It varies. These laws and regulations are typically based on things like revenue, profit, unit sales, usage, etc. but it's up to the regulators and/or courts in the particular country/region to determine. Some are vaguer than others but the end result is usually the same i.e., a dominant company that may be a monopoly or part of an oligopoly in the given market. It's dominant companies that can/will have the greatest undesirable impact on the market if they engage in anticompetitive behavior.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It varies. These laws and regulations are typically based on things like revenue, profit, unit sales, usage, etc. but it's up to the regulators and/or courts in the particular country/region to determine. Some are vaguer than others but the end result is usually the same i.e., a dominant company that may be a monopoly or part of an oligopoly in the given market. It's dominant companies that can/will have the greatest undesirable impact on the market if they engage in anticompetitive behavior.
That’s close to impossible unless they want to lower their margins or sell fewer devices.
Revenue is known as the top line because it appears first on a company's income statement. Net income, also known as the bottom line, is revenues minus expenses. There is a profit when revenues exceed expenses.
Did I not prove a specific description of.
1: what a gatekeeper is.
How to qualify as a gatekeeper?
If I or you missed it, I will provide it again
The DMA definition of ‘gatekeeper’
A gatekeeper is a de-facto digital market bottleneck: EU businesses and consumers find it hard to avoid gatekeepers. According to the Commission’s DMA proposal, a gatekeeper must operate a ‘core platform service’ (CPS). The CPS list includes:
- online intermediation services,
- online search engines,
- online social networking services,
- video-sharing platform services,
- number-independent interpersonal communication services,
- operating systems,
- cloud computing services,
- advertising services provided by a provider of any of the services listed before.
- “(…) has a significant impact on the internal market;
- it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
- it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.”
The DMA further defines quantitativecriteria for gatekeepers:
- “the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 7.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
- it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year.
A complete pears and apples comparison.
Business get forced to change their procedures all the time.
Yes. And #1 further specifies that they must have revenue of €7.5B and market cap of €75B.
Therefore, you are free to engage in all the "anti competitive" acts until you reach these three criteria or, in other words, it's only anti competitive if you become too successful at it for three years or more.
If, hypothetically, Apple keeps doing what they are doing for 2.75 years. Then cease all sales in the EU for one quarter to bring revenue to €0, it would break the "three years" and they can continue forward with no changes. In this instance, they would (1) no longer be consider a gatekeeper and (2) the "anti competitive" behavior would no longer be considered anti competitive.
Last edited:
Not at al. It’s an and/ or qualifier.
And considering apple almost generated 100 billion in Europe last year, it would be impressive if the lowers it by 90%
And considering apple made almost 100 billion last year they would still qualify in ether scenario.
Considering apples average market capitalisation is 3 trillion globally, they would have to implode to fall bellows 75 billion in EU. And I copied this text from EUs website, last one was from a news article, so I apologize for inaccurate numbers of my last post
- A size that impacts the internal market: this is presumed to be the case if the company achieves an annual turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) equal to or above €7.5 billion in in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or equivalent fair market value amounted to at least €75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
Here you have the website:
Questions and Answers: Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and open digital markets*
What is the Digital Markets Act?\nThe Digital Markets Act introduces rules for platforms that act as “gatekeepers” in the digital sector. These are platforms that have a significant impact on the inter
And honestly if apple removes 92% of their revenue every year and only sells for 1 month a year I would say they deserve to be removed as a gatekeeper as they implode their business in EU for zero benefits just to go from 90 billion a year in EU to 7.5 billion a year
Well guilty of what? DMA and DSA aren’t punishing them. IT’s regulations of how to conduct business.
It says if a business fulfills criteria x and y they will have obligations to do 1. 2. 3. And are prohibited from doing 4. 5. 6
Again: no, you’re wrong. I just told you.
The presumption that a company (operating/offering designated services and products) surpassing these figures is a gatekeeper doesn’t mean that it has to each these quantitative figures.
A company can have lower revenue and still be designated a gatekeeper.
And that’s why the law doesn’t specify a “hard” revenue or market cap requirement that must be fulfilled.
That’s probably why, quite practical, the law is deliberately worded in a way that gives the EU some leeway in applying the criteria to determine who is considered a gatekeeper and who isn’t. To prevent smart-ass pedants from coming up with “creative” accounting and company/sales structuring in an attempt at narrowly circumventing the regulation.
More pointedly, the lawmakers took precautions exactly the logic and schemes you have been suggesting here.
That’s why you may have to go back to demand “more clearcut” rules.
Last edited:
Not at al. It’s an and/ or qualifier.
And considering apple almost generated 100 billion in Europe last year, it would be impressive if the lowers it by 90%
And considering apple made almost 100 billion last year they would still qualify in ether scenario.
Considering apples average market capitalisation is 3 trillion globally, they would have to implode to fall bellows 75 billion in EU. And I copied this text from EUs website, last one was from a news article, so I apologize for inaccurate numbers of my last post
I don’t know if you can read but apple would still need to lower their revenue by 90%+ or sell for 0€ for 11 months
- A size that impacts the internal market: this is presumed to be the case if the company achieves an annual turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) equal to or above €7.5 billion in in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or equivalent fair market value amounted to at least €75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
Here you have the website:
Questions and Answers: Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and open digital markets*
What is the Digital Markets Act?\nThe Digital Markets Act introduces rules for platforms that act as “gatekeepers” in the digital sector. These are platforms that have a significant impact on the interec.europa.eu
And honestly if apple removes 92% of their revenue every year and only sells for 1 month a year I would say they deserve to be removed as a gatekeeper as they implode their business in EU for zero benefits just to go from 90 billion a year in EU to 7.5 billion a year
Well, AAPL is only traded on the NASDAQ.
The NASDAQ is an American exchange.
AAPL is not listed on any exchanges in the EU.
So how are these rules valuing Apple's market cap? Technically, in the EU, there is no market cap.
If the EU is using global market cap, how does their reach extend to non-EU countries?
Last edited:
As long as Apple has enough revenue, they don’t have to calculate its market cap/equivalent fair value, because one of turnover or revenue is enough to satisfy article 2 (b):
“where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year”
1: Apple breaks the barrier in two ways. They have subsidiaries set up in EU. They have a market capitalization value.
2: even if their market capitalization is 0€. They still sell way more than 7.5 billion€/year.
Apple would have to go back to 2011 revenue numbers and wipe out a decade of revenue growth for zero benefit just to fall below a 7.5 billion figure. And that’s not even a guarantee. And I would say they have earned their non gatekeeper status just for burning their business to the ground on principle.
Zero benefit?
There’s enough people here that seem they’d be elated if they did just that (out of principle and spite) 😂
The €7.5B has to be three consecutive years. I showed how that can be broken in my hypothetical.
Considering apple made 90 billion euros in revenue in 2021. I am confident EU would ignore them if they went from 90 billion in one year to 7.5 billion the next. Considering they likely would kill their image and customer base.
EU could enforce the rules as the spirit and intention of the law is written.
I don't know what kind of image the EU and their courts would have if they ignored facts...
Of course, the EU has a precedent of rewriting the rules to tilt them in their favor... Back to the drawing board, I guess.
Read the legal text, this will likely end as a systematic breaking of the rules and end in a sales ban or breakup of apples EU subsidiaries.
So apple would sell 100 billion year one. 100 billion year 2. And close up shop year 3 and lose 92 billion for…? What really?
This should serve as a warning for any company that's thinking about doing business in the EU.
They don’t ignore facts. Read the legal text. This is completely within the power of the courts to enforce and the commission to prosecute over.
In EU laws work by legal text.
In civil law countries, judges are often described as “investigators.” They generally take the lead in the proceedings by bringing charges, establishing facts through witness examination and applying remedies found in legal codes.
Everything is codified and do not work on precedent
Why? Don’t try to game the system as the legal text is crystal clear in what you can and can’t do. It’s not based on random legal precedents
Samsung isn’t considered a gatekeeper and they do fine.
So, if Apple breaks the €7.5B in three consecutive laws, they can get prosecuted?
What if business actually did fall off a cliff? Would they get prosecuted because business is bad?
Once rules are put in place, everyone affected looks for ways to circumvent them. Think taxes...
Apple trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. The NASDAQ is a global exchange that includes U.S. and non-U.S. companies. The market cap threshold is not about a market cap "just in the EU", the market cap is the same everywhere. This legislation is simply stating it in euros (the currency).
The NASDQ is an American exchange. It may consists of non-US companies, but the NASDAQ itself is still an American exchange.
The text didn't specify how market cap is calculated. It's something that can be argued in court.
Why would they be prosecuted? No regulation are being broken.
Then they would appeal their classification and can prove that business is going down a cliff and not intentionally done as a strategy.
They wouldn’t be prosecuted. If they follow the dos and don’t list then they would be fine.
If you don’t want to do the time, then don’t do the crime.
Indeed, and the same, they try to prevent any loophole with steep fines and a combination of legal dictates and intentions of the law.
Do you know what happens when loopholes are found? They are removed and you can Serve strict punishment for tax fraud etc.
These laws are based on EU laws exclusively. Essentially the same as federal laws superseding all state jurisdictions