The European Parliament debated the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) on 28 April 2026, two years after its entry into force, exposing disagreements over enforcement pace, sovereignty, and scope. MEPs from across the political spectrum questioned Commissioner Teresa Ribera on the Commission's record, with a resolution due the following day.
Enforcement pace divides centre groups Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA) and Andreas Schwab (EPP) urged swift, robust enforcement, with Cavazzini calling for fines that "bite" and Schwab stressing gatekeeper responsibility. Pablo Arias Echeverría (EPP) echoed the call for speed. However, Brando Benifei (S&D) and Pierre Jouvet (S&D) criticised the Commission for slow action, arguing that delays undermine the DMA's credibility. Commissioner Ribera defended the pace, stating that legally robust decisions take time and that the Commission prioritises quality over speed.
Sovereignty vs. politicisation Cavazzini and Schwab insisted on EU rules free from US influence, framing the DMA as a test of European sovereignty. In contrast, Marlena Maląg (ECR) and Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR) accused the EU of weaponising the DMA against US firms, calling it protectionist. Ribera rejected the notion of subordination, asserting that the DMA applies equally to all gatekeepers regardless of origin.
extending the DMA's reach Cavazzini, Benifei, and Reinier Van Lanschot (Greens/EFA) pushed for the DMA to apply to artificial intelligence and cloud services, arguing that new digital markets require oversight. Ribera noted ongoing consultations and investigations into these sectors, but stopped short of committing to immediate expansion.
Tangible benefits questioned Cavazzini and Cynthia Ní Mhurchú (Renew) pointed to successes such as browser choice screens and increased interoperability. However, Elisabeth Dieringer (PfE) and Cristian Terheş (ECR) questioned whether the DMA has delivered measurable benefits for consumers and businesses.
Overregulation fears vs. gatekeeper responsibility Gheorghe Piperea (ECR) and Tynkkynen warned against overregulation, arguing it could stifle innovation. Schwab and Tomislav Sokol (EPP) countered that gatekeepers must bear responsibility for compliance, and that the DMA is essential for fair competition.
Cross-regulatory tools Dirk Gotink (EPP) urged the Commission to use foreign-subsidies rules alongside the DMA to address competitive distortions. Ribera agreed, signalling a coordinated approach.
Stakeholder impacts The debate highlighted trade-offs for key stakeholders. Gatekeepers (Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, TikTok) face continued compliance costs and potential fines if enforcement accelerates. European SMEs stand to benefit from fairer market access, but may face uncertainty if scope expands to AI and cloud. Consumers could gain more choice and lower prices, though overregulation risks reducing innovation. Cloud and AI firms may see new obligations if the DMA is extended, increasing compliance burdens but also levelling the playing field.
Next steps The Parliament is set to vote on a resolution on 29 April 2026, which will formalise its position on DMA enforcement and call for further action from the Commission.