The European Commission has ordered Apple to grant rival smartphone, headphone, and virtual reality companies access to its technology and mobile operating system.
The directive, part of the bloc’s Digital Markets Act, aims to curb the dominance of major tech firms and enhance competition. A separate mandate also requires Apple to establish a structured process for responding to interoperability requests from app developers.
Apple strongly criticised the decision, arguing that it places unfair constraints on its ability to innovate and benefits competitors without imposing the same restrictions on them.
Expressing concerns, the company warned that the new rules could negatively impact its products and European users, adding that the additional regulatory burden might slow progress.
The European Commission, however, dismissed Apple’s objections, stating that the order simply enforces existing laws and provides regulatory clarity.
Failure to comply could result in an investigation and potential fines of up to 10% of Apple’s global annual revenue. The ruling underscores the EU’s determination to rein in the power of Big Tech and ensure a more competitive digital market.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Leading semiconductor firms are calling on the European Commission to introduce a follow-up to the 2023 EU Chips Act, arguing that a new policy must extend beyond manufacturing to include chip design, materials, and equipment.
Industry groups say the original programme, while encouraging investment, has failed to attract advanced chipmakers or build a competitive supply chain. Approval processes have also been criticised for being too slow, delaying key projects.
Following discussions in Brussels with European lawmakers, representatives from industry groups ESIA and SEMI Europe announced plans to formally request a ‘Chips Act 2.0’ from the Commission.
They argue that the EU must take decisive action to strengthen the entire semiconductor industry, including research and development as well as supplier subsidies.
European Parliament Member Oliver Schenk highlighted how other regions, such as Taiwan, have successfully integrated suppliers into their chip manufacturing ecosystem, whereas Europe still lacks such cohesion.
The meeting included major semiconductor companies such as NXP, Infineon, Bosch, and STMicroelectronics, alongside equipment makers ASML, ASM, and Zeiss.
Meanwhile, a coalition of nine EU countries has pledged to work with the Commission to strengthen Europe’s semiconductor capabilities.
The Commission has yet to outline specific plans, but it has previously stated its intention to launch investment initiatives this year, particularly in artificial intelligence and technology.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
France’s broadcasting regulator, Arcom, is on the verge of deciding whether satellite operator Eutelsat has breached European sanctions against Russia.
The decision follows requests from several NGOs, including Comité Diderot, which has raised concerns over Eutelsat’s contracts with Russian media outlets like the army’s Zvezda channel and state-run VGTRK.
These contracts represent a small fraction of Eutelsat’s revenue, about 4%, but the watchdog’s ruling could have significant financial consequences for the company.
In 2022, Eutelsat complied with Arcom’s request to halt the broadcast of three Russian TV channels. However, the company still maintains agreements with other Russian media outlets, which some critics argue continue to violate EU sanctions.
Eutelsat has expressed respect for regulatory decisions, but the investigation has drawn attention to its ongoing contracts with Russian entities.
Arcom, which now has the authority to ensure EU sanctions compliance under France’s 2024 SREN law, may impose a fine of up to 3% of Eutelsat’s annual revenue.
If further violations are found, the penalty could rise to 5%. The French National Assembly recently supported the call for Arcom to enforce stricter compliance, reflecting growing pressure on Eutelsat amid the ongoing sanctions against Russia.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The European Union is being advised to strengthen its focus on sustainable semiconductor production as emissions from the industry continue to rise.
A new study by the think-tank Interface highlights the growing pollution caused by the manufacturing of cutting-edge chips, essential for AI technology.
Over the past eight years, global energy consumption in the semiconductor sector has surged by 125%, largely due to the increasing demand for advanced chips, which require higher energy input and generate more emissions.
While the industry’s high-emission production methods have raised concerns, the report also points to opportunities for Europe to capitalise on its strengths in the manufacturing of ‘legacy’ chips.
These chips, used in sectors like automotive, energy, and industrial applications, tend to have a smaller environmental footprint. European companies such as STMicroelectronics, Infineon, and NXP are already market leaders in this area, which could be key to the EU’s efforts to foster a greener transition.
Despite the EU’s ambitions, including the 2023 Chips Act aimed at boosting production, questions remain over whether Europe should invest further in cutting-edge chip manufacturing.
The study suggests that pursuing this route could have significant environmental costs, particularly due to the high energy consumption involved. However, the EU’s access to renewable energy sources and water might provide an advantage over the high-cost, energy-hungry production processes in Asia.
Julia Hess, the study’s lead author, argues that chips manufactured under higher environmental standards could offer Europe a long-term competitive edge in the semiconductor industry, driving both sustainability and technological leadership.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The European Union has announced that the ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorisation System) will require visa-free travellers from non-EU countries, including the UK, to obtain authorisation before short stays in the Schengen Area.
Initially planned for 2026, the system has been delayed and is now set to launch in late 2026, with full implementation not expected until 2027. The ETIAS aims to improve border security and will apply to travellers from 60 non-EU countries who don’t need a visa.
To apply for the ETIAS, travellers will need to complete an online application, provide personal details, answer security questions, and pay a €7 fee.
However, this authorisation will be linked to the traveller’s passport and remain valid for three years, or until the passport expires. Also, children under 18 and adults over 70 will be exempt from the fee, though they still need to apply for authorisation.
The ETIAS will not become mandatory until six months after the EU’s Entry/Exit System (EES) is fully operational. The EES, which is set to launch in phases starting in October 2025, will be a registration system for non-EU travellers, including those from the UK and US.
However, due to delays in the installation of necessary technology at Schengen borders, the launch of the ETIAS has been pushed back to late 2026.
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.
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 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.
A new report has revealed significant gender imbalances across the EU’s tech ecosystem, from education to executive positions. The GENDEX index, funded by the European Innovation Council, found that women remain underrepresented in STEM fields, with only 42% of graduates in 2022 being women.
The imbalance is particularly evident in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, where just 24% of graduates are women.
However, this discrepancy leads to fewer women founders in deep tech startups, with only one in five European tech companies being led by women over the past decade.
Women’s representation in academia is also limited, comprising just 31% of researchers and scientists in deep tech. Furthermore, only 24% of patent applications are submitted by women.
The report suggests that a narrowing funnel of opportunities negatively impacts the entire tech sector, as talented women are lost along the way. Men continue to dominate leadership positions, with women holding only about 30% of roles in European companies.
The gender gap is most evident at the board level, particularly in male-founded companies.
The study also highlighted the challenges female entrepreneurs face in securing funding. Female-led teams receive just 1% of venture capital funding, and when they do secure investments, they often face less favourable terms and longer waits compared to male-led teams.
The report recommends that investors require gender diversity reporting before providing funding and prioritise women-led companies to address these disparities.
Additionally, experts argue that structural changes are necessary to create a more balanced and effective tech ecosystem, pointing out that gender diversity can lead to better results for companies and the industry as a whole.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The European Union has reached an agreement to finally implement the long-awaited Entry/Exit System (EES), which will modernise border checks for short-stay travellers.
After several delays due to technical issues and a lack of readiness, the system is now set to begin operations in autumn, though a specific launch date has yet to be determined.
Member states will have the option to introduce the system all at once or in phases over a six-month transition period, with the full implementation to be completed by the end of the transition.
The EES, which was first proposed in 2016, aims to replace traditional passport stamping by collecting biometric data from non-EU visitors, including photos and fingerprints.
This data will be recorded each time visitors enter or exit the Schengen Area. The system is designed to improve border control, help authorities identify overstayers, and prevent identity fraud.
While Cyprus and Ireland will not participate in the new system, all other EU member states and four Schengen-associated countries will be involved.
Poland, which currently holds the EU Council’s rotating presidency, will lead negotiations with the European Parliament to finalise the law.
Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland’s Minister for Internal Affairs, indicated that a final agreement should be reached smoothly, with October set as the target for full implementation.
The EES is expected to provide authorities with new tools to enhance security and better manage borders within the Schengen Area.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
