Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers, witnesses warn EU and U.K. tech rules could chill U.S. speech, harm U.S. apps
Loading...
Summary
At a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, Republican leaders and witnesses argued that the EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act and the U.K. Online Safety Act force U.S. platforms to apply foreign rules globally, risking First Amendment impacts and added compliance costs for small app developers.
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday examined claims that European and U.K. digital-safety and competition laws are reshaping content moderation and market access in ways that could curtail speech and raise costs for U.S. tech firms.
Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) led many of the opening criticisms, pointing to a letter from European officials to Elon Musk as evidence European regulators feel empowered to police content tied to U.S. platforms. “This is why we're having today's hearing,” Jordan said, arguing that provisions in the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the U.K.’s Online Safety Act (OSA) could “spill over” into the United States.
Why it matters: Witnesses and committee members said the laws matter to Americans not only because they touch core free-speech questions but because they set regulatory requirements that large platforms often implement worldwide for cost and technical reasons. That can change how content is moderated and how small developers reach customers.
Key testimony and examples
- Morgan Reid, president of the App Association, told the committee small and medium-sized developers rely on larger platforms for distribution, trust and to reduce overhead. Reid said the DMA’s “gatekeeper” rules and other EU requirements raise compliance costs and can push consumers away from startups toward bigger, better-known firms.
- Lorcán Price, barrister and legal counsel for ADF International, described criminal prosecutions and enforcement actions in Europe he said were tied to online speech and gave examples the organization is litigating: a Finnish lawmaker prosecuted over a social-media posting, a Scottish grandmother prosecuted after a Facebook post, and recent arrests and charges in the U.K. Price said the DSA’s enforcement design and the so-called “Brussels effect” create incentives for global compliance by platforms.
- Professor David Kaye, clinical professor of law at the University of California, Irvine and former U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, urged caution in characterizing allied democracies’ laws as “censorship regimes” while also saying the concentration of platform power is real and that European rules aim to introduce transparency, notice and appeal rights for users.
Disputed effects and trade concerns
Republican members framed the European rules as protectionist and burdensome. Supporters of the laws, and some Democrats on the panel, said Europe’s actions respond to deeply felt problems—platform power, child safety and disinformation—and that the laws include judicial review and other legal checks.
Committee members pressed witnesses about real-world enforcement: the DSA’s “trusted flagger” mechanisms, fines measured as a share of global turnover, and whether criminal prosecutions in Europe followed from online posts. Witnesses pointed to reported cases in Finland, Scotland and the U.K., and to the risk that nationally designated “trusted flaggers” could push removal prioritization.
What the witnesses recommended
- Reid asked Congress to push back diplomatically and through trade discussions so that U.S. small developers keep access to European markets without absorbing disproportionate compliance costs.
- Price urged continued U.S. diplomatic pressure and legal support for people prosecuted in Europe for online speech; he also urged U.S. allies to press Ireland and national regulators where many platforms are locally headquartered.
- Kaye recommended that U.S. oversight focus on protecting Americans’ expression at home and press for clearer transparency and appeal protections rather than suggesting Europe’s laws are monolithic censorship.
Ending
Committee members from both parties agreed the questions are consequential but contested: Republicans emphasized economic and speech harms from European rules, while Democrats and some witnesses urged clearer U.S. attention to platform power and to protecting rights at home. The committee said it will continue oversight, including follow-ups with European and U.S. officials.
