Three years after the Digital Markets Act (DMA) started to apply, its enforcement record is now subject to scrutiny. The debate is no longer confined to the law’s ambitions, but should also focus on whether the DMA also offers a workable path to effective compliance.
At CCIA Europe’s 2026 edition of the European Digital Competition Day, the opening panel examined this question head-on, exploring what enforcement has revealed about legal certainty, procedural fairness, regulatory micromanagement, and trust under the DMA.
The discussion brought together different perspectives: industry concerns over one-size-fits-all obligations; political arguments about competition and consumer inconvenience; legal warnings about the DMA’s procedural ‘black box’; and the European Commission’s defence of a framework it describes as still evolving.
1. The clarity gap and the cost of compliance
Providing the industry perspective, James Waterworth, Director of EU Public Policy at Amazon, outlined the practical and operational considerations of DMA compliance. He began by pointing to a central tension in the regulation: its horizontal obligations apply uniformly across business models that operate in very different competitive environments. Discussing the massive scale of Amazon’s compliance effort, he stated: “We’ve observed in the last few years that the total amount of effort, time, and financial cost has been in the hundreds of millions of euros.” Indeed, Waterworth suggested that original cost impact assessments may not have fully captured the extent of the requirements imposed by the DMA.
He also emphasised the importance of recognising sector-specific realities. In other words, the DMA’s one-size-fits-all approach often clashes with the realities of the specific markets in which different ‘gatekeeper’ companies operate. Noting that Amazon operates as a retailer in a highly competitive European market, and is only active across a third of EU Member States, Waterworth pointed out: “We’re not the biggest in any of those Member States”. He also reminded the audience of the competitive nature of the retail sector, where customers “shop at multiple retailers every day, every week”.
His concerns fed into a broader warning about regulatory micromanagement. A key point was Waterworth’s suggestion that regulators should focus on outcomes, not on how companies get there. This echoed wider industry concerns that the Commission’s DMA enforcement has become too involved in the design details of complex digital services.
“People who are professionals, who are artisans in this space are best to merchandise a shop [and optimise the user experience,]” he argued, rather than DMA enforcers or regulators. Looking ahead to how the Commission might conduct future compliance dialogues, he offered a guiding principle: “the dialogue will find out where we need to get to, but [the Commission] shouldn’t be too specific on ‘how’ we need to get there.”
2. Political will and consumer trade-offs
Providing the political architect’s view, Andreas Schwab, Chair of the European Parliament’s DMA Implementation Working Group, offered a highly candid assessment of the law’s intent and its consequences. Where Waterworth focused on the operational burden of compliance, Schwab placed those concerns in the context of the DMA’s political purpose. He bluntly confirmed the adversarial nature of the regulation, stating: “the DMA has not been done for the gatekeepers but against them.”
Schwab argued that while the digital revolution is broadly positive for Europeans, the law is necessary to open up markets. However, the Member of the European Parliament acknowledged the serious practical difficulties in the DMA’s enforcement, particularly regarding the Commission’s resources. “We are missing manpower,” he said, noting that handling “six gatekeepers is a lot for the Commission, it’s maybe too much.”
Crucially, Schwab openly admitted that certain consumer trade-offs are indeed inherent to the DMA – a reality that CCIA Europe has consistently highlighted. Addressing concerns that the regulation degrades the user experience by disrupting seamlessly integrated products, he stated: “If we want to have competition we have to make life a bit inconvenient for people”. This point went to the heart of the DMA debate: can the pursuit of ‘contestability’ justify deliberate friction in services that consumers already use and value?
At the same time, Schwab recognised that the DMA raises broader questions about regulatory consistency. He also pointed to a growing philosophical mismatch between how offline and online businesses are regulated. Using the example of unregulated product placement at supermarket checkouts compared to the strict scrutiny faced by digital storefronts, he argued: “What is illegal offline should also be illegal online and the other way around,” suggesting this imbalance must be addressed.
3. The DMA’s procedural ‘black box’ in practice
The discussion then turned from the political rationale of the DMA to the procedural machinery through which it is enforced. Salomè Cisnal de Ugarte, Partner at Paul Hastings, argued that the procedural architecture of the DMA is currently its most vulnerable point. Drawing from a comprehensive study on the Act’s procedural journey, she cautioned that the mechanisms intended to facilitate compliance are proving to be deficient in ways that were not visible during the drafting phase.
Cisnal de Ugarte warned that DMA obligations are far from self-executing. She noted that in just three years, the Commission has opened 55 investigations, yet the regulatory discourse has focused too heavily on substantive obligations while neglecting the procedural framework.
Indeed, Cisnal de Ugarte identified several critical deficiencies that currently undermine legal certainty. She pointed out the severe time constraints imposed during specification proceedings, noting that the strict six-month window leaves gatekeepers with incredibly short timeframes to mount a defence against complex technical findings. Cisnal de Ugarte also highlighted the ‘black box’ nature of third-party consultations, questioning the transparency of how input is selected and noting that smaller platforms are not always benefiting.
Emphasising the importance of protecting the institutional legitimacy of the DMA, she stressed that “procedure is not a technicality. It is the rule of law in practice”. Cisnal de Ugarte pointed out the omission of standard safeguards, such as an independent hearing officer, by DMA enforcers and advocated for proportionate adjustments like “procedural guidelines, best practices on dialogue”. As she noted, “effective compliance is not a simple dos-and-don’ts list because it depends on the specific gatekeeper, it depends on the business model, it depends on the technical architecture.”
4. Defending the Commission’s ‘toddler’ and the path forward
Responding directly to these criticisms, Lucia Bonova, Head of Unit at DG Competition, defended the European Commission’s approach and sought to dispel what she labelled the ‘mythology’ surrounding DMA enforcement. She characterised the current state of the regulation as a toddler that is still evolving, urging patience as it moves past its teething phase.
Bonova rejected accusations of procedural opacity, particularly regarding data rooms and access to files. “External legal counsel gets access to everything. I will repeat: confidential, non-confidential, every single thing in the file,” she asserted. Bonova also addressed the criticism of the six-month specification window, acknowledging that while she is the first one to suffer from such tight deadlines, it “serves to keep everyone focused on what we should be doing”.
While acknowledging that compliance is indeed not self-executing, the Head of Unit maintained that the Commission is not ‘designing’ products, but rather ensuring they meet objective-based outcomes, such as fairness in self-preferencing. In response to industry concerns about product micromanagement, she pushed back against the idea that the Commission is seeking to substitute itself for business expertise. “I’m not an expert on merchandising, although people tell me that I’m a good seller,” Bonova said with a laugh.
Bonova emphasised that beyond the handful of formal cases, “hundreds of hours of meetings and good meetings” have successfully resolved complex choice architecture and switching issues. Furthermore, she challenged critics to acknowledge the unquantified benefits generated through these dialogues, asking: “How much is tripling the usage of alternative browsers worth, or ensuring that connected devices function seamlessly on a gatekeeper platform?”
Conclusion
Taken together, the panel made clear that the time for theory has passed. As I stressed during my closing remarks at the end of the conference, if the DMA is to deliver on its objectives, enforcement must become more transparent, evidence-based, and technically grounded. That means genuine dialogue has to replace today’s rigid, one-sided process.
To that end, the Digital Markets Act’s impact must be assessed in the round, taking both its benefits and its costs into account. Taking economic realities, compliance costs, and consumer trade-offs seriously is the only way to ensure that EU digital regulation truly serves the long-term interests of innovation and consumers.
