Munich: Europe is signalling that it will not back down from policing the world’s biggest technology companies, even as the threat of a transatlantic trade fight grows louder. The Commission has made clear it intends to step up enforcement of its digital rulebook in 2026, pressing ahead with the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act despite warnings from Washington of retaliatory tariffs against EU tech regulation. The stance sets up one of the year’s defining economic confrontations. The enforcement record is already substantial. Under the Digital Markets Act, the Commission fined Apple 500 million euros for restricting how app developers communicate with customers, while a separate antitrust case saw Google hit with a 2.95 billion euro penalty over its advertising-technology business. Commission estimates suggest cumulative action against the largest platforms could eventually run to many billions more, a prospect that has alarmed both the companies and their government in Washington. The American reaction has been sharp. Officials have framed Europe’s digital enforcement as a discriminatory tax on successful US firms, and tariff threats have entered the conversation, raising the risk that a regulatory dispute spills into broader trade tensions. Brussels, for its part, insists it is simply applying laws that treat all companies equally regardless of nationality, and that sovereignty over its own market is not negotiable. There are genuine arguments on each side. Supporters of robust enforcement say unchecked platform power harms consumers, smaller competitors and the information ecosystem, and that fines are the only language dominant firms understand. Critics warn that aggressive action risks deterring investment and inviting retaliation that could hurt European exporters far removed from the technology sector. The Commission is trying to hold a difficult line, asserting its rules without gratuitously provoking escalation. How Brussels calibrates the next moves will matter enormously. A dramatic new penalty against a marquee company would underline its resolve but could trigger the very trade conflict it hopes to avoid. A steadier approach, building cases methodically, would preserve credibility while leaving room for diplomacy. The choice is as much political as legal. What is clear is that Europe sees digital enforcement as central to its claim to regulatory leadership, a domain where it shapes global standards even without dominant home-grown platforms. Whether that ambition survives contact with an assertive Washington is the question hanging over the months ahead, and the answer will shape both the digital economy and the wider transatlantic relationship.