US threatens fees on European services over EU tech crackdown

The United States has escalated its confrontation with the European Union over digital regulation, warning that it could impose fees or restrictions on a range of European service providers unless Brussels changes course on enforcement actions against American technology companies.

In a post on X on Tuesday, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) accused the EU and several member states of "discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines and directives against US service providers". The statement argued that European companies such as Accenture, DHL, Siemens, Spotify, Amadeus, Capgemini, Mistral, Publicis and SAP "operate freely" in the United States, while their American counterparts face targeted enforcement in Europe.

The USTR's case: named companies and legal authority

The USTR's message was specific. It listed nine European-headquartered firms across consulting, logistics, industrial technology, music streaming, travel technology, consulting, artificial intelligence, advertising and enterprise software. The implication is that these companies benefit from open access to the US market while their American equivalents face what Washington describes as a hostile regulatory environment in Europe.

The office cited US law that permits "the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions" as the legal basis for potential retaliation. It did not specify which statute, though Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 has been used by previous administrations to impose tariffs or other measures in response to foreign practices deemed unfair.

The regulatory backdrop: DSA and DMA enforcement

The threat arrives as the European Commission presses ahead with enforcement of its two flagship digital laws. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) came into full effect in 2024, giving regulators powers to fine companies up to 6% and 10% of global annual turnover respectively for systemic violations.

In December 2025, the Commission fined X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, €120 million for failures related to content moderation transparency and risk assessment obligations under the DSA. Months earlier, it levied a €2.95 billion penalty on Google for abusing its dominant position in online advertising technology, the largest DMA fine to date. Both investigations concluded that the companies had breached specific obligations designed to ensure fair competition and user safety.

The Commission has open investigations into Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon under the same frameworks. None of those cases has yet resulted in a final decision, but the pattern of enforcement has drawn sustained criticism from Washington.

Brussels pushes back: equal application and the Joint Statement

The European Commission responded within hours. Thomas Regnier, a Commission spokesperson, said the bloc's regulations "apply equally and fairly to all companies operating in the EU" and are designed to ensure "a safe, fair and level playing field in the EU, in line with the expectations of our citizens". He stressed that enforcement is carried out "without discrimination".

Regnier added that the EU is "implementing the commitments in the EU, US Joint Statement" and remains engaged with Washington on trade issues. That statement emerged from the EU, US Trade and Technology Council (TTC), the primary forum for coordinating technology and trade policy between the two sides. The most recent TTC meeting, held in April 2025, produced a joint roadmap on artificial intelligence standards and a commitment to avoid tit-for-tat measures on digital regulation.

Trade linkage: steel tariffs and diplomatic pressure

The digital dispute has already spilled into traditional trade policy. The US administration has linked prospective reductions in steel and aluminium import tariffs, imposed under Section 232 on national security grounds, to a weakening of EU digital rules. European officials have rejected that linkage, arguing that the two issues are legally and politically distinct.

Washington has also instructed its diplomatic missions across Europe to lobby against the DSA and DMA, portraying them as protectionist measures disguised as consumer protection. That campaign intensified after the Google fine, with US officials arguing that the DMA's designation of "gatekeepers" disproportionately captures American firms because of their market success rather than any anticompetitive conduct.

The European companies in the crosshairs

The USTR's list of nine European firms is notable for its sectoral spread. Accenture and Capgemini are global consulting and IT services groups with deep US government and private sector contracts. DHL, a division of Deutsche Post, operates one of the world's largest logistics networks in the United States. Siemens is a major industrial technology supplier to US manufacturing and infrastructure. Spotify, headquartered in Stockholm, dominates music streaming in the American market.

Amadeus, the Spanish travel technology provider, powers booking systems for airlines and agencies worldwide. Mistral, a French artificial intelligence startup founded in 2023, has quickly become one of Europe's most prominent AI model developers. Publicis, the French advertising and communications group, derives a significant share of revenue from North America. SAP, the German enterprise software giant, counts the United States as its largest single market.

All nine have substantial US operations, employ American workers, and in several cases have acquired US companies to expand their footprint. Targeting them with fees or restrictions would affect US clients, employees and supply chains, a point European diplomats are likely to raise in any negotiation.

Legal and institutional constraints on retaliation

Any US move to impose fees on European services would face procedural hurdles. Under Section 301, the USTR must initiate an investigation, hold a public hearing, and publish findings before imposing measures. That process typically takes months. The World Trade Organization's dispute settlement system, though currently impaired by the blocking of appellate body appointments, would also provide a venue for an EU challenge.

The EU has its own anti-coercion instrument, which entered into force in 2024 and allows the Commission to retaliate against economic pressure from third countries targeting member states' policy choices. That instrument has not yet been tested in a major dispute, but its existence changes the calculus for both sides.

For now, both sides are signalling resolve. The USTR's public naming of European companies is a calculated signal that retaliation would not be abstract. The Commission's insistence on equal application is a refusal to negotiate the substance of its laws. The space for compromise, perhaps on procedural transparency or compliance timelines, exists, but neither capital has shown an appetite to use it.