The Framework

Italy’s Law No. 118/2022 forces digital platforms that play a “key role in reaching end users or suppliers, also in terms of network effects or data availability” to prove they don’t create economic dependence—a rebuttable presumption that applies only to large platforms.[1] The law prohibits platforms from “adopting practices that inhibit or hinder the use of different providers for the same service, including through the application of unilateral conditions or additional costs not provided for in the contractual agreements.”^[2] Platform operators must demonstrate the absence of economic dependence while traditional operators and smaller platforms face no such burden.^[3] The law’s vague “key role” criterion subjects platforms to fines up to 10 percent of annual turnover enforced by the Italian Competition Authority.^[4]

Implications for U.S. Technology Leadership

Italy’s digital platform law systematically disadvantages U.S. technology companies by creating compliance burdens that don’t apply to smaller competitors or traditional businesses. The rebuttable presumption forces leading U.S. platforms to maintain extensive documentation proving they don’t create economic dependence, diverting resources from innovation to legal compliance. The vague “key role” standard creates regulatory uncertainty that particularly affects U.S. companies operating at scale, as their network effects and data capabilities automatically trigger heightened scrutiny while smaller European competitors operate under traditional rules.

The prohibition on practices that “inhibit or hinder the use of different providers” effectively mandates interoperability without the technical specifications or security safeguards present in EU-wide regulations. This forces U.S. platforms to redesign their services to accommodate competitors, undermining competitive advantages derived from integrated ecosystems. The law creates a precedent for asymmetric regulation based on market position rather than actual anticompetitive conduct, encouraging other jurisdictions to adopt similar discriminatory frameworks that cumulatively fragment the regulatory landscape and weaken U.S. technology leadership in global markets.

Endnotes