With a potential EU trade war looking likely, and Silicon Valley’s finest coalescing behind Trump, Europeans are understandably wary about what will happen next. It was telling that Mark Zuckerberg, in his “masculine” move away from DEI, also raised his hope of working with the President to stop EU regulators fining Big Tech (Meta has been hit with over €2.6 billion in GDPR fines to date). Much has been made of the continent’s fondness for regulation – and how it blocks innovation. So we asked our Footprint network whether they believe US tech bosses are right to say that European regulators have gone too far.
Mia Kollits Staunsager, managing director at Morsing thinks there might be some kernels of truth in their thinking, “Yes, US tech leaders are right to some extent. While regulation is essential for protecting users, over-regulation in Europe isn’t just a risk – it’s a reality. In Denmark, our National Bank warns of a bleak future, and even our Social Democratic Prime Minister admits we must prioritize innovation over endless regulation. From a communications perspective, it’s fascinating to see how this debate highlights the growing tension between policy and innovation – a narrative that resonates globally. The positive news is that this self-awareness allows us to change course. With the right focus, there is real hope for a bright, innovation-driven future in Europe.”
Nazim Damardji, managing director at Fabriq thinks, “This question ties into a broader, fundamental debate: should we regulate or censor everything said and written on social media, or should we uphold freedom of speech and focus on punishing those who break the law? Both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks. In Belgium, for example, there is a consensus to ban far-right leaders from French-speaking media. The result? Far-right political parties have not gained significant traction. However, this raises another question: should we ostracize anyone who holds a different view on a specific issue?”
Stella Jansen, managing director at Progress Communications however thinks the US giants are being disingenuous with their rationale, “Those in the US are promoting the move as free speech because that is what people want to hear. But essentially it is not about misinformation or moderation or about freedom of speech. This whole thing is about power and money. Facebook is not a company, it is a geopolitical asset and with that, Zuckerberg is promising Trump the world. Meta is ready to push any message without moderation into foreign elections. And with that, it makes sure that the Trump administration can leverage a total dependency on US tech, comms infrastructure, and trade deals etc. It is about bypassing governments, creating more polarisation, forging favourable deals (for the US) or pushing back against unfavorable trade deals or governments. Zuckerberg is offering Trump Meta as the tool to hinder any country that will try to limit him. And this is what he needs to do, if he wants to survive under Trump. Dealing with Trump is not about rules and ethics, it is about transactions, which has strong roots in the US, while Europe is defined by regulation driven to ensure fair competition and the protection of consumer rights.”
Tapio Liller, managing partner at Oseon, agrees and thinks there is a core issue at play, “The recent pivot in how US tech companies and their leaders approach the fundamental policy issues of free speech, AI regulation, and cooperation with regulators like the EU shines a bright spotlight on an unresolved problem: a misalignment between US and European entrepreneurial, political, and legal cultures. While our partners across the pond take an “anything goes for business until its regulated” stance, Europe—and Germany in particular—approaches tech regulation from a foundation of individual rights that need to be protected. So it’s no wonder that the US-centric ‘techno-libertarian’ views are now clashing with Europe’s protective culture. It will be important for communicators to explain this dichotomy and, when dealing with US technology companies, to ensure that they understand the reputational risks involved in trying to impose American views on the world’s second largest economy.”
Volker Schmidt, Managing Director at PER Connect (formerly Akima Media), is equally concerned, “When looking at the latest developments, there can be no two opinions. The big tech companies, led by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, are simply trying to increase their power. On the one hand, this is understandable. But on the other hand—and especially in view of Musk’s interference in the US and now German elections—it is a highly dangerous development. And when I see that Meta wants to abolish fact-checks in the US, I am glad that the EU has introduced some regulations. For the sake of the people of Europe and our democracy. Because that’s what the Digital Markets Act & Digital Services Act are there for: to curb the market power of the big tech companies and force them to take action against illegal content, fake news and misinformation.”
Whether this is possible is another thing. Volker continued, “Admittedly, this may be difficult under the new Trump administration—but if the EU shows strength now, it could trigger a global wave of digital regulation. As after all, the US, China and other countries are watching closely how things develop here and could take similar actions in future.”
2025 will force us to confront real questions about Big Tech’s influence on democracy, innovation, and the future of our digital society. How companies balance technological progress while protecting rights is a question that cannot be ignored, especially as AI gets closer to upending the job market. If you’re tackling these questions and want to get in touch to discuss further, reach us on: onesmallstep@madebygiants.io
