EU’s Digital Networks Act Leaves Big Tech Untouched, Sparks Net Neutrality Concerns

The European Commission on Wednesday unveiled its Digital Networks Act (DNA), which aims to boost the bloc’s competitiveness and investment in telecom infrastructure.

The draft legislation is framed as a strategic response to the growing role of digital infrastructure in Europe’s economic and geopolitical landscape. It seeks to harmonize rules across the bloc for fibre roll-out, 4G/5G mobile networks and satellite services. However, the proposal stops short of creating a fully unified telecoms market or Big Tech contributions to network costs.

If adopted, the DNA would replace the 2018 European Electronic Communications Code, which has struggled to deliver the scale or coordination Brussels hoped for. While the new proposal introduces key reforms, it leaves national governments in control of key areas like spectrum allocation, competition, and market structure. European Commission’s Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen called the DNA foundational to Europe’s economic future, arguing that high-performance, resilient connectivity is a prerequisite for competitiveness, innovation, and digital sovereignty.

A more integrated, but not unified, telecoms market

Although the DNA seeks to harmonize telecoms regulation across the EU, it stops short of creating a fully unified single market. Europe’s telecoms landscape will remain divided between the 27 national markets, as the Act does not mandate the consolidation of telecoms rules. Therefore, it leaves core elements, particularly in 4G and 5G mobile networks, largely under national control.

Another central pillar of the DNA is the creation of an EU-level “single passport” for providers. Under this system, companies would be able to register in one Member State and operate across the Union. The goal is to harmonize connectivity rules and make it easier for operators to scale their activities beyond national borders.

Similarly, the proposal does not introduce measures aimed at creating a pan-European fixed-line or Wi-Fi market, and those areas will continue to be largely subject to national bodies. As a result, Europe’s telecom sector will continue to operate under 27 national regimes, limiting economies of scale and cross-border competition, despite the Commission’s stated ambition to deepen the digital single market.

Big Tech avoids financial obligations

One of the most politically sensitive elements of the file — whether large content and application providers should be required to contribute to the cost of network infrastructure — has been set aside.

Instead of mandating financial transfers from platforms such as Google and Meta, the Commission has abandoned proposals to require large platforms to financially contribute to the rollout of network infrastructure. The framework includes provisions for dispute resolution but imposes no binding obligations.

Telecoms operators had long argued that Big Tech companies, which account for a significant share of internet traffic, should contribute to infrastructure costs.

Instead, the Act introduces a voluntary cooperation mechanism between connectivity providers and digital platforms, including cloud and content companies. It is designed to support commercial negotiations on interconnection, traffic efficiency, and related issues, without imposing new financial obligations – in part to avoid regulatory overlap with the Digital Markets Act.

CCIA Europe, which represents cloud, content, and internet service providers, described this as a “step backwards.” They argue that the introduction of a voluntary conciliation mechanism risks adding regulatory complexity rather than simplifying the EU’s connectivity framework.

On the other side, telecom operators argue this will be insufficient to rebalance negotiations with large digital platforms. Connect Europe has called for binding arbitration mechanisms in data traffic markets, signalling that demands for mandatory intervention have not disappeared from the debate.

Open Internet principles under pressure

The Digital Networks Act states to fully keep the principles of internet neutrality by introducing a mechanism to clarify Open Internet rules for innovative services to increase legal certainty and a voluntary ecosystem cooperation mechanism on IP interconnection, traffic efficiency, and other emerging areas.

However, rights groups are already sounding the alarms, saying the proposal puts those principles at risk. The digital rights group epicenter.works warns that a closer examination of the proposal “reveals a drastic abandonment of core protections and a gutting of the net neutrality framework.”

They based their concerns on the removal of 18 of 19 recitals from the OIR (Open Internet Regulation). As the organization puts it, those were “key provisions in the recitals that had a major impact on CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) jurisprudence and BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) guidelines.” The OIR was adopted in 2025 as the legal foundation of net neutrality in Europe. According to the regulation, member states should guarantee that internet providers treat all online traffic equally. This means the internet should be a neutral infrastructure, not favoring those who can pay more.

According to epicenter.works, the removed recitals were very important for how jurisdiction bodies look and enforce net neutrality, and their absence from legislation would translate into serious impacts. “Without these recitals, the pillars of the framework are removed, and many determinations by courts and regulators are likely to be decided differently.”

Specifically, Article 206 of the DNA describes the changes applicable to the OIR. Specifically, it states the repeal of articles 3,4, 5 and 9 of the regulation, which establish internet traffic equally, set transparency requirements and grant power to national regulators. As Thomas Lohninge from epicenter.works told Tech Policy Press, “the DNA is removing the provisions from the OIR that concern net neutrality and only partially reintegrating them into the new law.”

The proposal states, “The DNA replaces certain existing EU legislative instruments that govern the connectivity ecosystem,” including parts of the Open Internet Regulation. In a comparison exercise, Lohninge notes that from the OIR, the new framework only safeguards consumer transparency and remedies.

Also, BEUC raised awareness of the risks of net neutrality. The BEUC (The European Consumer Organization) stated that the DNA raises questions in relation to “the preservation of net neutrality, by weakening critical safeguards.” As Agustín Reyna, Director General of BEUC, commented in a press release, “We call on the Commission to ensure that EU telecoms rules continue to defend competition, consumer welfare and the principle of net neutrality.”

While the Commission frames the DNA as part of a broader push for digital sovereignty, some analysts argue that the proposal does little to alter Europe’s structural dependence on non-EU digital infrastructure. Konstantinos Komaitis, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, argues that the DNA is “more about market integration than a strategic reset.”

As he put it, “It does not reduce Europe’s reliance on US digital infrastructure, nor does it meaningfully change it.” Instead, Komaitis points to a more subtle shift. His concern is that the new framework may allow telecom operators to shift responsibility for congestion and investment costs onto content and cloud providers.

Next steps

The Commission estimates that full deployment of the DNA could add up to €400 billion to the GDP by 2035 and contribute to modest emissions reductions through more energy-efficient infrastructure.

The proposal will now move to the European Parliament and the Council. Negotiations are expected to focus on spectrum governance, the balance of authority between Brussels and national regulators.