What is happening?
The US House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed major technology companies, including Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok and OpenAI, to hand over their internal communications with European regulators. Thousands of documents have already been disclosed. The trigger is the Digital Services Act (DSA). US authorities view this law as a tool for political censorship, while Brussels sees the subpoenas as an attack on European sovereignty, with the technology companies caught in between.
How did this arise?
The DSA requires large platforms to address illegal content and systemic risks. In Washington, this is seen as a censorship instrument. As early as the beginning of 2025, Committee Chair Jim Jordan issued initial warnings, followed by subpoenas in February. In July, the Committee published a report, The Foreign Censorship Threat, arguing that the DSA forces platforms to align their global content moderation with European standards, potentially affecting the free speech rights of Americans.
Encrypted messages and a precedent
The matter gained further weight when it emerged that EU officials increasingly use encrypted apps for their communications with platforms, with messages that disappear automatically. The House Judiciary Committee responded by requiring companies to retain and disclose even these temporary messages. Can US congressional committees effectively gain access to communications of European public authorities in this way? Formally, no. In practice, however, this places significant pressure on large technology companies. The fact that thousands of documents have already been handed over shows how real that pressure is.
What this means for European oversight
The European Commission enforces the DSA on the basis of confidential engagement with platforms: internal documents, closed-door workshops, and informal compliance discussions. If such communication systematically ends up in Washington through subpoenas, a chilling effect is likely to follow. Why engage in open dialogue if that exchange may later be scrutinised in a Congressional hearing?
What now?
For European regulators, the message is clear: the assumption that European regulation operates beyond the reach of foreign political actors is no longer tenable. For technology companies, the reality is that they are increasingly positioned as intermediaries in a conflict they cannot resolve. For those considering digital sovereignty, this case illustrates that sovereignty is not only about drafting your own laws. It also concerns whether those laws can be enforced without interference, even where others have both the means and the willingness to disrupt them from the outside.
If you have any questions after reading this blog, feel free to contact us.
