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.”

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 — You can even put an exact date on the day when Brussels finally gave up on its decade-long dream of seeking to be the predominant global tech regulator that would rein in American tech titans like Google and Apple.  It came last Wednesday — Nov. 19 — when the European Commission made an outright retreat on its data and privacy rules and hit pause on its AI regulation, all part of an attempt to make European industries more competitive in the global showdown with the United States and China.   It sounded the death knell for what has long been described as the “Brussels Effect” — the idea that the EU would be a trailblazer on tech legislation and set the world’s standards for privacy and AI.  Critics say Washington is now setting the deregulatory trajectory, while U.S. President Donald Trump is battering down Europe’s ambitions by threatening to roll out tariffs against countries that he accuses of attacking “our incredible American Tech Companies.” “I don’t hear anybody in Brussels saying ‘We’re a super regulator’ anymore,” said Marietje Schaake, who shaped Europe’s tech rulebooks as a former European Parliament member and special adviser to the European Commission. The big pivot away from rule-setting came in a “digital omnibus” proposal on Wednesday — a core part of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s “simplification” program to cut red tape to make Europe more competitive. The digital omnibus was one of the “main discussion points” at a meeting between the EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images “Whether you call it ‘simplification’ or ‘deregulation,’ you are certainly moving away from the high watermark era of regulation,” said Anu Bradford, a professor at Columbia University who coined the term “Brussels Effect” in 2012. The deregulation drive followed a year in which the Trump administration pressured the EU to roll back enforcement of its tech rulebooks, which Big Tech giants and Trump himself deem “taxes” targeted at U.S. companies. The digital omnibus was one of the “main discussion points” at a meeting between the EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Monday. “We adopted a major package that would have an impact not only on EU companies, but also on U.S. companies, so this is the appropriate moment … to explain what we’re doing on our side,” European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters on Monday when asked why Virkkunen had discussed the topic with her U.S. counterparts. Lutnick, however, told Bloomberg that Washington was seeking more than just an explanation of EU laws — it wanted changes to its tech rulebooks as well. U.S. giants like Google and Meta have led a full-frontal lobbying push to replace heavy-handed EU enforcement with lighter-touch rules. Behind the push to break the shackles for tech firms is a fear of missing out on the promised economic boom linked to AI technologies. The bloc has traded its role as global tech cop for a ticket to the AI race.  GLOBAL FIRST Brussels showed its ambition to lead the world in regulating the online space throughout the 2010s. In 2016 it adopted the General Data Protection Regulation. Since then, the law has been copied in new legislation across more than 100 countries, said Joe Jones, director of research and insights at the International Association of Privacy Professionals.  When the GDPR came into force, international companies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook acknowledged it spurred them to apply EU privacy standards globally.  It served as a quintessential case of the Brussels Effect: When setting the bar in Brussels, multinational firms would roll out standards across their businesses far beyond the EU’s borders. Other governments, too, copied some of Brussels’ early attempts at setting the rules. After the GDPR, the EU adopted other laws that had the ambition of reining in Big Tech, either by pressing platforms to police for illegal content through its Digital Services Act or by blocking them from using their dominance to favor own services through the Digital Markets Act. Right after the EU adopted its risk-focused AI rulebook, Trump took office and scrapped AI safety rules embraced by his predecessor Joe Biden.  | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The EU’s latest blockbuster tech rulebook, the Artificial Intelligence Act, was Brussels’ latest attempt at pioneering legislation, as it sought to address the risks posed by the fledgling technology. “There was more confidence in the EU’s regulation, partially because the EU seemed confident. Right now, when the EU seems to be retreating, any government around is also asking the same question,” Bradford said. Right after the EU adopted its risk-focused AI rulebook, Trump took office and scrapped AI safety rules embraced by his predecessor Joe Biden.   The changing of the guard in Washington came right as Brussels was waking up to the need to be competitive in a global technology race. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi presented the EU’s competitiveness report in 2024, just weeks before Trump won a second term. “I think the Brussels effect is still alive and well. It just has a bit of the Draghi effect, in that it has a bit of this geopolitical innovation, pro-growth effect in it,” said IAPP’s Jones.  According to German politician Jan Philipp Albrecht, a former European Parliament member who was a chief architect of the GDPR, Europe has become blind to the benefits of its regulatory regime that set the gold standard. “Europeans have no self-secureness anymore … They don’t see the strength in their own market and in their own regulatory and innovative power,” Albrecht said.  WASHINGTON EFFECT Other critics of deregulation are taking a step further, claiming that Washington has hijacked the Brussels Effect — but just on its own terms.   “In an odd way, maybe the Trump administration has taken inspiration from the Brussels Effect, in the sense [that] they see what it means for this one regulating entity to be the one that sets global standards,” said Brian J. Chen, policy director at nonprofit research group Data & Society. It’s just, “they want to be the ones setting those standards,” Chen said. The Trump administration pressured Brussels to tone down its tech regulation during heated trade talks this summer, POLITICO previously reported. That the EU followed through with scaling back its tech laws just as the U.S. is pressing the EU is bad optics, said Schaake, the former lawmaker. “The timing of the whole simplification [package] is very bad,” she said.  She argued that it’s essential to deal with the unnecessary burden on companies, but issuing the digital omnibus after the U.S. pressure “looks like a response to that criticism.” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier dismissed the idea that the EU was acting on U.S. pressure. “On the digital omnibus, absolutely no third country had an influence on our sovereign simplification agenda. Because this omnibus is about Europe: less administrative burden, less overlaps, less costs,” Regnier said in a comment on Friday. “We have always been clear: Europe has its sovereign right to legislate,” Regnier added. “Nothing in the omnibus is watering down our digital legislation and we will keep enforcing it, firmly but always fairly.” This article has been updated to include new developments.

A message from Brussels to Google: Would you break yourself up, please? The search giant faces an early November deadline to say how it intends to comply with a European Commission decision in September, which found that it had illegally maintained its grip on the infrastructure that powers online advertising. With a €2.95 billion fine in the rearview mirror, the Commission and Google find themselves in an unprecedented standoff as Brussels contemplates the once unthinkable: a structural sell-off of part of a U.S. company, preferably voluntary, but potentially forced if necessary. The situation is “very unusual,” said Anne Witt, a professor in competition law at EDHEC Business School in Lille, France. “Structural remedies are almost unprecedented at the EU level,” Witt added. “It’s really the sledgehammer.” In its September decision, the Commission took the “unusual and unprecedented step,” per Witt, to ask Google to design its own remedy — while signaling, if cautiously, that anything short of a sale of parts of its advertising technology business would fall foul of the EU antitrust enforcer. “It appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief, said at the time. As the clock counts down to the deadline for Google to tell the Commission what it intends to do, the possibility of a Brussels-ordered breakup of an American tech champion is unlikely to go unnoticed in Washington, even as the Donald Trump administration pursues its own case against the search giant. (Google accounts for 90 percent of the revenues of Alphabet, the $3.3 trillion technology holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.) Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Google has said that it will appeal the Commission’s decision, which in its view requires changes that would hurt thousands of European businesses. “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, its vice president and global head of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post in September. PARALLEL PROBES The proposal for a voluntary break up of Google marks the culmination of a decade of EU antitrust enforcement in digital markets in which “behavioral” fixes achieved little, and a unique alignment in both timing and substance between the U.S. and the EU of their parallel probes into the firm’s ad tech empire. “It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that there would be a case in the U.S.  and a sister case in Europe that had a breakup as a potential outcome,” said Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Tech Institute, which is advocating for a break-up. The Commission formally launched the investigation into Google’s ad tech stack in 2021, following a drumbeat of complaints from news organizations that had seen Google take control of the high-frequency exchanges where publishers and advertisers agree on the price and placement of online ads.  Google’s control of the exchanges, as well as infrastructure used by both sides of the market, was like allowing Goldman Sachs or Citibank to own the New York Stock Exchange, declared the U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit in 2023. It also created a situation in which cash-strapped news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic saw Google eating an increasing share of revenues from online advertising — and ultimately posing a threat to journalism itself. “This is not just any competition law case — this is about the future of journalism,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Green member of the European Parliament. “Publishers don’t have the revenue because they don’t get traffic on their websites, and then Google’s algorithm decides what information we see,” she said. The plight of publishers proved hefty on the other side of the Atlantic too. In April, the federal judge overseeing the U.S. government’s case against Google ruled that the search giant had illegally maintained its monopoly over parts of the ad tech market.   A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges. | Nurphoto via Getty Images The Virginia district court held a two-week trial on remedies in September. The Trump administration has advocated a sale of the exchanges and an unwinding of Google’s 2008 merger with DoubleClick, through which it came to dominate the online ad market. Judge Leonie Brinkema will hear the government’s closing arguments on Nov. 17 and is expected to issue her verdict in the coming months. STARS ALIGN Viewed by Google’s critics, it’s the ideal set of circumstances for the Commission to push for a muscular structural remedy. “If you cannot go for structural remedies now, when the U.S. is on the same page, then you’re unlikely to ever do it,” said Crider. The route to a breakup may, however, be both legally and politically more challenging. Despite the technical alignment, and a disenchantment with the impact that past fines and behavioral remedies have had, the Commission still faces a “big hurdle” when it comes to the legal test, should it not be satisfied with Google’s remedy offer, said Witt. The U.S. legal system is more conducive to ordering breakups, both as a matter of law — judges have a wide scope to remedy a harm to the market — and in tradition, said Witt, noting that the U.S. government’s lawsuits to break up Google and Meta are rooted in precedents that don’t exist in Europe. Caught in the middle is Google, which should file its proposed remedies within 60 days of being served notice of the Commission decision that was announced on Sept. 5. A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges, and therefore with the notion that structural remedies are necessary. The firm is expected to lodge its appeal in the coming days. While Google has floated asset sales to the Commission over the course of the antitrust investigation, only to be rebuffed by Brussels, the firm does not intend to divest the entirety of its ad tech stack, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. Ultimately, what happens in Brussels may depend on what happens in the U.S. case. While a court-ordered divestiture of a chunk of Google’s ad tech business is conceivable, U.S. judges have shown themselves to be skeptical of structural remedies in recent months, said Lazar Radic, an assistant law professor at IE University in Madrid, who is affiliated with the big tech-friendly International Center for Law and Economics. “Behavioral alternatives are still on the table,” said Radic, of the U.S. case. The Commission will likely want to align itself with the U.S. should the Virginia court side with the Department of Justice, said Damien Geradin, legal counsel to the European Publishers Council — of which POLITICO parent Axel Springer is a member — that brought forward the case. Conversely, if the court opts for a weaker remedy than is being proposed, the Commission will be obliged to go further, he said. “This is the case where some structural remedies will be needed. I don’t think the [European Commission] can settle for less,” said Geradin.

LONDON — Meta will let users in the United Kingdom choose whether to pay for a monthly fee instead of seeing personalized ads on its platforms in an overhaul to its advertising model. Over the coming weeks, Facebook and Instagram users in the U.K. will receive a notification giving them the option to pay £2.99 a month (or £3.99 if done though Apple or Google’s operating systems) for “no ads,” Meta said. Users who don’t pay will continue to see ads, but will “still be able to control their ads experience” using existing settings, Meta said, adding that while it continues to “believe in an ad-supported internet,” the new offer gives U.K. users more control over their data. The move follows a legal challenge settled with the tech giant by campaigner Tanya O’Carroll, who argued that Meta’s targeted advertising constitutes “direct marketing” and it must therefore give users the right to object under U.K. law. The U.K.’s data protection watchdog, the Information Commissioner’s Office, backed O’Carroll in the case. Following the ruling, Meta said it would consider extending a subscription model, which it already offers in the European Union, to the U.K. Dubbed ‘pay or consent,’ the model has proven controversial among privacy advocates. But the ICO concluded this year that it does not contravene U.K. data protection laws if consent is “freely given,” such as by setting an “appropriate fee.” An ICO spokesperson said it welcomed Meta’s announcement but would continue to monitor its roll out and the broader impact of ‘pay or consent’ models. “This moves Meta away from targeting users with ads as part of the standard terms and conditions for using its Facebook and Instagram services, which we’ve been clear is not in line with U.K. law,” they said. Meta said the decision followed “extensive engagement” with the ICO, including over the cost of U.K. subscriptions, which will be a little over half what the company currently charges in Europe (EU users can pay €5.99 a month for ad-free services). The ICO’s “constructive approach” differed from the approach of EU regulators, Meta said, adding that they “continue to overreach by requiring us to provide a less personalized ads experience that goes beyond what the law requires, creating a worse experience for users and businesses.” “In contrast, the U.K.’s more pro-growth and pro-innovation regulatory environment allows for a clearer choice for users, while ensuring our personalized advertising tools can continue to be engines of growth and productivity for companies up and down the country.”

A tech-savvy Italian schoolboy who died in 2006 is to become the first saint from the millennial generation in the Catholic Church on Sunday. Carlo Acutis has been dubbed “God’s influencer” and the “saint in sneakers.” The curly-haired Italian youngster died from leukemia aged 15 but is still celebrated by Catholics for how he put his web skills to use to promote his faith. Having begun coding at the age of eight, Acutis used his programming skills to build websites for the Church, including a site listing all reported miracles. As the Church struggles to connect with young people, Acutis represents a relatable role model, an example of how to evangelize in the digital age. The Church is increasingly recognizing the power of influencers who speak the language of Gen Z on video-sharing platforms like TikTok, and who can counter the Church’s perception of being outdated. Last month the Vatican hosted an event for 1,000 digital missionaries and Catholic influencers as part of its Holy Year celebrations. Catholics influencers have also been credited with a recent surge in young adult and teenage baptisms in countries including France. Initially scheduled for April 27, Acutis’ canonization at the Vatican was postponed when Pope Francis died. Pope Leo XIV is set to lead the mass and canonization in St. Peter’s Square, along with that of another young person, Pier Giorgio Frassati.  Critics have claimed that Acutis’ popularity, which has generated a multitude of books and documentaries about his life, is the result of a marketing campaign from the Church made possible by his family’s wealth and connections. But the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Causes of Saints said Acutis is part of a group of younger people that have been or are to be recognised by the church as evangelists. “Acutis’ canonization, strongly desired by Pope Francis, is not intended to acclaim him as a theologian. … It is intended to demonstrate that even today young Christians can live the Gospel faith in a consistent and all-encompassing way and have a relationship with Christ,” the dicastery wrote. Acutis’ death preceded the rise of social media like Facebook, Instagram and others. But, unlike most other saints, his followers can still watch videos of him talking about his faith. Acutis was moved to the city of Assisi in Umbria in 2017, where his tomb lies. Fittingly, he can be seen through its glass-sided casket on a web camera 24 hours a day, his body dressed in jeans, Nike sneakers and a sweatshirt. More pilgrims come to Assisi to visit Acutis’ tomb than that of St. Francis, buried in the same city, according to the local church. The Church’s newest saint “was well aware that the whole apparatus of communications, advertising and social networking can be used to lull us, to make us addicted to consumerism,” Pope Francis wrote in a 2019 apostolic exhortation, a document on papal teaching. “Yet he knew how to use new technology to transmit the Gospel.”

The European Union and the United States have issued a statement to formalize their tariff truce. Now the hard work begins. The framework agreement builds out the handshake trade agreement struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Donald Trump in Scotland in late July. The text sets out a roadmap for implementing the trade commitments they made. “This is not the end; it’s the beginning. This framework is a first step,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefcovič said. But the document, which runs to only four pages, skirts several issues. For one, it doesn’t mention U.S. calls for the EU to dilute its regulation of Big Tech. Nor does it refer to a call by Brussels for European wines and spirits to be exempted from the 15 percent U.S. baseline tariff that took effect this month. That’s one that Šefcovič still hopes to get a deal on. We break down the wins, the losses, the fudges — and the omissions — from the Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade. CARS  Under the joint statement, the U.S. will lower its 27.5 percent tariffs on cars and automotive parts to match the baseline 15 percent.  But there’s a catch: The U.S. will only meet its lower tariff commitment after the EU eliminates “tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods,” including its own 10 percent tariff on vehicles. Šefčovič said the Commission will initiate legislation this month to ensure Washington lowers tariffs retroactively on cars and auto parts effective Aug. 1, as foreseen in the deal. A separate clause of the joint statement makes clear that the two governments will start collaborating in other areas around cars, including to “provide mutual recognition on each other’s standards.”  The joint statement doesn’t clarify which standards will be mutually recognized, but any change will have ripple effects across the sector. “By signing up to mutual recognition of vehicle standards with the United States, the European Union has waved the white flag on road safety,” said Antonio Avenoso, executive director of the European Transport Safety Council. “This is not a technical detail — it is a political choice that puts trade convenience ahead of saving lives.” — Jordyn Dahl DRUGS, SEMICONDUCTORS, STEEL These industries are at the heart of Washington’s efforts to relocate industry back to the United States and are covered by separate trade investigations, known as Section 232, which allow the U.S. president to restrict imports to protect national security.  The U.S. will cap tariffs on European pharmaceuticals, lumber and semiconductors at 15 percent regardless of the results of the ongoing investigations.  Steel and aluminum imports will continue to face a 50 percent tariff until the EU and the U.S. explore the possibility of joining forces to tackle overproduction. | Erik S. Lesser/EPA This ceiling doesn’t apply to steel and aluminum imports, however, which will continue to face a 50 percent tariff until the EU and the U.S. explore the possibility of joining forces to tackle overproduction — especially coming from China — and the possibility of setting tariff-rate quotas. The European pharmaceuticals industry warns that the outline trade deal could cost companies up to €18 billion. “We remain concerned for the future of patients and our sector in Europe,” said Nathalie Moll, director general at Europe’s EFPIA pharma lobby. Still, while branded pharmaceuticals could end up being subject to the tariffs, the EU did succeed in broadening an exemption for lower-priced generics. — Camille Gijs and Mari Eccles DIGITAL RULES  The European Union managed to keep its rules on digital competition and content moderation out of the U.S. trade deal, despite heavy pressure. For now.  The Commission has for months maintained that its ability to regulate U.S. Big Tech companies is not part of the trade negotiations.  The Trump administration has been on a campaign, attacking both rulebooks and claiming they amount to censorship of Americans (the Digital Services Act) and unfairly target U.S. companies (the Digital Markets Act). While Šefčovič confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the rules weren’t part of the talks, he didn’t rule out that the two sides would return to the issue in the future.  “We kept these issues out of the trade negotiations. We were focusing on what was very clearly the priority and therefore you won’t find it referenced in the joint statement,” he said. “Will it come later, will it be discussed? Our relationship is so vast that for sure there will be a lot of issues which will be discussed.” European Parliament lawmakers will continue to pressure the Commission not to treat the rules as a bargaining chip. “Tech legislation and tariffs are two distinct matters and should remain such,” said Bulgarian conservative lawmaker Eva Maydell. — Pieter Haeck WINES AND SPIRITS Wines and spirits won’t be exempted from tariffs, even though the European Union pushed hard to obtain relief for a sector that has been caught in the crossfire from both Washington and Beijing. This means they will be subject to a 15 percent U.S. tariff.  That’s a blow for European exporters, who long benefited from tariff-free access on most spirits until successive trade wars tore it up. Wines and spirits won’t be exempted from tariffs, even though the European Union pushed hard to obtain relief for a sector that has been caught in the crossfire from both Washington and Beijing. | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA Šefčovič admitted that the talks had fallen short — but insisted the fight isn’t over.  “The tariffs on wine and spirits was one of the very important offensive interests of the European Union. Unfortunately, here we didn’t succeed … but the doors are not closed forever,” he told reporters.  — Bartosz Brzeziński GREEN RULES  The EU made a vague promise to address U.S. concerns regarding EU laws on mandatory sustainability reporting (the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), supply chain oversight (the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) and deforestation (the EU Deforestation Regulation). Brussels mainly pitched ideas it already wants to implement, however.   The EU will ensure its rules “do not pose undue restrictions on transatlantic trade” by reducing the administrative burden on businesses in the CSDDD and by proposing changes to the EU’s civil liability regime, which holds companies legally accountable for human rights violations and environmental damage in their supply chains.   Scrapping the EU’s liability regime is already a major point in the Commission’s omnibus proposal announced last February, which rolls back many features of the CSRD and CSDDD among other files.  Crucially, those changes have not yet received the official green light from EU countries or lawmakers.   On deforestation, the EU says it recognizes that U.S. commodities production “poses negligible risk to global deforestation,” having already labeled the country as “low risk” in its classification system last May.  — Marianne Gros AVIATION Washington commits to exempting aircraft and parts from higher tariffs, applying its very low most favored nation duties to the industry. Irish lobbyists are breathing a collective sigh of relief. A trade war slapping American tariffs on Airbus and European tariffs on Boeing would have hit the industry’s key middleman, Dublin, particularly hard. The Irish capital is the world’s biggest hub for aircraft leasing with an ecosystem of lessors and financial advisers overseeing most of the world’s leased aircraft. Ireland’s Central Statistics Office values that Irish-managed fleet at €268 billion.  Small wonder, then, that Prime Minister Micheál Martin singled out aviation when welcoming the newly published details of the EU-U.S. agreement. “Given the significance of the airline sector to Ireland, a specific carve-out for aircraft and aircraft parts is welcome,” he said. — Shawn Pogatchnik DEFENSE  The EU promised to buy more American weapons under Thursday’s trade deal, although a senior official downplayed any impact on efforts to boost Europe’s military industrial complex. The EU “plans to substantially increase procurement of military and defence equipment from the United States, with the support and facilitation of the U.S. government,” the joint statement said.  That could deal a blow to the European defense industry, which Brussels has been trying to strengthen with initiatives like the €150 billion loans-for-weapons Security Action for Europe regulation to boost joint procurement, or the €1.5 billion European Defence Industry Programme still under discussion with the European Parliament. — Jacopo Barigazzi INVESTMENTS Although it’s unclear how exactly it will fulfill its promises, the EU “intends to” procure $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, including liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear energy products, through 2028.  It will also buy “at least” $40 billion worth of U.S. artificial intelligence chips. Europe already relies heavily on U.S.-based AI chip suppliers such as Nvidia, since it has no own-production capacity in that space.  On top of that, “European companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028,” the document adds. — Camille Gijs and Pieter Haeck

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is struggling to sell its trade deal with the U.S. as it becomes clear that many unresolved issues have been kicked down the road.  In a last-ditch attempt to fend off Donald Trump’s threat to raise tariffs on most EU goods to 30 percent on Aug. 1, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck a preliminary deal with the U.S. president on Sunday that foresees a 15 percent tariff on most imports from the EU.  “I don’t know exactly what day and when the across-the-board tariff will kick in. I can’t tell you precisely now when the exemptions to the across-the-board tariff that we’re working on with our American partners will kick in,” Olof Gill, the EU executive’s trade spokesperson, told reporters at a news briefing Tuesday. “All I can tell you is that we’ve avoided the worst case, we’ve landed on 15 percent, and we will make it work technically with the minimum of costs and the minimum damage for our exporters,” Gill added. Initially, the White House and the European Commission aimed to publish a joint statement by Aug. 1. Whether that will happen, however, is now uncertain, with many details still to be ironed out.  Gill said he couldn’t say “precisely when that joint statement will be ready, but it should be soon.”  Moreover, the White House and the European Commission have published seperate fact sheets on the deal that contain competing information.  The White House states, for example, that “the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15 percent, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors.”  The EU executive asserts that 15 percent tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors will only be imposed once “the U.S. decides on whether to impose additional tariffs on these products pursuant [separate, ongoing investigations in the U.S.].” Further discrepancies remain on tariffs and a quota system on steel and aluminum, on joint work on sanitary certificates and digital market access.  Gill was quick to defend the EU’s regulatory autonomy.  “We don’t change our rules … We are not moving on our right to regulate autonomously in the digital space,” he said.

LONDON — Britain’s antitrust watchdog could force new rules on Apple’s and Google’s mobile platforms to open up competition. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a draft decision Wednesday to designate Google and Apple as having “strategic market status” in mobile under its new digital markets powers. That means it believes the companies have “substantial and entrenched” market power through their app stores, mobile browsers, browser engines and operating systems. If the designation is confirmed later this year then new rules called Conduct Requirements can be placed on Apple and Google. Apple has warned the CMA to avoid any interventions which it claims could impact its customers’ privacy and security. It believes similar moves by the European Commission to enforce interoperability have undermined security and it is appealing a €500 million fine for failure to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act. An Apple spokesperson said: “We’re concerned the rules the U.K. is now considering would undermine the privacy and security protections that our users have come to expect, hamper our ability to innovate, and force us to give away our technology for free to foreign competitors. We will continue to engage with the regulator to make sure they fully understand these risks.” Oliver Bethell, director of competition at Google, described the CMA decision as “disappointing and unwarranted.” “Android is open source and Chrome is built on our browser engine Blink, which is also open source. Together with Play, these offerings enable great choice, security and innovation for users,” he said, adding: “We estimate that Android has saved developers over one million days they would otherwise spend adapting to different operating models for each smartphone — the equivalent of £300 million in reduced costs.” The CMA argues the two companies have a duopoly on mobile platforms in the U.K. and expressed concerns about: commissions charged on in-app purchases, processes around app reviews and rankings, and the firms’ favoring their own services. CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said: “Our investigation so far has identified opportunities for more innovation and choice. “The targeted and proportionate actions we have set out today would enable U.K. app developers to remain at the forefront of global innovation while ensuring U.K. consumers receive a world-class experience. Time is of the essence: as competition agencies and courts globally take action in these markets, it’s essential the U.K. doesn’t fall behind.” The consultations on the companies’ respective designations close on Aug. 20. The CMA has until Oct. 22 to make a final decision. The U.K. investigation into Apple and Google is the CMA’s second probe under its digital markets powers which came into force in January.

The European Commission has launched a review of its digital competition rules for Big Tech and is seeking views on how the regulation has worked to date and whether it needs to be reformed. The Digital Markets Act fully came into effect in the Spring of 2024 and includes a list of do’s and don’ts for the six Big Tech companies that fall under its scope: Meta, Google, Alphabet, Apple, ByteDance and Amazon. The law, which is intended to ensure competition within a tech sector dominated by global giants, has become heavily politicized in recent months, with the U.S. administration accusing the EU of unfairly targeting American companies and classing it as a non-tariff trade barrier in U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war. The EU executive is asking the public to give their views on whether the DMA has met its core objectives to inject fairness and contestability into digital markets, as well as its real-world impact. The Commission is obliged to review the regulation by mid-2026. Interested parties are also asked to give feedback on whether the Commission should modify its list of prescriptions and prohibitions, or the list of core platform services covered by the DMA.  Senior members of the European Parliament have called on their Commission to designate AI chatbots and cloud services under the DMA. The Commission is giving interested parties until September 24 to tell the Commission what they think of the regulation.