Sunday, February 01, 2026

Fear and Loathing in the App Stores: when FLOSS principles collide with the Gatekeeper interests


 Marc Prud'hommeaux – FOSDEM26, 1 February 2026

(Personal transcription, prepared with care and affection; but please cross-check against the delivery)

Thank you for coming. I might surprise you based on my technical difficulties I've just had right now. But yeah, I've been developing software since I was a little kid, and I've been developing apps for the iPhone and for Android since 2008, basically since the beginning of when you could do that. And I developed the very first e-book reader for the iPhone. That was known as Stanza. That went on for a while. And then since then, I've done dozens of other apps. More recently, I created a open source tool called skip.dev that helps you develop apps for both iPhone and Android from a single code base. I'm also the founder of the nonprofit App Fair Project, which helps promote and distribute apps universally for both platforms. And I'm also a board member of the F-Droid Project as of last year. So nearly everyone in the world has a little computer in their pocket. There's over 6 billion smartphones around the world. The vast majority of human beings have one. And these devices, they know just about everything about us. They know where we are. They know who we are. They know where we're going. They know what we're interested in, what we like, our media, our movies, and so on. And the question is, who really owns this device? Is this yours? You bought it. It's your property. But do you actually own it in the sense that you have complete control over it, that you have agency?

So how does software get onto a computer? When I first started developing software back in 1982, I had a little Radio Shack TRS-80 that had no persistent storage. So I subscribed to a magazine called the Rainbow Magazine, and they'd send you an issue every month. And in it, they would have printed pages of source code. And so I would sit there and I'd tediously transcribe that source code from my computer, from the pages of the magazine onto the computer, and then hope that you didn't make any typos, because debugging was quite a primitive operation back then. And then you would run it. And this would be little games or graphics demos or things like that. So that was how I really got started in software development. Since then, from that point on, I got a cassette tape peripheral that would let you save and load your program so that it wouldn't disappear when your sister … your computer. And from then on, you moved on to floppy disks, and hard disks, and CD-ROMs, and so on. As we all know, that's all gone. You don't have really physical media ever. Every once in a while, a CD, but it's pretty much gone the way of pretty much everything else from the last millennium.

And the result is that we distribute software over the internet now. And app stores have been the result of that phenomena, where a single organization will collect a number of applications and potentially curate them, and then list them for download and allow you to download them directly to your advice. On mobile platforms, this is far and away the most predominant form of software distribution. In an app store, when you run it on your phone, it's really just an app that installs apps. It's not really doing anything fancy. It's essentially a Gussie Puck downloader. It has some features like search. You might be able to review applications. You might be able to categorize them and browse them. But really all it is, it's an app that installs apps.

As of around the launch of the modern generation of smartphones, you really had two players that rose right around the same time. Apple's iOS, which runs on their iPhone and then subsequent devices like the iPad, and then Google's Android. iOS is exclusive to Apple devices, and Android runs on not only Google's own devices that they did not start out by manufacturing, but on a variety of other manufacturers that they license out the operating system to. Generally speaking, worldwide, Android has about a 75% market share, and iOS more or less takes up the rest. And then you have a very long tail of very small representation of other devices. But for the most part, BlackBerry is gone. Windows Phone is gone. You're left with really two players in this market.

When apps started getting first developed for these devices, when they were first released, there were no app stores. The very first app store was actually just like Cydia, which was developed by Jay Freeman, also known as Sorak, back in 2008. And this was a really nifty little app store. People were blown away. The iPhone came out and it only had a few built-in applications-- a web browser, a calculator, a contacts list, and things like that. But for the first time, this was something that allowed you to browse and download and potentially purchase applications from a variety of sources, from a variety of developers. And it was wildly popular. It had started out with a small catalogue with hundreds of apps, maybe even thousands. It had millions of developers, and it was pretty neat.

It didn't last long, though, because in iOS 2.0, when that came out, Apple introduced their own App Store. And they said that this was going to be the exclusive way of developing and distributing software for their devices. At the same time, they changed the operating system to break all the mechanisms that Cydia was currently using to be able to install their applications. And they essentially froze out that platform. Cydia continued on for a few more years, finding workarounds to be able to continue operating and continue serving their users. But ultimately, if you are fighting against the platform, as you may have heard from the previous talk, you're always going to wind up losing. And the platform vendor is absolutely dedicated to crushing you.

Android, on the other hand, took a different track. They started out by providing APIs for other developers to be able to develop and distribute their own apps. And that actually wound up starting a fairly open ecosystem, a vibrant ecosystem, of a number of different app stores. There were a number of commercial app stores. A couple of the big ones in the West were the Amazon app store, the Samsung Galaxy store worldwide. And there were also some non-commercial ones, F-Droid being a notable one, which I'll describe in a little bit. But it was never really a level playing field. The vast majority of Android devices are Android certified, and that certification process comes with various requirements. One of those requirements was that the Google Play Store be the most prominent, only pre-installed device and prominently displayed on any handset that was Android certified. And that was problematic for competition in that space.

And over the years, these two different gatekeepers, all their policies started to converge and align. You wind up having a system where the Apple App Store and the Play Store have more or less the same sequence of operations you need to go through in order to get your phone onto end devices. Developers need to identify themselves and register centrally. They charge developer fees, some of them annual, some of them one time. There are lengthy terms and conditions that you need to agree to. And these terms and conditions are obviously non-negotiable. And furthermore, they're always changing. They're always changing out from under you. They can come up tomorrow with a new set of terms and conditions. If you don't agree to it right away, you're out of the store. So it's very much a short lease that developers are kept on. Every app that you want to distribute has to be uploaded to their portal. It has to be reviewed by humans, potentially, or some degree of automation or a combination. And then if it's approved, once it's distributed,  that same process, you need to go through, again, for every single update that you distribute.

The benefit is that you can reach billions of potential customers. And the entire world is your oyster if you distribute through these stores. The cost is that they take a 30% cut off of the top of any digital sale that goes through any of these applications. And that 30% cut leads to extraordinary profit margins for these business divisions. The Google Play Store, as it came out in the Epic trial last year, makes around 70% profit margin. The Apple App Store makes around 80%. And that is unprecedented in the history of technology. In comparison, AWS makes around 20% to 30% profit margin.

So what's the problem, though? Be thankful for what you have. Feel lucky that you're able to reach these gigantic user spaces, these margins. We here love free software, but we often don't examine why. We don't often say, what is about free software? What problems does it solve? Why do we prefer this over other ways of developing, distributing software? So one hazard that has arisen, especially in recent years, has been that these large profit margins have led to developers seeking alternative monetization routes for their apps. Rather than paying an exorbitant 30% cut to Apple or Google for your app store app, you can seek alternate means of monetization. And that is often through advertisement. An advertisement can provide a direct stream of revenue for the developer, but as a side effect and as additional revenue stream for the people that are providing this ad tech, they provide a stream of data collection from your devices to centralized data brokers that then package them up, resell them throughout the world. This data collection is massive in scale. It can get all sorts of information from all sorts of parts of your devices. If you trust it with your contacts, with your calendar, with your location, with your media libraries, your photos, your camera, it can assemble these gigantic dossiers of people that are extremely valuable to resell.

What does your phone know about you? It has all these sensors. It tracks not only where you are, but where you're going, what your habits are, what your interests are. And it can drive all sorts of secondary information, not just your interests, your religious affiliation, your political allegiances, and so on.

So how do you identify the good apps and the bad apps? Almost all of these are marked as free, not in the sense of free software, but in the sense of it costs your own money to download. How do we identify the good from the bad? And the problem is that you really can't. You have these opaque bundles of binaries that get sent down to your device, and you can't look inside. They are, at the very least, obfuscated. And at the very worst, especially in the case of Apple devices, they are encrypted. And if you are in pretty much any Western country, the law will be adhering to the principles of the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which means a felony to break open these applications and look inside and examine what exactly they're doing. Not everyone has the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but more or less every Western country has equivalent laws on the books that have followed the precedent.

So free software to the rescue, obviously, right? You can publish the source code and you can publish the app and you can tell people, okay, line these two things up. And you can see we're not doing anything nefarious. We're not sneaking off your information. But can you work with that on a personal basis? Can you just say, as a principle, I'm only ever going to download these applications from these commercial app stores that are sourced from places where they build the software in the open? And you could, in theory, you would have to manually manage that curation yourself, but you would be hard-pressed to actually prove it. Someone can say, “here's the source code that goes into my app,” but how do you actually prove that these opaque blobs match the code that was published online? It’s trivially easy to slip in a little extra thing right before you submit a build that might add in an ad network, a data broker, all sorts of data collection, surreptitiously tracking your personal information. And your claims would be false, but it would not be provable.

That's where F-Droid comes in. How many people here have heard of F-Droid? Oh. I probably don't need to give you all that much background. It started in 2010. It's one of the oldest app stores out there, over 15 years old as of last year, and it's exclusively free and open source software, and it is verified. Either the project itself will build the binaries and distribute them to end users, or it allows the developer to build the binaries themselves and distribute the binary, and then the F-Droid project will validate that by performing a reproducible build of that and checking bit by bit that they're the same. It's essentially impossible to hide anything when it's distributed through F-Droid.

So that's for Android. You might say that we've got Android covered in that respect. So let's hop over to the other side of the duopoly. There's nothing like that for iOS. As I mentioned, all iOS apps are encrypted. There's no open app store APIs. You only have one route to doing it, and you have no means of verifying it.  However, the Digital Markets Act popped up fairly recently. It was proposed in 2020. It passed in 2022, and it came into enforcement in March 2024. And that mandates that the digital gatekeepers of online intermediation services, in other words, Apple and Google and their app stores, be able to provide the ability to have competition in the market and open up their APIs to allow alternative app marketplaces. That is what came into effect, and a lot of people thought, “great, we are going to have F-Droid for Apple now, and we can have a single universal source of applications across both sides.”

The problem, as many people know, is that the actual claimed compliance on the side of iOS was the implementation of the alternative app marketplaces. It establishes a lot of rules for the marketplaces themselves. You need to get approval from Apple. You need to be based in the EU. You need to provide a 1 million euro standard business letter of credit. And then you have core technology fees, basically junk fees that are layered on top of it that are applied on a per download basis, even for free applications. For developers, you might think that you could just submit your app directly to these alternative app marketplaces like you can do on Android. No, you still have to do exactly the same thing as if you're distributing your app through the Apple App Store. You need to get approval, you need to pay your fees, you need to agree to the terms and conditions, upload the app, and then wait and hope for approval. And only then is the app processed by Apple and bounced over to the Alternative App Marketplace, which then is permitted to redistribute it to the users of these marketplaces.

The biggest problem is that the exact same restrictions on the closed source marketplace apply to the alternative app marketplaces, which is that the apps are wrapped up in a DRM bundle. They are encrypted. And this not only means that the end user can't see inside the app, it also means that the alternative app marketplace is also unable to look inside the app, which makes it essentially impossible to comply with Apple's own contractual rules for these alternative app marketplaces, which is that they guarantee that any apps they distribute are free of malware. They have that requirement, but they do not offer any possibility that anyone can legally verify these apps, not only by scanning the binaries, but by lining them up with the underlying source code.

So OK, at least we still have Android, though, right? So maybe iOS is a lost cause. Maybe the rules are not going to be enforced for them. But we still have Android. And we did, up until the end of last year. At the end of last year, a lot of you probably heard that Google announced their Google Developer Registration Mandate, which requires that anyone who wants to distribute applications anywhere in the world on an Android-certified device, regardless of what storefront it goes through or whether you're just you know, providing it for direct download from your website, must register centrally with Google. And the rules might sound familiar to you. You have to register centrally, you have to agree to ever-changing terms and conditions, you have to pay a fee, and you have to register each of your applications with Google and in an ongoing way, any new applications, you need to go through them. And this is a gigantic problem for world of free software. All of a sudden, these two marketplaces are starting to really close in and align on all of their policies.

And this is a critical problem for F-Droid, because we can't really require our developers register with Google, especially if we're just reproducing their builds. Many will not. So, it's really an existential crisis for marketplaces like ours that really rely on the freedom and independence of the app developers to be able to distribute their applications

But it's not just about what apps are available, it's also about what applications are not available. The centralization of control should be concerning for everyone, not just free software developers, because you have a lot of perils that come from centralization. You have a lot of examples of how any centralized control can lead to abuse. You saw this in Hong Kong in 2019. You saw this in, you saw this in Russia in 2021, with the fair voting application that got pulled, and you saw it in the US in 2025, when applications that were designed to help people protect themselves from police brutality were unilaterally and extra legally pulled from these app marketplaces at the pressure of the administration. In each of these cases, these were extra legal requirements that gatekeepers wound up complying with, and this had worldwide consequences. And there was no review. There was no accountability. And it's definitely going to continue happening again and again.

So what can we do about this? How can we actually change this? What hope is there? As you probably know, I'm from the United States, so the likelihood of there being meaningful regulation any time in the next few years is extraordinarily unlikely. But policy makers in Europe are actually very receptive to feedback, to communication. I've talked with many of them myself. I frequently consult with Digital Markets Act regulators on how to go about things.

You need to make your voice heard to your policy makers. You need to point out that the only real path to digital sovereignty is through the total disintermediation of centralized control. You really need to be able to make it so that you can get directly to end users without going through one single centralized group.

I started a website called Keep Android Open that focuses on pushing back against the Android developer verification mandate. I encourage people to take a look at that to see points of contact. For developers, I think everyone should consider the promotion of these alternative app marketplaces by developing for them first. If you're an Android developer, consider shipping your app on F-Droid before anything else. And then there's nothing stopping you from also going to a Google Play Store. If you're on iOS, sign up for AllStore and try distributing your application there. These app marketplaces are growing and thriving, but they need more high-quality software, and software developers are the ones that we really need to provide that.

And for everyone, developer, user, policymaker, use these marketplaces. If you do not have them installed on your phone, download F-Droid for your Android phone, download AltStore if you're in the EU or Japan. And use them, see what they have, and who knows, eventually they might be your one and only exclusive source of applications. So my time's up. Thank you very much for coming.

 

 

 

 

Italienischer Charme im Dienst des deutschen und europäischen Wettbewerbs: Tomaso Duso

 FAZ, hier

EU Decision Behind €120m Fine on Musk’s X Released by US Lawmakers

 


TechPolicy, here

The decision, here.

Saturday, January 31, 2026

The Corner Newsletter: Amazon Seeks to Police Emerging AI Agent Market

 OMI, here.

The Bundeskartellamt's vision for our future: really?

 A. Mundt, here

"Key priorities include:
1. a significant reduction in regulatory and bureaucratic burdens in the EU, including targeted rules for digital markets;
2. addressing high energy prices
3. completing the EU internal market, including capital markets, banking and telecoms;
4. reducing strategic dependencies in energy, digital infrastructure, AI, pharmaceuticals and raw materials."
 

My humble take:


 

 

 

 

Next year... 


 

Publishers cautiously welcome proposals giving them more control over Google's AI summaries

 

Indeed: cautiously.

G. Lovelace, here

WhatsApp will now charge AI chatbots to operate in Italy

 TechCrunch, here

Herzog's Pinguin promotes Europe

 


Here.

Presenter Julian Worricker is joined by Cecilia Rikap, economist and Head of Research at University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose

 BBC, Here.

Digital Markets Act under pressure: Enforcement, AI Expansion, and Transatlantic Tensions

 With Konstantina!, here.

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

"Penisvergrößerung" und die DMA, LG Frankfurt

 

Dezent...

Hier
.

Schnelle 2 cents:

Das LG übersieht mMn dass „eigenes Produkt“ im Kontext von generativer Suche funktional verstanden werden sollte. Ein AI Overview ist nicht nur „ein anderes Format“ von Ergebnisliste, sondern eine eigenständige Leistung: Auswahl, Synthese, Priorisierung und Präsentation als autoritative Antwort. Diese Leistung konkurriert um dieselbe knappe Ressource wie Drittanbieter (d.h. Aufmerksamkeit)  und erfüllt häufig denselben Nutzerzweck wie die verlinkten Informationsdienste. Wenn der Gatekeeper diese eigene Antwortschicht systematisch über Drittquellen platziert, liegt eine Präferenz nahe, auch ohne dass ein separater „Google Medical Service“ verlinkt wird. Das Gericht setzt demgegenüber eine zu enge Produktvorstellung voraus, die an der Existenz eines klar abgegrenzten, extern benennbaren Dienstes hängt 🙈

Open Markets et al. Urge European Commission to Investigate Google’s Wiz Acquisition on Cloud Monoply Concerns

 Here.

Protect copyrighted work used by generative AI, say Legal Affairs MEPs

 EP, here.

Apple Accused by UK Developer of Blocking Competition in iOS Market

 CPI, here.

Complaint here.

Google’s general search services: proposed conduct requirements

 CMA, here.


EU Orders Google to Open Android and Search Data to AI Rivals

 WinBuzzer, here.

RÉSILIENCE NUMÉRIQUE EUROPÉENNE ET GÉOPOLITIQUE EN 2026

 Magnifique rediffusion complète, ici.

Apple to Introduce New App Store Fee Structure in Brazil Following Antitrust Settlement

 MacRumors, here.

Voilà here.

Fear and Loathing in the App Stores: when FLOSS principles collide with the Gatekeeper interests

 FOSDEM 2026, here

Interoperability regulation in the EU: Opening iOS and Android for Free Software

 FOSDEM 2026, here

Friday, January 16, 2026

Friday, January 09, 2026

Thursday, January 08, 2026

Monopolization in Europe: Understanding Dominance as an Ability

 R. Podszun, F. Scott Morton, here.

I agree that more should be done in trying to make102 somewhat functional, but we aren't done with the DMA at all - as (current and past) Big Tech consultants would like you to believe and see us doing ("all that money spent on Trump and lobbyists/consultants should finally produce results, rein in pesky EU regulators, let's set an example for the world here, look at what US oil companies got!"). It's just the beginning, actually. 

Tuesday, January 06, 2026

Dame Diane Coyle chez Oles

 Here.

"No settled view" in the UK (ongoing research?) - you can't be more diplomatic than that. 


Monday, January 05, 2026

Brazilian regulator opens investigation into Microsoft's software, cloud services: report

 Msn.com, here

CADE signs a Cease and Desist Agreement with Apple

 

Discuss...

Press Release, here

Reviewing European Antitrust Activity in 2025 and What It All Means for 2026

 M. Kirkwood, here

[If teaching at an Italian University counts as European Antitrust Activity, activity, 2025 was the first year I really struggled teaching traditional competition law - perceived mostly as a colossal waste of time for my Students and I, a bit like teaching International Law in 2026 I guess] 

DRCF Thematic Innovation Hub: Agentic AI webinar

 Video here

Good format? Unsure! They allocated most of the available time to a presentation delivered by a US company (dialogue with 'industry,' they call it).

Supporting economic growth! Societal benefits spreading across the economy! 


Open Web Advocacy 2025 in Review

 Brave/i, here

Poland Calls for EU Investigation of TikTok Over AI-Generated Disinformation Campaign

 The Cyber Express, here

US tech lobbying warning "EU lawmakers against efforts to decouple too sharply from US technology, as this would risk provoking countermeasures"

 


Euractiv, here



[Example of "gloves": it's all about innovation!
Even US brain-washed and financed, hard-liners among EU academics will come to realize it in 2026 - perhaps]. 

Japan Fair Trade Commission to Launch Investigation into Use of News Articles by AI-Powered Search Engines

 The Japan News, here

The Future of Enforcement and Compliance? How Computational Antitrust is Used

Our Curious Amalgam, here

The Italian Competition Authority orders Meta to suspend the terms excluding competing AI Chatbots from WhatsApp

 

Luzia...

AGCM, here

Sunday, January 04, 2026

Thursday, December 18, 2025

Monday, December 15, 2025

EU pushes back against US effort to change bloc’s tech rules

 Bloomberg, here

Merriam-Webster 2025 Word of the Year: Slop

 Here.

DSGVO-Reform: Rechtssicherheit und Innovation gehen Hand in Hand – Anpassungen für KI erforderlich

 DSK, hier

Making the Digital Markets Act Developer-Friendly

 L. Lasota, D. Presutti, J. Palepu, here

THE GREAT UNRAVELLING

 FEPS, here.

Keynote opening Digital Commons EDIC: Moving beyond the Digital Uncommons

 BertHub.eu, here

A Pragmatic Win, Not a Structural Fix, in South Africa’s Deal with Big Tech

 M. Markovitz, here

Final Report, here

Who are Tech Experts and What Can They Bring to Competition Enforcement?

 T. Davies, here

"I was forced to use AI until the day I was laid off." Copywriters reveal how AI has decimated their industry

 Blood in the Machine, here

Japan law opening phone app stores to go into effect

 


NHK, here

At the A19 DMA Conference last month, we had a very good presentation on this!  

Volksbanken ermöglichen iPhone-Zahlungen ohne Apple Pay

 WiWo, hier

Australia’s social media ban carries health warning for Big Tech investors

 FT, here

Google and Fortnite make peace

 Times of India, here

Apple loses its appeal of a scathing contempt ruling in iOS payments case

 ArsTechnica, here

Information manipulation in the age of generative artificial intelligence

 EPRS, here

Economic Planning in the Anthropocene

 Conference, Videos here

The Antitrust Case Against Airbnb

 The Sling, here

Is iRobot's demise a sign that competition and innovation in the market for robot vacuum cleaners *are indeed working*? #Discuss

 


Who's innovating here? What about data protection? The whole dilemma...

This consent judgment risks creating a blueprint for multinational companies to evade regulatory penalties in Nigeria

 I. Peters, here

The ACM has *just* been given powers to enforce the P2B Regulation [check: applicable since 2020] and you want to repeal it?

 Here.

Saturday, December 13, 2025

Lina Khan on Warner Brothers

 Here.

Comments are all ❤️❤️❤️ for her, nice to see! A class apart as antitrust enforcer. 

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Europe's Tech Dependency

 Bruegel, here.

 

 

(Talking about lobbying: Alexandra and Robin should perhaps ask...Who's financing Bruegel, BTW?)  

 


 

Google adding more links in AI Mode, testing AI features for Google News

 9To5Mac, here.

The usual playbook, AI edition!

Google is testing AI-powered article overviews on select publications’ Google News pages

 TechCrunch, here

La Commission européenne enquête sur l’IA de Google

 RFI, ici

A pay-to-scrape AI licensing standard is now official

 The Verge, here

Data Act FAQ for DPOs

 CEDPO, here

Interview: Meet the competition lawyer taking Microsoft to task over its cloud licensing tactics

 ComputerWeekly, here (Isa, again!). 

What Europe’s Digital Markets Act Has Delivered So Far and What Comes Next

 Isa and Mark, here

EU Court upholds antitrust fine on Intel but reduces it to €237 million

 Euractiv, here

Cory Doctorow - Rescuing the Internet From “Enshittification”

 Daily Show, Video here

How Google Maps quietly allocates survival across London’s restaurants - and how I built a dashboard to see through it

 L. Leek, here

EU says easier iPhone-Android switching is proof the DMA is working

 9To5Mac, here

Fascintern Media

 R. Berjon, here

Full transcript: POLITICO's interview with Donald Trump

 Here

[I watched it all, pretty weird - the journalist was amazing] 

Tuesday, December 09, 2025

Surveillance pricing, perfected (?)

 More PerfectUnion, here.

That may be the word of the year: turbulence.

 T. Ribera, here.

How People Use AI Agents

 Perplexity, here.

EU Probes Google Over Use of Online Content to Power AI

 WSJ, here

Laid-back piece by Edith. Exercise in gauging in which way the breeze (gale?) is blowing? 

The age-old saying “the devil is in the details” may not have been devised with the drafting of an antitrust remedies judgment in mind, but it sure does fit

 Judge Mehta, here

The DMA Lab #1: DMA Review | DMA & Geopolitics | Goals, Cases: with René Repasi & Niklas Brüggemann

 Here

We've been playing ourselves with the idea of a DMA Lab for more than a year...Competition! 

[We didn't hear about Panelists/Hosts' conflicts of interest - no professional involvement, such as representing clients, at all?] 

Commission opens investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct by Google in the use of online content for AI purposes



EC, here

[NotebookLM's own DeepDive here, just for fun]

In our Article 19 Report we discussed this and how it could eventually translate into a DMA obligation here.   

I'd add another aspect, if I may 😉: downstream products like NotebookLM having exclusive access to YouTube videos to produce content? Perhaps not a copyright infringement (derivative?) but what about competition in downstream markets for AI-related products? 


The Slingshot, with Tim Wu

Here.  

AI Antitrust Amnesty in the US - What about in the EU?

 In the US, here

I posed the question this morning and received an answer within 30 minutes. That was efficient, thank you!

Pay Attention to How You Pay Attention

 E.Klein, here. 

Commonwealth Bank pays penalties and offers redress for alleged breaches of Consumer Data Right Rules

 ACCC, here

Sunday, December 07, 2025

Digitale Souveränität: Kann Europa das schaffen?

 Deutschlandfunk, hier.

On extracting yourself from the extractors

 The great Elettra, here. Don't miss her!

Elettra gave a much appreciated guest lecture to us in Trento 4 (? must check) years ago  - in our (comparitively) age of innocence...

Saturday, December 06, 2025

The Protocol-Institution Continuity, and other "Chicche"


From R. Berjon's Guest Lecture, Trento University, 5th Dec. 

Thursday, December 04, 2025

"Computers were not intended to make judgement decisions"

 


BBC, 1970 [same year as the Hesse legislation] here

We were on a very promising path, what happened since?  

 

Europe’s clean, just and competitive transition: a conversation with Teresa Ribera

 Bruegel, here

Search engines in times of Artificial Intelligence

 EPRS, here

The DMA at the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Ordinary meeting

 Video here.

Commission opens antitrust investigation into Meta's new policy regarding AI providers' access to WhatsApp

 EC, here.

Meta to face competition probe over AI use in WhatsApp, Ribera confirms

 Euractiv, here.

How are they going to coordinate with the Italian proceeding? Looking forward to interim measures!

Of course, also the DMA should already be updated - at least by delegated act (pity they didn't open any proceeding yet - as we discussed at our A19 Conference). 

From a 2024 (time flies) article "it appears quite probable that some form of platform integration, potentially through the blending of AI or virtual worlds technologies in WhatsApp, may occur." No crystal ball required!

Artificial intelligence, intellectual property, and human rights: mapping the legal landscape in European health systems

 R. van Kessel, here.

IPFS at Eurosky Live Berlin: Highlights From A Bright Future

 R. Berjon, here.

And tomorrow (virtually) at Trento University. 

Review of the EU Merger Guidelines – Stakeholder Workshop of 4th December 2025 and "Trento Choice" of relevant questions

Today in our Trento classroom the discussion turns to merger control. The timing is well suited, as Brussels today is holding a workshop on how the system might be reshaped. This creates a practical dilemma for anyone teaching the subject: it is not obvious what to present with confidence when the current framework is not performing especially well. 
Still, the workshop offers a coherent set of questions that helps to structure the debate and clarifies what is worth addressing. Here is the Trento selection of questions we consider most relevant/intriguing:



.







 



US lobbying playbook, delivered to you by Teneo

 SOMO, here.

Wednesday, December 03, 2025

A fresh approach to competition policy

 EC, here.


Great! Who should deliver it?

The economics of copyright and AI

 C. Peukert, here.

Whenever I see a "model" applied to policy, as a PhD economist I ask myself: do we really need it? What's the model obfuscating which would instead matter to policymakers? 

Silicon Valley Builds Amazon and Gmail Copycats to Train A.I. Agents

 NYT, here

Future-proofing the EU: ordoliberal governance and algorithmic regulation

 A. Küsters, here

Tuesday, December 02, 2025

Best contribution to the OECD panel "Artificial Intelligence and Competitive Dynamics in Downstream Markets"

 Douze points go to...

[CADE's contribution to the proposals of regulation of the AI systems, under analysis by the Brazilian Congress here; BTW, did our EU competition authorities submit contributions re AI Act?]

Study on the next data frontier: generative AI, regulatory compliance and international dimensions

 Final Report, for the EC, here

Where you read: "Public initiatives such as Common European Data Spaces and GAIA-X are widely anticipated to improve data accessibility, but awareness and participation remain limited, especially among SMEs." - GAIA-X, seriously? How much did the EC pay for this Report? 

AI poses unprecedented threats. Congress must act now

 B. Sanders, here.

Mehr Rechtssicherheit durch Verbots- und Erlaubnistatbestände

 TUM Think Tank, hier.

Bundeskartellamt prüft Lösungsvorschläge von Apple im ATTF-Verfahren – Markttest gestartet

 Hier.

[I can't believe this is still ongoing, really]

Time To Decide Europe Summit 2025

 ERSTE Foundation, here

The operator of an online marketplace cannot avoid its obligations under the GDPR by relying on the exemption from liability provided for by Directive 2000/31

 CJEU, here

Google ordered to pay $55m in penalties for anti-competitive conduct

ACCC, here

The Standards of Fairness in Digital Law

P. Van Cleynenbreugel, L. Grozdanovski (Eds), here

The Public Value of Arts and Culture: Investing in Arts and Culture to Reimagine Economic Growth in the 21st Century

 M. Mazzucato, here

Google deletes X post after getting caught using a ‘stolen’ AI recipe infographic

 BleepingComputer, here

[It's complicated] 

Monday, December 01, 2025

A Variation-Selection-Adaptation Framework for the Digital Markets Act

AI generated - don't trust it ;-) 

S. Vezzoso, ORDO 2026.

Abstract: This paper examines the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) through the lens of an evolutionary economics framework structured around the concepts of variation, selection, and adaptation (VSA). It argues that the DMA represents a bold, systemic regulatory shift, motivated by the inadequacy of traditional antitrust enforcement to address entrenched digital dominance. By introducing the VSA framework, the paper offers a novel tool for evaluating how effectively the DMA promotes contestability— with innovation as the form of competition most at risk in digital markets. The framework is applied to the case of online search, with a focus on Alphabet, the only search engine designated as a gatekeeper to date. The analysis highlights the extent to which current DMA obligations promote variation (diversity), counter biased selection mechanisms, and enable effective adaptation among gatekeepers, challengers, other market participants, and regulators. It also identifies persistent gaps in regulatory design and implementation, suggesting that additional measures may be needed to fulfil the DMA’s stated ambitions. In doing so, the paper contributes both a structured analytical approach and critical insights to the ongoing evaluation and future development of the DMA. 

Digital Omnibus: First Analysis of Select GDPR and ePrivacy Proposals by the Commission

 noyb, here.

Europe needs a plan for decoupling from America

 FT, here

A Decade of OECD Competition Trends, Data and Insights

 OECD, here

Situating the Dynamic Competition Approach

AI Generated 

  N. Petit et al.,  here.

Expanding Google Cloud’s Cross-Cloud Network with a groundbreaking AWS collaboration

 Google, here

During the A19 Conference, we discussed why there wasn't any ongoing DMA qualitative designation for the third hypescaler 🤔 

Immediately after Mehta let Google escape, the company reconstituted its monopolization techniques in the generative AI space

 M. Stoller, here

In the US *only* - of course.......

Global Forum on Competition 2025

Video of the opening here

We're relying on Teresa to come up with something useful ;-)  

 

Brazil: "concerns" about the possible sharing of personal data between WhatsApp and Meta for the purpose of targeted advertising

 ANPD, here

Privacy's Autonomy Thicket: Disentangling Choice, Consent, and Control

 N. Richards et al., here

What if generative AI is reaching its limits?

 EPRS, here

N.Y. Law Could Set Stage for A.I. Regulation’s Next ‘Big Battleground’

 NYT, here

Seventh AI Pact webinar on AI Innovation for SMEs and startups

 Video here

Google Unbundles YouTube Services Following Korean Competition Probe

 CPI, here.


 

Thursday, November 27, 2025

Secteurs de la syndication de résultats de recherche et de la publicité en ligne : l’Autorité de la concurrence rejette la saisine au fond et la demande de mesures conservatoires formulées par la société Qwant à l’encontre de Microsoft

 Adlc, ici.

Plus que de véritables affrontements concurrentiels, le phénomène semble s’apparenter à une forme de connivence structurelle. Et les autres acteurs du marché ne semblent tirer aucun bénéfice de cette prétendue compétition...


Tristan Harris, the ultimate (literally?) Cassandra

 The Diary of a CEO, here.

If you listen carefully to Tristan Harris, it becomes crystal clear why the usual suspects are so opposed to the whole bunch of EU digital regulation that matters.


The Writer Who Dared Criticize Silicon Valley

 NYT, here

Path to European Competitiveness and Sovereignty? Ask OpenAI, Microsoft and Booking

 Commenting on a CERRE Report, here.

Perhaps they also asked somebody else, later, but sorry: I can't watch any further. 

Open Is Sovereign: Why Europe’s Digital Future Must Be Built on Global Open Source Ecosystems

 Linux Foundation, here.

Coincidence? Google is increasingly closing Android, as we heard last week at the Article 19 Conference

"Though still nascent, agentic AI could significantly reshape competition..."

 OECD, here.

Tbd today, Trento U. 

Recipes for digital sovereignty in a changing geopolitical landscape

 Barcelona, whereelse here.

CO-OPERATIVE ANTITRUST IN REMEDY DESIGN

 OECD, Background Paper here.

I had expected rather more. Consumer associations were barely mentioned, and broader civil society did not appear at all. But, of course,why change course, given how extraordinarily effective our remedies have been so far? A veritable Sternstunde of antitrust, especially in digital markets...


First EU Member State to pass law prohibiting price-fixing algorithms? Can't wait

 Here.

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

People-first Playbook

 MyData, here

Meta probed over whether it pushed AI tool onto WhatsApp users without consent

 Independent, here

[But the title is, well, wrong]. 

The Wrist-Slappers Strike Again

 D. Dayen, here

Décision DoctoLib

 ADLC, ici

Digital Commons on the EU’s Digital Sovereignty Agenda

 Open Future, here.

Towards a Digital Clearinghouse...: Seriously?

Fooled once...

 EDPS, here

Rutger Bregman - Moral Revolution - (as censored by the BBC)

 BBC, here

I have listened to the whole thing, and the Q&A was, I suspect, the part I appreciated most. The "straight out of Silicon Valley" comments about Europe, forever regulating, never producing, felt rather surprising  - if the world were that simple (that's why we need good historians with hindsight)! True, we do risk turning ourselves into a dusty, romantic museum, but only if we fail to make intelligent use *also* of our own heritage, including through digital tools that are not simply parachuted in from California but adapted to our needs. 

And happily, a young ‘populist left’  has already emerged with exemplary standard-bearers such as Lina Khan among them.


 

Rapport de l’Autorité de la concurrence au titre de la pratique d’autopréférence définie à l’article L. 442-12 du code de commerce

 Adlc, ici

Interim Measures re Meta AI in sight?

 

25/11/2025

ACGM, here.  [I wrote a blog post on this proceeding what feels like very long ago, here]


"Meta’s new conduct appears to constitute, already prima facie, a possible violation of Article 102 TFEU, consisting in Meta’s refusal to allow AI chatbot or AI assistant providers—its competitors—to access the WhatsApp platform in order to offer such services to users." 

It was such a low hanging fruit that I was puzzled that other Tech bros weren't openly complaining about it - which hinted to the fact that they might have been pursuing other, possibly murkier strategies. When (also?) small (EU?) ones complained, European CAs were listening...

Google is a near-$4tn monument to monopoly power [aka a monument to US/EU regulatory failure to rein it in]

 

Xmas present to Judge Mehta? For your desk?

FT, here

A Critique of Recent Remedies for Third-Party Pricing Algorithms and Why the Solution is not Restrictions on Data Sharing

 J.E. Harrington, here

Emotional Manipulation by AI Companions

 J. De Freitas et al., here

Trump Falls Short of His Populist Rhetoric

 NYT, here

EDPS TechSonar 2025-26

 Here

The Rent Is Too Damn High: Did Trump Just 'Bless' Using AI to Jack Up Rents?

 M. Stoller, here

UNESCO adopts first global ethical framework for neurotechnology

 DigWatch, here

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Google’s compliance with EU’s Big Tech rules gets Italian redesign

 Politico.eu, here.

DMA: Encirclement Without End?

We are only a few days on from the Berlin summit on European Digital Sovereignty, where the DMA  was celebrated as an essential component to reaching that objective.  It is evidently displeasing to Americans that they were not granted a prominent role (but still with a seat at the table) at a European technological summit, even though they remained very much the Elephants in the Room. Then the US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is dispatched by Big Tech to Brussels and applies pressure across the board, anchoring the negotiation to tariffs on steel and aluminium on whether we are prepared to weaken our DMA and DSA rules. And this hurts, also common Germans, as pointed out by the MEP Alexandra Geese. The Digital Omnibus,  neatly arranged on a tray, proved insufficient to placate the American technological ogres.

One must recognise that the DMA (and the DSA) are among the last bastions still standing at the moment, and that a possible Brussels Débâcle would carry profound, global implications. If we yield as Europeans, we yield also on behalf of all the other countries attempting to contain the power of the technological ogres. This Brussels Débâcle may take various forms and shapes. I do not expect a retreat, but I fear that the line may shift. Some impactful changes, adjustments and delays agreed behind closed doors, at the highest level of the Commission, remain invisible to us and significantly undermine the democratic position of us, the citizens of the European Union.

[In the meanwhile, Margrethe Vestager reacted to this frontal attack, among many others: serious stuff. And Teresa Ribeira too: strong words; Macron also onboard  ] 

DOJ v. RealPage: Proposed Settlement

 Here

High Commissioner Türk calls on business to tackle today’s challenges with human rights as their guide

 OHCHR, here

Monday, November 24, 2025

COMMERCIAL COURT NO. 15 OF MADRID ON META

 Here.

Utopias: Daron Acemoglu

 Podcast here.

The Bad Reasoning in the Meta Antitrust Ruling Isn’t Even the Worst Part

 T. Wu, here.

THE ITALIAN COMPETITION AUTHORITY SECURES INFORMED AND FREELY GIVEN USER CONSENT TO GOOGLE’S LINKING OF SERVICES

 AGCM, here.

The video of the #EuroskyLive morning sessions is up

 Here.

Special Larry Summers Edition of the Slingshot

 Video here. 

The Economics of Zohran Mamdani

 Pro Market. here.

Why Are AI Giants Betting On India?

TPP, here. 

What Is Europe Trying to Achieve With Its Omnibus and Sovereignty Push?

 TPP, here

Sarah Cardell: Keynote address, competition policy 2025 conference

 Video here

“A.I.” browsers: the price of admission is too high

 B. Lawson, here

“Easy” Default Browser Settings Aren’t Always Easy

 Mozilla, here

Jornada 25- Thomas Höppner -Video -Entrevista

 Video here

ASCOLA NOEL 2025: Antitrust as amuse-bouche

 Video here

Data Portability Can Restore Real Consumer Choice Between ‘Consent or Pay’ Offerings Online

 Data Transfer Initiative, here

The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can support AirDrop

 Ars Technica, here

Digital Rights Are on the Chopping Block in the European Commission’s Omnibus

 D. Leufer, here

ChatGPT is huge in India. These locally focused startups found a way to compete

 Rest of World, here

The Obligations of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models

 M. Veale, J.P. Quintais, here

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

Digital Markets Act enforcement: Impact and next steps

 


Article 19 DMA Conference, Programme here

I thought it was a bit sci-fi, while writing the paper...





 

Europe: Investigations into cloud computing under DMA a welcome move

 Article 19, here.

Indeed, here.  

OpenAI strikes deal with Intuit to plug personal financial data into ChatGPT

 FT, here

A PROGRESSIVE ROADMAP FOR EXPANDING EUROPEAN DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY

 C. Rikap, here

Commission launches market investigations on cloud computing services under the Digital Markets Act

 EC, here

Booking.com taken to court

 CCC, here

Competing Legal Futures – “Commodification Bets” All the Way From Personal Data to AI

 M. Giraudo et al., here.

"Our" AI&fun panel at the Article 19 DMA Conference

Now that the programme has been officially released, I can say a word about Thursday’s panel, where I shall present a paper that is highly tentative: when I wrote it, it verged on science fiction, yet events have already overtaken it. One striking aspect of the panel is that we have four papers on artificial intelligence, which is noteworthy in itself. The perspectives are varied yet complementary. And while today the Commission opened three investigations in the cloud sector, our discussion moves further downstream: we consider also whether AI-related services should be expressly recognised as core platform services, which DMA obligations genuinely already apply to AI-related services , whether they can be regarded as adequate, whether the DMA should be even more ex-ante, etc.

I suspect the session will be lively.