From Brussels to Sacramento, platform giants are striking odd‑bedfellow alliances to blunt rules that threaten their business models.

In 2025, the most important story in tech regulation isn’t a single courtroom showdown or headline fine. It’s the coalition strategy. Facing tougher rules on competition, privacy, payments, kids’ safety and AI, the largest platforms are partnering with whoever can help preserve the economics of their businesses—trade groups and think tanks, civil‑liberties advocates, national‑security hawks, small‑business coalitions, and even, at times, labor leaders. The result is a fluid, bipartisan map of influence that confounds old left‑right labels and has real consequences for how the internet—and the money that flows through it—will work.

EU: The DMA bites—and so do the lobbyists

Brussels offered the clearest early test. On April 23, the European Commission levied the first-ever fines under the Digital Markets Act (DMA): €500 million for Apple over “anti‑steering” limits that discouraged developers from pointing users to better deals outside the App Store, and €200 million for Meta over its initial “consent‑or‑pay” ad model. Both companies are appealing and negotiating changes. Industry coalitions have simultaneously sought to recast the narrative: the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members include most of the so‑called gatekeepers, has argued that DMA compliance is degrading user experience and could dent the wider EU economy—findings amplified in policy briefs and consumer surveys. The fight over how strict enforcement should be continues as Brussels weighs whether Apple’s latest App Store tweaks and Meta’s ad options go far enough—and as companies warn of daily penalty payments if they miss compliance deadlines.

Washington: remedies that keep the money flowing

In the United States, the Justice Department secured remedies in its monopoly case over Google Search. But a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta stopped short of structural breakups or banning the default‑placement payments that underpin the search giant’s distribution machine. Google must share certain data with rivals and avoid exclusivity, yet it can still pay partners for default placement—relief that pleased Wall Street and spared a major revenue stream for Apple. For critics, it was a reminder of how deftly Big Tech can shape outcomes: years of litigation end with changes that nibble at the edge of a business model rather than altering it wholesale.

Stateside trench wars: kids’ safety, age gates and speech

The most aggressive regulatory pushes in the U.S. are happening in state capitols. Here, Big Tech rarely fights alone. NetChoice—an industry alliance whose members include Alphabet/Google, Meta, Amazon, and others—has become the legal tip of the spear, challenging a wave of state rules on children’s online safety and age verification. In March, a federal judge again blocked California’s Age‑Appropriate Design Code, finding likely First Amendment violations. NetChoice has also targeted new social‑media restrictions in places like Georgia and Mississippi, arguing that sweeping age‑gating and parental‑consent schemes chill lawful speech and jeopardize privacy. The Supreme Court’s 2024 guidance in the Florida and Texas “social‑media moderation” cases sent those laws back to lower courts, and litigation continues. Meanwhile, a separate Supreme Court decision this June upheld Texas’s age‑verification mandate for adult sites—bolstering legislators pushing stricter age gates even as civil‑liberties groups warn of surveillance risks. The throughline: when lawmakers target design practices core to engagement and ad revenue, platforms assemble broad free‑speech coalitions to push back.

Wallets, data and the payments periphery

Another skirmish unfolded around payments. After the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule to supervise large nonbank payment apps—think Apple Pay, Google Wallet, PayPal, Venmo, Cash App—NetChoice and TechNet sued, calling the move an unlawful power grab. With a change in political winds in Washington, Congress rolled back the rule this spring, and the trade groups dropped their case. The episode captured a familiar pattern: platform‑adjacent businesses build alliances with fintech groups, small‑business advocates and deregulatory think tanks to pre‑empt oversight that could impose bank‑style obligations.

The gig economy’s grand bargain

The most eye‑opening coalition of the year might be in California, where Uber and Lyft—long combatants with organized labor—cut a deal with the governor and union leaders on a bill giving ride‑hail drivers a legal path to unionize while keeping their independent‑contractor status. Paired with a companion measure to reduce certain insurance mandates, the package preserves the companies’ Prop 22 foundation while offering drivers collective‑bargaining leverage. Critics call it a limited victory that leaves many workers outside the tent; the companies call it a model for compromise. Either way, it demonstrates how far Big Tech‑adjacent firms will go—up to and including partnering with labor—to stabilize a core operating model.

AI rules: delay, dilute or draft

Across the Atlantic, Europe’s AI Act enters phased enforcement, with parts of its general‑purpose model regime hitting this summer. CCIA Europe has urged a pause, arguing missing guidance and unclear obligations could kneecap innovation. Enterprise software groups like BSA | The Software Alliance have filed detailed position papers seeking narrower, risk‑based obligations and carve‑outs for business‑to‑business tools. In Washington, the American Edge Project—a Meta‑linked coalition—has spent on ads tying stricter tech rules to national‑security risk, urging policymakers to protect an “American AI edge.” The message resonates with Republicans focused on competition with China and with Democrats worried about industrial strategy—another example of messaging tailored to whatever audience can slow or water down rules.

Why these coalitions work

The playbook works because it’s adaptable. When privacy or speech is on the line, companies join civil‑liberties‑oriented lawsuits and emphasize constitutional rights. When competition rules threaten distribution revenue, they mobilize developers, small merchants and consumers to warn about broken user experiences. When labor or local economic impact is at stake, they point to job creation, data‑center investments and worker flexibility—and, if useful, cut deals with unions. And when the debate pivots to AI, they frame regulation as a geopolitical risk. Underneath the shifting rhetoric lies a consistent objective: protect the levers that turn attention into advertising, fees or transaction data.

What to watch next

Expect three pressure points this autumn: (1) Brussels’ follow‑through on DMA compliance, including whether Apple’s App Store changes and Meta’s ad options actually satisfy the law—and whether non‑compliance triggers daily fines; (2) the real‑world effects of the Google Search remedies—does data access meaningfully improve rivals, or do default deals keep the status quo; and (3) statehouse activity in the U.S., where new kids‑online and age‑gating bills will test NetChoice’s litigation strategy and willingness to accept narrower rules. If history is a guide, Big Tech won’t fight these battles alone. It will keep building coalitions—left, right and center—that convert complex regulatory fights into simple, values‑based stories about free speech, small business, innovation and national security. That’s the real source of resilience in 2025: not just money or lawyers, but the ability to make almost anyone’s cause its own.

Sources

[1] European Commission, “Commission finds Apple and Meta in breach of the Digital Markets Act,” Apr. 23, 2025 — https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-finds-apple-and-meta-breach-digital-markets-act-2025-04-23_en

[2] AP News, “EU hits Apple and Meta with first fines under DMA,” Apr. 23, 2025 — https://apnews.com/article/7924bfffe1da801a5023057faa9a511b

[3] Reuters, “What happens to Apple and Meta after the EU fine?” Apr. 23, 2025 — https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/what-happens-apple-meta-after-eu-fine-2025-04-23/

[4] CCIA Europe, “Most Europeans find online experience worse under DMA,” Sept. 4, 2025 — https://ccianet.org/news/2025/09/most-europeans-find-online-experience-worse-under-dma-consumer-survey-reveals/

[5] Financial Times, “Apple locked in last-minute App Store negotiations to avoid Brussels fines,” July 2025 — https://www.ft.com/content/b5d51870-e864-4aa5-b998-c0d2994a7e27

[6] U.S. DOJ, “Department of Justice wins significant remedies against Google,” Sept. 2025 — https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google

[7] Reuters, “Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust ruling,” Sept. 2, 2025 — https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/google-keeps-chrome-apple-deal-must-share-data-big-antitrust-ruling-2025-09-02/

[8] AP News, “Judge orders search shakeup in Google monopoly case, keeps hands off Chrome and default deals,” Sept. 2, 2025 — https://apnews.com/article/846916fda0943c5fa359385044a02c8b

[9] Reuters, “Court blocks California law on children’s online safety,” Mar. 14, 2025 — https://www.reuters.com/legal/court-blocks-california-law-childrens-online-safety-2025-03-14/

[10] 9th Cir., NetChoice v. Bonta—Response Brief (Aug. 2025) — https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/NetChoice-v-Bonta-CA9-2025-Response-Brief-as-filed.pdf

[11] Supreme Court of the United States, Moody v. NetChoice (July 1, 2024) — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf

[12] AP (via KBTX/AP), “Georgia is the 8th state sued over social media age restrictions,” May 4, 2025 — https://www.kbtx.com/2025/05/04/georgia-is-8th-state-sued-over-age-verification-children-websites/

[13] Supreme Court of the United States, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (June 27, 2025) — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf

[14] NetChoice & TechNet v. CFPB—Complaint (Jan. 16, 2025) — https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/TechNet-NetChoice-v-CFPB-25-CV-118-Complaint-FILED.pdf

[15] Reuters, “Tech groups sue CFPB to block rule on payment apps, digital wallets,” Jan. 16, 2025 — https://www.reuters.com/legal/tech-groups-sue-us-cfpb-block-rule-payment-apps-digital-wallets-2025-01-16/

[16] NetChoice, “NetChoice & TechNet secure victory as CFPB payments rule defeated,” May 20, 2025 — https://netchoice.org/netchoice-technet-secure-victory-as-cfpb-digital-payment-power-grab-defeated/

[17] AP News, “California reaches deal with Uber, Lyft to allow drivers to unionize,” Aug. 29, 2025 — https://apnews.com/article/74ea0034d3b1d7211e4a0fbc43e98ebf

[18] CalMatters, “CA Uber and Lyft drivers could gain unionization rights (AB 1340),” Aug. 1, 2025 — https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/08/uber-lyft-unionization-ab-1340/

[19] Reuters, “Tech lobby group urges EU leaders to pause AI Act,” June 25, 2025 — https://www.reuters.com/technology/tech-lobby-group-urges-eu-leaders-pause-ai-act-2025-06-25/

[20] BSA | The Software Alliance, “EU AI Act Position Paper,” — https://www.bsa.org/policy-filings/eu-bsa-ai-act-position-paper

[21] Washington Post, “Facebook quietly bankrolled small groups via American Edge Project,” May 17, 2022 — https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/17/american-edge-facebook-regulation/

[22] Axios Pro, “First look: a new ad on the AI race (American Edge Project),” May 8, 2025 — https://www.axios.com/pro/tech-policy/2025/05/08/new-ad-on-the-ai-race