EU vs. US: How Apple & Meta Face Divergent Regulatory Rules
EU President Ursula ven der Leyen, Apple, Meta, US President Donald Trump (Images credit X.com)
EU vs. US: How Apple and Meta Face Divergent Regulatory Landscapes Amid Privacy and Competition Concerns
By Sesh Kumar Pulipaka
New Delhi, April 26, 2025: The regulatory landscape for technology giants such as Apple and Meta differ sharply between the European Union and the United States. This is despite a shared public concern over privacy, competition, and consumer protection.
While the EU has adopted an aggressive posture, backed by robust enforcement and sweeping legislative mandates, the US has generally relied on a more hands-off, market-driven approach. The US often prioritizes innovation and corporate autonomy.
The headline-grabbing fines imposed by the EU on Apple and Meta stand in stark contrast to the regulatory environment the two companies face in the US. The differences in enforcement, legal philosophy, and the broader political economy underpinning regulation explain why conduct that draws billion-dollar penalties in Brussels might not attract similar treatment in Washington, D.C. — at least, not yet.
Antitrust: Market Power, Consumer Harm, and the Apple Case
At the heart of the EU’s fine on Apple was the charge that Apple abused its dominance in the iOS app ecosystem, specifically by restricting music streaming services from communicating cheaper alternatives to users and thereby harming competition. This type of “self-preferencing” and control over platform access is a central concern in Europe, where the focus is not only on consumer prices but also on market structure and the ability of competitors to innovate.
In contrast, US antitrust law, anchored in the Sherman Act and interpreted through decades of court precedents, has historically prioritized “consumer welfare”, narrowly defined, with a heavy emphasis on price effects.
American courts tend to ask whether the alleged conduct resulted in higher prices or tangible harm to consumers, rather than whether it disadvantaged competitors. As a result, practices like Apple’s App Store rules, while controversial, have not yet resulted in large-scale enforcement action or fines.
Even ongoing cases brought by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general — such as the Epic Games v. Apple litigation — have struggled to prove that Apple’s control over app distribution and payments constitutes an illegal monopoly under US standards.
It is noteworthy, however, that the US is experiencing a shift. The Biden administration’s antitrust leadership, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), signalled an appetite for a more aggressive approach, mirroring some aspects of European policy. Yet, US regulatory action against Apple for similar conduct remains pending, with litigation outcomes uncertain and legislative reforms — such as the proposed Open App Markets Act —still stalled in US Congress.
Data Privacy and the Meta Paradigm
On the privacy front, the difference is even starker. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides an extensive, rights-based framework, making it unlawful for companies like Meta to bundle consent for targeted advertising with basic service access.
The notion that “consent must be freely given” is rigorously enforced, as seen in the record fines and orders for Meta to overhaul its ad consent model.
In the US, however, there is no comprehensive federal privacy law comparable to the GDPR. Instead, privacy regulation is a patchwork of sector-specific rules (such as HIPAA for health data and COPPA for children’s privacy) and state-level initiatives, the most prominent being California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its successor, the CPRA.
These laws afford some data rights to consumers, but are generally less prescriptive and lack the teeth of GDPR. The FTC, the main federal privacy enforcer, can act against “unfair or deceptive” practices, but this standard does not extend to structural requirements for consent or data minimization.
Consequently, Meta’s model of “take-it-or-leave-it” advertising consent, which triggered regulatory backlash in Europe, would likely be challenged only if it were found to be deceptive or in violation of explicit promises to users, or if state-level statutes specifically prohibited such bundling.
Even then, the magnitude of penalties and the scope of required remedies would likely fall short of the sweeping orders and billion-dollar fines common under GDPR enforcement.
A Shifting Landscape?
Despite the US’s historically restrained posture, momentum is building for tougher oversight of Big Tech. Recent congressional hearings, bipartisan legislative proposals, and heightened public scrutiny have put companies like Apple and Meta under greater pressure. The FTC’s lawsuits against Meta for alleged anticompetitive conduct and privacy abuses, and DOJ’s ongoing cases against Apple and Google, signal a growing willingness to test the boundaries of existing law.
Yet the regulatory process in the US remains slower, more litigious, and less centralized than in the EU, with outcomes often shaped by protracted court battles rather than swift administrative penalties.
The EU’s fines against Apple and Meta highlight the divergent regulatory philosophies on either side of the Atlantic. While Europe embraced an interventionist approach grounded in fundamental rights and market fairness, the US remains tethered to narrower notions of consumer harm and limited statutory privacy protections.
As a result, practices penalized in the EU would likely face less severe consequences, if any, in the US, at least under current law. However, the winds of change are gathering, and the coming years may see a convergence, with the US adopting elements of the EU’s proactive stance as public and political consensus for Big Tech accountability grows.
For now, however, the comparative perspective reveals two worlds — one in which Apple and Meta are seen as gatekeepers subject to strong oversight, and another where they are market innovators largely trusted to regulate themselves.
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
