The statement comes amid growing friction between the two powers regarding the regulation of digital markets and the enforcement of technology rules. Recently, the European Commission imposed a significant fine on the platform X (formerly Twitter) amounting to €120 million for alleged breaches of the EU’s Digital Services Act. That sanction prompted protests from the U.S. government and forms part of a broader set of penalties targeting U.S. tech firms, further heating up trade relations.
At the core of the U.S. complaint is the perception that European companies enjoy open and unrestricted access to the American market, while U.S. counterparts face regulatory procedures, tax measures, and legal actions in Europe that, according to Washington, place U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage. In his message, Greer also warned that, in response, the United States could consider “quotas” or “restrictions” on the provision of services by foreign companies in the U.S. market if Brussels does not change its regulatory approach.
The inclusion of companies such as Amadeus in the U.S. warning is particularly notable given the strategic role the Spanish-based travel technology firm plays in the global travel and tourism industry. Amadeus operates critical IT solutions for airlines, hotels, travel agencies, and other tourism stakeholders, illustrating how a trade conflict between the U.S. and the EU could carry wider implications for key sectors of the international economy.
From the European perspective, the response to these accusations has been a reaffirmation of its commitment to a regulatory system based on clear rules applied equitably. A spokesperson for EU Tech Sovereignty emphasized that the EU is an open, rules-based market “where companies from around the world operate successfully and profitably,” stressing that European rules are enforced fairly and without discrimination against all companies operating within the bloc. Brussels has also underscored that it continues implementing cooperation commitments with Washington and will keep working with the United States to manage trade differences.
This episode unfolds within the broader framework of transatlantic relations, historically marked by both cooperation and periodic tensions in areas such as trade, competition, and technology regulation. Given that the U.S. and EU economies together account for a significant share of global trade and investment, any regulatory or commercial dispute between them can generate wider repercussions across international markets.
Analysts note that the U.S. stance could harden further if mutual understanding is not reached on how services and technology companies should be treated under EU regulation. The explicit mention of European firms as potential targets for retaliatory measures suggests Washington may be prepared to deploy broad trade instruments—including tariffs and service restrictions—to rebalance what it views as an uneven playing field. At the same time, the EU maintains that its rules are designed to guarantee fair competition for all operators within its territory, setting the stage for complex negotiations between the two powers.
Ultimately, this confrontation poses a significant challenge for transatlantic economic relations, while highlighting underlying tensions between technology regulation, trade policy, and the strategic interests of the United States and the European Union, with potentially far-reaching effects for international companies and global regulatory frameworks.
