Gatekeepers are in principle free to adjust their core platform services in the EU to comply with the DMA but maintain their existing business models elsewhere. They may also decide to adjust their business models globally to avoid the additional costs of maintaining different models. The prospect of similar digital platform regulation being introduced elsewhere may also incentivise gatekeepers to use the DMA as a regulatory baseline to avoid iterative changes to their CPS as similar rules are rolled out worldwide. If so, the DMA would set a de facto global standard for the regulation of large tech platforms. This is also referred to as the ‘Brussels Effect’, something already seen in the context of the GDPR for example. In the end, the costs of switching business models are likely to vary between gatekeepers and those subject to the new rules may have differing approaches, at least in the short term.
The EU’s Digital Markets Act creates multiple digital rights (and obligations). Who is or will be affected by this next frontier of digital platform regulation in Europe? You will find all you need to know on our one-stop-shop dedicated to the DMA.
The DMA’s criteria for designating “gatekeepers” stipulate which companies and “core platform services” must comply with the DMA’s obligations. There are, however, a number of key questions concerning the DMA’s jurisdiction. Read further to see the breakdown of the DMA’s key criteria for gatekeeper designation.
The DMA sets out a host of obligations for designated gatekeepers. These can be categorised according to the aims of the DMA, including to ensure fair conditions of use; to prevent self-preferencing / leveraging; and to protect digital rights and improve access to data, among others.
As with the EU’s competition rules, the DMA provides for private enforcement as well as public enforcement by the Commission. The Commission ensures that gatekeepers comply with their obligations under the DMA.