Quante volte, scorrendo la pagina web di un ristorante o di un albergo, ci si imbatte in una sfilza immacolata di cinque stelle, senza l’ombra di una critica per un disservizio o per un conto troppo salato? Da oggi, questa patina di perfezione artificiale finisce sotto la lente dell’Antitrust. Il Garante della concorrenza e del mercato ha infatti varato nuove e stringenti Linee guida per mettere ordine nella giungla delle recensioni online, diventate ormai l’ago della bilancia per le scelte di acquisto di milioni di cittadini. L’obiettivo dell’Authority è favorire la diffusione di giudizi genuini e veritieri, aiutando i consumatori a orientarsi e stimolando, al contempo, una concorrenza non falsata tra le imprese del settore turistico e della ristorazione.
Le nuove direttive dell’Antitrust tracciano un confine netto su ciò che costituisce una manipolazione del mercato. Le strutture ricettive, come hotel, ristoranti o terme, non potranno in alcun modo rimuovere o nascondere le recensioni negative dai propri siti. Allo stesso modo, è considerata una pratica manipolatoria l’eliminazione massiva di vecchi giudizi effettuata al solo scopo di fare piazza pulita delle critiche sgradite. Il divieto si estende anche alle interazioni dirette: l’esercente non può fare pressioni sul consumatore, o provare a dialogare con lui, nel tentativo di convincerlo a correggere o addirittura cancellare una recensione critica già pubblicata.
Successful tech companies are being punished—for being successful.
Last week, Britain's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) proposed designating Microsoft as having strategic market status, which would give the government regulator enormous powers to regulate Microsoft and impose specific conduct requirements on product design. A consultation process has begun, with a decision on whether Microsoft will be given strategic market status expected in February 2027.
If the CMA decides to designate Microsoft as having strategic market status, it could intervene in product bundling (how Microsoft packages Teams, Word, Excel, and Copilot together), interoperability (whether Microsoft should make it easier for competing software and AI developers to integrate with its products), cloud licensing (whether Microsoft's licensing arrangements disadvantage rival cloud providers), and customer switching (whether businesses face unreasonable barriers to leaving Microsoft's ecosystem) in the United Kingdom.
Bizarrely, the CMA's fundamental gripe with Microsoft is that it has made its software so interconnected, convenient, and commercially attractive to buy together that competitors struggle to persuade businesses to use anything else. For example, the CMA says that Microsoft offers customers "technology that is useful, secure, easy to deploy and manage, and available at an attractive overall price." According to its own customer research, Microsoft is seen as "relatively good value for money," and its bundles are "seen as more cost-effective than buying and managing separate licences." Because commercial bundling "makes customers less likely to adopt products from alternative providers," the CMA thinks it must intervene.
Microsoft is not the first tech giant to feel the CMA's wrath for creating products people like. In 2025, the CMA decided Google had strategic market status in general search and search advertising, giving the regulator the power to impose legally binding requirements on how the company operates. Since then, the CMA has ordered Google to use government-mandated standards for ranking organic search results, provide competitors with tools to access users' search data, and give publishers greater control over how their content is used in AI-powered search. (These requirements were imposed without finding that Google had violated competition law.)
"Products working well together at an attractive price used to be called a selling point," but is now "attracting intervention pushed by an overzealous regulator," Matthew Lesh, public policy fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, a London-based free market think tank, tells Reason. Lesh is the co-author of Digital Overload, a 2023 report that warns against giving the CMA "extensive, discretionary powers" amounting to the regulator "telling some of the most successful and popular platforms on the planet how to run their businesses."
Lesh argues that including Copilot, Microsoft's AI chatbot, in the designation is "particularly outrageous." Last year, when Google was designated as having strategic market status, the CMA excluded Gemini because the "AI assistant sector is relatively small, nascent, and highly dynamic." Lesh argues that, with Google, the CMA acknowledged "uncertainty about the market's development," but now "proposes sweeping Microsoft's workplace AI into a designation requiring an assessment looking at least five years ahead."
"Five years ago, ChatGPT didn't exist. Anyone confident about who will lead workplace AI in 2031 should be running a hedge fund, not a regulator," he tells Reason.
While European countries have taken a far more interventionist approach to technology, the United States has, at least comparatively, celebrated competition and innovation. But American lawmakers are increasingly flirting with importing similar restrictions on Big Tech.
In June, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) and Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) reintroduced the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which would allow federal and state antitrust enforcers to challenge certain practices by dominant online platforms, including favoring their own products and disadvantaging competitors. Jack Nicastro described the bill in Reason as an "atrocious importation of European-style competition policy," arguing that it would undermine innovation and choice. The following month, Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) introduced the AI AGENT Act, which would impose new requirements on major online platforms to accommodate competing AI agents.
These proposals are intended to address similar concerns to those of the CMA in Britain. The idea is that established companies outperforming their competitors is somehow evidence of "market failure," undermining the very innovations that made them successful.
Technological progress has always been driven by entrepreneurs and the companies they've built competing to win over consumers. Britain seems to have forgotten this. If the United States wants to remain a world leader in tech, it should avoid the British approach like the plague.
The EU plans to fast-track antitrust approval for Project Bromo, a satellite venture meant to cut Europe's reliance on American space technology, Bloomberg reports. The news comes days after the White House ordered the Pentagon to slow Starshield, the military-grade Starlink service Ukraine's forces use, according to Reuters.
Project Bromo would merge the satellite businesses of Italy’s Leonardo and France’s Airbus and Thales into one company. Bloomberg calls it the bloc’s answer to SpaceX, and the EU sees it as a regional giant able to compete with US and Chinese rivals.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has backed the project, Eunews reports.
“These are the types of industrial champions we need if Europe is to lead in the space economy of tomorrow,” she said at an international space summit in Paris last month, citing Bromo by name.
A year of quiet groundwork before the filing
Over the past year, the partners and EU officials have worked through potential competition concerns so they can be resolved before a formal application, according to Bloomberg. The companies have not yet applied, but Brussels expects them to in the coming weeks.
For large deals, regulators usually hold such preliminary talks to flag obstacles early. If the companies offer concessions, such as selling some assets, the deal could clear after a first-phase review of a little over a month. If competition concerns remain, the Commission could open an in-depth probe lasting several months.
The caveat behind the SpaceX-rival label
A fast review is not a free pass. Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera has warned that the project cannot expect one, and unions and suppliers have raised concerns about jobs and competition, Bloomberg reports. Von der Leyen’s public backing drew criticism from some members of the European Parliament.
Her support “doesn’t mean we are not going to apply and to enforce our own regulation,” Ribera told Bloomberg TV.
Why it matters to Ukraine
The push is part of a wider European scramble for space autonomy. Ukraine wants to build a satellite system of its own that no single company controls.
This week showed why. After the Starshield order, the military-grade terminals stopped working on fast-moving objects, and now work only at speeds of up to 160 kph, a person in Ukraine’s Defense Ministry told Reuters. Ukrainian officials said the restrictions complicated strike missions against Russian forces and logistics in occupied territory and slowed the interceptor drones that shoot down Shaheds.
Login
