It's the opposite of protectionism. European competitors for these services existed at some point, but because they lacked the advantage of a sufficiently large home market and didn't get any extra protection to make up for it, they didn't do as well.
Depending on the strength of network effects, they either quickly lost users to the biggest platform, saw the writing on the wall and took an acquisition offer instead, or continue to hold their ground within a particular niche where expanding quickly is difficult (for both foreign and local companies).
Any new European internet companies wishing to make it big at home will probably need to concentrate mainly on the US market first in order to have those same network effects work in their favor instead of against them.
> Examples of the “do’s”: gatekeepers will for example have to:
> - allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations;
> - allow their business users to access the data that they generate in their use of the gatekeeper’s platform;
> - provide companies advertising on their platform with the tools and information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of their advertisements hosted by the gatekeeper;
> - allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform.
>
> Example of the “don'ts”: gatekeepers will for example no longer:
>
> - treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform;
> - prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms;
> - prevent users from un-installing any pre-installed software or app if they wish so;
> - track end users outside of the gatekeepers' core platform service for the purpose of targeted advertising, without effective consent having been granted.
---
> As an aside, it strikes me as vaguely protectionist to see that it’s only 6 companies and none of them are European… (maybe that’s a hot take?)
Simply put, there are no European companies on this level. If you want a phone, you are going to have to choose Android or iOS. To chat with people on your new phone, you will use what your friends & family are on - most often WhatsApp. When you want to search something on the internet, for most people it's going to be the default search engine, so Google Search. And when you want to go on a Social Network, it's going to be... etc, etc. The EU is of course part of the western world and so has not had the same requirements to develop their own companies, or lock American companies out, like China/Russia.
Perhaps the closest that could come to mind could be some messaging apps, e.g. Threema, or perhaps Mastodon as a social network (sure, it's federated, but anyway...). But these don't qualify as they are nowhere near big enough.
Finally, I'm quite optimistic about the DMA; not just for consumers in the EU but also in the US and worldwide. I feel there has been significant consolidation of market power and stagnation/coming stagnation, and competition is often considered the way to break out of this. Perhaps we will see a new generation of companies and ideas and more options for both consumers and small/medium businesses in the future.
I disagree about the benefits for folks in the US. The EU moves comparatively quickly in law and is quite comfortable experimenting with regulations. The US by comparison feels very slow and deferential—almost as if when it’s not explicitly illegal then we should presume there’s no harm. I think any “openness” that leaks out of the EU will just be exploited in the US by platform-level companies to the detriment of individuals, and I have no expectation that US policies or laws will catch up any time soon.
I get your point. But on the other hand you can look at GDPR and see after it that California passed the CCPA, Canada passed their own PIPEDA data privacy act, etc, so there is some precedent for other jurisdictions passing similar laws in the future.
Companies and services that come out of this regulation may end up competing in the US anyway and creating a more competitive landscape there anyway, even if there is no DMA-style legislation passed there.
As an aside, it strikes me as vaguely protectionist to see that it’s only 6 companies and none of them are European… (maybe that’s a hot take?)