Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary subcommittee hears warnings that EU-style DMA rules could hurt U.S. tech, witnesses urge trade responses
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing told members that the EU Digital Markets Act and similar ex‑ante regimes can act as non‑tariff barriers, harm innovation and consumers, and recommended trade tools, reciprocal measures and digital diplomacy to protect U.S. firms.
The House Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee convened to examine how foreign antitrust regimes, notably the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), affect American companies and consumers. Chair Jim Jordan opened the hearing by saying the DMA "flips that principle on its head" and treats success as a reason to impose conduct rules on U.S. firms.
A panel of outside experts testified that DMA‑style, ex‑ante rules identify so‑called gatekeepers by size and impose sweeping duties without requiring evidence of consumer harm. Mister Shankar Singham, identified at the outset as the chief executive of Compentaire and chairman of the Compentaire Foundation for Trade and Competition Policy, told the subcommittee these frameworks operate "as non tariff barriers" and cited econometric estimates that, in his view, show large long‑run costs (he cited figures for Korea and for the United States across a 10‑year horizon).
Professor Aurelien Portuiz, director of the GW Competition and Innovation Lab, argued the DMA disproportionately burdens U.S. firms, deters innovation by focusing on hypothetical rather than demonstrated harms, and recommended a four‑part U.S. response: federal legislation similar to H.R. 4278 (to enable reciprocal penalties), strengthened USTR authority in the International Trade Act of 1974, a congressional investigation into DMA costs, and a diplomatic task force to promote U.S. effect‑based antitrust norms.
Mister Dirk Auer, director of competition policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, said enforcement in recent years has often resulted in fines and sanctions that fall heavily on U.S. companies and argued that DMA‑style packages (including the Digital Services Act and forthcoming EU AI rules) can slow product rollouts and degrade services for consumers.
Witnesses recommended tools ranging from trade remedies and targeted tariffs to technical assistance for allied regulators. Singham urged using Section 301/232 tools and trade investigations where regulations operate as discriminatory non‑tariff barriers; Portuiz called for "digital diplomacy" and promoting U.S. effects‑based standards through the State Department and USTR.
Members pressed witnesses on empirical claims. Witnesses attributed some recent product delays in Europe (for example, maps integration and certain AI features) to DMA compliance costs and cited large aggregate cost estimates from their written submissions; members on both sides said they wanted the underlying data entered into the record for further scrutiny.
The hearing closed without legislative action; the chair allowed five legislative days for members to submit additional questions and materials for the record.
