The European Commission (EC) seems gripped by a tech-anxiety that drives it to attack technological advancements it believes it should control. If the EC does not address this irrational stance, Europe, once a beacon of industrial and scientific innovation, risks falling into technological obscurity.

The latest evidence of this issue is EC Vice-President Margrethe Vestager’s statement criticizing Apple’s decision to not roll out certain AI-related products in Europe. Vestager called Apple’s move a “stunning, open declaration” of anticompetitive behavior.

Underlying this is the EC’s demand that Apple’s AI systems be interoperable with those of its rivals. Apple holds that this requirement would compromise customer data privacy and security on products like iPhone Mirroring, SharePlay Screen Sharing enhancements, and Apple Intelligence— lead them to not introduce these in Europe. iPhone Mirroring allows users to display their iPhone’s screens on other devices, such as a computer or television. The SharePlay enhancements improve screen sharing during FaceTime calls.

Vestager’s response is problematic on multiple fronts. Firstly, it is incoherent. She seems to think it is anticompetitive for a company to withhold an innovation that would make its products better. Perhaps someone should remind her of Michael Porter’s Five Forces model from his 1979 Harvard Business Review article, which explained that low product quality creates opportunities for rivals. Apple’s competitors are probably secretly cheering this development.

Additionally, this situation exposes a significant flaw in the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the law that prompted Apple’s decision. The DMA empowers European regulators to control the European business strategies of six companies: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft. These so-called gatekeepers are regulated in part because they have built strong economic positions and can influence European markets. These criteria may hold for Apple in general, but they certainly do not hold for Apple’s innovations in AI, nor for anyone else’s AI: The technology and related products are evolving too fast.

Vestager’s statement also highlights a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” regulatory mindset. The EC would have penalized Apple if it had rolled out these AI innovations and the breaches had occurred. Now, Vestager suggests Apple might face penalties for not rolling them out at all.

Lastly, the EC bureaucracy seems to believe it can set technically and commercially viable standards for fast-evolving AI systems. If this task were simple, industry, governments, and academia would not be investing billions in AI innovation.

The EC’s tech anxiety dates back over two decades. An early sign was its 2001 rejection of the GE-Honeywell merger, which US and Canadian regulators had approved. This decision likely had protectionist undertones, but the EC’s stated reason was that it feared European companies could not compete with the merged entity’s innovations.

This tech anxiety, coupled with a regulatory zeal that stifles technological progress in Europe, now targets US tech giants. From 2017 to 2022, the EC pursued at least 14 cases against US tech companies, primarily focusing on how they integrated their platform features. The EC’s stance was that these companies should reduce their dynamic, feature-rich platforms into EU-regulated, general-purpose technologies. This belief permeates the DMA, which codified the EC’s earlier rulings against US tech firms.

Beneath the EC’s incoherent regulatory actions lies a desire to control tech innovation and a persistent protectionist streak. Some within the EC view implementing the DMA as a way to skew regulations against Big Tech in favor of European companies. When the DMA became enforceable in early 2024, the EC immediately launched investigations against Alphabet, Apple, and Meta.

The next US administration, regardless of political affiliation, must address the impacts of the growing incoherence of European antitrust policies. The EC’s bias against significant innovations, especially from American companies, and its desire to dictate their product strategies, pose a threat to the American economy. The US must stand firm to protect its technological leadership and economic interests.

Learn more: Overregulation Threatens the Digital Economy | The Government is Gunning for Live Nation. It’s Making a Historic Mistake  | Imposing Net-Neutrality Regulations Would Be a Step Backward | Evaluating State Broadband Efforts: Insights from the Broadband Barometer Project