The U.S. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, alongside Representative Scott Fitzgerald, has demanded that European Union (EU) antitrust chief Teresa Ribera provide clarity on the bloc’s regulatory approach to Big Tech companies. In a letter sent on Sunday, Jordan raised concerns over what he described as the EU’s disproportionate targeting of American technology firms through its Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA).
The letter follows a memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump two days prior, signaling that his administration would closely scrutinize the impact of the EU’s digital regulations on American businesses. Trump’s memorandum warns that the U.S. government will not tolerate regulatory measures that unduly restrict American companies’ ability to compete fairly in the European market.
Jordan and Fitzgerald argue that the EU’s policies impose hefty fines on U.S. firms while appearing to favor European competitors. The DMA and DSA were introduced to curb the dominance of major technology platforms and promote fair competition within digital markets. However, U.S. lawmakers claim that these rules are selectively enforced against American companies such as Google, Meta, and Amazon while European firms escape similar scrutiny.
In their letter, Jordan and Fitzgerald also suggested that the EU’s regulations could ultimately benefit Chinese companies, allowing them to gain a stronger foothold in the European market at the expense of U.S. firms. This assertion aligns with broader concerns within the U.S. political establishment about China’s growing technological influence and the need for American companies to maintain their global competitiveness.
The EU has maintained that its regulatory framework is designed to ensure a level playing field, protect consumer interests, and prevent monopolistic practices. The European Commission, under Ribera’s leadership, has been actively enforcing antitrust measures against Big Tech, issuing multi-billion-dollar fines and mandating changes to business practices deemed anti-competitive.
EU officials have previously defended their actions, arguing that the regulations apply equally to all tech firms operating in Europe, regardless of their country of origin. However, the ongoing friction between the U.S. and EU highlights a broader struggle over digital sovereignty and regulatory influence in global tech markets.
The demand for clarification from Ribera underscores the rising tensions between Washington and Brussels over digital market regulations. While the U.S. government seeks to protect its tech giants from what it sees as unfair targeting, the EU insists that its rules are essential to maintaining competition and safeguarding consumers.
As this dispute unfolds, the response from the EU antitrust chief will likely shape the future of transatlantic tech relations, determining whether diplomatic negotiations or further regulatory confrontations will define the path forward.
