Review of the Digital Markets Act
GISAD – Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralisation
The first review of the Digital Markets Act reads as an administrative balance sheet, not a structural one: it measures compliance, not whether competition has actually emerged. GISAD acknowledges the achievements of the DMA – and recommends measuring contestability instead of obligations, and treating AI assistants as the gateways of tomorrow before they become the gatekeepers of tomorrow.
The review in brief
Under Article 53, the Commission was required to evaluate the DMA by 3 May 2026 and every three years thereafter. A public consultation opened on 3 July 2025, followed by a call for evidence and a dedicated AI questionnaire published on 26 August 2025 with feedback until late September; 319 consultation contributions, 63 call-for-evidence submissions and 96 AI questionnaire responses were received. The Commission published its summary on 8 January 2026, recording broad support for the DMA’s objectives alongside calls for stronger interoperability, data access and data portability, more support for SMEs, and in some contributions an extension of scope to AI and cloud services – while gatekeepers criticised proportionality and user experience.
The review report COM(2026) 178 final, published on 28 April 2026, concludes that the DMA is fit for purpose and proposes no legislative amendment and no change to the list of core platform services. Cloud computing and artificial intelligence are named as the next enforcement focus; messaging interoperability continues without extension to social networks. The report credits the regulation with tangible benefits: the ability to withhold consent to cross-service data combination, data portability, uninstall rights, alternative app stores and browsers, and the first DMA fines against Apple and Meta on 23 April 2025. The accompanying staff document, however, also records persistent problems: advertisers still face insufficiently granular and comparable data, alternative app stores and payment methods show mixed results due to technical and contractual barriers, and interoperability mandates carry high compliance costs.
What GISAD acknowledges
Two years of full application have produced real achievements: consent against cross-service data combination, portability, the right to uninstall, choice screens, and the first fines. These are not symbolic. GISAD also welcomes the decision to name cloud and AI as the next enforcement focus – the regulation is looking in the right direction. What the review does not deliver is a measurement of what the DMA exists to produce: markets in which the gatekeepers‘ position no longer decides the outcome.
Four points GISAD recommends
1. The DMA disciplines the gatekeepers – structure makes them dispensable. The review confirms the gatekeeper position as given and makes it bearable through regulation. Access to a market is no substitute for alternatives in the market. Structural alternatives – independent European providers per discipline, category-based search instead of algorithmic feeds – are the way to make gatekeepers not merely tamer, but unnecessary. A choice screen is not a choice as long as all candidates live in the same house.
2. Measure contestability, not compliance. The review’s logic is asymmetric: successes count immediately, while shortfalls are always „too early to judge“. GISAD recommends measurable contestability indicators instead of compliance indicators – shifts in market shares, the survival rate of independent alternatives, demand and refusal figures. Whoever measures must measure outside the manipulable area.
3. Measure AI as a future gatekeeper before it is one. Cloud and AI as enforcement priorities are correct. But the AI assistant is becoming a gateway before the designation criteria capture it: whoever controls the answer controls access. GISAD recommends measuring attention and answer control as designation criteria instead of waiting for turnover thresholds. Interoperability of AI assistants is necessary – but interoperability is not linkability: open interfaces must not create a re-linking of user profiles across services.
4. Access without demand is a one-way street. The SME contributions report delaying tactics, circumvention and choice interfaces designed to fail. Rights are worthless without viable alternatives. GISAD recommends procurement as an enforcement lever: public administrations and businesses as anchor customers of independent European providers – measured by the criterion that no US hyperscalers operate the critical infrastructure. This turns DMA access into real contestability.
Conclusion: The first DMA review shows that the machine works – not that the market has changed. Fitness for purpose must be measured in contestability, not in compliance. The DMA disciplines the gatekeepers; structure makes them dispensable. And the next gateway is already forming in AI assistants: whoever controls the answer controls access – measure it before it becomes a gatekeeper position.
GISAD – Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralisation · Registered in the EU Transparency Register, No. 244298340978-40
Sources: European Commission – Have your say: Review of the Digital Markets Act · DMA Review Report COM(2026) 178 final · European Commission – Consultation on the first review of the DMA