Washington – A new report from the CCIA Research Center finds that the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) is losing appeal as a global model for digital competition policy, with governments increasingly pursuing narrower approaches.
The report, “The Anti-Brussels Effect in Digital Competition Policy and the DMA’s Fading Appeal as a Global Model,” examines 83 developments across 16 jurisdictions. Of the 14 jurisdictions outside the EU that considered adopting a framework modeled on the DMA, 11 have either turned away from the approach or implemented a substantially narrower or more moderate regime. Two more are expected to pursue narrower proposals, while just one is actively pursuing DMA-like legislation.
The DMA was intended to demonstrate the “Brussels Effect,” in which EU regulations become global standards as governments and companies adopt them beyond Europe. Instead, the report finds that proposed DMA-style regimes have been withdrawn, stalled, or narrowed, with policymakers increasingly relying on existing competition laws, market studies, or more targeted ex-ante rules.
The report concludes that the DMA’s limited global appeal reflects concerns about its costs and whether it has delivered meaningful benefits for European consumers, including concerns about delays in access to new products and services and revelations that most European consumers would be willing to pay to reverse impacts of the DMA on their digital experience.
The following may be attributed to the report’s co-author, Trevor Wagener, CCIA’s Chief Economist and Director of the CCIA Research Center:
“Even as the DMA seems to inspire fewer direct copycats, some governments continue to target predominantly U.S. digital services with other regulations.”
The following may be attributed to co-author Krisztian Katona, CCIA’s Vice President of Global Competition and Regulatory Policy:
“Instead of relying on the DMA as a global template for digital regulation, governments are increasingly pursuing tailored competition policies that account for local market conditions, regulatory costs, and the need to preserve innovation and investment.”
