Policy

The force behind the EU’s market rules lays out the choices facing Big Tech

European Parliament member Andreas Schwab told Protocol why we’re going to see more choice screens, and how seriously companies need to think about selling off popular services.

Member of the European Parliament for The European People's Party (EPP) Andreas Schwab delivers a speech during a debate on the Digital Markets act at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France, on December 14, 2021. (Photo by Jean-Francois Badias / POOL / AFP) (Photo by JEAN-FRANCOIS BADIAS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

European Parliament member Andreas Schwab sat down with Protocol to discuss the DMA.

Phot: Jean-Francois Badias/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

The EU is on the cusp of formally approving the Digital Markets Act — the landmark tech competition rules that could force drastic changes in the business models of Apple, Google and other big tech companies.

Ahead of the vote, European Parliament member Andreas Schwab, a German lawmaker who oversaw the legislation, is visiting Washington, D.C. He sat down with Protocol to explain why the public shouldn’t doubt the seriousness of U.S. lawmakers’ tech antitrust agenda, why we’re going to see even more choice screens and how seriously business leaders need to reckon with the possibility of selling off popular services.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

U.S. tech policy watchers are pretty jaded. It seems like nothing ever changes on privacy or antitrust, and even when it has, the big players still come out on top. Are you optimistic that the EU is really about to change the whole tech world that we've known for the last 30 years?

The European Union has decided that we’re starting a new era of tech policy. [The DMA] will be enforced from the first of January. What are the consequences for the U.S.? I think we should be very modest as Europeans, but we have seen with data protection and cybersecurity, other countries take over what we do.

Countries like Japan, Indonesia, Australia and others are already doing some stuff, and it may well be that, sooner or later, they just take over what we have been proposing. And to that extent, then, I think there will also be very strong pressure for the United States to follow on.

When you hear from U.S. lawmakers, especially on this trip, do they say that they’re ready to act on this? The clock is really ticking in Congress. In some ways, it's down to weeks really, at this point, to pass competition legislation.

We have been speaking a lot, and I think there is absolutely room for optimism. I think the discussion in Congress is far more advanced than the public has understood. For sure, it's always difficult to fight against vested interests. But I have no doubt that the Americans are ready and willing to do the same as we did in Europe.

Let's get down to some of the details: Messaging interoperability is a major factor in the DMA. Obviously, on the other side of it are the companies and civil liberties groups concerned that privacy or end-to-end encryption is threatened when secure services have to work with insecure ones. Can you describe any work that’s going into preserving safety and privacy?

Initially, the DMA didn’t foresee any interoperability obligation. It came in in the legislative process, but the obligation is that small [holds out his thumb and index finger, almost touching them] compared to the DMA. And it's not a general interoperability obligation. It is an obligation for the [messaging] gatekeepers to allow smaller companies to connect with their services if there is a reasonable request. So if you are saying, “I'm Joe Sixpack, I want to connect with you,” they don't have to do that. If there is a fake instant-messaging company from Iran, it will have no chance. And even if you'd make a reasonable request, there is six years of process to make sure that first messaging, then pictures and other texts, are going to be exchanged in an encrypted mode. We wanted to ensure that, and therefore we have given the European Commission the power to delay that process so that standards can be worked out.

Do you think that a general interoperability mandate, let's say across social media, is plausible in some further iteration? It's something that the U.K. is looking at and some U.S. lawmakers are looking at.

In the negotiations, we were looking at that, but the likelihood for this to be done safely, at the moment, was too unclear. The market for these platforms is based on the principle that they have an income, and if you cut off the content from the advertisement, to a certain extent you destroy the platforms.

Talk about what you think the experience for consumers will be like. After GDPR went into effect, it seemed like I was being barraged by data-use options. Are there going to be more choice screens? “What browser do you want to use?” “What app payment system do you want to use?” “What messaging service?”

The aim of the DMA is to create a better variety of offers and services to users, to businesses and to consumers. And this has already been enacted in the past with specific competition policy procedures. So, the browser issue has been settled. Why should [a similar approach] not be applied to all other companies that have a gatekeeping status? If you want to have your Gmail, or your Outlook, or your iCloud? This is your choice. No platform should be able to oblige you to take one of their [services so that they can] screen your data more easily. We want people to be able to choose their browser, their search engine and so on. That choice option is a process that will be adapted over time for important tools that you use all the time in all digital systems. The Microsoft browser [case] was in the PC era. We are in the Web 2.0 era. We don't know what will come in the Web3 era.

But it does seem like choice screens are going to be a big part of how we experience the DMA?

That will be the technical element to it. It’s true that the first experience with this will be these choice screens, but I think it will be the boring part of it. The more interesting part will be the back side of the economy, where you can have better offers and a broader variety of services.

How seriously should we take the possibility that something like YouTube or Google Maps or Amazon Prime has to be spun off?

Well, I think we should take it seriously, but it should be taken more seriously by those that have the responsibility for these businesses. They have to consider the legal basis and the legal framework in which they operate.

How stringent do you think punishments and investigations will be in the first year or two?

In the first year or two, there will not be that much. The question will be: Can we come to a compliance culture? The problem is, investors want to have as much cash as possible. Only if the law is clearly stopping the purely cash-related [motivation] can we convince [the companies] to have other [motivations] in business development. That's what we want to allow for. I think it can be extremely interesting to see how these businesses respond to demands that a democratic society makes.

What are U.S. trade officials, who were unhappy that this was going through, telling you now that the DMA is essentially a done deal?

I think that there is a clear commitment on both sides of the Atlantic to make the digital economy as fair as the traditional economy. This is never perfect. What I can tell you is there are plenty of small and medium-sized companies, especially from the U.S., that are pushing us to go further because they think that they will have chances to acquire larger parts of the market if these laws are enacted quickly. They believe that the market can become better, the variety of services and products better, and therefore I think there will be a very strong [push] in the U.S. for such laws to be applied. We should not pit the American economy against the European, because in the end, we are living in an open economy.

If you're a small or medium-sized company, what should you be doing to prepare to assert your rights in Europe right now?

The problem is, very often these companies have a smart idea and an innovative service, but to a certain extent, they discover that they are broken apart by gatekeepers, by anonymous behaviors that you cannot easily prove. And what we say is: Speak out about them! Always check to what extent the data streams of gatekeepers are the precondition for your success. So if you are not in search engine results anymore, question why that’s happening. In the U.S., the streets are public. There is not one company that controls them and says to you, “You have to stay at home because you cannot do that in our streets.” But that's what happens in digital. Lots of companies have already gone down. Maybe some of them because of bad ideas, but some of them with brilliant ideas and innovation that we have lost forever. But in the future, we don't want to have that anymore. And that's the reason why we fight.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

LA is a growing tech hub. But not everyone may fit.

LA has a housing crisis similar to Silicon Valley’s. And single-family-zoning laws are mostly to blame.

As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers, whose high salaries put them at an advantage in both LA's renting and buying markets.

Photo: Nat Rubio-Licht/Protocol

LA’s tech scene is on the rise. The number of unicorn companies in Los Angeles is growing, and the city has become the third-largest startup ecosystem nationally behind the Bay Area and New York with more than 4,000 VC-backed startups in industries ranging from aerospace to creators. As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers. The city is quickly becoming more and more like Silicon Valley — a new startup and a dozen tech workers on every corner and companies like Google, Netflix, and Twitter setting up offices there.

But with growth comes growing pains. Los Angeles, especially the burgeoning Silicon Beach area — which includes Santa Monica, Venice, and Marina del Rey — shares something in common with its namesake Silicon Valley: a severe lack of housing.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Policy

SFPD can now surveil a private camera network funded by Ripple chair

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a policy that the ACLU and EFF argue will further criminalize marginalized groups.

SFPD will be able to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks in certain circumstances.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Ripple chairman and co-founder Chris Larsen has been funding a network of security cameras throughout San Francisco for a decade. Now, the city has given its police department the green light to monitor the feeds from those cameras — and any other private surveillance devices in the city — in real time, whether or not a crime has been committed.

This week, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved a controversial plan to allow SFPD to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks during life-threatening emergencies, large events, and in the course of criminal investigations, including investigations of misdemeanors. The decision came despite fervent opposition from groups, including the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which say the police department’s new authority will be misused against protesters and marginalized groups in a city that has been a bastion for both.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Enterprise

These two AWS vets think they can finally solve enterprise blockchain

Vendia, founded by Tim Wagner and Shruthi Rao, wants to help companies build real-time, decentralized data applications. Its product allows enterprises to more easily share code and data across clouds, regions, companies, accounts, and technology stacks.

“We have this thesis here: Cloud was always the missing ingredient in blockchain, and Vendia added it in,” Wagner (right) told Protocol of his and Shruthi Rao's company.

Photo: Vendia

The promise of an enterprise blockchain was not lost on CIOs — the idea that a database or an API could keep corporate data consistent with their business partners, be it their upstream supply chains, downstream logistics, or financial partners.

But while it was one of the most anticipated and hyped technologies in recent memory, blockchain also has been one of the most failed technologies in terms of enterprise pilots and implementations, according to Vendia CEO Tim Wagner.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Latest Stories
Bulletins