Summary of Key Points
In the past two weeks, the European Union has taken a series of aggressive actions against Google and Apple in both judicial and administrative contexts: The final judgment in the Google Android case upheld a fine of 4.1 billion euros; the EU, under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), has ordered Google to open its Android system to third-party AI assistants; Apple's appeal against being classified as a “gatekeeper” was rejected; and Google may face an even higher fine under the DMA. These developments send a strong signal that the EU's antitrust enforcement efforts are not weakening, and the DMA has entered a phase of frequent, significant, and predictable enforcement. For Chinese companies looking to expand into Europe, this is not just news about Google and Apple but also a warning for all enterprises that aim to become “platform builders” in the region.
I. What Has the EU Done Against Google and Apple Lately?
Since July, the EU has been very active:
- July 2: The European Court of Justice issued a final judgment in the Google Android case, upholding the 4.1 billion euro fine—Google was found to have abused its dominant position in Android by using pre-installation agreements (such as requiring phone manufacturers to install Google Search and Chrome to use the Play Store) to exclude competitors.
- July 16: The EU issued a directive under the DMA, ordering Android phones to allow AI assistants other than Gemini (such as ChatGPT and Claude) to run, giving Google one year to make the necessary changes.
- July 17: The court rejected Apple's appeal, determining that the App Store and iOS constitute the same core platform service (CPS), meaning Apple cannot evade its “gatekeeper” obligations.
- Upcoming: The EU is also preparing to impose the maximum fine under the DMA on Google for not allowing developers to inform users about alternative payment methods and for favoring its own services in search results (such as shopping and transportation recommendations).
In short, the EU's actions target tech giants that use their platform dominance to unfairly exclude competitors.
II. The Antitrust Barriers Have Lowered: No Longer Need to Prove What Would Happen Without the Behavior
Previously, when investigating antitrust cases, the EU would conduct “counterfactual analysis”—for example, if Google argued that Android might not have survived without the pre-installation requirement, the EU would need to prove that Android could still thrive without it. However, in the latest Android case, the court stated that counterfactual analysis is no longer necessary. The determination of abuse now relies on a combination of “behavioral patterns, the overall economic context, and existing biases.”
What are “existing biases”? They refer to user habits (such as users being accustomed to using Google Search by default) that can naturally exclude competitors. Additionally, the requirement for “equivalent efficiency competitors” (AEC tests) has been relaxed—previously, it was necessary to prove that a certain behavior drove out competitors with similar capabilities; now this is no longer required, especially in digital ecosystems where platforms like Android have network effects and make it harder for users to switch.
This change essentially gives the EU more flexibility in enforcing antitrust laws: If a giant uses its platform power to engage in bundling or pre-installation practices, it does not need to prove what would happen without those practices; abuse can be directly established.
III. The Courts Are No Longer Opposing Enforcement: Judicial Cooperation Makes Regulation More Effective
Over the past decade, European courts have often clashed with the European Commission (EC). For example, in 2022, fines of 997 million euros against Qualcomm and 1.06 billion euros against Intel were overturned; in 2024, a fine of 1.49 billion euros against Google for advertising practices was also overturned. The reason was that courts felt traditional antitrust tools (like AEC tests) were unsuitable for digital ecosystems and required the EC to provide more detailed evidence.
However, this has changed. Courts now recognize that traditional tools are ineffective in digital contexts and are beginning to support the EC’s efforts. In the Android case, the court returned the discretion to the EC, using “existing biases” and the overall economic context instead of complex counterfactual analysis. This new approach applies not only to the DMA but also to the traditional antitrust law (TFEU Article 102)—any company with a significant market share in Europe can be subject to these regulations, even if it is not classified as a “gatekeeper” under the DMA.
IV. The DMA Aims at the Health of the Entire Ecosystem, Not Just Single Markets
Some mistakenly view the DMA as an upgraded version of traditional antitrust laws. However, its focus is on maintaining the health of digital ecosystems, not just individual markets. While traditional antitrust laws focus on specific markets (such as search engines), the DMA considers the entire Android ecosystem (the Android system, Play Store, Gemini AI, Gmail), where platforms as “builders” can control key resources and potentially suppress complementary players like developers and sellers.
The logic of the DMA is simple: If a company is considered a “gatekeeper” (e.g., it has a large user base and significant influence), it must comply with predefined obligations, such as ensuring interoperability, not favoring its own services, and allowing users to choose alternative options. Apple was found to be responsible for both the App Store and iOS because the court recognized that users are locked into the entire iOS+App Store ecosystem.
V. What Chinese Companies Expanding to Europe Should Pay Attention To?
While the threshold for being classified as a “gatekeeper” under the DMA is high (annual revenue of 7.5 billion euros and 50 million users), there are two additional factors to be aware of:
1. The Barriers for Traditional Antitrust Laws (TFEU Article 102) Have Lowered: If a Chinese company has a significant market share in Europe and uses practices like pre-installation, bundling, or exclusive agreements, the EC can apply the new rules. For example, if a Chinese phone manufacturer pre-installs its own apps in Europe and requires users to use them, it may be deemed to have abused its dominance.
2. Interoperability Requirements Extend to Hardware: The EU’s interoperability standards apply not only to AI assistants but also to devices such as watches, cars, XR technology, and smart homes. For instance, Huawei or Xiaomi’s smart watches sold in Europe may be required to allow third-party apps if they do not meet interoperability standards, even if the company is not a DMA gatekeeper.
In summary, Chinese companies expanding to Europe should prepare for new regulatory requirements. It is more important to comply in advance than to face fines afterwards. The EU’s current approach aims to use more flexible rules to regulate digital ecosystems and prevent giants from monopolizing innovation. For Chinese businesses, compliance is key before entering the European market.