Hidden Lobbying at EU Big Tech Workshops: Transparency Concerns Emerge

According to transparency advocacy groups, more than 20% of participants at European Union workshops aimed at regulating major technology firms failed to reveal their connections to the industry when registering for the events, leading to concerns that undisclosed relationships are skewing public discussions on tech regulations.

A thorough analysis conducted by researchers from three non-governmental organizations examined close to 4,000 applications for European Commission workshops held earlier this year, which were designed to evaluate compliance with the newly enacted Digital Markets Act (DMA) — a legislative measure aimed at curtailing anti-competitive practices within the tech sector.

The DMA, which took effect in March, classified major corporations such as Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance (owner of TikTok), Meta, and Microsoft as “gatekeepers.” This classification imposes obligations on these companies to adhere to EU regulations that promote fair competition, including requirements that prevent them from giving preferential treatment to their own products and services or hindering users from removing pre-installed software.

Apple, Alphabet, and Meta are currently under investigation by EU authorities for potential violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and may incur substantial fines if found culpable. While Apple and Meta assert their compliance with the act, Google has indicated that it has made adjustments and intends to defend its compliance strategy.

To assess compliance, the European Commission conducted a series of six specialized workshops last March, each focused on a different tech giant. During these sessions, all participants were expected to disclose any affiliations with the companies represented. Despite this directive, researchers identified that 21% of attendees — employed by various law firms, lobbying enterprises, trade associations, and think tanks — omitted mentioning their ties to the discussed corporations in their registration forms.

Margarida Silva, a co-author of the report and researcher at the Amsterdam-based NGO Somo, pointed out that, “While public workshops can serve as effective platforms for evaluating the compliance of major technology firms with prevailing regulations, the lack of rigorous disclosure requirements and conflict of interest protocols can lead to manipulation by lawyers, lobbyists, and other experts associated with or financed by large tech companies.”

The findings of this report were produced in collaboration with the Corporate Europe Observatory based in Brussels and Germany’s LobbyControl. This comes on the heels of a 2022 Guardian article by a former EU official highlighting the increasing influence of the tech industry’s corporate elite within the Brussels policy landscape.

Researchers meticulously analyzed online registration submissions where participants were offered, though not mandated, to disclose any connections with the companies discussed. They cross-referenced this self-reported information against publicly available data, such as that found on company websites and the European Commission’s transparency register, which catalogs organizations that seek to sway EU policymaking.

The analysis revealed that representatives from 53 different lobbying and public affairs firms attended the workshops, including well-known entities such as FleishmanHillard, which has represented both Meta and Amazon, and Flint Europe, which has collaborated with Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft. The report noted that neither these firms nor their competitors disclosed their connections during the workshops.

A spokesperson for Fleishman-Hillard confirmed the firm’s participation, stating, “We followed online the publicly streamed DMA workshops earlier in the year,” while providing a link to the organization’s entry in the transparency register listing its 2023 clients.

Trade associations such as DigitalEurope and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) were also present at the workshops yet failed to reveal their links to the designated gatekeepers, according to the research findings.

The NGOs also scrutinized the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), a nonprofit research organization that, at the Amazon event, was represented by a senior scholar who posed questions without disclosing that the ICLE receives funding from Amazon and Meta, as reported in the findings.

An ICLE spokesperson defended their practice by saying, “Out of respect for the privacy of our donors, we do not disclose or discuss their contributions, which come in the form of unrestricted, general support.” The spokesperson also indicated that the ICLE had recently decided to register with the EU transparency registry and would ensure future disclosures are made “out of an abundance of caution.” The organization registered on October 29, following an inquiry from the Guardian regarding the recent NGO report.

In light of the Guardian’s inquiries directed at ICLE, an Amazon representative provided an unsolicited comment, stating, “We engage with organizations such as trade associations and think tanks and maintain communication with officials in European institutions. We continuously update our entry in the EU transparency register in compliance with the necessary guidelines.”

The report revealed that over 1,000 registrants were lawyers; however, about a third of them neglected to clarify their firms’ prior or ongoing relationships with the gatekeeper companies. Notably, Freshfields, a prestigious law firm known for its ties to Apple and Meta, accounted for the highest number of registrations — 81. Of the ten Freshfields employees who attended the Apple and Meta workshops, only one admitted to working with Apple. Similarly, 10 lawyers from Skadden participated in the ByteDance session without revealing that their firm had represented the parent company of TikTok in a previous legal challenge against being classified as a gatekeeper.

Campaign advocates emphasized the “profound resource imbalance” between tech giants and the European Commission. The study indicated a discrepancy of 80 dedicated personnel at the commission’s DMA unit compared to 106 individuals employed by the gatekeepers, bolstered by a network of 282 lawyers and lobbyists.

Max Bank, a campaigner at LobbyControl, characterized the scenario as “a classic David versus Goliath predicament,” and warned that, “Without the EU fortifying its enforcement capabilities, the ambitious goals of the DMA to rein in the influence of large tech firms may ultimately fall short.”

Tommaso Valletti, an economics professor and former chief economist at the European Commission’s competition department, expressed grave concerns regarding the extensive lobbying efforts by major technology firms and other powerful corporations. He noted, “Resources are incredibly asymmetric, and it’s very, very difficult to hear other views.”

Flint Europe, Skadden, and Freshfields did not promptly respond to requests for comments from the media.

**Interview with Margarida ⁣Silva, Researcher at Somo**

**Editor**: Thank you⁣ for joining us today, ‍Margarida. Your recent report raises significant concerns about the ⁣transparency of participants at EU workshops focused on regulating major tech ​firms.⁤ Can you explain the key findings of your analysis?

**Margarida Silva**: Thank you for having me. Our analysis revealed that over 20% of the participants attending the workshops held by ‌the‌ European ‌Commission did ⁢not disclose their industry connections when registering. This is particularly troubling given that these workshops ⁤were specifically meant to evaluate compliance⁤ with the new Digital‍ Markets Act, which aims to create fairer competition in the tech sector.

**Editor**: That’s quite alarming. What were some of the‌ implications of these undisclosed affiliations?

**Margarida Silva**: The lack​ of transparency can substantially skew ⁢the public discourse surrounding tech regulations. When participants affiliated with lobbying⁢ firms or trade ⁤associations engage in discussions without disclosing their relationships, it raises questions⁣ about the integrity of the information being presented. In essence, it allows a manipulation of the‌ dialogue by actors who‍ may have vested interests in favor of the large ​tech companies.

**Editor**: You mentioned​ that a⁤ substantial number of attendees were⁤ from lobbying firms and think ​tanks. Can you provide specific examples?

**Margarida Silva**: Yes, our findings included representatives⁣ from notable lobbying firms, such as FleishmanHillard and Flint Europe, which have ties to companies like Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft. Notably, neither they nor several trade associations ‌disclosed these‍ connections during the workshops. This lack of disclosure affects not just the workshops, but also broader policymaking processes in the ⁢EU.

**Editor**: There‍ seems⁢ to be a growing scrutiny on tech giants like‌ Amazon, Meta, and others regarding compliance with EU‌ regulations. How⁤ do⁤ you see this evolving?

**Margarida Silva**: Absolutely, the EU’s actions—especially investigations into​ companies under the Digital Services Act—signal a critical shift in the regulatory landscape. However, for meaningful compliance and accountability to occur, there needs to be stricter enforcement of disclosure requirements during public‌ workshops and discussions. Transparency is key to ensuring that policymakers deliver fair regulations that genuinely benefit the public interest.

**Editor**: Lastly, what do you think could be done to improve transparency in these discussions moving forward?

**Margarida‌ Silva**: First and foremost, establishing mandatory disclosure requirements for participants is crucial. Additionally, implementing rigorous conflict of​ interest protocols will ⁢help in identifying and mitigating any bias‍ during these workshops. The EU must also enhance its⁢ monitoring of participants to ensure compliance and protect the​ integrity of the regulation process.

**Editor**: Thank you, Margarida, for shedding light on these pressing issues. Your insights ‌are invaluable as we navigate the intersection of technology and⁣ regulation⁤ in the EU.

**Margarida Silva**: Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial conversation that needs to‌ continue.