4 ms·

The measures apply by size, not by country of origin. It happens that the companies over the threshold are American. So their statement is basically untrue, but

by pjc50 2y ago

The measures apply by size, not by country of origin. It happens that the companies over the threshold are American. So their statement is basically untrue, but that's politics these days.

robin_reala 2y ago
There are a couple of companies in the list[1] (of seven) that aren’t US-based. ByteDance are Chinese and Booking are EU (NL). [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
- phatfish 2y ago
  Booking Holdings which Wikipedia has as the parent of booking.com seems to be US owned.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    Yes. Booking Holdings Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, listed on the Nasdaq with principal executive offices in Connecticut. See SEC filing: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e58-3de2-41a6-a9fd-eb45b863b1e2.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e5...
  - xeromal 2y ago
    Had no idea booking.com was american. I always assumed it was euro-based.
    - dagw 2y ago
      Booking.com was founded in the Netherlands and is still headquartered there, but was bought by a US company (Priceline) well over a decade ago.
      - xeromal 2y ago
        That makes sense. It just didn't have the energy of an American company and I say that as one. I love booking.com
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- c0n5pir4cy 2y ago
  Probably also important to note, is that ByteDance and TikTok are also currently being investigated by the European Commission. Although for different reasons under the Digital Services Act - so it's not like they are targeting US companies specifically with the law. Also the commission is known to fine European entities all the time for various reasons, one of the recent ones I can think of is Pierre Cardin and it's partners for restricting cross border European sales.
xvector 2y ago
Spotify conveniently falls outside of the scope of this law when any artist would tell you it should absolutely be covered. The DMA is gerrymandered to exclude domestic businesses. Whenever the EU faces budget shortfalls, they know they can just make up some bullshit law and fine US tech. > EU are basically enforcing market capitalism by disallowing monopolistic practices. Users are free to just not buy iOS devices. Users are free to just not use Meta services. There is no monopoly here. This is all much ado about nothing. No real-world user is meaningfully harmed by the current state of Apple App Store/Meta Ads, but plenty will be harmed once spyware/piracy sideloading becomes common. Many small businesses will collapse due to ineffective advertisement (large businesses will love it though - it becomes a winner-take-all market).
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  I'm curious, what is your preferred financial regime? EU are basically enforcing market capitalism by disallowing monopolistic practices. Do you find that wrong in general? Perhaps you prefer an industro-fascist regime where businesses are not bound by any tailored laws? Pretty sure there would already be alternative iOS app stores under such a regime - government controls (IPR system, computer security laws) seem necessary to enable these sorts of tech monopolies.
- mhitza 2y ago
  > Whenever the EU faces budget shortfalls, they know they can just make up some bullshit law and fine US tech. If that would be the case, the EU could be drowning in money by being more aggressive with GDPR enforcement and follow-through.
  - Yeul 2y ago
    500 million sounds like a lot but that is just a drop in the ocean for first world nation states. The Netherlands has a yearly budget of 300 billion for example.
- piva00 2y ago
  > Whenever the EU faces budget shortfalls, they know they can just make up some bullshit law and fine US tech. The EU's budget is massive, no shortfall is covered by these fines since to collect them it takes another massive legal battle, that's just bullshit being regurgitated on the internet (especially on this forum). If that was the case the EU would be issuing GDPR fines all over the place to cover shortfalls, it doesn't happen in reality. > Spotify conveniently falls outside of the scope of this law when any artist would tell you it should absolutely be covered. Spotify does not behave like the most similar category covered by the DMA: video sharing like YouTube. Spotify does not hold exclusive access to the content and the audience, YouTube Music, Apple Music, and other players have almost the same catalogue as Spotify has so users are free to move between those services without penalty. Now try moving from YouTube to a competitor, a completely different beast. The DMA exists to counter an imbalance in the power these massive tech companies have in detriment to competition, it's quite a simple prerogative, Spotify doesn't hold at all the same power as YouTube has, or Google Search, or any other platform under the DMA.

by pjc50 2y ago

The measures apply by size, not by country of origin. It happens that the companies over the threshold are American. So their statement is basically untrue, but that's politics these days.

robin_reala 2y ago

There are a couple of companies in the list[1] (of seven) that aren’t US-based. ByteDance are Chinese and Booking are EU (NL). [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en

phatfish 2y ago
Booking Holdings which Wikipedia has as the parent of booking.com seems to be US owned.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  Yes. Booking Holdings Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, listed on the Nasdaq with principal executive offices in Connecticut. See SEC filing: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e58-3de2-41a6-a9fd-eb45b863b1e2.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001075531/87dc4e5...
- xeromal 2y ago
  Had no idea booking.com was american. I always assumed it was euro-based.
  - dagw 2y ago
    Booking.com was founded in the Netherlands and is still headquartered there, but was bought by a US company (Priceline) well over a decade ago.
    - xeromal 2y ago
      That makes sense. It just didn't have the energy of an American company and I say that as one. I love booking.com
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
c0n5pir4cy 2y ago
Probably also important to note, is that ByteDance and TikTok are also currently being investigated by the European Commission. Although for different reasons under the Digital Services Act - so it's not like they are targeting US companies specifically with the law. Also the commission is known to fine European entities all the time for various reasons, one of the recent ones I can think of is Pierre Cardin and it's partners for restricting cross border European sales.

xvector 2y ago

Spotify conveniently falls outside of the scope of this law when any artist would tell you it should absolutely be covered. The DMA is gerrymandered to exclude domestic businesses. Whenever the EU faces budget shortfalls, they know they can just make up some bullshit law and fine US tech. > EU are basically enforcing market capitalism by disallowing monopolistic practices. Users are free to just not buy iOS devices. Users are free to just not use Meta services. There is no monopoly here. This is all much ado about nothing. No real-world user is meaningfully harmed by the current state of Apple App Store/Meta Ads, but plenty will be harmed once spyware/piracy sideloading becomes common. Many small businesses will collapse due to ineffective advertisement (large businesses will love it though - it becomes a winner-take-all market).

pbhjpbhj 2y ago
I'm curious, what is your preferred financial regime? EU are basically enforcing market capitalism by disallowing monopolistic practices. Do you find that wrong in general? Perhaps you prefer an industro-fascist regime where businesses are not bound by any tailored laws? Pretty sure there would already be alternative iOS app stores under such a regime - government controls (IPR system, computer security laws) seem necessary to enable these sorts of tech monopolies.
mhitza 2y ago
> Whenever the EU faces budget shortfalls, they know they can just make up some bullshit law and fine US tech. If that would be the case, the EU could be drowning in money by being more aggressive with GDPR enforcement and follow-through.
- Yeul 2y ago
  500 million sounds like a lot but that is just a drop in the ocean for first world nation states. The Netherlands has a yearly budget of 300 billion for example.
piva00 2y ago
> Whenever the EU faces budget shortfalls, they know they can just make up some bullshit law and fine US tech. The EU's budget is massive, no shortfall is covered by these fines since to collect them it takes another massive legal battle, that's just bullshit being regurgitated on the internet (especially on this forum). If that was the case the EU would be issuing GDPR fines all over the place to cover shortfalls, it doesn't happen in reality. > Spotify conveniently falls outside of the scope of this law when any artist would tell you it should absolutely be covered. Spotify does not behave like the most similar category covered by the DMA: video sharing like YouTube. Spotify does not hold exclusive access to the content and the audience, YouTube Music, Apple Music, and other players have almost the same catalogue as Spotify has so users are free to move between those services without penalty. Now try moving from YouTube to a competitor, a completely different beast. The DMA exists to counter an imbalance in the power these massive tech companies have in detriment to competition, it's quite a simple prerogative, Spotify doesn't hold at all the same power as YouTube has, or Google Search, or any other platform under the DMA.