Mega Trend 2024: The End of Global Tech Homogeneity, The beginning of Global Tech Regulation
Based on all the platform policy research from 2024, here is the first "mega trend" which reveals how regional tech product fragmentation is creating a new global regulatory order.
TL; DR→Here are the main topics that this post covers:
Product Delays and Modifications in Europe
Asia's Distinctive Regulatory Approach: Digital Sovereignty
Regulatory Approaches start to Converge Across the Globe
The Road Ahead: 2025 and Beyond
Chapter 1: Introduction
For an outsider, it feels miraculous how tech giants have maintained a uniform global presence despite grappling with fundamentally different approaches to data protection and privacy regulations across regions. Take the concept of data privacy. The European Union (EU) takes a fundamental rights-based approach to privacy and consumer choice (link) and has enacted stringent legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In contrast, the United States focuses on market-driven solutions through antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act, where privacy concerns are often addressed as part of maintaining market competition (link). Meanwhile, Asian countries like China, India, and Korea have taken pragmatic, sector-specific approaches that emphasize digital sovereignty and local market conditions.
Historically, tech companies navigated these differences without significantly altering their services across markets. The year 2024 marked a pivotal year where it feels like the era of global tech homogeneity is rapidly coming to an end.
Chapter 2: Divergent Strategies in Europe: Product Delays and Modifications
2024 is when these regulations created concrete barriers, forcing tech giants to decouple their products for the first time by adopting two distinct strategies.
Product Launch Delays:
The first strategy involves delaying product launches in the European market. For example, Apple’s new AI, branded as “Apple Intelligence,” has been available since late 2024 on the US versions of iPhone 15 Pro, 15 Pro Max, and all iPhone 16 models, offering enhanced Siri capabilities and advanced writing and photo editing tools. However, Apple delayed the European launch until 31st March 2025 because of challenges complying with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (link1, link2) Similarly, Meta faced regulatory hurdles when rolling out its text-based social media app, Threads, in the EU. The launch was delayed by five months because of DMA compliance concerns, particularly regarding data-sharing practices between Instagram and Threads. (link)
The EU’s AI regulations are prompting other major tech companies to delay AI product deployments in the region as well (link1, link2). For instance,
Meta excluded its multimodal LLaMa AI model from Europe due to GDPR compliance challenges and the AI Act’s systemic risk requirements for open models. (My earlier post here, link2).
Microsoft postponed the availability of its Copilot features in Europe, including the Windows 11 Copilot assistant and the Copilot app for macOS, as the company works to ensure compliance with the Digital Markets Act (link1, link2).
OpenAI’s Advanced Voice Mode was unavailable in EU because it can detect user emotion (link)
Google faced initial regulatory hurdles when launching Gemini App and Gemini Pro in EU (link)
These above cases highlight how companies may be strategically choosing to delay rather than immediately adapt their products to the European market. Thankfully, firms are thinking beyond delays and are also actively modifying some of their products and practices to meet European regulatory requirements.
Product Adaptations:
As part of its compliance efforts, Apple has revised its App Store guidelines, no longer requiring apps offering third-party logins to include ‘Sign in with Apple,’ a move aimed at preventing favoritism toward its own service (my substack post). Meta is adjusting its ad targeting in the EU following pressure from the Digital Markets Act, which challenges its “pay or consent to tracking” model (my substack post). After EU regulators said that the “pay or consent to tracking” rule violates the DMA, EU users who don’t pay for ad-free Facebook and Instagram will see “less personalized ads” based on age, location, gender, and ad engagement (link). To meet the DMA’s interoperability mandates, Meta plans to make WhatsApp compatible with other messaging platforms like iMessage and Signal while maintaining encryption. (my substack post).
These two strategies are understandable: for companies that don’t respect the legislation, significant fines await. Apple is set to be the first company fined under the EU’s Digital Markets Act for restricting developers from informing users about alternative purchasing routes, with potential penalties amounting to tens of billions (link). Google being fined in France for misusing news publishers’ data, demonstrating how European authorities are actively penalizing companies that violate transparency requirements (Substack). Even as recent as on April 23rd, 2025, Apple has been fined €0.5 billion, while Meta has been fined €200 million.
In general, it feels like the emerging AI versions available in Europe often come with reduced capabilities—Meta’s AI chatbot in the EU lacks image generation/editing features and isn’t trained on EU user data—highlighting how compliance with regulations is creating distinctly different product experiences across markets.
Chapter 3: Asia's Distinctive Regulatory Approach: Digital Sovereignty-Focused
While the bulk of this article centers on Western markets, Asia is pursuing a distinctly different path centered on digital sovereignty. Regulators across the region have prioritized national control over digital infrastructures and data flows, but with a common implementation mechanism: interoperability.
China has already enforced stringent data regulations on its domestic companies, such as requiring interoperability between platforms like AliPay and WeChat Pay (link). While this push breaks the walled gardens between major tech ecosystems and induces greater competition, interoperability can complicate data protection, as data flow among private companies creates privacy risks (link).
India’s approach similarly emphasizes interoperability through government-led initiatives. The India Stack, Health Stack, and the Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) are encouraging interoperability and data-sharing across sectors. (link1, link2) The ONDC specifically aims to create an open network where all e-commerce entities can exchange information seamlessly—a stark contrast to Western markets where platforms largely operate as closed ecosystems. Japan and Korea have also prioritized data portability, interoperability, and competition in their digital regulatory frameworks. For instance, Japan passed the Mobile Software Competition Act of 2024, which along with promoting App Store and payment methods competition, is also mandating data portability (link).
These Asian regulatory frameworks add another dimension to the global tech landscape, further challenging the viability of universal product offerings. Their focus on sovereign digital infrastructure represents a deeper philosophical divergence from Western frameworks. While Western regulators debate privacy and market power, Asian frameworks are actively reconstructing market architectures through mandated technical compatibility—forcing companies to develop region-specific strategies that may ultimately create entirely separate digital ecosystems.
Of course, these approaches are not without its own risks—for instance, a public infrastructure for sensitive health data can have its own privacy risks, especially when multiple entities gain access to previously siloed information. Government-mandated interoperability frameworks could also suffer from the tragedy of the commons—where shared responsibility can lead to underinvestment in security and privacy protections. The balance between openness and protection becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as regulatory frameworks prioritize technical compatibility over data containment. This is clearly a battle the western tech companies need to fight in 2025 and beyond.
Chapter 4: Product Strategies Diverge, But Regulatory Approaches Converge
While product strategies across regions are clearly diverging, we seem to be witnessing a surprising convergence in regulatory approaches.
The most notable area is financial penalties. The US has historically imposed less frequent and smaller fines than Europe, preferring a “break first, fix later” approach that allowed companies to innovate rapidly. With the imposition of the largest ever fine on a tech company in 2019 (Meta being fined $5 billion for privacy violation), this dynamic has started to shift. The FTC recently settled with InMarket Media over allegations of improperly collecting and selling user location data, reinforcing the increasing focus on privacy enforcement in the U.S. alongside antitrust concerns. (my substack link). Apple and Goldman Sachs were fined close to $90 million for mishandling consumer disputes of Apple Card (link). Meta paid $1.4 billion in fines to Texas for using facial recognition without user consent (link).
The second area is related to restricting “undesirable” actions. The FCC ruled that AI-cloned voice robocalls are illegal, signaling growing regulatory intervention in AI-generated content and digital fraud prevention (Substack). Regulators started scrutinizing OpenAI’s violations of copyright and licensing issues and are forcing them to secure a content licensing deal with firms like the Financial Times to navigate AI-generated content rights issues (Substack). FTC’s 2024 study about dark patterns is a definitive next step towards barring these actions (link). 2024 is also the year when multiple US states enacted state-specific privacy protection laws, in line with the European GDPR (link).
The third area of convergence concerns youth protection on social media. Most Asian countries, Australia, and New Zealand, were early adopters of restrictions on young users’ access. Now we're seeing similar measures emerge across Western markets. France is advocating for a European Union-wide age minimum of 15 for social media use, building on its national law that restricts users under 15 from accessing social platforms. Similar proposals have emerged from Denmark, and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is considering an inquiry into social media’s effects on youth. (link) The U.K. government is considering a social media ban for children under 16 as part of its efforts to enhance online safety, with Technology Secretary Peter Kyle stating that “everything is on the table” as the government examines the impact of social media on minors. (link). In the United States, Utah attempted to force platforms to impose privacy restrictions on young users’ accounts. Though courts blocked these measures on constitutional grounds, the attempt signals American regulators’ growing willingness to adopt protective stances previously seen mainly abroad. And the digital platforms are aggressively responding to these demands by proposing many technological changes: age verification and parental approval for app downloads (link).
Perhaps most telling is the increasing coordination between regulators. In 2023, the reports that that US FTC attempting to work with the EU to influence EU’s decisions about US mergers (link) seems unprecedented. In general, 2024 appears to be a year when the collaboration and competition between international regulators are converging to compel platform owners to take certain challenging actions, primarily at the expense of their financial interests.
The Road Ahead: 2025 and Beyond
The year 2025 will likely accelerate both trends we’ve observed: diverging product offerings and converging regulatory philosophies. Tech companies will continue to face a fascinating paradox—building region-specific products while navigating increasingly similar regulatory objectives.
Beyond the established regulatory spheres, we are witnessing African countries and the African Union developing their own approaches to data and tech regulation (e.g., African Union Data Policy Framework, Kenyan Data Protection Act). African nations have the unique advantage of observing what works and what fails in both Western and Asian regulatory models, and then crafting a regulatory framework that works for their 1.2 billion people. This positioning may lead to fundamentally new approaches that blend elements from existing frameworks while addressing distinctly African priorities and infrastructure capabilities.
In any case, the debate over data protection, privacy, market dominance and digital sovereignty will continue to be defining features of the tech industry’s evolution. Global companies will find it increasingly difficult to offer a one-size-fits-all product and must develop modular architectures that can adapt to regional requirements without completely rebuilding their systems. Their success depends on regulatory agility as much as on technical innovation.
As tech giants continue to decouple their products across regions, we may see the emergence of distinctly different digital ecosystems shaped by local regulatory frameworks. This fragmentation can challenge the network effects that have powered tech giants’ global dominance. No doubt that regulatory approaches will weaken the very network advantages that made their platforms valuable. This is a valuable opportunity for digital platforms to work with academic tech economists to rethink network effects.
My honest opinion is that, underneath this product fragmentation, a new global consensus on tech governance may be quietly forming. The end of global tech homogeneity doesn’t necessarily mean regulatory chaos.
All opinions and errors are my own (including incorrect links, if any). However, I have three people to thank for their contribution:
The initial draft and the structure of this post was composed by Alice Mollet, an undergraduate student at NYU Stern, as a part of SPUR (Stern Program for Undergraduate Research).
The genesis of this post is the “Recap 2024 Writeup,” the end-of-the-semester write-up by Simran Joshi, an undergraduate student at NYU Stern, as a part of SPUR.
Anantesh Mohapatra, an undergraduate student at NYU Stern, provided some valuable feedback that helped improve the quality of the post.
Thanks a lot, folks.