The US may have won the battle — but not the war.
That’s the optimistic spin some European analysts are putting on the European Commission’s surprise decision to delay a long-planned fine against American tech giant Google for abusing its market power — a move critics say bows to Washington’s latest pressure campaign.
The EU’s executive arm was expected to announce the penalty against Google this week, concluding a four-year probe into the company’s advertising technology practices. But Brussels is now thought to be holding fire until the US cuts tariffs on European cars, one of the key concessions the EU obtained in an otherwise lopsided trade deal reached with the US over the summer.
A 2023 preliminary Commission finding had already concluded Google was violating EU antitrust rules, while then-competition chief Margarethe Vestager grabbed headlines by floating the idea of breaking up the company.
“What they [Commission officials] are doing is very tactical,” David Kleimann, a senior research associate at the ODI think tank, told The Parliament. “They are trying to control damage, but they have clearly not given up on the medium- to long-term objective of acting autonomously and in line with the laws they have enacted.”
Suzanne Vergnolle, an associate professor of technology law at the Cnam Institute in Paris, echoes the sentiment, noting that transatlantic relations have become so uncertain as to justify a delay.
Brussels’ move to hit pause on the fine comes as US President Donald Trump recently warned on social media that any country imposing digital taxes or tech regulations on US firms would face “substantial additional tariffs” and export restrictions on microchip technologies. He didn’t name the EU explicitly, but the bloc — which has over the past years rolled out sweeping rules under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) — is clearly among the targets.
The attack also comes as Trump’s MAGA movement has openly railed against the DSA, which requires platforms to remove illegal content and disinformation — something that the president’s supporters have framed as an assault on free speech.
So far, however, the Commission has insisted it won’t be cowed. “The recent censorship allegations against our tech legislation are complete nonsense, completely unfounded, completely wrong,” Thomas Regnier, the Commission tech spokesperson, told reporters in late August.
The Commission’s double hat
Still, while an all-out scrapping of landmark tech laws under US pressure remains unlikely, analysts note the EU already has a track record of soft-pedaling enforcement to avoid Washington’s wrath.
“There is already a perception that the way these laws are enforced is being influenced by politics,” said Zach Meyers, director of research at the Centre on European Reform think tank, predicting that future enforcement of the DMA and DSA will likely be shaped with Trump’s reaction in mind.
An investigation into social media platform X has dragged on for over a year since it began in December 2023. At issue are alleged breaches of the DSA, including failures of risk management and content moderation.
Likewise, American giants Apple and Meta were fined with €500 million and €200 million respectively under the DMA — essentially an antitrust package — amounts considered conservative by many industry experts.
Meyers warned that the “politicisation” of competition law could ultimately send the wrong signal to firms operating in Europe. “Big companies may benefit in the short term from special treatment,” he said, “but in the long run, what you really need is a policy environment that is stable and predictable.”
To Vergnolle, the professor, the problem runs even deeper, as she sees the Commission’s dual roles as trade negotiator and enforcer of EU competition law as lending itself to conflicts of interest.
“The two jobs can interfere with each other,” she said, pointing out that, if the DMA and the DSA hadn’t fallen under the Commission’s mandate in the first place, “we would not have had this discussion.”
Big tech vs. Power politics
Trump’s attack on digital rules — and Brussels’ swift decision to freeze a Big Tech fine — points to a blunt reality: In trade and security alike, Brussels is acting on the assumption that the US holds the keys to Ukraine and the continent’s defence.
After months of hedging and hasty concessions, the 27-member bloc signed off on a deal that makes little sense if not factoring in the EU’s dependence on US security guarantees. While Washington offered only limited relief by easing tariffs on European cars and pledging to explore a quota system for steel and aluminium, Brussels widened access for U.S. farm exports and scrapped duties on all American industrial good. In practice, most EU products shipped to the U.S. will still face a 15% tariff, with a few exemptions and much higher rates on sensitive sectors like metals.
“It’s not only about […] trade, it’s about security, it’s about Ukraine, it’s about current geopolitical volatility,” trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told reporters in July, explaining what the EU stood to gain from a move that might otherwise have looked like complete surrender. And while French President Emmanuel Macron has reportedly urged his government to consider retaliation against US platforms, his stance remains an outlier.
Brussels, and indeed most EU capitals, have displayed little appetite for a showdown with Washington, even if that means letting Big Tech off the hook a little bit longer.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.