EU looks to hit Big Tech in crackdown on US services exports(ft.com)
ft.com
EU looks to hit Big Tech in crackdown on US services exports
https://www.ft.com/content/8d37105e-9a69-4bde-9463-beccd413695a
66 comments
From my limited understanding of economy and international trade law, “tariffs on services” is not a thing. Is that correct? Can it become such?
One of the EU's primary revenue streams is periodically (annually?) being "tough" on Big Tech. If you can't build - regulate, or something like that.
The EU's budget is about €190bn. Fines for Big Tech companies last year totalled €8bn.
So that's ~4%. It’s not insignificant, but I wouldn't exactly call it a primary revenue stream. VAT brings in 3x as much money. Import duties bring in about 5x that. And about half of the budget comes directly from the member states.
So that's ~4%. It’s not insignificant, but I wouldn't exactly call it a primary revenue stream. VAT brings in 3x as much money. Import duties bring in about 5x that. And about half of the budget comes directly from the member states.
Revolutionary idea: Respect the local business laws.
Which ones here were unfair?
"Tech fines tracker" - https://proton.me/tech-fines-tracker
"Tech fines tracker" - https://proton.me/tech-fines-tracker
I'm genuinely interested to know: why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it, the would-be vassal states deriving tribute from the US by robbing their companies rather than the usual reverse?
Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe to fend for themselves and exit all military and otherwise engagements with them and fall back to ordinary international trade relationships.
Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe to fend for themselves and exit all military and otherwise engagements with them and fall back to ordinary international trade relationships.
[deleted]
Zero imperial gain? This is a rather incredible claim: why do you say so?
My two cents: isn't this arrangement more of a continuation of the Marshall Plan? If the US did nothing, post-war Europe was likely to fall into the influence of the Soviet.
Now even the Soviet has dissolved, there's always the menace of Europe allying with Russia or China (from the US perspective). So it's worth to pay a premium to prevent your opponent from getting the same thing.
Now even the Soviet has dissolved, there's always the menace of Europe allying with Russia or China (from the US perspective). So it's worth to pay a premium to prevent your opponent from getting the same thing.
Can't imagine why they'd ally with Russia, or to what end.
There wasn't any direct threat to Europe between 1990 and 2014, yet the US kept their bases there.
The US has been interested/involved in a number of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few decades. Europe provides safe and friendly place to station military equipment nearby.
The US has been interested/involved in a number of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few decades. Europe provides safe and friendly place to station military equipment nearby.
Why do you believe that the EU is attempting to "rob" US companies when it's quite clearly just a tit-for-tat retaliation to tariffs imposed by the US?
They've been doing it for years prior to the new tariffs.
Seems the EU is keen to regulate it's tech sector into nothingness, only stodgy big corporate crap like SAP making it through, and then when the good tech, which logically must appear overseas, shows up on their shores, they spitefully fine them constantly for everything they can think of.
Seems they're ruled by their worst.
Seems the EU is keen to regulate it's tech sector into nothingness, only stodgy big corporate crap like SAP making it through, and then when the good tech, which logically must appear overseas, shows up on their shores, they spitefully fine them constantly for everything they can think of.
Seems they're ruled by their worst.
The EU isn’t trying to “rob” American tech companies or punish them just out of spite. They’ve introduced strict regulations like GDPR or the Digital Markets Act, because they’re genuinely concerned about protecting consumer rights, privacy, and maintaining fair compettion. These aren’t random fines aimed only at US firms, European companies get fined too if they break the rules.
It’s true Europe struggles to build big global tech companies, but that’s mainly due to factors like fragmented markets, less venture capital, and more cautious investors, not just regulation. Cities like Berlin, Amsterdam, and Stockholm actually have thriving tech scenes despite these rules.
So it’s really not about hurting US tech, it’s more about making sure huge companies, wherever they’re from, follow clear rules and don’t abuse their market power.
It’s true Europe struggles to build big global tech companies, but that’s mainly due to factors like fragmented markets, less venture capital, and more cautious investors, not just regulation. Cities like Berlin, Amsterdam, and Stockholm actually have thriving tech scenes despite these rules.
So it’s really not about hurting US tech, it’s more about making sure huge companies, wherever they’re from, follow clear rules and don’t abuse their market power.
Because Russia and Iran are on the other side.
> why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it
They're much closer to the Middle East and Africa, can be used for refuelling/restocking, provides intelligence and obviously NATO.
> Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe
I don't think you'd have much opposition to the removal of US military bases, they're probably not popular with the local populations (certainly not Croughton).
It's the US that has been the one that's been opposed to a European army or independent European military strategy outside of NATO under fear of loss of influence (and defence sales).
They're much closer to the Middle East and Africa, can be used for refuelling/restocking, provides intelligence and obviously NATO.
> Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe
I don't think you'd have much opposition to the removal of US military bases, they're probably not popular with the local populations (certainly not Croughton).
It's the US that has been the one that's been opposed to a European army or independent European military strategy outside of NATO under fear of loss of influence (and defence sales).
Just begs the question further "and why are they there.
Think you need to update your worldview, I know it's resurged in popularity among MAGA but we intentionally left the imperial world behind post world war 2.
We moved to a rules based world order, there is no imperialism after that, unless we want to return to a world of war (people forget how frequent this was before this, this is the reason the nations of the world agreed to the move, they didn't want to live in this terrible uncertain type of world). This world was also unproductive as people are too scared to take risks. A war economy isn't productive in the true sense as it doesn't improve the human condition.
A rules based world order needs someone to enforce those rules, with the US as hegemon, they ended up being the largest enforcer (in addition to the UN security council which has been neutered by China and Russia's moves to ignore it).
The benefit for the US is a prosperous, stable world. A consumer base with plenty of money to spend on US goods (the world economy is demand based), and a stable supply chain.
We moved to a rules based world order, there is no imperialism after that, unless we want to return to a world of war (people forget how frequent this was before this, this is the reason the nations of the world agreed to the move, they didn't want to live in this terrible uncertain type of world). This world was also unproductive as people are too scared to take risks. A war economy isn't productive in the true sense as it doesn't improve the human condition.
A rules based world order needs someone to enforce those rules, with the US as hegemon, they ended up being the largest enforcer (in addition to the UN security council which has been neutered by China and Russia's moves to ignore it).
The benefit for the US is a prosperous, stable world. A consumer base with plenty of money to spend on US goods (the world economy is demand based), and a stable supply chain.
> We moved to a rules based world order
I hear that often but I still don't understand what these "rules" are exactly. It can't be international law which the hegemon broke over and over again. So what are these rules?
I hear that often but I still don't understand what these "rules" are exactly. It can't be international law which the hegemon broke over and over again. So what are these rules?
Treaties, International law and international institutions.
People occasionally break the law in countries too, doesn't mean it's a free for all when there is one crime committed.
People occasionally break the law in countries too, doesn't mean it's a free for all when there is one crime committed.
We had all of those things before WW2.
Not to the same extent. You also had imperialism.
Just found a good write up. The economic integration was intentional post WWII.
https://jstribune.com/azar-gat-is-war-declining/
Just found a good write up. The economic integration was intentional post WWII.
https://jstribune.com/azar-gat-is-war-declining/
I know, I'm just saying those things listed can't be the basis of it since we had them already. Economic integration like with the steal and coal community is a fait point but it wasn't what was said when I responded. The claim was that it was a "rules based order" and that the rules were "treaties, International law and international institutions." No mention of economic integration.
We also have imperialism today and have done since the end of WW2.
We also have imperialism today and have done since the end of WW2.
The basis for the Bretons Woods agreements was intentionally to integrate economically and treaties post WW1 and WW2 were intentionally to stop imperialism. That was not the case before.
Perhaps it occasionally has happened since but not at the scale beforehand and with plenty of roadblocks. It's like saying crime is rampant when one person commits one, it's hyperbole to say so.
Perhaps it occasionally has happened since but not at the scale beforehand and with plenty of roadblocks. It's like saying crime is rampant when one person commits one, it's hyperbole to say so.
This is such a US-biased view. This "rules based order" never existed, it was a convenient way for the US to say that they are the "world's government". Even after the cold war ended the US waged wars. No thanks. It's good that we have counter forces like Russia and China in the security council.
You may have read my comment wrong, but either way your take on my comment is completely wrong.
Of course it's good Russia and China are on the council. Them being there is an acknowledgement and example of rule based order.
The idea is that the "market makers" (the countries with the largest influence in the world) adhere to the security council's decisions. And then if smaller players ignore it, the bigger players on the council can bring them back in line to preserve world order.
And sorry you're delusional if you think rules based order never existed, you're welcome to take the US out of the equation, it still exists! There are a number of institutions including the WTO, the UN amongst others and various agreements in the bretton woods agreement, all created post WW2.
Seriously don't be dismissive and don't listen to propaganda, go read the history. This dismissive attitude, you've co-opted, are part of efforts to dismantle it as part of this imaginary "multipolar world" (which only means might is right, a return to war). It's only beneficial to the likes of those who know they have enough might and who wish to ignore the rules. The existing order is multipolar, if a country is influential enough they can be added to the council. Removing the councils influence is destroying order, creating chaos and war. It also may be ignorance, people aren't being taught the reasons in school anymore.
Of course it's good Russia and China are on the council. Them being there is an acknowledgement and example of rule based order.
The idea is that the "market makers" (the countries with the largest influence in the world) adhere to the security council's decisions. And then if smaller players ignore it, the bigger players on the council can bring them back in line to preserve world order.
And sorry you're delusional if you think rules based order never existed, you're welcome to take the US out of the equation, it still exists! There are a number of institutions including the WTO, the UN amongst others and various agreements in the bretton woods agreement, all created post WW2.
Seriously don't be dismissive and don't listen to propaganda, go read the history. This dismissive attitude, you've co-opted, are part of efforts to dismantle it as part of this imaginary "multipolar world" (which only means might is right, a return to war). It's only beneficial to the likes of those who know they have enough might and who wish to ignore the rules. The existing order is multipolar, if a country is influential enough they can be added to the council. Removing the councils influence is destroying order, creating chaos and war. It also may be ignorance, people aren't being taught the reasons in school anymore.
RBIO may have been an idea but the US and the west have routinely violated their own laws over the decades. They, as you said, used their might to ignore the rules.
The open US support for genocide has fully destroyed the concept.
The open US support for genocide has fully destroyed the concept.
Your perception is biased, just because the news hyperfocuses on certain instances where the the rules are flouted does not mean it is not there.
You take the world you live in for granted, look at a 80 year timescale and world scale, 7 billion people. What do you think WTO is and what is it doing? What do you think that passport you are carrying is doing? There are nearly 200 countries in the world and you're focusing on how many instances?
You take the world you live in for granted, look at a 80 year timescale and world scale, 7 billion people. What do you think WTO is and what is it doing? What do you think that passport you are carrying is doing? There are nearly 200 countries in the world and you're focusing on how many instances?
So... the theory is that without the US, Europe devolves into anarchy?
I mean, that's suitably US-narcissistic for me to believe that's a genuinely held position I guess.
I mean, that's suitably US-narcissistic for me to believe that's a genuinely held position I guess.
I guess some may view it that way, but like you say narcissistic.
To me it's a mutually beneficial arrangement, de-risks the continent.
For the US ensures long term alignment and influence avoiding someone else filling the vacuum (EU militaries were weak and fragmented). For Europe common alignment and influence ensures some unity. Remember the continent was consistently fragmented and at war before this, it's hard to imagine in current times with the EU.
To me it's a mutually beneficial arrangement, de-risks the continent.
For the US ensures long term alignment and influence avoiding someone else filling the vacuum (EU militaries were weak and fragmented). For Europe common alignment and influence ensures some unity. Remember the continent was consistently fragmented and at war before this, it's hard to imagine in current times with the EU.
American bases in Europe are worthless to Europeans. Go ahead, close them.
The one example listed in the article was starlink. What other "Big Tech" could even be realistically dinged by this?
How do you tariff Adsense from google? Or 3rd party cell phones that run Android? Will they slap an upcharge on netflix or Amazon prime somehow?
How does suspending intellectual property rights work, also? That seems like a whole can of worms
How do you tariff Adsense from google? Or 3rd party cell phones that run Android? Will they slap an upcharge on netflix or Amazon prime somehow?
How does suspending intellectual property rights work, also? That seems like a whole can of worms
One obvious option would be to add a couple of percent on each transaction in the EU (e.g. each time Apple and Google take their 30% the EU takes 5% or so), that way the requirement to open up the mobile platforms to alternative app stores would also finally make sense, since European app stores wouldn't be affected by the tarrifs.
Sure, that makes sense, make the tax big enough to really hurt if they try to eat it.
I guess if IP is off the table as well, nothing to stop someone from pirating every movie on netflix and launching a clone for EU!
Im curious for some more details around this. I hope it turns out to be a nice big stick to smack some sense into the US tech oligarchs, and also their orange subordinate
I guess if IP is off the table as well, nothing to stop someone from pirating every movie on netflix and launching a clone for EU!
Im curious for some more details around this. I hope it turns out to be a nice big stick to smack some sense into the US tech oligarchs, and also their orange subordinate
ban starlink, twitter and tesla. put a %26 tax on all advertisement on Meta and Google. Put a similar tax on all Amazon Prime and Netflix subscriptions.
That should do the trick.
That should do the trick.
> How do you tariff Adsense from google
Well, it's already subject to VAT, so I guess in much the same way as that?
Well, it's already subject to VAT, so I guess in much the same way as that?
I guess it just seems a bit pointless to attempt to tariff what is essentialy a monopoly. Google could pretty easily just pass on 100% of the costs of the tarrifs onto the consumer.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if more American big corpos paid more taxes, I was just curious what this plan would even look like when/if it's enacted
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if more American big corpos paid more taxes, I was just curious what this plan would even look like when/if it's enacted
Passing the cost onto the consumer is what makes the business look less appealing compared to local alternatives, helping to break the monopoly.
VAT means taxes the EU consumers prices, not on Google's profits.
From a quick search I cannot find any examples of tariffs applied as a tax on a specific company's profits.
They are commonly applied as a surcharge (charge on top of the business or consumer price of a good) on specific goods, which is exactly how VAT works across the EU.
Tariffs can be applied in other ways too, such as a surtax (tax on top of another tax). But I don't think tax on profits is common, as that would give the foreign company too much leeway to fudge the numbers.
They are commonly applied as a surcharge (charge on top of the business or consumer price of a good) on specific goods, which is exactly how VAT works across the EU.
Tariffs can be applied in other ways too, such as a surtax (tax on top of another tax). But I don't think tax on profits is common, as that would give the foreign company too much leeway to fudge the numbers.
True, but it's collected by Google and passed to the relevant government. So it would be similar (they just wouldn't add it to the price, as VAT is).
> it's collected by Google
Not the case in at least some EU countries. Businesses are responsible for calculating the VAT and paying it themselves.
Not the case in at least some EU countries. Businesses are responsible for calculating the VAT and paying it themselves.
As an EU citizen, I think we have no choice but to be tough here. Trump’s tariffs aren’t something we asked for, but backing down isn’t an option either—he’ll just keep pushing. Targeting US services, especially big tech, makes sense because it hits where the US is genuinely vulnerable, and Europe can’t match them dollar-for-dollar on goods alone.
Look, I’d prefer a cooperative relationship too, but diplomacy clearly hasn’t worked. The US administration needs to understand that actions have consequences, and if this means leveraging our market strength and standing firm, then that’s exactly what we have to do. If the EU doesn’t respond decisively, we’ll only embolden more aggressive policies from Trump’s side.
We’ve tried being patient. Now it’s about showing we won’t be pushed around.
Look, I’d prefer a cooperative relationship too, but diplomacy clearly hasn’t worked. The US administration needs to understand that actions have consequences, and if this means leveraging our market strength and standing firm, then that’s exactly what we have to do. If the EU doesn’t respond decisively, we’ll only embolden more aggressive policies from Trump’s side.
We’ve tried being patient. Now it’s about showing we won’t be pushed around.
you have to stand up to a bully. if you don't, it will get worse.