Page 27
EU
the very nature of transatlantic relationships, for better or for worse. Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon - sometimes collectively referred to as “GAFA” (which is, ironically, also the Irish word for “obsessed” or “preoccupied”) - have become the latest subjects of interest for European Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. The Danish Social Liberal politician has made no secret of her agenda to “clamp down” on the activities of these technological behemoths, quickly becoming the poster child for the EU’s crusade to modernise its competition laws for the digital age. Perhaps most notably has been her issuance of fines for breaches of said laws against these companies, including among them a hefty $1.7 billion sum issued against Google in 2019 for an “abusive” online advertisement strategy. However, Vestager has maintained throughout her tenure that fines alone will not be enough to deter the supremacy of GAFA, which enjoy near ubiquity in their usage throughout Europe and the wider world, with their astronomical profits surging year on year. For example, social media platform Facebook had around 2.4 billion active users by December 2019, even in light of the Cambridge Analytica findings. Meanwhile, Google’s parent company Alphabet reported a net income of $6.8 billion and a $41 billion revenue in its first quarter of 2020 alone - figures which were described as “relatively strong” in terms of the company’s performance. And so the argument held by some critics goes that these companies are simply so rich that they can afford to pay these significant fines, without taking too much of a hampering to profits. This is perhaps most pertinent - and controversial President of the European Commission, Ursula - when allegations of breaches of EU data protection laws are raised; further Von Der Leyen - a self-professed “tech optimist” - hindering the EU’s ability to ensure adequate data prohas previously argued that technology can tection standards from these Big Tech companies is the ultimately be a force for good. And while this law that states that, under GDPR, each Member State’s statement undisputedly holds weight - with EU national data protection authority may only issue fines innovation making every facet of life more fun, of up to €20 million, or 4 per cent of said company’s annual revenue. This there- convenient, and even safer - it seems that the EU fore puts a limitation on the principle of deterrence for the is becoming increasingly aware of the EU in instances of illegal data handling encroaching influence held by a handful of over, some national by GAFA. Moredata protection auhave been American “Big Tech” companies in almost every thorities flagged as understaffed and underfunded in their ability to clamp down sphere of the human experience. on such activity, as necessitated under the GDPR’s “One Stop Shop” mechanism. This has perhaps been true, most notably, in the case of Ireland’s Data Protection Commission. The debate has led some public figures to call for a more centralised European data protection authority with the necessary teeth to investigate these complaints. In short, there are some who maintain that the EU and its Member States are by and large falling behind on the policing of Big Tech activity, in terms of both market and privacy standards. The twin judgements delivered in Ireland v Commission and Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v Commission at the General Court of the European Union last July may perhaps be perceived as a win for Big Tech in Brussels. The “Apple tax” case made headlines across the world when it was determined that the Commission had not “succeeded in showing to the requisite legal standard” that Ireland had offered special treatment to the tech giant in terms of tax advantages. At stake in the case was €13.1 billion in tax revenue, leading writers at the Irish Times to dub it “the world’s biggest-ever antitrust decision”. Following the judgement, Vestager said that her team “will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.” Of course, the Commission may decide to appeal the judgement, but this could take up to three years to see to fruition - and there is no guarantee that the highest court in the EU, the European Court of Justice, will determine the outcome any differently.
