I will just say to those of you cheerleading the EU on this that what you are actually cheerleading is the undermining of the rule of law. And what's going on with EU regulators "enforcing" the DMA erodes the rule of law in a way that is entirely insidious and perhaps even more dangerous than what's going on in the US right now. It doesn't matter what the regulators intentions are, they have created and are part of a process that so corrupts the notion of law as to render it meaningless.
This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.
Something as nebulous as "spirit" isn't law because laws must clearly state what they mean. How can anyone know if they are following the law, or breaking it, if the laws is so ill defined as to depend entirely on the "interpretation" that regulators choose to give it. Even in announcing these fines against Apple, they haven't said exactly how Apple "violated" the law, nor exactly how they could be in compliance. Instead there is hand waving verbiage that states Apple hasn't done enough and isn't in compliance, but nothing at all on what compliance would actually look like. How could anyone know if they are compliant if they don't know what compliance is? It's like posting a sign, "Speed Limit", with no indication of what that limit is but telling motorists that they must follow the spirit of the speed limit.
No, this "law" and its "enforcement" depend entirely on the whims of the regulators. Are these really the kinds of "laws" you want in the EU? "Laws" where the meaning of the "law" is whatever the authorities decide it is and you can never know if you are following or breaking it? "Laws" that can change whenever new people begin "enforcing" them? Sure, a lot of you don't care, or even think it's great, because this "law" is being used right now to target American companies. As a European, it won't affect you, right? But, who knows what the future may bring and "regulators" decide to turn "laws" like this against you. Perhaps right now there are no other "laws" like this, but there may well be more, and who knows whom they may target? You are creating a model where a pretense for law replaces real laws with entirely subjective "rules" that are whatever those in charge want them to be.
To paraphrase: First they came for the American tech companies, and I did not speak out because I was not an American tech company. I'm sure you know the reference, and this is where you are heading.
It's a 'law'. It's a regulation and has to be complied with.
If you want to trace the legal why and the how you can go right back to one of the pillars of the EU: The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as it is now known).
As for the spirit of the law. I suggest you read up on 'floor' clauses in mortgage contracts which were deemed illegal in virtually all cases, not that they are (in fact, they are perfectly legal) but because they were not communicated to consumers in a suitable fashion. In spite of being very clearly laid out in the mortgage deeds and having a public notary read them at the signing.
The case was escalated to the ECB by a Spanish judge.
The ruling (now firm) led to banks returning billions to consumers. Other similar banking abuses have also fallen foul to the ECB. I, myself am in the process of reclaiming mortgage charges that were applied to me in 2004 and that the ECB has considered unfair. Some banks are automatically calculating and refunding those charges (most without applying legal interest to the sums and hoping consumers will accept it) and others are basically dragging their feet and seeing if consumers will take them to court. If that happens and consumers have the relevant invoices etc, the bank will lose have to pay the costs and very probably the interest.
Of course, this isn't DSA/DMA related. That is too new to speak of, and Apple has already said it will appeal. We will see how that goes but Apple won't be claiming it isn't a law.
It's not only US companies that get whacked, of course.
I dunno what Trump is on, but it's none of his business. The EU makes its own laws to benefit its citizens, just like the US does. The man's a megalomaniac, who just wants the world to be according to Trump. He needs to get his own house in order before commenting on others.
I will just say to those of you cheerleading the EU on this that what you are actually cheerleading is the undermining of the rule of law. And what's going on with EU regulators "enforcing" the DMA erodes the rule of law in a way that is entirely insidious and perhaps even more dangerous than what's going on in the US right now. It doesn't matter what the regulators intentions are, they have created and are part of a process that so corrupts the notion of law as to render it meaningless.
This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.
Something as nebulous as "spirit" isn't law because laws must clearly state what they mean. How can anyone know if they are following the law, or breaking it, if the laws is so ill defined as to depend entirely on the "interpretation" that regulators choose to give it. Even in announcing these fines against Apple, they haven't said exactly how Apple "violated" the law, nor exactly how they could be in compliance. Instead there is hand waving verbiage that states Apple hasn't done enough and isn't in compliance, but nothing at all on what compliance would actually look like. How could anyone know if they are compliant if they don't know what compliance is? It's like posting a sign, "Speed Limit", with no indication of what that limit is but telling motorists that they must follow the spirit of the speed limit.
No, this "law" and its "enforcement" depend entirely on the whims of the regulators. Are these really the kinds of "laws" you want in the EU? "Laws" where the meaning of the "law" is whatever the authorities decide it is and you can never know if you are following or breaking it? "Laws" that can change whenever new people begin "enforcing" them? Sure, a lot of you don't care, or even think it's great, because this "law" is being used right now to target American companies. As a European, it won't affect you, right? But, who knows what the future may bring and "regulators" decide to turn "laws" like this against you. Perhaps right now there are no other "laws" like this, but there may well be more, and who knows whom they may target? You are creating a model where a pretense for law replaces real laws with entirely subjective "rules" that are whatever those in charge want them to be.
To paraphrase: First they came for the American tech companies, and I did not speak out because I was not an American tech company. I'm sure you know the reference, and this is where you are heading.
It's a 'law'. It's a regulation and has to be complied with.
If you want to trace the legal why and the how you can go right back to one of the pillars of the EU: The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as it is now known).
As for the spirit of the law. I suggest you read up on 'floor' clauses in mortgage contracts which were deemed illegal in virtually all cases, not that they are (in fact, they are perfectly legal) but because they were not communicated to consumers in a suitable fashion. In spite of being very clearly laid out in the mortgage deeds and having a public notary read them at the signing.
The case was escalated to the ECB by a Spanish judge.
The ruling (now firm) led to banks returning billions to consumers. Other similar banking abuses have also fallen foul to the ECB. I, myself am in the process of reclaiming mortgage charges that were applied to me in 2004 and that the ECB has considered unfair. Some banks are automatically calculating and refunding those charges (most without applying legal interest to the sums and hoping consumers will accept it) and others are basically dragging their feet and seeing if consumers will take them to court. If that happens and consumers have the relevant invoices etc, the bank will lose have to pay the costs and very probably the interest.
Of course, this isn't DSA/DMA related. That is too new to speak of, and Apple has already said it will appeal. We will see how that goes but Apple won't be claiming it isn't a law.
It's not only US companies that get whacked, of course.
So, tell us, based solely on the DMA and statements by regulators prior to announcing fines, what exactly would compliance look like? Please support your explanation by citing the appropriate sections of the DMA and/or regulator statements made prior to announcing fines that spell this out. Oh, and for regulator statements, please give dates and who made the statement.
danox said: The European Union is making a mistake by not attempting to establish an environment conducive to company growth, akin to the early Silicon Valley. This region boasts nearby schools, research labs, infrastructure, and a relatively open society in California, which contribute to its success.
EU has actively supported 30 industrial clusters since 2021: https://www.clustercollaboration.eu/euroclusters Just returned this week from Toulouse, France - home of the European Aerospace and Defence cluster. The city is filled with schools, research, Airbus, and infrastructure. Venture capital is also moving in. Same for renewable energy: https://www.elbealliance.eu/key-figures
Apple has been harmed horribly by these extortionate tactics and it must be reversed.
Trying to lower the fine amount to fly under the radar would never work as predicted.
No more abusive treatment toward Apple or any American/American company. Enough is enough. The entire dma must be deleted. It was wrong at the stsrt and it’s wrong now.
Every time time the eu steals money from an American tech company, their tarriffs should go up and sanctions implemented.
Whitehouse is right here IMO. Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.
It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing. Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.
Tim Cook is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Apple has, since its inception, tried to coexist peacefully in the world market while still holding on to its core values that do not always align with the whims of any particular center of power.
Just look at how well Apple has been able to remain relevant to consumers in China, South Korea, Brazil, the EU, etc., even as the political situation in those countries did not always play in harmony with the political and/or social climate on either side of the relationships. Apple has always wanted to do what’s best for their customers and stakeholders. They certainly do not want to be exposed to the kind of turmoil they now face.
My hope is that Apple can find a way to run their business without being influenced by political factors that they have little opportunity to control. Apple just wants to build great products, not be caught in the middle of a tug of war from all sides. If the EU doesn’t want Apple to continue to operate in a way they are comfortable with, Apple needs to figure it out, as they have done in China.
Every time Apple gets singled out in the types of conversations that are now taking place, they suffer reputational harm. Apple has to maintain its relationships with consumers, competitors, and every other company that is being disadvantaged by the current turmoil.
The last thing Apple wants is to receive special treatment that is not being afforded to other affected companies and industries. Just as a hypothetical, how happy would US farmers, automakers, consumer product companies, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications companies and advanced manufacturing industries feel if Apple gets “special” treatment because Tim Cook is perceived as being one of the president’s bros?
We’ve already witnessed what can happen when a company or person suffers reputational damage due to their relationship with the president. How happy are Tesla investors right now? We don’t want Apple suffering from a similar reaction if their reputation is brought under fire.
Apple has been harmed horribly by these extortionate tactics and it must be reversed.
Trying to lower the fine amount to fly under the radar would never work as predicted.
No more abusive treatment toward Apple or any American/American company. Enough is enough. The entire dma must be deleted. It was wrong at the stsrt and it’s wrong now.
Every time time the eu steals money from an American tech company, their tarriffs should go up and sanctions implemented.
The EU’s fine is wrong, yes. So is Trump and his bleach I mean tariff injections. You really are enjoying that Flavor Aid.
I will just say to those of you cheerleading the EU on this that what you are actually cheerleading is the undermining of the rule of law. And what's going on with EU regulators "enforcing" the DMA erodes the rule of law in a way that is entirely insidious and perhaps even more dangerous than what's going on in the US right now. It doesn't matter what the regulators intentions are, they have created and are part of a process that so corrupts the notion of law as to render it meaningless.
This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.
Something as nebulous as "spirit" isn't law because laws must clearly state what they mean. How can anyone know if they are following the law, or breaking it, if the laws is so ill defined as to depend entirely on the "interpretation" that regulators choose to give it. Even in announcing these fines against Apple, they haven't said exactly how Apple "violated" the law, nor exactly how they could be in compliance. Instead there is hand waving verbiage that states Apple hasn't done enough and isn't in compliance, but nothing at all on what compliance would actually look like. How could anyone know if they are compliant if they don't know what compliance is? It's like posting a sign, "Speed Limit", with no indication of what that limit is but telling motorists that they must follow the spirit of the speed limit.
No, this "law" and its "enforcement" depend entirely on the whims of the regulators. Are these really the kinds of "laws" you want in the EU? "Laws" where the meaning of the "law" is whatever the authorities decide it is and you can never know if you are following or breaking it? "Laws" that can change whenever new people begin "enforcing" them? Sure, a lot of you don't care, or even think it's great, because this "law" is being used right now to target American companies. As a European, it won't affect you, right? But, who knows what the future may bring and "regulators" decide to turn "laws" like this against you. Perhaps right now there are no other "laws" like this, but there may well be more, and who knows whom they may target? You are creating a model where a pretense for law replaces real laws with entirely subjective "rules" that are whatever those in charge want them to be.
To paraphrase: First they came for the American tech companies, and I did not speak out because I was not an American tech company. I'm sure you know the reference, and this is where you are heading.
It's a 'law'. It's a regulation and has to be complied with.
If you want to trace the legal why and the how you can go right back to one of the pillars of the EU: The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as it is now known).
As for the spirit of the law. I suggest you read up on 'floor' clauses in mortgage contracts which were deemed illegal in virtually all cases, not that they are (in fact, they are perfectly legal) but because they were not communicated to consumers in a suitable fashion. In spite of being very clearly laid out in the mortgage deeds and having a public notary read them at the signing.
The case was escalated to the ECB by a Spanish judge.
The ruling (now firm) led to banks returning billions to consumers. Other similar banking abuses have also fallen foul to the ECB. I, myself am in the process of reclaiming mortgage charges that were applied to me in 2004 and that the ECB has considered unfair. Some banks are automatically calculating and refunding those charges (most without applying legal interest to the sums and hoping consumers will accept it) and others are basically dragging their feet and seeing if consumers will take them to court. If that happens and consumers have the relevant invoices etc, the bank will lose have to pay the costs and very probably the interest.
Of course, this isn't DSA/DMA related. That is too new to speak of, and Apple has already said it will appeal. We will see how that goes but Apple won't be claiming it isn't a law.
It's not only US companies that get whacked, of course.
So, tell us, based solely on the DMA and statements by regulators prior to announcing fines, what exactly would compliance look like? Please support your explanation by citing the appropriate sections of the DMA and/or regulator statements made prior to announcing fines that spell this out. Oh, and for regulator statements, please give dates and who made the statement.
Why? That is not my job. That is for the people who dealing with this issue. Does that not make sense to you?
In fact, it has already been done and Apple will base its appeal on that information.
You are not going to get spoon-fed compliance directives - ever.
Looking for that would be foolish.
Did the GDPR get that? NO. Again, interpretation is key. There have been literally thousands of cases presented and every day new situations (and interpretations) come to light. And that legislation is now relatively old.
Apple can (and will) appeal. That is the nature of the beast.
That said, this is a law and there is interpretation involved. The spirit, or whatever you want to call it.
IMO, you need only to read the preamble to the text to understand why Apple is in the current situation.
Does Apple have a dominant position (gatekeeper status)? Yes.
Has Apple knowingly and deliberately acted to harm competition? Yes.
Let's not ignore what is painfully obvious. Apple got away with abusing its position until someone decided to try and level things up. New legislation was required. And that 'someone' isn't anybody. It's the EU with support of its member states. The same has happened all over the place and something similar is very likely to spring up in the US at some point.
These rulings (once investigations have been finalised) are the result.
Apple (and everyone else in similar positions) is free to compete on a more level playing field, stop its willful restrictions on competition - or leave.
The DSA/DMA will be revised and updated over time but right now there has been a ruling and a fine.
shrave10 said: Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.
That isn't what is happening. Trump wants to put 25% tariffs on auto parts and the result will be disastrous for U.S. auto makers.
"Most auto suppliers are not capitalized for an abrupt tariff-induced disruption. Many are already in distress and will face production stoppages, layoffs and bankruptcy," the letter added, noting "it only takes the failure of one supplier to lead to a shutdown of an automaker’s production line."
And remember, back in the Great Recession it was the Republican party that wanted to allow the U.S. auto industry to go bankrupt and be liquidated.
China did not build out their supply chains within 90 days of a US presidential term. Takes a bit longer for companies to readjust and Trump seems to be adjusting for that. Here's the latest on auto tariffs:
"A 25 per cent tariff on all imports of foreign-made cars would remain in place and a 25 per cent tariff on car parts will still be imposed on May 3, the report said."
Whitehouse is right here IMO. Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.
It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing. Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.
I feel like a lot of people don’t understand how tariffs work. They are a government tax on goods being imported into this country. The US importers pay the tax. Then, either they eat that cost, or add it to the price of the goods as they are sold to US consumers.
So what you’re proposing here seems to be that the federal government should collect $570 million in taxes from US consumers who buy EU-made goods and then give those tax dollars to Apple so they can pay the $570 million fine to the EU.
That ought to show ‘em.
That's a short term view. The reason EU manufacturing wants tariffs down is because of the longer term implications. For ex. cars manufactured in EU will drop in marketshare > raises costs on their cars due to loss of economies of scale > negative feedback loop.
Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.
So yes, tariffs may be paid by US importers. But in the long run, it leads to reorienting of supply chains and jobs that go with it.
It's not a "short view." I'm calling out the nonsensical idea of the US collecting a tariff to "recover" the EU fines. Collecting a tax from US consumers in order to pay a fine to the EU does nothing to effect the EU's position on the fine, other than perhaps to provoke them to increase the fine, which will then also either be paid by Apple or as you propose, by the US consumer.
As for your pivot to extolling the protectionist virtues of tariffs, that's irrelevant to this case as well. $570 million is six one-hundredths of a percent of the value of EU goods imported into the US last year. Increasing tariffs to "recover" Apple's $570 million fine would have no perceptible protectionist impact on US goods competing with EU goods. Increasing tariffs to the point that it could have the effect you describe still means that the US consumer pays for it. They will either pay more for the imported item, or pay more for a "protected" US-made item. Alternatively, as will be the case for many things, US consumer will be unable to purchase many items at any price, because prohibitively high tariffs are already causing many US importers and retailers to simply cancel import orders entirely, even as there are no US-made alternatives to replace them, and no viable way to start making them here at any point in the near to mid-term future.
The reason China and EU want tariffs dropped is not to protect the US consumer. Lol. It's to gain more market share for their products and grow economies of scale. China did not build out their supply chain within 100 days of a US presidential term. Rules are set and companies gradually adapt to it. If the EU auto manufacturers do not set up more assembly plants in US then they *will* lose market share no matter how you want to think about the topic. This will come at the expense of auto companies that do manufacturing more in the US.
Whitehouse is right here IMO. Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.
It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing. Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.
Does Epic get a cut for each game Apple sells? See the difference? It’s ok for Apple to charge a fee on their store, but they have to leave their greedy fingers off everyone else or they hopefully get fined until they learn.
I am not sure what you mean. AFIK, Apple does not sell anything on Epic platform. However, Epic sells on Apple platform.
Whitehouse is right here IMO. Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.
It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing. Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.
I feel like a lot of people don’t understand how tariffs work. They are a government tax on goods being imported into this country. The US importers pay the tax. Then, either they eat that cost, or add it to the price of the goods as they are sold to US consumers.
So what you’re proposing here seems to be that the federal government should collect $570 million in taxes from US consumers who buy EU-made goods and then give those tax dollars to Apple so they can pay the $570 million fine to the EU.
That ought to show ‘em.
That's a short term view. The reason EU manufacturing wants tariffs down is because of the longer term implications. For ex. cars manufactured in EU will drop in marketshare > raises costs on their cars due to loss of economies of scale > negative feedback loop.
Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.
So yes, tariffs may be paid by US importers. But in the long run, it leads to reorienting of supply chains and jobs that go with it.
It's not a "short view." I'm calling out the nonsensical idea of the US collecting a tariff to "recover" the EU fines. Collecting a tax from US consumers in order to pay a fine to the EU does nothing to effect the EU's position on the fine, other than perhaps to provoke them to increase the fine, which will then also either be paid by Apple or as you propose, by the US consumer.
As for your pivot to extolling the protectionist virtues of tariffs, that's irrelevant to this case as well. $570 million is six one-hundredths of a percent of the value of EU goods imported into the US last year. Increasing tariffs to "recover" Apple's $570 million fine would have no perceptible protectionist impact on US goods competing with EU goods. Increasing tariffs to the point that it could have the effect you describe still means that the US consumer pays for it. They will either pay more for the imported item, or pay more for a "protected" US-made item. Alternatively, as will be the case for many things, US consumer will be unable to purchase many items at any price, because prohibitively high tariffs are already causing many US importers and retailers to simply cancel import orders entirely, even as there are no US-made alternatives to replace them, and no viable way to start making them here at any point in the near to mid-term future.
The reason China and EU want tariffs dropped is not to protect the US consumer. Lol. It's to gain more market share for their products and grow economies of scale. China did not build out their supply chain within 100 days of a US presidential term. Rules are set and companies gradually adapt to it. If the EU auto manufacturers do not set up more assembly plants in US then they *will* lose market share no matter how you want to think about the topic. This will come at the expense of auto companies that do manufacturing more in the US.
Apple has been harmed horribly by these extortionate tactics and it must be reversed.
Trying to lower the fine amount to fly under the radar would never work as predicted.
No more abusive treatment toward Apple or any American/American company. Enough is enough. The entire dma must be deleted. It was wrong at the stsrt and it’s wrong now.
Every time time the eu steals money from an American tech company, their tarriffs should go up and sanctions implemented.
The EU’s fine is wrong, yes. So is Trump and his bleach I mean tariff injections. You really are enjoying that Flavor Aid.
At least the first part of your post was correct. 50/50 is not bad.
While I'm enjoying all the commentary from so many global trade 'experts', I just wanted to add that this is one of the best, balanced and informative articles I've ever seen on AI. It was full of facts without any sign of bias or personal opinion from the author.
“Something as nebulous as "spirit" isn't law because laws must clearly state what they mean. How can anyone know if they are following the law, or breaking it, if the laws is so ill defined as to depend entirely on the "interpretation" that regulators choose to give it.”
.
Thats a bit rich coming from an American. How much time is spent “interpreting” your constitution because it wasn’t clearly stated what your lawmakers meant.
US tech companies have got away with bullying and monopoly behaviour for years. And Americans were fine with it.
Amazon has destroyed retail markets all over the world by undercutting them and shipping everywhere.
Google and Facebook have destroyed the media landscape all over the world. Most advertising dollars go to these companies rather than local media. They have a massive impact on the local economy and then dont pay any tax by diverting their massive profits to places like Singapore and Ireland. And the huge amounts of money spent on these companies don't count as “imports”. If they did, a lot more countries would have a trade deficit with the States. And then Trump uses trade imbalances as an excuse to apply “reciprocal” tariffs. It’s downright ridiculous.
US companies cause havoc to other countries economies. I am a huge Apple fan and spend a lot of money on their products, but I’m getting very tired of Americans playing victim. You have 5% of the worlds population and yet 25% of the worlds wealth. You are not a victim. You were well positioned after WW2 to grow economically while Europe had to rebuild. And you took advantage of that. Well done. You do not own, or deserve, a seat at the top. You have to earn it.
World trade will pivot to Asia, whatever you do. They have almost 40% of the worlds population in just two countries and both are expected to have a larger economy that then US inside 20 years. You can work with allies to reduce the impact of this and make it a smooth transition. Or you can isolate yourselves and get forgotten. The world will happily move on without you.
Incidentally. Im very happy with my latest macbook pro. USA designs some great products. It shipped to me direct from the manufacturer in Asia
Comments
If you want to trace the legal why and the how you can go right back to one of the pillars of the EU: The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as it is now known).
As for the spirit of the law. I suggest you read up on 'floor' clauses in mortgage contracts which were deemed illegal in virtually all cases, not that they are (in fact, they are perfectly legal) but because they were not communicated to consumers in a suitable fashion. In spite of being very clearly laid out in the mortgage deeds and having a public notary read them at the signing.
The case was escalated to the ECB by a Spanish judge.
The ruling (now firm) led to banks returning billions to consumers. Other similar banking abuses have also fallen foul to the ECB. I, myself am in the process of reclaiming mortgage charges that were applied to me in 2004 and that the ECB has considered unfair. Some banks are automatically calculating and refunding those charges (most without applying legal interest to the sums and hoping consumers will accept it) and others are basically dragging their feet and seeing if consumers will take them to court. If that happens and consumers have the relevant invoices etc, the bank will lose have to pay the costs and very probably the interest.
Of course, this isn't DSA/DMA related. That is too new to speak of, and Apple has already said it will appeal. We will see how that goes but Apple won't be claiming it isn't a law.
It's not only US companies that get whacked, of course.
Just returned this week from Toulouse, France - home of the European Aerospace and Defence cluster. The city is filled with schools, research, Airbus, and infrastructure.
Venture capital is also moving in. Same for renewable energy: https://www.elbealliance.eu/key-figures
Just look at how well Apple has been able to remain relevant to consumers in China, South Korea, Brazil, the EU, etc., even as the political situation in those countries did not always play in harmony with the political and/or social climate on either side of the relationships. Apple has always wanted to do what’s best for their customers and stakeholders. They certainly do not want to be exposed to the kind of turmoil they now face.
We’ve already witnessed what can happen when a company or person suffers reputational damage due to their relationship with the president. How happy are Tesla investors right now? We don’t want Apple suffering from a similar reaction if their reputation is brought under fire.
As a foreigner I never released how downtrodden the richest country in the World with the richest companies and the richest billionaires actually was.
I can now truly say that the rest of the World is feeling really sorry for you all.
/s
In fact, it has already been done and Apple will base its appeal on that information.
You are not going to get spoon-fed compliance directives - ever.
Looking for that would be foolish.
Did the GDPR get that? NO. Again, interpretation is key. There have been literally thousands of cases presented and every day new situations (and interpretations) come to light. And that legislation is now relatively old.
Apple can (and will) appeal. That is the nature of the beast.
That said, this is a law and there is interpretation involved. The spirit, or whatever you want to call it.
IMO, you need only to read the preamble to the text to understand why Apple is in the current situation.
Does Apple have a dominant position (gatekeeper status)? Yes.
Has Apple knowingly and deliberately acted to harm competition? Yes.
Let's not ignore what is painfully obvious. Apple got away with abusing its position until someone decided to try and level things up. New legislation was required. And that 'someone' isn't anybody. It's the EU with support of its member states. The same has happened all over the place and something similar is very likely to spring up in the US at some point.
These rulings (once investigations have been finalised) are the result.
Apple (and everyone else in similar positions) is free to compete on a more level playing field, stop its willful restrictions on competition - or leave.
The DSA/DMA will be revised and updated over time but right now there has been a ruling and a fine.
"A 25 per cent tariff on all imports of foreign-made cars would remain in place and a 25 per cent tariff on car parts will still be imposed on May 3, the report said."
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tariffs/2025/04/23/trump-to-exempt-car-parts-from-tariffs-on-china-imports-ft-says/
The reason China and EU want tariffs dropped is not to protect the US consumer. Lol. It's to gain more market share for their products and grow economies of scale. China did not build out their supply chain within 100 days of a US presidential term. Rules are set and companies gradually adapt to it. If the EU auto manufacturers do not set up more assembly plants in US then they *will* lose market share no matter how you want to think about the topic. This will come at the expense of auto companies that do manufacturing more in the US.
I am not sure what you mean. AFIK, Apple does not sell anything on Epic platform. However, Epic sells on Apple platform.
Thats a bit rich coming from an American. How much time is spent “interpreting” your constitution because it wasn’t clearly stated what your lawmakers meant.
US tech companies have got away with bullying and monopoly behaviour for years. And Americans were fine with it.
Amazon has destroyed retail markets all over the world by undercutting them and shipping everywhere.
US companies cause havoc to other countries economies. I am a huge Apple fan and spend a lot of money on their products, but I’m getting very tired of Americans playing victim. You have 5% of the worlds population and yet 25% of the worlds wealth. You are not a victim. You were well positioned after WW2 to grow economically while Europe had to rebuild. And you took advantage of that. Well done. You do not own, or deserve, a seat at the top. You have to earn it.
Incidentally. Im very happy with my latest macbook pro. USA designs some great products. It shipped to me direct from the manufacturer in Asia