Mark Zuckerberg is stepping up his resistance to European digital regulation — and he’s doing it with help from Donald Trump. As the European Union advances enforcement under its new Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Meta CEO has been quietly seeking backing from former President Trump and senior U.S. trade officials to push back against what the company sees as unfair treatment of American tech firms.
Behind closed doors, Meta has urged the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to challenge the EU’s digital rules during trade negotiations. According to Zuckerberg’s outreach to Trump, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Meta is attempting to position the EU’s enforcement of the DMA as a trade barrier — one that warrants retaliation or formal dispute mechanisms.
In a February memorandum, Trump described the EU’s actions as “overseas extortion” — a phrase that has since been adopted by some in Meta’s executive ranks. The company is reportedly leveraging this rhetoric to frame the EU’s approach as protectionist and disproportionately hostile to U.S. platforms.
Meta’s Ad Strategy Under EU Fire
Central to this showdown is Meta’s “pay or consent” model, which the company rolled out across the European Economic Area in late 2023. The system requires users to either agree to extensive data tracking or pay a monthly subscription to remove ads from Facebook and Instagram. While Meta initially priced the option at €9.99, it later dropped the cost to €5.99 following public and regulatory pressure.
However, regulators say the model fails to meet the DMA’s standard for providing a genuine alternative to consent. In March, the European Commission issued preliminary findings stating: “Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model may not provide a real alternative in case users do not consent”. This assessment opened the door to enforcement action that could cost the company up to $1 billion in fines.
That figure may be lower than initially expected. The EU is now leaning toward a reduced fine combined with mandatory revisions to Meta’s model — a strategy aimed at avoiding further conflict with Washington.
This wouldn’t be Meta’s first major penalty in the region. In May 2023, the company was fined €1.2 billion under GDPR rules for transferring EU user data to the U.S. Then in November 2024, it was hit with a €797 million fine for tying Facebook Marketplace to its core platform.
Apple’s Regulatory Dance: Quiet Compliance, No Fines
While Meta pushes back, Apple has chosen a quieter route — and it’s working. In March 2025, Apple updated its iOS policies to comply with DMA provisions requiring users to have broader choice in browser and search engine defaults.
By allowing third-party browser engines and easing restrictions on app distribution, Apple avoided a fine and is expected to close out the EU investigation without further penalty.
The company detailed these changes in a compliance document and developer guidelines. These adjustments maintained Apple’s control over its ecosystem while aligning with EU demands on interoperability and user choice.
But Apple’s compliance hasn’t kept it completely out of Meta’s crosshairs. Under the DMA, Meta has filed 15 separate interoperability requests demanding deeper access to Apple’s core systems — more than any other company.
Apple pushed back, warning that Meta’s proposals could allow it to “read on a user’s device all of their messages and emails, see every phone call they make or receive, track every app that they use, scan all of their photos, look at their files and calendar events, log all of their passwords, and more.”
Meta dismissed those claims, with a spokesperson stating: “Every time Apple is called out for its anticompetitive behavior, they defend themselves on privacy grounds that have no basis in reality.”
AI Rules Add Pressure to an Already Tense Regulatory Front
Meta’s friction with European regulators isn’t limited to advertising. In September 2024, the company co-signed an open letter warning that EU AI rules could damage competitiveness alongside Spotify, SAP, Ericsson, and others.
The companies argued the proposed rules could suppress innovation and claimed that the bloc’s current path could cause the region’s GDP to shrink by up to 10%.
Meta has already delayed the launch of a new AI model in Europe, citing regulatory uncertainty. Apple has also delayed its “Apple Intelligence” features in the region for similar reasons.
Meanwhile, the EU is doubling down. On March 28, 2025, the European Commission approved €1.3 billion in funding to support AI, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure inside the EU. The initiative is explicitly designed to align tech development with enforcement of the AI Act, which began rolling out in stages earlier this year.
That law prohibits the use of so-called “unacceptable risk” systems — including real-time biometric surveillance, predictive policing, and AI-driven social scoring — and places documentation and risk assessment requirements on general-purpose models like Meta’s LLaMA.
These models will soon need to disclose their data sources, training methods, and system risks under a unified European framework.
Strategic Posturing on a Global Stage
The choices companies make now will shape their futures in the European market. Apple’s incremental compliance has allowed it to avoid fines, while Meta’s high-risk strategy of confrontation — in courts, policy discussions, and now geopolitics — continues to evolve.
Meta’s new policy chief previously warned EU regulators that the company would appeal to Trump if it believed it was being unfairly targeted by Brussels.
Zuckerberg has also called on Trump’s trade team to link upcoming U.S.-EU tariff negotiations to digital regulation enforcement. The suggestion: if the EU continues penalizing U.S. companies disproportionately, it should expect trade consequences in return.
As the EU continues pushing ahead with its digital enforcement agenda, it remains to be seen whether Meta’s political gambit will translate into tangible regulatory relief — or provoke further scrutiny in Brussels. But one thing is clear: this is no longer just a debate over privacy or app stores. It’s a high-stakes contest over who gets to set the rules for the digital economy.
