Uncovering Big Tech’s hidden network

Over the past two decades, Big Tech companies have monopolised key features of the internet, making businesses and end users vulnerable to their massive and increasing power. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is the EU’s attempt to rein in Big Tech’s monopoly power by limiting its worst excesses.

Tech companies identified as gatekeepers – Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Bytedance, and Booking.com – have to comply with a specific set of rules to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. For example, gatekeepers are prohibited from self-preferencing (i.e. using their platform power to favour their products over competitors’) or merging personal data collected across services without consent.

Testing compliance

To publicly test Big Tech’s compliance with the DMA, the European Commission organised a series of public workshops in March 2024. The workshops received widespread attention, with nearly 4,000 registrations from businesses, law firms, civil society organisations, academics, other public regulators and industry associations.

The workshops aimed to collect feedback from impacted communities, such as users, competitors and businesses dependent on their services. Yet, Corporate Europe Observatory(opens in new window) (CEO), LobbyControl(opens in new window) , and SOMO research shows that 1 in 5 registered participants were linked to gatekeepers. This included participants from 34 law firms, 22 lobby firms, 17 trade associations, 10 economic consultancies and 8 think tanks. Find the full list of registrants and their affiliations here(opens in new window) .

When added to the gatekeeper’s own direct employees who attended the workshops, that comes up to 26% of all participants, this was more than the combined number of business users and civil society organisations who participated.

^{More about our methodology at the end of the article. Jump to methodology.}

Transparent policymaking

The workshops were a notable effort of transparent policy-making, creating a space for public confrontation between Big Tech companies and those impacted by their market power. The European Commission took the positive step of asking participants to disclose any affiliation they might have with the gatekeeper companies.

However, our analysis of the participants list shows that attendees mostly ignored this question.

The only participants that listed any affiliation were employees of DMA gatekeepers (although not even all of these declared their affiliation), as well as three lawyers working as external counsel or seconded to a DMA gatekeeper .

Most Big Tech affiliations were not disclosed

The majority of actors with known affiliations to Big Tech did not disclose them, regardless of whether they were linked to gatekeepers contractually (for instance, lobby and law firms), through funding or even if the gatekeepers were members of their business associations.

European Commission officials told us the affiliation information provided by participants was used “to ensure there was an appropriate representation of the different kinds of stakeholders in the physical attendance”.

The Commission prioritised (opens in new window) in-person attendance for the gatekeepers’ team, business users, and civil society organisations. Others—journalists, consultants, external lawyers, and academics or students—could follow and participate online.

At face value

Commission officials added that due to time constraints, the information provided by attendees was mostly taken at face value, with only limited checks performed. Groups very close to Big Tech were, in fact, able to participate in person and engage in the discussions without ever disclosing their affiliation (see the boxes below).

Commenting on this report, Sebastiano Toffaletti, Secretary-General of the European Digital SME Alliance, a trade association that does not receive Big Tech funding, commented that it “sheds light on the reality we see on the ground as SME representatives.”

Ultimately, Big Tech firms were still able to use their deep pockets and vast networks of third parties to make up a sizeable number of the attendees at these public workshops, which worked to deflect criticism and distort public debate. This data also shows once again the extremely wide gap in resources between the regulator and the companies it is charged with overseeing.

Big Tech hides behind well-funded third-parties

The DMA, which entered into force on 7 March 2024, has been heavily contested (opens in new window) by Big Tech. The companies have been fighting tooth and nail ever since the act was passed to avoid compliance. ByteDance(opens in new window) , Apple(opens in new window) , and Meta have all filed legal challenges against the DMA in the EU Court of Justice.

While those lawsuits ran on in the background, the gatekeepers still had to show how they were complying with the new rules. This process included bilateral discussions with the European Commission, but also the publication of non-confidential compliance plans. The publication of these plans enabled third parties to evaluate and provide feedback.

“Drop dead”-message

Quickly, the reactions started to come in. Tech journalist Cory Doctorow said the gatekeepers’ plans sent a message to the European Commission—“drop dead”! Developers and activists lambasted Apple for malicious compliance. Amazon’s plan was so vague it was described(opens in new window) as a “patchwork of marketing-approved statements to satisfy, in appearance, the requirement of submitting a compliance report.” Privacy activists and data protection authorities quickly opposed Meta’s plans to introduce a pay or consent scheme.

The DMA workshops thus served as an important opportunity for stakeholders to publicly question Big Tech gatekeepers’ compliance.

These spaces mustn’t be distorted by the influence of hidden affiliations. In recent years, it has become clear that Big Tech firms rely on a vast network of third-party organisations(opens in new window) to reinforce their messages at the EU level.

“Reset the narrative”

From lobby firms to fake grassroots groups, think tanks and economic consultancies – financing and supporting third parties to echo its messages is a keystone of Big Tech’s influence playbook. Successive leaks of lobby strategies show how, for instance, Google tried (opens in new window) to “reset the political narrative” around the DMA and the Digital Services Act by, among many other things, mobilising academic and transatlantic allies. Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl recently warned new incoming MEPs about these lobbying strategies in a briefing(opens in new window) .

Sowing doubt

This type of strategy relies not on the strength of arguments, but rather on sowing doubt(opens in new window) . It is an old trick of big corporations, brought to notoriety by what has become known as the Big Tobacco Playbook(opens in new window) .

Commenting on the findings of our research, Tommaso Valletti, professor of economics and former Chief Economist of the European Commission, observed that:

Big Tech’s undercover lobby network at the Digital Market Act’s public workshops

Law Firms

Attendees from law firms were the largest category of participants at the public workshops, with more than a thousand registrations from 179 law firms. Our analysis shows that at least 34 of those firms are either working on competition issues for gatekeepers now or have done so recently.

Public affairs consultancies

Tech firms make extensive use of lobbying consultancies to support their lobbying, or even to lobby on their behalf. Data from lobbyfacts.eu, shows that in 2023 Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and ByteDance hired 44 lobby consultancies. The companies spent in total €8,155,000 on these firms – almost a quarter of the gatekeepers’ annual lobbying budgets.

53 different lobbying firms registered for the workshops, with a total of 263 registrations. Not one of them disclosed an affiliation, even though 22 of them are currently lobbying on behalf of the gatekeepers.

This included Fleishman-Hillard(opens in new window) who represents both Meta and Amazon, the latter on a variety of issues including the DMA. Similarly, Flint Europe(opens in new window) lobbies on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft, all on issues related to the digital economy and competition. Also, Shearwater Global(opens in new window) is paid by Google – directly and via the law firm Cleary Gottlieb – to influence the DMA. None of their attending employees disclosed these links.

Trade Associations

Out of 188 participants registered from business associations, 66 are funded by or count Big Tech as members. However, once again, none of these participants disclosed their affiliation with gatekeepers.

This is especially surprising as some of these business associations’ primary activity is lobbying on behalf of Big Tech firms.

Think tanks

Nine think tanks attended the workshops, of which only one did not receive funding from Big Tech. None of their participants disclosed an affiliation with gatekeepers when registering for the DMA workshops.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL), for example, had nine registrations. Not one participant for CIPL disclosed their affiliation with gatekeepers, despite receiving funding (opens in new window) from all six.

Other notable Big Tech-funded think tank attendees include the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE), which receives funding from all six gatekeepers (7 registrations), the Progressive Policy Institute, with funding from Amazon and Meta (4 registrations), and the Center for European Policy Analysis with funding from Amazon, Alphabet and Meta (4 registrations).

Resource asymmetry between Big Tech and regulators

The list of participants in the workshops also provides us with unique insights into the human resources available to gatekeepers when they seek to influence the DMA.

Alphabet, strikingly, had a whopping 48 employees registering for its compliance workshop. The company was not alone though.
Alphabet’s staff team was complemented by 24 lawyers from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (which not only defends (opens in new window) Google in competition cases but also hires (opens in new window) a lobbying firm on its behalf to influence the DMA), Guarrigues(opens in new window) , Gunnercooke(opens in new window) , Hengeler Mueller(opens in new window) , Hogan Lovells(opens in new window) , Slaughter and May(opens in new window) (who advise the company on various European competition cases, including the adtech cases), VJT & Partners(opens in new window) , and White & Case(opens in new window) .

But that’s not all. In addition to the posse of lawyers, Alphabet also counted on 28 lobbyists from consultancy firms like communication matters, Flint Global, Shearwater Global, Kreab, FTI Consulting, among others.

The company’s views were further represented by the 13 participants from business associations Alphabet is a member of, including CCIA, the Coalition for Open Digital Ecosystems (the newly created Alphabet and Meta vehicle), Developers Alliance, Alliance Digitale, Allied for Startups, Interactive Advertising Bureau, and Digital Europe.

Altogether, in Alphabet’s own workshop, at least 113 registered participants had a direct contractual relationship with the company. That is not even counting the funding of third parties like think tanks, academics, economic consultancies, and civil society organisations.

The EU’s small DMA unit

By comparison, the team of officials at the entire DMA unit consists of around 80 people—40 from DG CONNECT and 40 from DG Competition—complemented as needed by other Commission officials.

Alphabet’s team is by far the biggest. However, the DMA unit has to handle all gatekeepers simultaneously. This is especially important as one of the key challenges for enforcement of the DMA is the asymmetry of resources between the world’s largest and wealthiest companies versus the much smaller enforcement teams in the EU Commission. In a legal opinion(opens in new window) in 2022, LobbyControl argued that far more Commission staff are needed to ensure that the DMA is enforced properly.

Time to end Big Tech distortion of DMA enforcement

Our analysis and findings show yet again the problem of hidden money and corporate influence, which, above all, can distort public discussions without ever being acknowledged. Big Tech companies are notorious for this, and regulators need to take stock and limit their ability to distort DMA and other regulatory enforcement.

To ensure there is proper transparency on the affiliation of third parties to gatekeepers, the EU Commission should improve and strengthen the registration procedure for workshops like this. In particular, the Commission should specifically design the registration forms for such events to ensure they ask more precise questions, such as:

• Have you or your organisation been hired by a gatekeeper to support compliance, legal proceedings or to engage with regulators?
• Are you or your organisation funded or sponsored by a gatekeeper?
• Is a gatekeeper a member of your organisation?

The form should also ask for the EU Transparency Register ID number of those entities that are registered. This will facilitate access to client lists, membership, and funding information.

This approach needs to be complemented by the adoption of conflict of interest disclosure for speakers – meaning that as a rule of engagement, participants should disclose any potential conflicts before they speak at such events. Such an approach is increasingly becoming the norm in academic circles. In addition, organisations that clearly function as Big Tech front groups should be denied access to in-person participation.

Adequate resources

To tackle the resource asymmetry between regulators and gatekeepers, the EU institutions should significantly increase the human and technical resources of the DMA unit. This will be a fundamental condition to ensuring the success of the DMA. The budget negotiations for 2025 are the next opportunity to take this forward.

To further counter the asymmetry of resources and access to information, the EU Commission must also actively work to improve the ability of impacted communities to scrutinise and engage with DMA enforcement. This means the DMA unit will need to do a better job at outreach to ensure that impacted businesses and organisations representing consumers participate in these workshops and in other input mechanisms. But it also requires compelling gatekeepers to provide more detailed information about their compliance to the general public, for instance by publishing meaningful compliance reports that can be carefully scrutinised by all.

Stong public enforcement

As this research has shown, Big Tech is once again mobilising all its many resources and lobby tricks to undermine EU attempts to rein in its monopoly power. This can’t continue. The EU Institutions need to ensure the DMA unit has adequate resources to face Big Tech, and stronger enforcement and conflict of interest requirements must be brought in for the next round of workshops. Big Tech can no longer be allowed to distort important public discussions to their own benefit.