Issue #9 - October 27, 2025

The European Commission stress-tests the US/EU trade deal over the question of free speech on social media

This week, the EC has announced in its “preliminary findings” that Meta and TikTok were in breach of DSA compliance. Both are not allowing research institutes to access their platform. Regarding Meta, the EC has found that the mechanism for users to report illegal and harmful content is somehow deceptive and complex, and isn’t giving enough explanation for the reason why it takes down content. The comments from the EC over the latter are telling about how it wants to win back the debate over the question of free speech in Europe that was abruptly opened after Trump's election. According to the EU digital spokesman Thomas Regnier, “When accused of censorship, we prove that the DSA is doing the opposite. It is protecting free speech, allowing citizens in the EU to fight back against unilateral content moderation decisions taken by Big Tech". Re-opening the debate over the question of free speech is a risky bet for the EU who has so far managed to get a deal with the US administration on trade. The EU can indeed fine tech companies in breach of the DSA up to 6% of their global turnover, a mechanism considered by the US administration as an indirect levy on US tech companies. The question now is whether the EU will be willing to move forward with such a tool knowing it will undoubtedly reopen a difficult trade negotiation with the US. The recent move from the Ottawa government over trade policy should indicate that little is needed to break trade deals.

Should Europe aim for the “Airbus of X” model?

Over the past decade, few European players have been praised for their actual industrial success on the global scene. Putting aside the failures of its main competitor Boeing, and its real difficulties to challenge SpaceX (I’ll get back to it), Airbus’s success has led policymakers to call for similar partnerships in other industries, starting by calling for an “Airbus of”. While tempting, and also easy to grasp, is it actually what we need to get back our EU leadership industry by industry? The most compelling argument is probably that size matters when it comes to competitiveness. Draghi/Letta have called for a competitiveness shock that will come from a more integrated market. Following this idea, we should consider an Airbus of electric vehicles, batteries, 6G network, cloud computing, where economies of scale, need for strategic autonomy and global leadership are to be achieved. That would require an agreement with legacy incumbents who have not necessarily considered a big shake-up of leadership to regain competitiveness. The success of Airbus, based on the merger of a few already existing European leaders, isn’t necessarily relevant anymore. In the defense industry, recent examples have shown that innovation and capacity to meet the recent evolution of warfare comes from small players, who don’t shy away from disrupting the way historic players operate. Take the example of the German Helsing, or the American Anduril. While a top-down approach has been the success of Airbus, a bottom-up one is more likely to succeed in today’s world. What we need is a structural change of the legal environment in the EU to allow small players to operate easily. Simplification and harmonisation are key, innovation policies promoting small players over incumbents could overtime help create an ecosystem of industries able to face today’s challenges.