How the “Brussels effect” harms the U.S. tech sector

A recent House Judiciary hearing, “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” shed an unforgiving light on a phenomenon called “the Brussels effect,” which free market advocates and civil libertarians have warned about for decades. “The Brussels effect” refers to the process by which the European Union (EU), via its aggressive regulatory posture, effectively exports its regulatory standards to the rest of the world. 

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), as the hearing highlighted, has become a primary driver of this phenomenon. The committee presented internal documents from platforms like TikTok showing that the “primary motivation” for updating global community guidelines was to achieve compliance with the DSA. When a platform changes its policies to appease a regulator in Brussels, those changes often cascade down to users around the world because platforms would rather have global policy standards for liability, technical, and operational reasons.

The “Brussels effect” is particularly dangerous because it creates a race to the bottom. What this means in practice is that American companies are forced to comply with the most restrictive global standards to maintain market access, so they lose the agility and freedom that made the U.S. tech sector a global leader. Instead of a competitive marketplace of ideas, we are left with a homogenized digital landscape. Marginalized speech, or speech the government decides is dangerous, is censored not because it is illegal in the United States, but because it violates a European bureaucrat’s sensibilities.

To protect the future of innovation and individual liberty, we must reject the paternalistic urge to safety-proof the internet through government mandates on speech. The solution to the Brussels effect is not for the United States to mirror European regulations, but to double down on our own constitutional protections. We must champion the editorial rights of private platforms and establish that the government cannot compel private companies to host or remove speech against their will.

This highlights exactly why the United States relies on the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to provide a legal shield that protects the right of private entities to curate content without fear of state-mandated censorship or ruinous liability. By ensuring that the government cannot compel or punish editorial choices, these protections serve as a critical bulwark against the very type of regulatory pressure currently being exported by European bureaucrats.

While there is no direct policy the United States can enact to dissuade firms from setting global policies, they can ensure that firms know we are committed to the principles of free speech. However, the indignation displayed by some lawmakers at the hearing carries a dose of irony. While we should rightly criticize foreign efforts to curb expression, we must also address the domestic censorship dynamic that plagues U.S. digital policy. As I have noted previously, the outrage directed at Brussels belies a quieter, growing domestic trend: the increasing willingness of American officials to involve the federal government in speech regulation.

The hearing touched on this during the testimony citing “jawboning“—the practice of government officials pressuring platforms to remove content. The current Trump administration has also engaged in forms of censorship and jawboning via various methods. Consistency is key. We cannot effectively argue against European censorship if our own government is engaged in similar behavior. True leadership in digital policy requires a commitment to limited government and free-market principles at home.

This House Judiciary hearing served as a wake-up call. The Brussels effect is no longer a theoretical risk; it is actively shaping what Americans can say and see online. If we value the First Amendment and the economic dynamism that has defined the American tech sector, American policymakers must resist the urge to regulate speech in the name of “safety” or “truth.” The best defense against foreign censorship is a robust, unyielding commitment to free expression and a hands-off approach to the digital economy.