According to Europe, technical regulations are not listed on the customs consultation table. Analysts disagree

The European Union and the UK have excluded major technical regulations seen by the Trump administration as threats to free speech and US innovation, playing them as negotiation tips for potential trade and tariff negotiations.

Meanwhile, some analysts are confident they are maintaining continental internet control and anti-competition laws as trading partners and countries scramble to trade to steal transactions during the 90-day tariff suspension announced Wednesday.

These laws are increasingly seen as economic protectionism disguised by the United States.

Washington can usually leverage trade outcomes to make an impact, but the EU’s digital market law, digital services law, and the UK’s online safety law (OSA) have little room for maneuvering.

Related Stories

Matthew Lesh, a public policy fellow at a free market think tank, told the Epoch Times, the Institute for Economic Studies, “We should not be surprised if UK and EU lawmakers are expected to compromise on some of these technology-related issues.”

The UK is keen to develop a new economic partnership with the US focused on technology and artificial intelligence to ease the blow to cleaning fees announced last week by President Donald Trump.

However, getting in the way may be an online safety law.

The law requires online platforms to implement measures to protect UK people from criminal activity that have a widespread impact on the internet.

“Regulatory reviews” or commitment to potentially change the implementation of these frameworks should not form part of a trade agreement with the United States,” the letter said.

When asked about trade talks on April 8, Kiel Prime Minister Starmer appeared to confirm that technical regulations had increased in the hearing for negotiations.

“I have questions about the right ways to tax digital services. I have questions about how technology affects freedom of speech,” Starmer said.

“In my view, we have made it very clear that some kind of digital tax arrangement is necessary, and likewise we need to be the pioneer of the free speech we have been doing over the years in this country.

“But at the same time, we are properly protecting it under the online safety laws and further provisions that are being implemented more quickly.

The next day, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandi signaled a change in position when asked if she would consider changing the law.

“It was really clear that we had to regulate online spaces to make sure it was a safe space, just like we do in the real world,” she told Times Radio on April 9th.

“It’s not on the table as part of a trade negotiation.”

Online Safety Law

The US-based online forum, which relies on First Amendment protection, is already affected by UK law.

Many sites that allow users to interact, including forums, may face the threat of being blocked if they do not complete a risk assessment of illegal harm.

Under this Act, social media platforms and other user-to-user service providers must actively police harmful and illegal content such as revenge and extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, coercion or control behavior, cyberstalking, and more.

GAB, a US-based platform with no legal presence in the UK, notified in a letter from Communications (OFCOM) regulator on March 16 that it is within the scope of the law and must be followed.

Ofcom warned that non-compliance could result in up to £18 million (over $23 million), a fine of 10% on the global revenue of a company, and a potential court order blocking access in the UK.

“We won’t follow. We won’t pay a penny,” CEO Andrew Truba said.

Resh, a public policy fellow at the Institute for Economic Affairs, told the Epoch Times that for decades, the US administration has expressed concerns about EU and UK policies.

In an interview with the Financial Times, the Von Der Leyen committee said that if the speech fails, taxes on digital advertising revenue could clash with technology groups such as Amazon, Google and Facebook.

“We’re developing retaliation measures,” she said.

“There are a wide range of measures in case the negotiations are not satisfactory.”

The Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) form a single set of rules under the Digital Services Act package, which applies throughout the European Union.

“What Americans are rightly aware of is an attack on big American companies here, and obviously they’ll use this as a negotiation tip,” Lewis told the Epoch Times.

“And obviously, these companies have Trump’s ears. If they see what the EU is doing differentiating American companies, I think they’ll fight back very violently.”

He said the EU “thinks that they can give the market a geopolitical role by regulating themselves and regulating other people’s skills. The real weakness is that they don’t have themselves, and you know, they can’t compete.”

Lewis said the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EU’s 2018 law on personal data both inside and outside the EU, has been transformed into a “de facto global standard.”

“So even today, even when you go to a website, you know you need to agree to cookies… and because it’s a kind of global standard, as it’s just implemented by default. But there’s no law that says that it’s something they should do,” he said.

Lewis said the EU believes that it can do the same with DMA, the DSA, as it gives these companies sufficient leverage to make the rules adopt.

He said from a negotiation perspective, “I believe there is no doubt that there will be some form of compromise that has been made about what the EU will do.”

“It’s going to suspend services from Apple, Amazon and Netflix’s Apple. You’re talking about millions of people in Europe who use these services. That’s not going to work very well,” he said.

“So it’s going to be a cat and mouse game. It depends on who will blink first.”