What regulations have governments passed since 2020 to curb big tech power?
Executive summary
Since 2020 governments worldwide have adopted a mix of competition, content and AI rules aimed at constraining large technology platforms: the European Union enacted the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act to force gatekeeper behavior changes and heavy fines (including up to 6% of global turnover) [1] [2]. Other jurisdictions have introduced targeted measures — China tightened financial‑holding rules for platform groups (PBC trial measures, Sept 11, 2020) and U.S. agencies and states pursued antitrust suits and dozens-to-hundreds of AI and platform-related laws at state level in 2024–25 [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Europe’s blunt instrument: DMA and DSA — rules, fines and “gatekeepers”
The EU has moved first and fastest on structural and behavioral rules for major platforms by defining “gatekeepers” and imposing obligations under the Digital Markets Act and content/transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act, including fines or even bans for repeated noncompliance and penalties up to 6% of global turnover, explicitly meant to stop dominant platforms from privileging their own services and to force greater transparency and moderation [7] [1] [2].
2. The United States: litigation, agency actions, and a patchwork of state laws
U.S. approaches have been more fragmented: federal antitrust litigation and FTC/DOJ probes have targeted practices by Google and Facebook, while states and courts have become the pace‑setters on AI, content and youth protections — dozens to hundreds of AI bills and score of state laws addressing algorithmic bias, transparency, deepfakes and platform safety emerged in 2024–25 [4] [5] [6]. California’s SB53 (frontier‑AI transparency) and many state-level laws exemplify this decentralized strategy [8] [5].
3. China and financial‑sector containment of platform groups
Regulators in China have sought to treat big tech platforms as financial conglomerates when they offer payments and credit: the People’s Bank of China issued Trial Measures on Regulation of Financial Holding Companies on 11 September 2020 as part of efforts to subject platform groups to consolidated supervision and licensing rules [3]. Global banking/financial bodies and central banks have also debated creating new regimes for “big techs” with financial activities [9] [3].
4. Sectoral and emergent rules: AI, data access, and content moderation
Beyond competition and financial rules, governments targeted specific capabilities: new AI laws, transparency obligations for algorithms and training data, content‑moderation mandates, and youth protections have proliferated. Europe’s AI rules were folded into broader digital packages and many U.S. states pursued AI disclosure and safety requirements; regulators are also weighing delays or changes to “high‑risk” AI rules [1] [6] [10].
5. What regulators hope to achieve — and the tensions that follow
Policymakers aim to preserve competition, protect consumers and public safety, and limit disinformation and market foreclosure by incumbents; EU policymakers present their acts as a template for other regions [1] [7]. But tensions are explicit: business groups and tech firms warn rules could stifle innovation; critics argue some changes (e.g., EU proposals easing certain data rules in 2025 drafts) risk rolling back earlier protections [10] [11].
6. Enforcement reality: cases, fines and the fight over implementation
Passing laws is only the start. The EU has already launched DMA enforcement actions against companies like Google and Apple for alleged gatekeeper breaches; the U.S. uses litigation and settlements (e.g., antitrust suits) while state enforcement and varied statutes create enforcement heterogeneity [12] [1] [4]. Available sources do not detail the full global tally of fines collected to date; not found in current reporting.
7. Competing narratives and political agendas
Two clear narratives compete in the sources: one stresses urgent rebalancing of private power through rules and structural remedies (EU, some scholars and activists) [7] [13], the other argues Big Tech’s power is overstated and heavy‑handed regulation risks harming innovation (industry analysts and some think tanks) [14] [15]. Political agendas shape measures: trade and national security concerns also push regulatory design, and the U.S. federal‑vs‑state fight over AI shows how politics affects both ambition and scope [6] [16].
8. What’s missing or unresolved in current reporting
Available sources document many new laws and major initiatives, but they do not offer a consolidated global inventory since 2020 of every statute or a definitive measurement of how much market power those laws have reduced; available sources do not mention a comprehensive global scorecard quantifying regulatory impact [9] [3] [5]. Implementation, judicial outcomes and cross‑border conflicts remain open and will determine whether statutes curb platform power in practice [1] [17].
Conclusion — regulators have moved from talk to concrete lawmaking: Europe enacted sweeping DMA/DSA rules and is enforcing them; China tightened financial oversight of platform groups; the U.S. counterpoint is litigation plus a profusion of state AI and platform laws. Whether these measures genuinely rewire Big Tech’s power will depend on enforcement, coordination and courts — facts the sources show are still being written [7] [3] [5].