (SCA) tools to identify vulnerabilities and licensing issues.
Actively engaging with the OSS community to attract talent, foster innovation, enhance reputation, and ensure a sustainable ecosystem.
Using automation tools to streamline OSS management processes, particularly for smaller organisations, as a cost-effective alternative to manual practices.
The report also highlights the need for further research and policy development in areas such as scale-appropriate best practice guidance, industry-specific OSS management frameworks, standardised metrics for evaluating OSS component maturity, and the impact of community engagement on OSS quality and security.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Brazil’s tax revenue service may restart discussions on requiring financial technology firms to report transaction values, citing concerns over money laundering through lesser-known payment institutions.
Revenue service head Robinson Barreirinhas told a Senate hearing that the government still aims to extend its transaction-tracking intelligence to fintechs, despite public backlash that led to a suspension of the plan last year.
Authorities argue that fintechs, including those using the Pix instant payment system, should be subject to the same reporting rules as banks.
However, opposition to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration portrayed the measure as a hidden tax on workers, forcing the government to pause the rule in January amid falling approval ratings.
Barreirinhas emphasised that the ease of opening accounts in fintech platforms makes them vulnerable to illicit financial activity.
The tax agency remains concerned about organised crime funding in Brazil‘s economy, particularly through smuggled cigarettes, online betting, and cryptocurrencies.
Officials suggest that stronger oversight of digital transactions is necessary to prevent these activities from flourishing, potentially reigniting debate over the suspended regulations.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Spain’s government has approved a bill imposing heavy fines on companies that fail to label AI-generated content, aiming to combat the spread of deepfakes.
The legislation, which aligns with the European Union’s AI Act, classifies non-compliance as a serious offence, with penalties reaching up to €35 million or 7% of a company’s global revenue.
Digital Transformation Minister Oscar Lopez stressed that AI can be a force for good but also a tool for misinformation and threats to democracy.
The bill also bans manipulative AI techniques, such as subliminal messaging targeting vulnerable groups, and restricts the use of AI-driven biometric profiling, except in cases of national security.
Spain is one of the first EU nations to implement these strict AI regulations, going beyond the looser US approach, which relies on voluntary compliance.
A newly established AI supervisory agency, AESIA, will oversee enforcement, alongside sector-specific regulators handling privacy, financial markets, and law enforcement concerns.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The Trump administration has introduced a new app that allows undocumented migrants in the US to self-deport rather than risk arrest and detention.
The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) app, called CBP Home, includes an option for individuals to signal their ‘intent to depart.’ Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the app gives migrants a chance to leave voluntarily and potentially return legally in the future.
Noem warned that those who do not leave will face deportation and a lifetime ban from re-entering the country. The administration has stepped up pressure on undocumented migrants, with new regulations set to take effect in April requiring them to register with the government or face fines and jail time.
The launch of CBP Home follows Trump’s decision to shut down CBP One, a Biden-era app that allowed migrants in Mexico to schedule asylum appointments. The move left thousands of migrants stranded at the border with uncertain prospects.
Trump has pledged to carry out record deportations, although his administration’s current removal numbers lag behind those recorded under President Joe Biden.
The CBP Home app marks a shift in immigration policy, aiming to encourage voluntary departures while tightening enforcement measures against those who remain illegally.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) are two major regulatory frameworks introduced by the EU to create a fairer and safer digital environment. While both fall under the broader Digital Services Act package, they serve distinct purposes.
The DMA focuses on ensuring fair competition by regulating large online platforms, known as gatekeepers, which have a dominant influence on digital markets. It prevents these companies from engaging in monopolistic practices, such as self-preferencing their own services, restricting interoperability, or using business data unfairly. The goal is to create a more competitive landscape where smaller businesses and consumers have more choices.
On the other hand, the DSA is designed to make online spaces safer by holding platforms accountable for illegal content, misinformation, and harmful activities. It imposes stricter content moderation rules, enhances transparency in digital advertising, and ensures better user rights protection. Larger platforms with significant user bases face even greater responsibilities under this act.
The key difference in regulation is that the DMA follows an ex-ante approach, meaning it imposes strict rules on gatekeepers before unfair practices occur. The DSA takes an ex-post approach, requiring platforms to monitor risks and take corrective action after problems arise. This means the DMA enforces competition while the DSA ensures online safety and accountability.
A key component of the DSA Act package is its emphasis on transparency and user rights. Platforms must explain how their algorithms curate content, prevent the use of sensitive data for targeted advertising, and prohibit manipulative design practices such as misleading cookie banners. The most powerful platforms, classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) or Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs), are also required to assess and report on ‘systemic risks’ linked to their services, including threats to public safety, democratic discourse, and mental well-being. However, these reports often lack meaningful detail, as illustrated by TikTok’s inadequate assessment of its role in election-related misinformation.
Enforcement is critical to the success of the DSA. While the European Commission directly oversees the largest platforms, national regulators, known as Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs), play a key role in monitoring compliance. However, enforcement challenges remain, particularly in countries like Germany, where understaffing raises concerns about effective regulation. Across the EU, over 60 enforcement actions have already been launched against major tech firms, yet Silicon Valley’s biggest players are actively working to undermine European rules.
Together, the DMA and the DSA reshape how Big Tech companies operate in the EU, fostering competition and ensuring a safer and more transparent digital ecosystem for users.
Trump and Silicon Valley’s fight against EU regulations
The close relationship between Donald Trump and the Silicon Valley tech elite has significantly influenced US policy towards European digital regulations. Since Trump’s return to office, Big Tech executives have actively lobbied against these regulations and have urged the new administration to defend tech firms from what he calls EU ‘censorship.’
Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief lobbyist, has gone as far as to equate EU regulations with tariffs, a stance that aligns with the Trump administration’s broader trade war strategy. The administration sees these regulations as barriers to US technological dominance, arguing that the EU is trying to tax and control American innovation rather than foster its own competitive tech sector.
Figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have aligned themselves with Trump, leveraging their influence to oppose EU legislation such as the DSA. Meta’s controversial policy changes and Musk’s X platform’s lax approach to content moderation illustrate how major tech firms are resisting regulatory oversight while benefiting from Trump’s protectionist stance.
The White House and the House Judiciary Committee have raised concerns that these laws unfairly target American technology companies, restricting their ability to operate in the European market.
Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, has recently voiced strong concerns regarding the DSA, which he argues could clash with America’s free speech values. Speaking at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Carr warned that its approach to content moderation might excessively limit freedom of expression. His remarks reflect a broader criticism from US officials, as Vice President JD Vance had also denounced European content moderation at a recent AI summit in Paris, labelling it as ‘authoritarian censorship.’
These officials argue that the DMA and the DSA create barriers that limit American companies’ innovations and undermine free trade. In response, the House Judiciary Committee has formally challenged the European Commission, stating that certain US products and services may no longer be available in Europe due to these regulations. Keep in mind that the Biden administration also directed its trade and commerce departments to investigate whether these EU laws restrict free speech and recommend countermeasures.
Recently, US President Donald Trump has escalated tensions with the EU threatening tariffs in retaliation for what he calls ‘overseas extortion.’ The memorandum signed by Trump on 21 February 2025, directs the administration to review EU and UK policies that might force US tech companies to develop or use products that ‘undermine free speech or foster censorship.’ The memo also aims at Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), claiming that foreign governments unfairly tax US firms ‘simply because they operate in foreign markets.’
EU’s response: Digital sovereignty at stake
However, the European Commission insists that these taxes are applied equally to all large digital companies, regardless of their country of origin, ensuring fair contributions from businesses profiting within the EU. It has also defended its regulations, arguing that they promote fair competition and protect consumer rights.
EU officials see these policies as fundamental to Europe’s digital sovereignty, ensuring that powerful tech firms operate transparently and fairly in the region. As they push back against what they see as US interference and tensions rise, the dispute over how to regulate Big Tech could shape the future of digital markets and transatlantic trade relations.
Eventually, this clash could lead to a new wave of trade conflicts between the USA and the EU, with potential economic and geopolitical consequences for the global tech industry. With figures like JD Vance and Jim Jordan also attacking the DSA and the DMA, and Trump himself framing EU regulations as economic warfare, Europe faces mounting pressure to weaken its tech laws. Additionally, the withdrawal of the EU Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD) following the Paris AI Summit and JD Vance’s refusal to sign a joint AI statement raised more concerns about Europe’s ability to resist external pushback. The risk that Trump will use economic and security threats, including NATO involvement, as leverage against EU enforcement underscores the urgency of a strong European response.
Another major battleground is the AI regulation. The EU’s AI Act is one of the world’s first comprehensive AI laws, setting strict guidelines for AI transparency, risk assessment, and data usage. Meanwhile, the USA has taken a more industry-led approach, with minimal government intervention.
This regulatory gap could create further tensions as European lawmakers demand compliance from American AI firms. The recent withdrawal of the EU Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD) under US pressure highlights how external lobbying can influence European policymaking.
However, if the EU successfully enforces its AI rules, it could set a global precedent, forcing US firms to comply with European standards if they want to operate in the region. This scenario mirrors what happened with the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), which led to global changes in privacy policies.
To counter the growing pressure, the EU remains steadfast – as we speak – in enforcing the DSA, the DMA, and the AI Act, ensuring that regulatory frameworks are not compromised under US influence. Beyond regulation, Europe must also bolster its digital industrial capabilities to keep pace. The EUR 200 billion AI investment is a step in the right direction, but Europe requires more resilient digital infrastructures, stronger back-end technologies, and better support for its tech companies.
Currently, the EU is doubling down on its push for digital sovereignty by investing in:
Cloud computing infrastructure to reduce reliance on US providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure)
AI development and semiconductor manufacturing (through the European Chips Act)
These efforts aim to lessen European dependence on US Big Tech and create a more self-sufficient digital ecosystem.
The future of digital regulations
Despite the escalating tensions, both the EU and the USA recognise the importance of transatlantic tech cooperation. While their regulatory approaches differ significantly, there are areas where collaboration could still prevail. Cybersecurity remains a crucial issue, as both sides face growing threats from several countries. Strengthening cybersecurity partnerships could provide a shared framework for protecting critical infrastructure and digital ecosystems. Another potential area for collaboration is the development of joint AI safety standards, ensuring that emerging technologies are regulated responsibly without stifling innovation. Additionally, data-sharing agreements remain essential to maintaining smooth digital trade and cross-border business operations.
Past agreements, such as the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, have demonstrated that cooperation is possible. However, whether similar compromises can be reached regarding the DMA, the DSA, and the AI Act remains uncertain. Fundamental differences in regulatory philosophy continue to create obstacles, with the EU prioritising consumer protection and market fairness while the USA maintains a more business-friendly, innovation-driven stance.
Looking ahead, the future of digital regulations between the EU and the USA is likely to remain contentious. The European Union appears determined to enforce stricter rules on Big Tech, while the United States—particularly under the Trump administration—is expected to push back against what it perceives as excessive European regulatory influence. Unless meaningful compromises are reached, the global internet may further fragment into distinct regulatory zones. The European model would emphasise strict digital oversight, strong privacy protections, and policies designed to ensure fair competition. The USA, in contrast, would continue to prioritise a more business-led approach, favouring self-regulation and innovation-driven policies.
As the digital landscape evolves, the coming months and years will be crucial in determining whether the EU and the USA can find common ground on tech regulation or whether their differences will lead to deeper division. The stakes are high, affecting not only businesses but also consumers, policymakers, and the broader future of the global internet. The path forward remains uncertain, but the decisions made today will shape the structure of the digital world for generations to come.
Ultimately, the outcome of this ongoing transatlantic dispute could have wide-reaching implications, not only for the future of digital regulation but also for global trade relations. While the US government and the Silicon Valley tech elite are likely to continue their pushback, the EU appears steadfast in its determination to ensure that its digital regulations are enforced to maintain a fair and safe digital ecosystem for all users. As this global battle unfolds, the world will be watching as the EU and USA navigate the evolving landscape of digital governance.
