In a continent of SPAs and GmbHs, what’s the value of an Inc.? A “freedom fries”-style linguistic argument has broken out over the naming of a corporate law proposal for startups, highlighting anti-American sentiment in Europe amid Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during a speech in Davos, suggested using the name “EU Inc.” instead of the somewhat dry “28th regime.” Her suggestion has drawn disdain from the lead lawmaker on the proposal. An American abbreviation like “Inc.” — short for the U.S.-specific “incorporated” legal entity — is “maybe not the right way to call this one” in the current geopolitical context, said René Repasi, a German Social Democrat. The row reflects deeper resistance to the Americanization of language and culture in Europe. In a continent of French Sociétés Anonymes and German GmbHs, Brussels’ embrace of U.S. corporate terminology may be a bridge too far. Some lawmakers have been rankled by the rise of “Acts” — from the Digital Markets Act to the AI Act — which mirror the punchy legislative branding of Capitol Hill, abandoning traditional European “directives” and “regulations” when used in the EU executive’s primary communication method, English. Von der Leyen has also come under fire for rolling back her green agenda during her current, second mandate. Critics have said her drive to cut red tape is a poorly disguised attempt to appease President Donald Trump, who has criticized EU regulation for discriminating against U.S. business. This latest geopolitically flavored semantic squabble summons memories of 2003, when an American lawmaker — upset with France’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq — renamed “French fries” as “freedom fries” in three congressional cafeterias. Repasi’s proposal for the 28th regime rebrand? Societas Europaea Unificata (S.EU), a Latin-derived term that translates to “unified European company.” Parliament voted in favor of his choice of name, which echoes past proposals like the 2008 Societas Privata Europaea. “We go back to the roots of our continent’s languages,” said Repasi, explaining Parliament’s choice of a Latin-derived term rather than an American abbreviation. “I cannot be the only one who struggles to pronounce the proposed name of the new corporate form,” Kim van Sparrentak said in Monday’s debate on the proposal. (The Dutch Greens MEP still voted for the proposal with the Latin-rooted name.) COVERING THE BASIS Beyond the naming spat, there are more profound ideological splits over the regime to create a single EU window for registering companies, which Commissioner Michael McGrath is expected to unveil in late March. The idea is to create a flourishing startup landscape, and stem a flight of talent and ideas across the Atlantic. Repasi warned that the regime must not become a vehicle for “charlatans” to escape labor standards, echoing a complaint from Lukas Mandl, of the European People’s Party, that the proposal should not give rise to a “gold digger mentality” that could destabilize the European social partnership model. “If there is no credible solution how employee participation … can be secured, I see difficulties that the progressive side of the House can support such a 28th regime,” he said, citing the failure of previous attempts like the SPE and SUP due to the same issue. Another substantive issue may prove to be its legal basis, on which lawmakers haven’t yet agreed. It’s on this issue that the creators of the “EU Inc.” naming proposal — who were delighted to see von der Leyen endorse it — are really hoping to make an impact. The “EU Inc.” movement, led by founders who have taken their roadshow to capitals across the bloc, is pushing for a regulation to ensure a single, directly applicable rulebook that prevents member states from “gold-plating” the law with national quirks. If von der Leyen “chooses a title that’s very dear to pressure groups, that guarantees applause,” said Repasi, worrying that the Commission may put forward a proposal that would impinge on national labor rules. The new name in particular “sends a wrong signal,” said Repasi. The Parliament’s report steers towards what Repasi describes as a more pragmatic directive, a choice rooted in what he says is Council arithmetic. A regulation on corporate law would require the unanimous consent of all 27 member countries, a high bar that Repasi fears would create a “Frankenstein’s monster” as each capital demands its own specific national carve-outs .  By opting for a directive, the EU can move forward via qualified majority voting, bypassing the “unanimity trap” that famously saw previous attempts at corporate law harmonization languish for decades. “If we want to have a regulation which ends up in unanimity … we can wait for Godot,” said Repasi.

BRUSSELS — Meta has formally committed to offering EU users a new “third alternative” for advertising on Facebook and Instagram, as it seeks to resolve a high-stakes investigation under the Digital Markets Act. The European Commission announced on Monday that, following a dialogue, the Facebook parent would introduce a “hybrid approach” whereby users can opt for a free service driven by less personalized data. This new model is intended to break the binary choice currently facing users: either consent to full tracking or pay for a subscription. “This is very positive news for consumers in the EU,” said Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier, noting that the new option — described as a gray zone between full consent and a paywall — is slated for rollout in January 2026. A Meta spokesperson acknowledged the Commission’s statement while defending the economic importance of its data practices. “Personalized ads are vital for Europe’s economy,” the spokesperson said. The main EU consumer lobby group gave a guarded welcome. “We will be very closely analysing what Meta puts out in January, given that it has failed since November 2023 to provide consumers with a fair choice on ads that complies with the law,” said Agustín Reyna, director-general of the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC). The Commission has been in discussions with Meta ever since it issued the U.S. firm with a €200 million fine in April for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act, which regulates large online platforms. The Commission will now watch closely to monitor the changes, said Regnier, adding that the case is not yet closed. This story has been updated.

LISBON — Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission should continue to enforce its digital rules with an iron fist despite the outcry from U.S. officials and big tech moguls, co-chair of the Greens in the European Parliament Bas Eickhout told POLITICO. As Green politicians from across Europe gather in the Portuguese capital for their annual congress, U.S. top officials are blasting the EU for imposing a penalty on social media platform X for breaching its transparency obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s content moderation rule book. “They should just implement the law, which means they need to be tougher,” Eickhout told POLITICO on the sidelines of the event. He argued that the fine of €120 million is “nothing” for billionaire Elon Musk and that the EU executive should go further. The Commission needs to “make clear that we should be proud of our policies … we are the only ones fighting American Big Tech,” he said, adding that tech companies are “killing freedom of speech in Europe.” The Greens have in the past denounced Meta and X over their content moderation policies, arguing these platforms amplify “disinformation” and “extremism” and interfere in European electoral processes. Meta and X did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication. Meta has “introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU,” a Meta spokesperson said at the end of October. Tech mogul Musk said his response to the penalty would target the EU officials who imposed it. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the fine is “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” and accused the move of “censorship.” “It’s not good when our former allies in Washington are now working hand in glove with Big Tech,” blasted European Green Party chair Ciarán Cuffe at the opening of the congress in Lisbon. Eickhout, whose party GreenLeft-Labor alliance is in negotiations to enter government in the Netherlands, said “we should pick on this battle and stand strong.” The Commission’s decision to fine X under the EU’s Digital Services Act is over transparency concerns. The Commission said the design of X’s blue checkmark is “deceptive,” after it was changed from user verification into a paid feature. The EU’s executive also said X’s advertising library lacks transparency and that it fails to provide access to public data for researchers as required by the law.  Eickhout lamented that European governments are slow in condemning the U.S. moves against the EU, and argued that with its recent national security strategy, the Americans have made clear their objective is to divide Europe from within by fueling far-right parties. “Some of the leaders like [French President Emmanuel] Macron are still desperately trying to say that that the United States are our ally,” Eickhout said. “I want to see urgency on how Europe is going to take its own path and not rely on the U.S. anymore, because it’s clear we cannot.”

The European Commission has lost access to its control panel for buying and tracking ads on Elon Musk’s X — after fining the social media platform €120 million for violating EU transparency rules. “Your ad account has been terminated,” X’s head of product, Nikita Bier, wrote on the platform early Sunday. Bier accused the EU executive of trying to amplify its own social media post about the fine on X by trying “to take advantage of an exploit in our Ad Composer — to post a link that deceives users into thinking it’s a video and to artificially increase its reach.” The Commission fined X on Thursday for breaching the EU’s rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to limit the spread of illegal content. The breaches included a lack of transparency around X’s advertising library and the company’s decision to change its trademark blue checkmark from a means of verification to a “deceptive” paid feature. “The irony of your announcement,” Bier said. “X believes everyone should have an equal voice on our platform. However, it seems you believe that the rules should not apply to your account.” Trump administration has criticized the DSA and the Digital Markets Act, which prevent large online platforms, such as Google, Amazon and Meta, from overextending their online empires. The White House has accused the rules of discriminating against U.S. companies, and the fine will likely amplify transatlantic trade tensions. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has already threatened to keep 50 percent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminum unless the EU loosens its digital rules. U.S. Vice President JD Vance blasted Brussels’ action, describing the fine as a response for “not engaging in censorship” — a notion the Commission has dismissed. “The DSA is having not to do with censorship,” said the EU’s tech czar, Henna Virkkunen, told reporters on Thursday. “This decision is about the transparency of X.”

BRUSSELS — European politicians expressed cautious praise as Brussels slapped a €120 million fine on Elon Musk’s X on Friday, despite American fury over the decision.  The reaction from national diplomats and lawmakers illustrated broad support as the EU finally crossed a Rubicon and issued its first fine under the EU’s rule book to rein in social media platforms, more than two years after it started its enforcement effort.  The divide between the reaction from European capitals and U.S. Vice President JD Vance — who slammed the move before it was announced — sets up a clash that is set to persist as Brussels turns its attention to more enforcement decisions under the Digital Services Act (DSA), and will likely spill into ongoing transatlantic trade talks. Friday’s decision “sends an important signal that the Commission is determined to enforce the DSA,” said Karsten Wildberger, Germany’s digital minister, during a meeting of EU ministers in Brussels. Polish Digital Minister Dariusz Standerski applauded it as a sign of “strong leadership.” After French President Emmanuel Macron last week expressed outspoken criticism of the EU for slow-walking the conclusions, his digital minister, Anne Le Hénanff, said Friday: “France fully supports this decision … which sends a clear message to all platforms.” She later described it as a “magnificent announcement.” Washington meanwhile was quick out of the gate to slam the move from Brussels, with Vance chiming in half a day before the fine was announced to describe it as a penalty “for not engaging in censorship.” He repeated the U.S. mantra of the past year that the EU’s DSA amounts to censorship and restricted speech. “Once again, Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company,” said Brendan Carr, the chair of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in reaction to the decision. “Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations.” “The only substantial meaningful fines that have been imposed so far have been against American companies,” Andrew Puzder, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, told Bloomberg Television. “So at some point, if you’re an American company, you’ve gotta sit back and say, look, am I being targeted here?” Asked for a response, the White House directed POLITICO to Vance’s earlier post. Much of the praise in Europe focused on the assessment that the EU didn’t bow to U.S. pressure, neither on the actual fine nor the enforcement steps — even if the move was seen as long overdue. “The Commission held the line,” said Felix Kartte, currently a special adviser to the European Commission.   “It’s important that the EU does not cave to pressure,” said Marietje Schaake, a former MEP and former Commission adviser.  “I am very pleased to see that the Commission is taking serious steps against the intolerable practices we encounter from some of the major tech platforms. Let’s have more of that!” said Danish digital minister Caroline Stage Olsen.  Several European Parliament lawmakers joined the praise but warned this is only the beginning, noting this is the first of several outstanding probes under the DSA, including others against X. Friday’s decision only concerned X’s transparency obligations; X still faces open probes over the spread of illegal content and information manipulation.  In total, 10 investigations into large platforms including Amazon, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are still up in the air. “This is an important start, but not a breakthrough,” said German Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese. “As long as the Commission fails to rule on the algorithms, the central level of manipulation remains untouched.”   French liberal lawmaker Sandro Gozi urged that “this long overdue decision must mark a step change,” while Danish Social Democrat Christel Schaldemose said she wanted “far greater transparency” on how the Commission enforces the DSA.  Speaking to reporters Friday, Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen stressed repeatedly that this is only part of the investigation into X. Acknowledging the criticisms that the EU has been slow to reach this point, she promised that the next decisions would come quicker.   Other observers criticized the size of the X penalty. A fine of €120 million is seen as relatively modest compared to the €2.95 billion fine that Google got for antitrust issues under the bloc’s sister digital law, the Digital Markets Act.   “120m is no deterrent to X,” said Cori Crider, executive director at the Future of Technology Institute. “Musk will moan in public — in private, he will be doing cartwheels.”   “Yes, the fine may seem small,” acknowledged Kartte. The DSA law says fines will take into account “the nature, gravity, duration and recurrence of the infringement” and cannot exceed 6 percent of a company’s annual global turnover.  Commission officials refused to give a clear answer on how they came to the €120 million figure when pressed. A senior official repeatedly said the fine is “proportionate” to the infringement. But how it was calculated can’t be “drilled down to a simple economic formula,” they said. The official said the Commission has found three entities behind X; X Holdings Companies, xAI and Elon Musk “at the top.”   The fine is “for a breach committed by X” but “addressed to the entire corporate structure,” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters.   Based on estimates of company values, that means the upper threshold could have reached as high as €5.9 billion.

French President Emmanuel Macron said Brussels is too slow in its handling of probes into American Big Tech companies due to U.S. pressure over the EU’s digital laws. “We have cases that have been before the Commission for two years. It’s much too slow,” Macron said Friday in reference to the EU’s content moderation rule book, the Digital Services Act (DSA). The debate around the matter is “not gaining momentum,” Macron told a local town hall event in the Vosges region, and “many in the Commission and member states are afraid to pursue it because there’s an American offensive against the application of directives on digital services and markets.” Macron promised to push for action at the EU level, adding: “We have a geopolitical battle to fight. This is not Russian interference, it is clearly American because these platforms do not want us to bother them.” Macron’s remarks follow a week that saw renewed pressure from the U.S. over the EU’s two tech rulebooks, the DSA and the Digital Markets Act. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick urged EU ministers on Monday to “reconsider” the rulebooks in exchange for lower U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs, in line with the American playbook of treating the EU’s tech rules as a bargaining chip in a transatlantic trade war. The rules have been a target for the U.S. administration and tech executives ever since President Donald Trump returned to office. Both the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, and her competition colleague, Teresa Ribera, came out against the U.S. pressure this week, with the latter accusing Washington of “blackmail.” The European Commission is also under pressure from European Parliament lawmakers, with the Socialists and Democrats group moving to set up an inquiry committee to investigate the EU’s enforcement of digital rules. Responding to Macron’s remarks, European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said: “We have been very clear since the very beginning: We are fully behind our digital legislation and are enforcing it.” He argued that “some cases take a bit more time than others, because the DSA investigations are broad.” “The Commission services are building solid cases, because we have to win them in court,” he said. The EU has investigations open under the DSA into X, Meta, AliExpress, Temu and TikTok. The probes could lead to fines of 6 percent of a company’s annual global turnover, but none have been levied so far.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s antitrust chief Teresa Ribera has unleashed a blistering attack on the Trump administration, accusing Washington of using “blackmail” to strong-arm the EU into watering down its tech rulebook. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Monday in Brussels that the U.S. could modify its approach on steel and aluminum tariffs if the EU reconsidered its digital rules. European officials interpreted his remarks as an attack against the EU’s flagship tech regulations, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA). “It is blackmail,” the Spanish commissioner told POLITICO in an interview on Wednesday. “[This] being their intention does not mean that we accept that kind of blackmail.” Ribera — who as executive vice president of the Commission ranks second to President Ursula von der Leyen — said the EU’s digital rulebook should have nothing to do with trade negotiations. Donald Trump’s team is seeking to overhaul the framework trade agreement he struck with von der Leyen at his Scottish golf resort in July. The intervention lands at a sensitive time in ongoing trade talks. Washington views the DMA as discriminatory because the large technology platforms it regulates — like Microsoft, Google or Amazon — are nearly all American. It also takes exception to the Digital Services Act, which seeks to curb illegal online speech, seeing it as designed to restrict social networks like Elon Musk’s X. Ribera said the rules were a matter of sovereignty and should not be brought into the scope of a trade negotiation. “We respect the rules, whatever rules, they’ve got for their market: digital market, health sector, steel, whatever … cars, standards,” she said referring to the U.S. “It is their problem. It is their regulation and their sovereignty. So it is the case here.”  Ribera, along with EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen, oversees the DMA, which polices the behavior of large digital platforms and seeks to uphold fair competition. She weighed in forcefully on comments Lutnick made after he met EU officials and ministers on Monday, saying “the European digital rulebook is not up for negotiation.” Virkkunen echoed that view on Tuesday. On Monday she presented the EU’s simplification package, including the digital omnibus proposal, to her American counterparts. The package has been presented as an EU-centric push to reduce red tape, but interpreted by some as an attempt to address the concerns of U.S. Big Tech around regulation. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Monday in Brussels that the U.S. could modify its approach on steel and aluminum tariffs if the EU reconsidered its digital rules. | Nicolas Tucat/Getty Images Asked why she had made such a strong statement, Ribera answered that Lutnick’s remarks were “a direct attack against the DMA.” She added: “It is under my responsibility to defend a well-functioning digital market in Europe.”  CRACKS ARE SHOWING Despite the uncompromising response from Ribera, solidarity over the DMA is starting to show subtle cracks among EU countries.  Lutnick said after Monday’s meeting that some EU trade ministers weren’t as resistant as the Commission to the idea of reviewing the bloc’s digital rules. “I see a lot of ministers … some are more open-minded than others,” he told Bloomberg TV, saying that if Europe wants U.S. investment it should change its regulatory model. At least one European participant appeared to agree. Germany’s Katherina Reiche, speaking on the sidelines of the meeting, told reporters that she was in favor of a further loosening of the EU’s digital rules.  “Germany has made it clear that we want opportunities to play a part in the digital world,” said Reiche, specifically citing the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. Washington’s lobbying effort to weaken the EU’s digital rulebook comes amid a broader global push by the U.S. to weaken digital laws in foreign jurisdictions.  This month, South Korea caved to lobbying efforts by the Trump administration and walked back its own proposed digital competition regime.  The U.S. Trade Representative is preparing its 2026 report and launching another round of consultations in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, the Commission is trudging forward with an assessment of the rules under its “Digital Fairness Fitness Check” and the ongoing DMA review. But with Washington lobbing grenades and EU countries breaking ranks, the question isn’t just what the review says — it’s whether the DMA can survive the trade war.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission may act as sole enforcer of the EU’s Big Tech rules, but a settlement reached between Google and an Italian regulator demonstrates there is still plenty of room for its national counterparts to drive the agenda. The Italian Competition Authority disclosed on Friday that it had reached a settlement with the U.S. search giant to modify the design of its terms and conditions for users to consent to sharing their data. The investigation, which accused the tech giant of using “misleading and aggressive” commercial practices to get users to link services like Maps and Search, thus violating Italian consumer protection rules, struck at conduct that is also covered by the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA). While the DMA was designed to centralize digital enforcement in Brussels, it has not boxed out national regulators from pursuing Big Tech cases.  Responding on Monday, the Commission welcomed Google’s Italian settlement and said the changes it foresees would be rolled out EU-wide. “Google’s commitments are a good example of how the work of national authorities on consumer protection law complements the Commission’s enforcement of the DMA to achieve better results,” a Commission spokesperson said. “Google will change its consent screens to provide clearer, more accurate information — both about how Google combines and cross-uses personal data and what the implications of consent are for users.” The EU’s digital rules are a major concern for the Donald Trump administration, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick raised the matter on a visit to Brussels on Monday. Lutnick called for the bloc to “take the foot off this regulatory framework,” and held out the prospect of cooperation in other areas, like steel, in return. Washington’s main gripe is that the DMA, by design, targets the largest technology platform companies — and these are chiefly American. In addition, Google was recently fined nearly €3 billion in an antitrust case in which the EU’s trust busters found it had unfairly squeezed digital advertising customers. The search giant last week proposed a series of tweaks in response to the landmark antitrust decision, but snubbed calls to break itself up. CONTINENTAL PATCHWORK In the Commission’s ongoing review of the DMA, some tech sector stakeholders have raised concerns that this could recreate a patchwork of national rules that the regulation is supposed to harmonize. Google had argued to the Italian regulator that this issue should be handled by the Commission given its status as a gatekeeper, an argument that the Rome-based agency rejected citing jurisprudence that allows Italian consumer law to apply. The EU’s digital rules are a major concern for the Donald Trump administration, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick raised the matter on a visit to Brussels. | Pool photo by Aaron Schwartz/EPA In its decision, the Italian Competition and Consumer Protection Authority said it had cooperated with the Commission on the case and engaged trilaterally on the remedies. The Italian regulator opened the case in 2024, shortly after the DMA came into effect, accusing Google of using misleading and aggressive commercial practices to get users to link services like Maps and Search. Google has now agreed to redesign the choice screen and prompt all of its Italian users to choose their data preferences once again. The broader design changes however will impact all European users. “Following coordinated discussions with the [European Commission] and [the Italian Competition Authority], we are making simple updates to our existing information screens we show users, to decide if they want to link our services,” said a spokesperson for Google. While the Commission has, to date, not specified its view on Google’s compliance with the DMA on data consent, the company’s solution has garnered criticism from consumer groups like BEUC for misleading users. In that vacuum, the Italians acted. Nor was it the first national agency to do so. Before the DMA came into effect, the German competition authority had intervened in Google’s data use policy on the basis of its national digital competition rules, leading to EU-wide remedies that saw DMA-like rules extended beyond designated services like Search to others like Gmail.

Interpreters of Brussels, beware. After a public spat with the European Commission in September, Apple now says that it plans to roll out its live translation feature for AirPods in the coming month. “We had to delay the launch while we undertook additional engineering work to comply with European Commission rules,” a spokesperson for Apple said in a statement. The iPhone maker had previously warned that European users would not be able to access the real-time translation feature through their earbuds due to its interpretation of its obligations under the EU’s rulebook for big tech platforms, the Digital Markets Act. The EU rules mandate certain features in Apple’s phones and tablets to ensure interoperability with competitor devices. Apple has challenged those obligations in the EU courts. According to Apple, the firm had to develop a “complicated” solution to comply with the DMA, creating a new audio-routing API so third-party apps and devices could manage simultaneous audio paths.  The firm takes the position that had it shared the feature sooner, it would have been fined and forced to stop shipping products in the EU. The spokesperson said that Apple remained deeply concerned that the European Commission’s “aggressive” interpretations of the rules are putting “users at risk and is bad for innovation.” “In the EU, the aim of our digital legislation is to preserve innovation and freedom of choice,” said a spokesperson for the European Commission. “And this is exactly what we see today.”

BRUSSELS — Tech firms are spending more than ever on lobbying the EU amid mounting opposition to the bloc’s digital rules, according to new analysis. The 733 digital industry groups registered in Brussels now spend €151 million a year pushing their interests, up from €113 million two years ago, per an analysis of disclosures to the EU’s transparency register by two campaign groups. The uptick comes amid attacks from industry against EU laws like the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act — which the Trump administration says discriminate against U.S. companies — and as the European Commission prepares a massive effort to dial back its digital rulebooks. Lobbying spending is concentrated in the hands of tech giants, mainly from the U.S., according to the analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, two non-profit campaign groups focused on corporate influence. The ten largest technology spenders — which include Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Qualcomm and Google — outspent the top ten firms in pharmaceuticals, finance and the automotive industries combined. Amazon, Microsoft and Meta have “noticeably” ramped up their expenditure since 2023, by more than €4 million for Amazon and €2 million for Microsoft and Meta, the analysis said. The Brussels-based lobby group Digital Europe, which includes many U.S.-based tech giants among its members, added more than €1 million to its lobbying budget. Meta, with a budget of more than €10 million, is the overall largest lobby spender in the EU. This is a “precarious moment,” said Bram Vranken, a researcher at Corporate Observatory Europe, arguing that years of progress in limiting the harmful effects of technology and the power of Big Tech risks being reversed. With the deregulation push in Brussels and strong industry support in Washington, “Big Tech is seizing this new political reality to erase a decade of progress to regulate the digital sector,” he said. Tech firms would argue that lobbying is not only about exerting influence but also about ensuring that lawmakers understand the complex realities of the industry to inform their decisions on the rules. “Amazon engages on issues that are important to our customers, sellers, and the diverse range of businesses we operate,” a spokesperson for the U.S. firm said in a statement. “This means we work with organisations like trade associations and think tanks, and communicate with officials at the European Institutions.” MORE LOBBYISTS, MORE MEETINGS The boost in activity is seen not only in higher spending, including on consulting and advisory firms hired to influence digital policy, but also in a rising headcount of registered tech lobbyists. There are now an estimated 890 lobbyists — calculated as full-time equivalents — working to shape the tech agenda, up from 699 in 2023. Of these, 437 have badges allowing them to access the European Parliament freely. Access to the institution has become tougher in recent years in reaction to a series of corruption scandals — including investigations into Huawei that saw the company banned from accessing the Parliament and meeting with the Commission in March. In the first half of 2025, representatives of tech companies declared 146 meetings with Commission staff. Artificial intelligence, including a highly disputed industry code of practice, was the main topic on the agenda. As for lawmakers in Parliament, tech lobbyists declared 232 meetings. Transparency rules for declaring meetings between lobbyists and Commission and Parliament officials have expanded in recent years, but transparency campaigners say they still lack teeth and accountability.