DMA Review Moves Forward: Commission Publishes Consultation Feedback and Industry Positions

Introduction

On 8 January 2026, the European Commission (the Commission) released its summary of industry responses to the Digital Markets Act (DMA) review consultations, which ran from July to September 2025.¹ This review, mandated under Article 53 DMA, will inform the Commission’s first report due by 3 May 2026.

The consultations sought feedback on:

• Whether the DMA is achieving its goals of contestability and fairness.
• Its impact on business users, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and end users.
• Potential changes to core platform service (CPS) definitions, obligations, and enforcement.
• How the DMA should address services and emerging challenges related to artificial intelligence (AI).

The consultation came at a time of heightened external political pressure, especially from the United States, over DMA enforcement, yet the Commission has signaled that this review is not a vehicle for softening or watering down the regime. In fact, the Commission opened two specification proceedings this week to assist Google in its compliance with Article 6(7) — interoperability for third-party developers — and Article 6(11) — FRAND access to anonymised search data — while it has stated its readiness to launch a formal antitrust investigation into other gatekeepers as well.

Key Consultation Themes and Industry Positions

1. Broad Support, but Implementation Gaps

Overall, most respondents seem to support the objectives of the DMA but highlight implementation challenges and areas for improvement. Respondents across categories identified early positive effects, including more consistent browser and app-choice opportunities, the ability to uninstall default applications, the emergence of alternative app marketplace options on Apple’s iOS, more freedom regarding app distribution (including conclusion of contracts and in-app purchases), and new data portability solutions.

However, perspectives diverge particularly regarding the impact of the DMA on innovation, the proportionality of the obligations imposed on gatekeepers, and whether additional obligations or safeguards are warranted. Unsurprisingly, gatekeepers and several affiliated respondents voiced some of the strongest criticisms.

2. AI and Cloud Services in the Spotlight

Artificial Intelligence

AI emerged as the most prevalent theme of the consultation. Respondents debated whether AI services should fall under existing CPS categories or require a new stand-alone CPS aligned with the EU AI Act. Many stakeholders, including SMEs, civil society organisations, and academics, argued that AI functionalities already fit within current CPS definitions (such as search engines, virtual assistants, and operating systems). Others called for a dedicated AI CPS category. Gatekeepers cautioned against premature expansion of the DMA’s scope, citing risks to innovation and administrative burden.

Three key AI-related concerns emerged:

• Interoperability: Ensuring interoperability between operating systems and AI-based services (including AI chatbots) is critical. Some respondents expressed concern “that gatekeepers’ vertical integration and broad ecosystems risk creating incentives to impair effective interoperability and give rise to negative effects.
• Self-preferencing: Several respondents highlighted that gatekeepers treat their own AI products more favourably, noting a growing trend of deep integration of proprietary generative AI technologies and advanced AI models, into gatekeeper ecosystems, to the detriment of third-party services.  
• Data access: Access to data is a critical input for developing competitive AI services. Respondents raised concerns about proprietary datasets and gatekeepers leveraging their CPSs to impose restrictive data-sharing conditions on business users, including through API terms. However, several respondents considered that these issues are not insurmountable and are mitigated by the existence of public datasets.

Cloud Services

Several respondents noted that quantitative thresholds alone, as in the current DMA, may be unsuitable to capture the specificities of cloud services, and stressed that the absence of cloud designations leaves important fairness and contestability issues unaddressed, with some noting persistent challenges in interoperability, switching, and data portability when it comes to cloud services.

In addition, respondents stressed the importance of access to cloud computing services for the training and deployment of AI models and services, with a broad range expressing concern about the large potential to lock users into cloud services, in particular because of the dependencies AI service providers have on so-called hyperscalers (Amazon’s AWS, Microsoft’s Azure and, to a lesser extent, Google’s Cloud Platform). 

3. Designation Process Under Scrutiny

Respondent feedback described the three-year lookback period as too long to capture rapidly growing services such as AI-powered platforms. Additional concerns emerged: Some respondents highlighted services with significant regional or sector-specific importance that fall below EU-wide thresholds and many called for clearer definitions for ‘end users’ and ‘business users, especially in cloud and enterprise software markets if these were to be defined as a CPS. 

Several respondents encouraged greater use of qualitative designation, especially where quantitative thresholds do not capture market realities (frequently citing cloud services).

4. Obligations Needing Clarification

Interoperability

Interoperability emerged as a recurring priority for SMEs, with respondents highlighting the need for interoperability by design, clearer technical standards and stronger obligations for messaging, operating systems and emerging AI-driven functionalities. 

Self-Preferencing

For many respondents, self-preferencing remains a core concern. Respondents argued that enforcement should extend beyond ranking to address product bundling, use of default settings, privileged access to data, and technical integrations that favour gatekeeper services.

Data Access and Portability

The summary notes that a large number of respondents called for clearer guidance on data access and data portability obligations, broader scope for business user data access and more effective mechanisms for data portability for both business users and end users.

User Choice and Autonomy

Some respondents called for compliance solutions incorporating more effective user choice design, in order to enable users to make informed choices while mitigating the risk of bias, with proposals including stricter oversight of user decision-making interfaces and consent flows, which should be neutral, easily accessible, and standardised to the extent possible.

5. Enforcement Challenges

Robust Enforcement Calls

Several respondents the Commission does not consider gatekeepers expressed concerns about insufficiently robust enforcement and complained of slow processes, limited transparency, circumvention, delaying tactics by the gatekeepers, and user-interface designs that undermine meaningful choice. Furthermore, there were calls for preserving the DMA’s political independence, notably by ensuring that its application remains insulated from broader political considerations. In addition, several respondents considered the Commission’s enforcement resources to be sufficient but underutilised.

Transparency and Information Asymmetry
According to the Commission, the contributions it received widely observed a significant information imbalance between the Commission and gatekeepers, with several respondents calling for more public information on enforcement priorities and non-confidential versions of preliminary findings. Furthermore, some respondents proposed DMA enforcement dashboards and clearer guidance on procedural expectations while others, especially SMEs, business users and civil society, asked for greater involvement in non-compliance investigations, structured and confidential channels for reporting issues, templates for evidentiary submissions as well as a complaint mechanism similar to the one used in antitrust procedures.

Timely and Effective Enforcement
To address enforcement delays and ensure more effective monitoring, respondents proposed binding timelines for the non-compliance procedures and use of interim measures and suggested mandatory independent audits of gatekeepers’ solutions, with some proposing the introduction of mandatory testing of compliance remedies with public disclosure of test results to ensure effective enforcement.

Sanctions and Remedies
According to several respondents, “fines so far have been too low to deter non-compliance while penalties for repeat non-compliances should be higher.” Respondents also “suggested that sanctions could include limits on rolling out non-compliant products or structural remedies in cases of systemic non-compliance. Gatekeepers, in contrast, argued for proportionate fines, based on EU revenues only and only for deliberate or repeated violations.”

6. Compliance Reporting

When it comes to demonstrating compliance, “several respondents supported the idea of independent audits, standardised templates, clearer benchmarks for assessing compliance and penalties for misleading or incomplete reporting.”

7. Procedural Issues, Regulatory Overlaps, and Parallel Enforcement

Respondents asked for greater alignment with established antitrust procedures, clearer rules for regulatory dialogues, limiting information requests to essential elements, and reducing [regulatory] overlaps with the GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation], the Data Act, the DSA [Digital Services Act], and the AI Act (for more information, read our July 2025 insight “Goodwin Antitrust & Regulatory Shorts: Three Laws, One challenge; Complying With the DSA, AI Act, and GDPR”).

Respondent views also diverged on the role of national competition authorities (NCAs), with several supporting deeper NCA involvement in DMA enforcement, while others, especially gatekeepers and their affiliates, warned against fragmentation resulting from parallel enforcement under different legal frameworks.

Outlook and Anticipated Actions

The consultation results confirm strong support for the DMA’s aims yet highlight ongoing implementation hurdles and rising expectations that the framework will evolve alongside fast-moving technological and market developments. As the Commission finalises its Article 53 DMA report (due 3 May 2026), ² several developments appear likely:

• Refinement of the CPS framework: The Commission may reassess whether current CPS categories sufficiently capture quickly evolving AI and cloud services, possibly introducing a dedicated AI CPS, revising thresholds, or clarifying definitions in enterprise-facing markets.
• Expansion or adjustment of obligations: The Commission may impose stronger obligations regarding interoperability, data portability, ranking neutrality, AI-driven default settings, and access to datasets or APIs, particularly when stakeholder feedback highlights structural barriers.
• More robust enforcement tools: To address concerns over slow or opaque enforcement, the Commission may introduce binding timelines, greater use of interim measures, mandatory audits or testing of compliance remedies, and higher penalties for repeated noncompliance.
• Greater transparency and stakeholder participation: The Commission is likely to explore public enforcement dashboards, publication of nonconfidential preliminary findings, structured complaint channels, and standardised evidence submission tools to reduce information asymmetries.
• Clarification of interaction with parallel frameworks: Further guidance is expected to clarify the DMA’s relationship with the GDPR, Data Act, DSA, and AI Act, particularly for areas such as user choice design, data access, portability, and AI-enabled functionalities.
• Reexamining the role of NCAs: The Commission may define guardrails for NCA involvement in support of investigations while ensuring uniform DMA enforcement across the EU.
• Potential legislative amendments: While initial updates may take the form of guidance or procedural adjustments, the Commission may ultimately consider structural amendments to better capture AI services, cloud ecosystems, and rapidly scaling CPS categories.

---

1. ^[1] The Commission received 319 contributions to the consultation, plus 63 responses to the call for evidence and 96 responses to the AI consultation, from gatekeepers, SMEs, trade associations, civil society, academics, and consumer groups. ↩

2. ^[2] The regular review of the DMA every three years is a legal requirement, mandated by the regulation itself, to ensure that the DMA meets its objectives and maintains its effectiveness in the evolving landscape of digital markets.  ↩