The Digital Markets Act was Europe's bet that competition in digital markets couldn't be restored case by case, so the rules would be written in advance for the handful of 'gatekeepers' large enough to control access. Seven companies were designated, obligations took effect in March 2024, and the European Commission began enforcing immediately.
Two and a half years in, the record is substantial and the verdict is contested.
Why it matters
The DMA is the world's most consequential experiment in prescriptive tech regulation. If it works, it becomes the template — the UK, Japan, Brazil and others have already written similar laws. If it produces compliance theater without competition, it becomes the cautionary tale that discredits the approach for a generation.
How it works
The law lists specific prohibitions and obligations for designated gatekeepers: no self-preferencing in rankings, no blocking third-party app stores or payment systems, no combining personal data across services without consent, mandatory interoperability for messaging and operating-system features, and data-sharing obligations for search. Penalties run to 10 percent of global turnover, rising to 20 percent for repeat violations — the first fines, against Apple for steering restrictions and Meta for its pay-or-consent model, arrived in April 2025.
Enforcement is continuous rather than case-based: the Commission opens non-compliance proceedings, gatekeepers propose changes, and the cycle iterates — which means the law's real output is a rolling negotiation over implementation details.
Evidence
The concrete changes are documented: iOS in the EU supports alternative app marketplaces and browser engines; choice screens for browsers and search engines are live; Meta introduced a less-personalized ads option under regulatory pressure; Apple opened NFC payments to third parties. The fines are public record. The Commission's own reporting and the gatekeepers' compliance reports enumerate the changes in detail.
The movement is harder to document. Alternative app stores exist but hold minimal share; default search and browser positions remain dominant; and developers complain that gatekeepers' compliance terms — new fee structures, warning screens, friction — are designed to make openness unattractive. The Commission has acknowledged the pattern by opening proceedings specifically about whether Apple's compliance terms defeat the law's purpose.
The competing read
The Commission's view: structural change in entrenched markets takes years, the legal infrastructure is now in place, and each enforcement round tightens the screws. The skeptics' view: the law regulates the symptoms of gatekeeper power while leaving its sources — network effects, defaults, integration — intact, and well-resourced legal teams will always stay one step ahead of prescriptive rules. Both agree on one thing: the DMA's success or failure will be decided by whether the current enforcement cycle reaches remedies that change user behavior, not just terms of service.
What happens next
Watch three things: whether non-compliance proceedings convert into structural remedies rather than fines; whether the UK's parallel regime, now live, moves faster with its more flexible toolkit; and whether any challenger — an alternative app store, a search competitor, a messaging network — actually captures share in the EU in a way it hasn't elsewhere. The last is the only metric the law was ultimately written for.