Selective confusion: An empirical analysis of the DMA's Brussels Effect

This article examines the extent to which designated “gatekeepers” implement the provisions of the EU’s Digital Markets Act outside its territorial scope (“Brussels Effect”). Drawing on transparency reports, contractual documents, and informal communications, we reveal significant disparities in compliance strategies. Apple, Google, and Booking predominantly restrict their implementation to the EU or EEA, whereas Microsoft, Meta, and ByteDance extend certain measures to non-EU jurisdictions, notably Switzerland. Crucially, obligations subject to non-compliance proceedings by the European Commission are rarely extended beyond the EU, suggesting a strategic approach to territorial extensions of the DMA’s implementation. The article also uncovers a pattern of complex and sometimes contradictory communication by gatekeepers, raising questions about the transparency of the DMA’s implementation. These inconsistencies, coupled with selective extensions of specific data-related DMA provisions, point to a fragmented “Brussels Effect” of the law. The findings also imply that gatekeepers weigh the economic and strategic costs of compliance when deciding on territorial scope, and that the DMA’s global impact may depend on further coordination between regulators as well as more stringent enforcement.

SZW Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Finanzmarktrecht, 2025(4):342-357