Brussels Fined Big Tech 2.46 Billion. Washington Threatens Tariffs

Add up the fines the European Commission has handed to big platforms under its two new digital laws since 2025 and the total comes to 2.46 billion euros. Apple 500 million. Meta 200 million. X 120 million. Temu 200 million. AliExpress 550 million. Google 890 million.

It sounds like a crackdown. Read the details and it looks more like the opening round of a very long match, with a third player who has just walked into the ring: the president of the United States.

Two laws, one ceiling

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) targets “gatekeepers”, the platforms that control access to markets. The Digital Services Act (DSA) targets how large platforms handle illegal content, advertising, transparency and risk. Under the DMA the maximum fine is 10 percent of global annual turnover, and 20 percent for repeat offences.

No company has come anywhere near that ceiling. For firms with annual revenue in the hundreds of billions, a fine in the hundreds of millions is a fraction of one percent. Real money, and no threat to the business model. A law firm that analysed the first DMA decisions called them “rather predictable”, because the Commission had published its preliminary views months earlier, and noted that such decisions set no precedent if gatekeepers cooperate.

Apple and Meta: the first two

In April 2025 the Commission issued the first DMA fines. Apple received 500 million euros for anti-steering: developers are entitled to tell users about offers outside the App Store and to steer them to those offers free of charge, and the Commission found that Apple’s technical and commercial restrictions stopped that.

Meta received 200 million euros for its “pay or consent” model, which offered users two options, agree to personalised ads or pay a monthly fee for an ad-free service. The Commission found that this offered no genuine alternative with less data collection.

Meta’s response came in stages. Its less personalised ads option has been available in the EU since late 2024, and from January 2026 users choose between sharing all their data for fully personalised ads or sharing less for more limited personalisation. The Commission said it would monitor how well the new set-up works, and Meta remains exposed to further penalties if it is still found in breach.

Apple said it disagrees with the decisions and plans to appeal. The Commission closed a third investigation, on user choice obligations such as default settings and deleting pre-installed apps, without negative findings after Apple changed its services.

Read also: Brussels Pushed Its Hardest AI Rules Back 16 Months

Google: 890 million euros

On 23 July 2026 the Commission issued two decisions against Google worth 890 million euros: 460 million for ranking its own shopping, hotel, transport and sports results above rivals in search, and 430 million for steering rules on Google Play that stop developers promoting cheaper offers. The Commission ordered Google to end the conduct. Google told the Commission it will change how it presents its own services. The investigation had opened in 2024.

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive vice-president, said the Commission will not hesitate to use its tools to safeguard business and innovation opportunities opened up by the DMA.

The DSA fines: X, Temu and AliExpress

The Digital Services Act has produced three fines so far. X was fined 120 million euros on 5 December 2025 for breaching transparency obligations, the first DSA fine, and appealed on 16 February 2026. Temu was fined 200 million euros on 28 May 2026 over its risk assessment on illegal products. AliExpress followed on 20 July 2026 with 550 million euros over illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products.

Two of the three DSA fines landed on Chinese marketplaces. Brussels has fined American and Chinese firms alike. That makes it harder for Washington to argue that the rules were written against American companies, although it has not stopped it from trying.

Washington sends a message

On 27 July 2026, four days after the Google decision, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the EU “will pay a very big price for this illegal and highly unethical conduct”, that the penalties “will be entirely reversed” and that he expects a substantial tariff on the EU “at the earliest possible moment”.

His trade representative opened an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs on countries accused of discriminating against American companies. It was the first time the administration answered EU tech fines with an investigation that could lead to tariffs.

Last year Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed a trade agreement capping US tariffs on EU goods at 15 percent. It left digital regulation unresolved, and now that issue is back on the table. The EU built in language allowing it to respond if the cap is exceeded. A Section 301 process involves investigation and public comment and can take months before any tariff takes effect.

Garret Martin of American University’s Transatlantic Policy Center told reporters that Europe views the move as interference, and that its officials would prefer to keep the deal while being prepared for it not to last. The EU’s long-standing position is that the digital rules apply equally to every company regardless of where it is headquartered.

Apple’s answer: new terms, same argument

Fines are one half of the DMA. The other half is whether behaviour changes, and Apple’s reply came on 18 August 2026. The company announced a new set of business terms for the EU, effective 1 October. It replaces the Core Technology Fee, the per-install charge developers disliked most, with a 5 percent Core Technology Commission.

Commission rates depend on the route and come in two tiers each: 26 and 15 percent on purchases inside the app, 20 and 10 percent where the developer uses an alternative payment provider, and 15 and 10 percent when the app links users out to the web.

Read also: Europe’s Surveillance Rules Are Being Written Around the Exceptions

Apple says the terms followed close collaboration with the Commission. Trade press reported that the Commission welcomed them, while Epic Games, the company whose fight with Apple helped start this saga, called the charges junk fees. Both reactions fit the same fact. The rules the DMA created are about whether developers can reach customers without Apple’s permission, and the price of that freedom is negotiated in percentages.

A 5 percent commission on top of a 15 percent one is a different bill from the old fee, but it is still a bill. Whether developers find it workable is a question for the next year of app-store economics.

The episode shows how the DMA actually works. A fine settles a past breach, and a negotiated compliance model sets the price of the future. Apple and the Commission are now partners in the second process, which is why critics of Brussels worry about the first one fading.

Appeal is the default setting

Apple and Meta announced they would appeal, which means years in the EU courts. X has appealed. The fines are not final until the courts say so. Each decision also comes with an order to change behaviour, and that is where the money really sits. Temu had to submit an action plan by 28 August 2026. AliExpress has until 20 October 2026.

The open files

The list of investigations is longer than the list of fines. According to a DSA tracker run by an independent monitoring group, Meta faces preliminary findings on minors and addictive design, with the latest dated 10 July 2026.

TikTok faces preliminary findings on addictive design from February 2026. X is under investigation over its Grok chatbot since 26 January 2026. Shein and Snapchat were added in February and March 2026. Preliminary findings are not decisions. They are the Commission showing its hand.

Google’s search page is the verdict

Watch what Google’s search page looks like in a year. If shopping boxes and hotel carousels have moved, the DMA worked. If the fine is paid and the layout survives, Brussels bought itself a headline. And if the Section 301 investigation ends in tariffs, the question is whether Europe can afford to regulate American platforms.