The United States Trade Representative’s office posted last week on X a list of European service providers that could be punished if the European Union continues with discriminatory measures against American tech.
The statement says the US would consider introducing fees and other restrictions on foreign services if the European Union and EU Member States “insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of US service providers through discriminatory means”.
Why is the American message not reaching the Europeans?
The negative American sentiment is understandable, as the US currently has a services trade surplus with the EU of over €148 billion (including charges for intellectual property, professional, scientific, and technical services, as well as telecommunications, computer, and information services).
In addition, Europe’s regulatory framework (both current and planned) is likely to make American tech companies’ lives in the European market more difficult.
EU-US trade: facts and figures // Council of the European Union
Nevertheless, the American point of view and latest argumentation receive little to no acceptance in the EU. If anything, the reaction can be negative, emboldening actual anti-Americans and silencing the moderates, as well as transatlanticists.
First, conflating the EU’s regulatory stance on tech with geopolitical messaging, and using strong rhetoric against the EU as a whole (as seen in recent posts by Elon Musk), can radicalise European moderates, including those who share concerns about overregulation, and is often perceived as a geopolitical threat. When a Russian official like Dimitry Medvedev echoes an American tech CEO’s opinions, it’s not a good look, to say the least.
Second, when the US talks about introducing retaliatory measures against EU tech companies, it can embolden political forces calling for tougher action against American firms, including fines, divestment, and new taxes. The European Commission’s 2025–2029 agenda includes a number of new initiatives in the pipeline, and these are most effectively balanced by actors seen as classically liberal or conservative.
Third, American political messaging is sometimes heavily tailored to domestic audiences and is perceived as inaccurate in Europe. For example, the recent €120 million fine against X has been portrayed by many American public figures as an attack on free speech, even though the fines themselves have little to do with free speech.
The company has been fined for “deceptive blue checkmark system, inadequate advertising repository, restricted data access for researchers”. Frustrating overregulation? Certainly. Something to do with free speech? Unlikely.
Using simple and compelling messaging is understandable, but to resonate in Europe, it also needs to be more precise and clearly tied to the substance of the issue.
Fourth, by highlighting the European regulatory system and the so-called “Brussels effect,” Americans may unintentionally prompt other parts of the world to consider it as useful leverage against the US.
Is the homework being done after the US-EU trade agreement?
Things were looking a little better in August 2025, when the US and the EU signed a US-EU trade agreement. It seemed that more subject-based conversations would finally begin, as Article 8 outlines both parties’ commitment to “reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers,” and Article 17 sets out a U.S.–EU commitment to further address “unjustified digital trade barriers.”
The question now is whether the post-agreement homework is actually being done. Unfortunately, it seems that the question is largely rhetorical.
Naturally, the US should be focused not only on existing regulations such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Digital Services Act (DSA), and the AI Act, but also on the risks in the incoming agenda, through initiatives like the Digital Fairness Act, which could significantly reshape the personalised advertising market.
It will be too late to do anything after these regulations are adopted – the DSA, DMA, and AI Act experience shows that regulations cannot just be cancelled after they are adopted; therefore, the homework needs to be done in a timely manner.
Which European companies are at stake?
The European companies mentioned as targets are Accenture (headquartered in Ireland), Amadeus (headquartered in Spain), SAP, Siemens, and DHL (all headquartered in Germany), Capgemini, Mistral AI, and Publicis (all headquartered in France), and Spotify (headquartered in Sweden).
Why these companies are being targeted, and not others, remains a mystery. Some European service providers (including tech companies) have been left out; some of the companies named have deep-rooted partnerships with the US tech companies, and some have largely aligned with the US position on the EU’s overregulation of tech.
In July, for example, SAP CEO Christian Klein pointed out that Europe should not try to compete head-to-head with the US, but instead focus on European strengths and niche areas: “I would not compete with the companies that did a great job, like the United States or China. The AI race is not decided yet on the software layer. There is so much demand there.”
Mistral AI, for its part, was among the most outspoken critics during the debate on the AI Act in the European Parliament.
Siemens, together with SAP, called for a revision of the AI Act back in July.
Overregulation is a problem for Europeans too
Framing the EU’s tech regulations as solely a problem for American companies is also both incorrect and harmful. Overregulation of the tech sector is also a major issue for European companies and their competitiveness.
Mario Draghi himself has said that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) alone makes data 20 per cent more expensive for European founders compared with American ones.
EU rules aimed at very large online platforms (VLOPs), such as the DSA, the DMA, and others, will soon become a problem for many European tech companies, unicorns too. As they grow, they are likely to face the same scrutiny as American firms.
The EU is finally moving in the right direction with so-called simplification through the Digital Omnibus, which aims to streamline data rules, the AI Act, and more.
For many Europeans, simplifying the EU’s tech regulatory regime (and scaling back regulation more broadly) is seen as necessary for European competitiveness, and this aligns with what the US has argued for a long time.
This article was first published on EU Tech Loop and has been shared on Euronews as part of an agreement with EU Tech Loop.