EU-US tech talks: focus on protecting users, not reopening EU digital rules
-
An EU-US dialogue on digital policy seems to be underway in spite of the US administration’s repeated and explicit challenge to the EU digital rulebook. The process carries real risks of undermining some European tech laws, including the DMA, which tech SMEs rely on to compete on a level playing field against gatekeeper platforms.
-
If such a dialogue will actually come to pass, it should be strictly limited to areas of mutually beneficial common ground, such as the protection of minors and elderly users from harmful platform practices.
-
DIGITAL SME urges the Commission to ensure that EU-US talks do not water down or delay enforcement of Europe’s digital rules. Rather, these discussions should reinforce transatlantic cooperation in tackling the toxic business models that profit from harmful practices targeting vulnerable users.
Why EU digital rules should stay off the table
The US position on the EU digital rulebook has been consistently and openly hostile in recent months, with Washington deeming both the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) unfair trade barriers in the 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The Trump administration has threatened tariffs in retaliation for enforcement actions against American tech companies. Beyond tariffs, the US State Department imposed visa restrictions on five EU and UK individuals, including former Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was instrumental in the conception of the DSA.
For its part, the Commission has stated that EU digital rules are not subject to negotiation, with Commissioner Ribera making clear that the EU “may be kind, polite, try to find ways to solve problems and discrepancies. But cannot accept whatever they demand. The EU cannot be subject to the will of a third country”.
The Commission’s assurances are noted. Yet opening a structured dialogue on digital regulation with an administration that has been systematically and openly seeking to question that same regulation is not a neutral act.
One of the most serious risks is conflation: the US may seek to use EU tech rules enforcement as a bargaining tool in broader trade discussions. Internal market legislation was designed to ensure fair competition and protect those operating within the European digital economy; it must never become a negotiation instrument.
The DMA in particular is a tool to challenge gatekeeper’s dominance, ensure interoperability, curb lock-in effects, and enable smaller digital businesses to operate on platforms without being subjected to abusive and self-preferencing practices. Any weakening of this instrument falls disproportionately on smaller operators, who have fewer internal capabilities and less market leverage to challenge those abusive practices. Delays or inconsistencies in enforcement directly limit their market access and competitive opportunities.
Furthermore, allowing external political pressure to shape the enforcement of European digital law would jeopardise the broader effort to build European tech sovereignty. Europe has multiple advanced initiatives underway to develop a genuinely independent digital stack. Signalling that EU regulatory independence is negotiable would have lasting and damaging consequences for the Europe’s ability to shape its own strategic autonomy.
Under EU law, the Commission has discretion in how it enforces digital and competition rules. That discretion must be exercised in the interest of European businesses and citizens, through decisive and timely enforcement of rules such as the DMA and DSA.
Where the dialogue should really focus: protecting citizens
In this context, the added value of a broad transatlantic dialogue on digital policy remains questionable. If such dialogue is to take place at all, it should be narrowly and explicitly confined to areas of shared interest where cooperation becomes necessary to achieve a greater shared goal.
The protection of minors and vulnerable users online is one such area. Across Europe, public concern is growing over the impact of digital platforms on children and teenagers, from exposure to harmful content to addictive design features and insufficient age verification mechanisms. This has translated into increasing political pressure in several Member States to act more decisively.
These concerns are closely linked to the practices of large online platforms, many of which are headquartered in the United States. Addressing them requires greater accountability in how digital services are designed and operated, an issue that cannot credibly be dismissed as a trade barrier.
The evidence is critical on both sides of the Atlantic. In March 2026, two landmark US jury verdicts summoned the platforms’ own conduct: a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for failing to protect children from exploitation on its platforms. Another jury in California found YouTube and Meta negligent for deliberately building their platforms to be addictive, concluding that executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users, a verdict tied to more than 1,600 plaintiffs. When accountability comes from their own jurisdiction, the need for full enforcement of the EU digital rulebook becomes all the more compelling.
This underlines the need for cooperation focused on protecting citizens rather than reopening debates on market regulation. The EU should make clear that its regulatory framework, from the DSA’s enhanced protections for minors to concrete initiatives like the newly launched Age Verification App, is not a bargaining chip but a model, one that should inspire transatlantic convergence rather than a race to the bottom.
The European DIGITAL SME Alliance urges the Commission to make one thing clear: EU-US talks on digital policy must not water down, delay, or compromise enforcement of Europe’s digital rules. If anything, those talks should help build a shared international front against the abusive practices that harm the most vulnerable users of digital tools.
This is achievable and necessary. The underlying goal is one both sides agree on: protecting people, not the commercial interests of a few extraordinarily wealthy platform giants. European tech SMEs need a rulebook that holds firm under geopolitical pressure, not one that is reopened under the guise of dialogue.
