The digital governance game between the US and the EU behind the 120 million euro fine imposed on Musk by the EU

Recently, the European Commission fined Musk's X platform (formerly Twitter) 120 million euros, determining that it violated the Digital Services Act (DSA) in three major areas: blue label certification, advertising transparency, and public data openness. This first major fine issued by the EU's DSA after its entry into force quickly triggered a fierce transatlantic standoff. Trump denounced it as a "malicious fine", and many senior US officials collectively accused the EU of suppressing US technology companies. Musk even angrily called the EU a "bureaucratic monster" and even shouted extreme remarks that the EU should be abolished. This seemingly simple regulatory enforcement incident actually reflects the deep-seated game between the United States and Europe over digital sovereignty, rule-making rights and industrial interests, marking a profound reconstruction of the global digital governance landscape.

This penalty imposed by the European Union is not accidental but an inevitable outcome of the implementation of the DSA regulatory framework. As a milestone legislation in the digital field of the European Union in the past 20 years, the DSA, with the core principle of "if it is illegal offline, it is also illegal online", has established a hierarchical platform responsibility system, among which the strictest compliance obligations are set for super-large online platforms (VLOPs) with over 45 million monthly active users. Upon investigation, it was found that the paid blue label authentication on platform X does not require identity verification, which has led to a sharp increase in the risks of identity fraud and online fraud. The lack of key information in the advertising library and the refusal of third-party access have hindered the supervision of false advertisements. At the same time, the terms of service restrict eligible researchers from accessing public data, affecting the assessment of systemic risks. The European Commission imposed fines of 45 million, 35 million and 40 million euros respectively for three violations, which not only conforms to the penalty gradient of the DSA but also demonstrates its determination to regulate the digital market.

The fierce counterattack from the US side has exposed its double standards on digital regulation issues. The Trump administration characterized the fine as a "targeted attack on American businesses", Vice President Vance accused the EU of "undermining freedom of speech", and Secretary of State Rubio even elevated it to "an attack by a foreign government on the American people". However, such rhetoric cannot hide the reality that American tech giants have long been "growing wildly" in the European market - Google holds 90% of the search engine market in the EU, Amazon dominates the e-commerce sector, and the three major American cloud service providers monopolize the core share of the European cloud market, but they have repeatedly sparked disputes over data security and content governance issues. Previously, the US State Department had accused the DSA of being an "Orwellian censorship system", but the US border has been strictly checking the social media content of entrants. Even French scientists have been denied entry due to critical remarks. Such double standards have made its claim of "freedom of speech" empty talk.

The deeper game lies in the competition for the dominance of global digital rules. The core objective of the EU's introduction of the DSA is to break the rule hegemony of American tech giants and promote its own regulatory standards to become globally universal norms through the "Brussels effect". By clarifying the obligations of platforms in content review, algorithm transparency, and data openness, the EU is attempting to build a digital governance system that takes into account both user rights and market fairness. This is in sharp contrast to the "light regulation, heavy innovation" model advocated by the United States. The penalty imposed on Platform X is precisely a signal sent by the EU to the world: any enterprise operating in the European market must abide by local rules, and digital platforms can no longer rely on the "safe harbor principle" to evade responsibility.

The opposition from the United States is essentially aimed at maintaining its global dominance in the digital industry. After the Trump administration came to power, it regarded the EU's digital regulations as a "trade barrier" and repeatedly threatened the EU with tariffs to force it to relax regulations, attempting to continue the "regulatory dividend" for US technology companies. In this fine incident, the US government and Musk have formed a "public opinion linkage". On the one hand, it is to support the tech giant; on the other hand, it is also to take advantage of the situation to incorporate the regulatory dispute into the overall strategic game framework between the US and Europe. The latest US National Security Strategy report has regarded some European policies as "structural threats", and digital differences are intertwined with trade, security and other issues, eroding transatlantic mutual trust.

In the long run, this game will reshape the global digital governance landscape. The DSA of the European Union is not targeted at specific countries. It has launched investigations into several US technology companies such as Meta and Google, and will cover more platforms in the future. The United States, on the other hand, is joining forces with its Allies to build a "digital circle", attempting to formulate AI and 6G standards through mechanisms such as the "Telecom Five Eyes Alliance" to compete with the European Union in terms of rules. For technology enterprises, "compliance costs" will become an inevitable question in global operations, and they need to find a balance point among different regulatory systems.

The 120 million euro fine is just the beginning. The game of digital governance between the US and Europe will continue to escalate in areas such as cross-border data flow, algorithm regulation, and anti-monopoly. At the core of this contest lies the dispute over rules oriented towards "sovereignty" and "hegemony", as well as the collision between the standardized development of the global digital economy and the protection of unilateral interests. The outcome of the game between the United States and Europe will ultimately profoundly influence the future direction of the global digital order.