Innovation or irrelevance: How Big Tech has framed EU’s choices

The EU has consistently been at the forefront of digital regulation, earning a reputation(opens in new window) as the world’s digital police officer. Silicon Valley has responded by investing heavily(opens in new window) in efforts to shape the EU’s digital rulebook. In recent years, Big Tech has become the largest corporate lobbying force in the EU, with a lobbying footprint that exceeds that of the sectors of finance, energy and chemicals. Together, Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft spent more than EUR 35 million to influence EU tech regulations in 2025.

Their target? Primarily, laws proposed to protect the European public and enacted via established democratic processes, which the major technology companies have viewed as antithetical to their business model. To try to derail or weaken them, the companies have gone well beyond standard engagement with policymakers. If the US is the birthplace of Big Tech’s lobby playbook, Europe is where it was sharpened.

The full force of Big Tech’s lobby machine

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) are the EU’s two landmark efforts to limit Big Tech’s monopoly power and hold platform companies accountable. Both laws were enacted in 2022.

Hailed as a bold step toward making digital markets more equitable, the DMA seeks to limit the power of so-called ‘gatekeeper’ platforms and ensure that dominant digital companies do not treat competitors, small businesses, or users unfairly. At the same time, the DSA(opens in new window) , dubbed a “constitution for the internet”,(opens in new window) set out rules to make platforms safer by regulating online intermediaries and services such as social media, app stores, marketplaces, and search engines.

Big Tech, unsurprisingly, was strongly opposed to both these laws. And they made their opposition felt in a torrent of lobby activity.

To unpack the companies’ lobbying strategies, we talked to Max Bank, a former Researcher and Campaigner at the German non-profit, LobbyControl, who was actively involved in the DMA and DSA processes. We also spoke with a policy officer at another civil society organisation who followed the DSA but did not want their name disclosed.

Re-framing protection as punishment

Big Tech has made control of the narrative a central plank of its lobbying strategy everywhere. In the EU context, the companies deployed a master narrative, adapting it to the content of each law. This narrative is simple: innovation equals economic growth and competitiveness. Regulation equals economic stagnation and the EU’s increasing geopolitical irrelevance.

This line was played out repeatedly, by numerous industry associations, consultancies, and think-tanks, not just Big Tech companies. To control the narrative, Big Tech has built an immense network of such groups, which are funded and used to amplify the Big Tech message. This strategy creates an echo chamber and gives the impression of broad support for Big Tech positions or arguments.

A leaked Google memo made this explicit: the company’s lobby strategy was to “reset the political narrative” by mobilising academic, think-tank, and transatlantic allies and to re-frame the proposals as a threat to consumers and business. Google wasted no time in executing its plans.

Even before the legislative proposals were public, a Google-funded report by the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) declared the new rules would cost(opens in new window) the EU 2 million jobs and EUR 85 billion in GDP. The former chief competition economist of the Commission quickly debunked(opens in new window) the claims.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)(opens in new window) , a trade association whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta, warned(opens in new window) about “consequences for consumers, business users, and Europe’s wider digital economy”. In August 2022, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)(opens in new window) , a think-tank supported by companies including Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, claimed that the DMA favoured (opens in new window) “precaution over innovation” as it would prohibit “pro-innovative practices only because they are carried out by designated ‘gatekeepers’”.

These were but a fraction of the organisations whose work supported Big Tech’s lobbying arguments.

Many of these organisations, especially the think-tanks, defend their work as independent and claim that any attempt to conflate funding with a lack of independence and rigour is, as ITIF put it to SOMO, “reductive, intellectually insulting nonsense. You are evading the substance of our policy analysis and instead engaging in an ad hominem attack by suggesting that, if not for technology companies’ financial support, we would not have reached the same analytical conclusions. That is false.” ITIF also stated that it has “criticised major technology companies or supported reforms that run counter to their preferences.”

However, these and similar arguments ignore critical issues relevant to an analysis of corporate influence. Tech companies fund many research(opens in new window) and policy(opens in new window) organisations, a classic influencing tactic(opens in new window) . Each funded organisation may believe in and stand by its analysis. But they are being funded because, by and large, their analysis will support Big Tech positions.  

It is wholly lacking in credibility, in our view, to conclude that corporate giants fund research on laws and policies going through the legislative process – laws and policies which could have significant impacts on their business – from a place of altruism and ideological indifference, that in funding research they have no expectations of any benefit to themselves. They are corporations, not charitable trusts. ITIF and others (full responses can be seen here) are part of an ecosystem that seeks to influence public policy, and cannot ignore the cumulative impact of what Big Tech funds.

A variation on the “innovation” theme allowed Big Tech to draw in small businesses or rather those purporting to speak for such businesses.

During the legislative process for the DSA, one of the central issues was phasing out surveillance advertising (the tracking of users’ online activity to enable personalised advertising). A prohibition of surveillance advertising(opens in new window) was one of the key demands of civil society(opens in new window) and members of the European Parliament. They argued that this type of personalisation was too intrusive, enabled companies to manipulate consumers, and trapped small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and media into using Big Tech’s advertising products. Instead, they favoured contextually targeted advertising that does not rely on extreme user tracking.

Naturally, Big Tech opposed this. Companies and a host of affiliated organisations again leveraged the “bad for innovation” narrative, pushing a false dichotomy of innovation versus privacy. Google(opens in new window) warned the DSA risked blocking innovative digital tools that would “help European businesses rebuild their operations” in the post-pandemic period.

Variations of this theme were put forward by the standard tech trade associations like IAB Europe(opens in new window) and CCIA(opens in new window) , but also by less expected entities such as the Slovak Alliance for Innovation Economy(opens in new window) (whose members include Amazon, Google, and Meta) and the Coalition for Digital Ads of SMEs(opens in new window) (set up by SME Connect, whose Friends of SMEs network includes Amazon, Google, and Meta). Ahead of the European Parliament’s plenary vote on the DSA, the think-tank the Center for Data Innovation(opens in new window) , part of ITIF (see above),(opens in new window) claimed that “data-driven advertising has been unfairly accused of undermining privacy” and insisted that such ads allow SMEs and startups to reach new customers. This is also Big Tech’s position on surveillance advertising.

While trade bodies linked to Big Tech advanced a “good for small business” argument, another strand of the narrative-building strategy is to make it appear as if the SMEs agree.

The art of astroturfing

Big Tech firms have also resorted to funding seemingly independent grassroots groups that present themselves as representing small companies while actually defending the interests of their Big Tech funders, a tactic commonly called astroturfing, a reference to fake grass.

Big Tech makes significant use of astroturfing in Europe, according to Max Bank. Given their huge size and profitability, it is critical for Big Tech to pass off its interests as those of consumers and small businesses.

Take Allied for Startups(opens in new window) , whose stated mission is to “empower innovation and support the growth of startups”. It is funded by Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, among others. The organisation “appears as a startup advocacy organisation,” Bank explained, “but what we see is it is pushing the agenda of Big Tech and is getting money from Big Tech”.

Another example is ACT | The App Association(opens in new window) . While it claims to be a global trade association for small and medium-sized technology companies, it is primarily funded by Apple. Former ACT employees have told Bloomberg(opens in new window) that Apple “plays a dominant behind-the-scenes role shaping the group’s policy positions.” SOMO’s own research has shown how ACT has actively lobbied on the DMA, taking positions favourable to Apple.

During the DMA negotiations, a new group was also activated in Brussels: the Connected Commerce Council (3C)(opens in new window) . The group quickly picked up speed in policy debates, sending voting recommendations to members of the European Parliament on the eve of crucial votes on behalf of a list of SME signatories(opens in new window) . However, when journalists contacted the signatories, most did not remember signing such a letter. It turned out that 3C(opens in new window) was being run entirely by a lobbying firm, and 3C’s EU work was funded by Google(opens in new window) .

Bank explained that, by masking vested interests behind grassroots-sounding initiatives that present themselves as representing startups or small businesses, Big Tech creates the illusion of broad support for its policy positions.

Commissioning credibility?

3C’s reply to SOMO included a link to a study again arguing that the DMA would lead to immense losses for European businesses and workers. The study had been paid for by the US tech trade association, CCIA (the one whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta), and was quoted by Google(opens in new window) in its lobbying materials. Inadvertently, it brings us to another cornerstone of the Big Tech lobby playbook: commissioning research from economic consultancies.

Economic consultancies were particularly active during DMA discussions. Compass (opens in new window) Lexecon, for instance, describes itself as one of the world’s leading economic consulting firms. Its Executive Vice President, Miguel de la Mano, spoke at an event on the DMA in April 2021(opens in new window) , amplifying the core Big Tech messaging – that the legislation would restrict competition and deter innovation. Two months later, Compass Lexecon published a report(opens in new window) on the DMA, funded by Google, warning about the chilling effect of the law on innovation.

Amazon commissioned two reports from the economic and finance consultancy Oxera: one published in November 2020(opens in new window) and a second in May 2021(opens in new window) . In both reports, Oxera concluded that the DMA was likely to reduce innovation in Europe. In the same month, Oxera also produced a report(opens in new window) for the CCIA, again claiming that the DMA would stifle the growth of Europe’s digital economy. Just two months later, in June 2021, Copenhagen Economics(opens in new window) published research for Google, estimating that DSA provisions reducing personalised ads could cut EU GDP by EUR 76 to 106 billion per year and reduce innovation and competition.

This barrage of seemingly neutral analysis undermines the concept of evidence-based policymaking. However, it is certainly good business for the consultancies and their clients. Tommaso Valletti, a former EU Chief Competition Economist, summed it up well when he observed(opens in new window) that “the mission of the consultancies has become to bend and use what, they claim, are existing academic insights to produce analyses that are supporting the client.”

Oxera, responding to SOMO’s concerns, stated that the consultancy’s work does not qualify as lobbying but rather “evidence-based analysis that informs policy debates”. They also stated that the “conclusions reached reflect Oxera’s assessment of the economic implications of the DMA, not the views or positions of any particular company or sector.”

Amplify, amplify, amplify

Big Tech knows how to get maximum bang for its buck. The consultancy experts and astroturfing groups play more than one role. Having publicly championed positions that echo those of Big Tech, they can be brought out for events, such as those put on by think-tanks that are themselves funded by Big Tech. In May 2021, for instance, the European Policy Centre (EPC), which describes itself as an independent think-tank, organised a discussion(opens in new window) titled “How will the Digital Markets Act impact SMEs’ ability to grow and innovate?”, in partnership with Apple. There was no Apple speaker listed on the programme. But perhaps there was no need for Apple to be overt. Allied for Startups and ACT | The App Association, both funded by Apple, were on the dais, alongside a representative from Copenhagen Economics (the economic consultancy that did research on the DSA paid for by Google) and a member of the European Parliament.

Research and hosting public events are not the only ways in which think-tanks support Big Tech lobbying. Other forms of facilitation are harder to track, but no less likely to be impactful. For example, in September 2021(opens in new window) , when the European Parliament and the Council were in the midst of DMA discussions, a US think-tank, the Atlantic Council(opens in new window) , invited the then-commissioner for justice to a dinner discussion with Apple. The dinner,(opens in new window) on the topic of “cybersecurity and the tech sector’s understanding of the EU’s digital regulation or proposals”, was an entirely off-the-record roundtable, and no notes exist. Apple funds(opens in new window) the Atlantic Council.

In response to SOMO, the Atlantic Council confirmed the existence of the event and that its aim was “to bring together senior policymakers, industry leaders, and experts”.

The amplification effect of organisations funded by Big Tech companies was further enhanced by more traditional public relations approaches, such as well-funded public advertising campaigns.(opens in new window)

​​The impression created by all this activity was that there was a substantial body of evidence and support for Big Tech’s position. Counterarguments and evidence were overwhelmed by the sheer volume and amplification of industry messaging across Europe.

This huge lobbying effort had an impact. Policymakers, fearful of being labelled anti-SME or anti-innovation, ultimately dropped(opens in new window) the demand for a full ban on surveillance advertising in the DSA. The DMA was approved, though also with some concessions(opens in new window) to Big Tech, including the introduction of exceptions to opening up app stores, something Apple had lobbied for, and removing structural separation as a possible remedy for infractions of the law, a key Google demand.

Despite these concessions, the approval of the laws was nonetheless a massive step forward for public interest regulation. This didn’t stop Big Tech. The companies just shifted gears and continued lobbying.

If at first you don’t succeed, lobby, lobby and lobby again…

Since the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act were implemented, Big Tech companies have sought to undermine the laws, adding two new tactics to their lobby playbook. First, it is not over until Big Tech decides it’s over. The companies have the resources to simply keep going long after the legislative battle is won. Second, leverage their new best buddies (for now), the Trump administration. Big Tech has deployed these tactics to consistently challenge the implementation of the DMA and DSA, taking to the courts and engaging in what has been described by developers, smaller businesses, and civil society as ‘malicious compliance’(opens in new window) . This meant the companies put in place changes, supposedly to comply with the laws, but in ways that circumvented requirements or frustrated the laws’ intent.

In parallel, the tech giants have continued to use their lobbying networks to shape how the laws are perceived. When the European Commission set up public workshops to test companies’ compliance with the DMA, Big Tech’s hidden network of industry associations, consultancies, think-tanks, and astroturfing groups came out swinging. For example, when Apple’s compliance was under review, ACT | The App Association – the group mostly funded and allegedly dominated by Apple behind the scenes – intervened. Unsurprisingly, ACT was complimentary of Apple’s compliance.

When they could not fully get their way through these tactics, Big Tech leveraged the power of the US government (see the US case). So far, the EU institutions have continued defending their digital laws. However, US trade pressure has politicised the implementation of these laws, and their future is far from secure. Big Tech clearly has no intention of halting its lobbying campaign. Another landmark tech law, the AI Act, is facing an even more uncertain future.

The corporate capture of AI policy spaces

The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act(opens in new window) entered into force in August 2024 as the world’s first comprehensive law on AI. The Act aims to ensure that AI systems developed and used in the EU are safe, transparent, and respect fundamental rights. It uses a risk-based approach, imposing the strictest obligations on high-risk AI systems, including those used in areas such as employment, law enforcement, and access to essential services.

We talked to Bram Vranken, a Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit based in Brussels, to unpack the Big Tech lobbying tactics during the AI Act negotiations. As Vranken explains, the seeds of corporate capture were planted early on. “From the very start, Big Tech companies had the upper hand”, he said. “The Commission framed AI as both an ethical issue and an economic opportunity. That second part, the commercial angle, opened the door to Big Tech influence”. By the time it was adopted in 2024, the AI Act and its implementation had become a case study in how Big Tech lobbying shapes policy from the inside out.

According to Vranken, the idea of regulating artificial intelligence is closely linked to a High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG)(opens in new window) established by the European Commission in 2018. Its stated goal(opens in new window) was to develop ethical guidelines for trustworthy AI.

While the AI HLEG was formally a multi-stakeholder body, its composition gave large tech and digital-industry interests significant agenda-setting power. In fact, 37 of the 56 experts in the AI HLEG represented(opens in new window) the tech industry. This included companies like Google and IBM(opens in new window) . Among those representing academics and civil society, nine(opens in new window) had funding ties to Big Tech. Access Now(opens in new window) , a digital rights organisation and a member of the AI HLEG, pointed out that the group’s composition was dominated by industry.

The impact of the industry-dominated AI HLEG is clear. Rather than regulating the ethical risks of AI based on the protection of people’s fundamental rights, the Commission chose to use the technical logic of product safety regulation by making industry standard-setting processes the backbone of the AI Act. AI would be regulated as a product, with little attention given to the human rights implications. This meant that the interpretation of key elements of the AI Act was entrusted to private standard-setting bodies. These entities, handed the task of defining the details, are often dominated by industry actors and make crucial decisions behind closed doors. The risks to the public interest are glaring. As Vranken explained: “This was the first time that standard setting was used for fundamental rights issues. It’s unprecedented.”

Shaping the narrative: ‘AI Act kills European competitiveness’

Unsurprisingly, the Big Tech narrative around the AI Act echoed that used for the DSA and DMA: regulation would kill competitiveness and stifle digital innovation. And they piled on the economic pressure – regulation would put Europe at risk of losing the AI race to the US and China. The economic scaremongering was hammered home by an ecosystem of organisations and trade bodies, most funded by Big Tech.

For example, DIGITALEUROPE(opens in new window) , an industry trade association, warned that “the EU risks falling further behind other locations like the US and China”. At the same time, the Center for Data Innovation, a Big Tech-funded think-tank, claimed(opens in new window) that the AI Act would cost the EU economy EUR 31 billion over five years and reduce AI investment by almost 20 per cent.

This narrative campaign intensified with the rise of ChatGPT in 2022, said Vranken. Suddenly, the law’s slow-moving negotiations met a tidal wave of hype. Policymakers scrambled to adapt, realising that the proposed AI law hadn’t covered general-purpose AI like GPT and Gemini.

In the confusion, Big Tech saw its chance. High-level lobbying followed: the CEOs of OpenAI(opens in new window) , Google(opens in new window) , and Microsoft(opens in new window) all flew to Europe to meet high-level policymakers.

“It wasn’t just lobbyists anymore”, Vranken recalled. “It was CEOs sitting down with Commission members and heads of state. The conversation moved from ethics to competitiveness and from safety to fear of falling behind.”

The lobby effort worked. France, Germany, and Italy(opens in new window) suddenly turned against strict binding regulations for models such as GPT and instead pushed for self-regulation through codes of conduct. This was the version that prevailed when the EU institutions approved the AI Act in December 2023.

As with the DMA and DSA, Big Tech lobbying has persisted since the law was approved. The position of the technology giants appeared to be supported by a report written for the European Commission on Europe’s competitiveness. It was authored by Mario Draghi, a former European Central Bank President, and published in September 2024, just one month after the AI Act came into force. “The Draghi Report(opens in new window) : a competitiveness strategy for Europe” was critical of what Draghi described as the EU’s “over-regulation”, citing the AI Act as a key example. In drafting his(opens in new window) report, Draghi heard from representatives from Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and other tech companies, but only one consumer organisation was consulted.

Pushback on the AI Act persisted. Vranken pointed to the enormous access that Big Tech has had to policymakers. In the first half of 2025, Big Tech met(opens in new window) with high-level European Commission staff on average more than once every single working day, with AI as the most discussed topic. Big Tech held an average of two meetings per working day with members of the European Parliament. As Vranken says: “Big Tech companies just have a massive footprint at every political level”.

The post-legislative lobbying has borne fruit. In November 2025, the European Commission proposed an omnibus package on digital laws(opens in new window) in the name of simplifying law and boosting competitiveness, with the AI Act among the main targets for deregulation and delayed implementation.

Big Tech steamrolls weakened EU

The battles around the DMA, DSA, and AI Act expose the core pillars of Big Tech’s lobby playbook: the companies shape the narrative, using economic scaremongering as a key theme, but a narrative alone is not sufficient. Amplification, directly and via industry bodies, astroturfing, and paying seemingly independent organisations to produce research or hold events, ensures the message reverberates everywhere and drowns out civil society and public interest groups that simply cannot match the spending power of Big Tech.

In Europe, as in other regions, Big Tech has demonstrated an adeptness at aligning its narrative with dominant political concerns. Words like “innovation” and “competitiveness” become almost magical incantations, particularly when wielded in concert with US foreign policy on Europe. The second Trump administration is weaponising trade policy, positioning the DMA, DSA, and AI Act as “anti-American” and threatening retaliatory action. So far, this pressure is working.