Brussels has built one of the world's most comprehensive digital regulatory frameworks, but a growing chorus of experts argues that enforcement is so fragmented that the bloc cannot effectively uphold its own rules. A new paper, authored by Kai Zenner, head of office for German MEP Axel Voss, and Maria Koomen, an independent tech and democracy analyst, calls for the creation of a dedicated European Digital Enforcement Agency.
The paper, which comes as the EU begins enforcing landmark laws such as the AI Act, the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), highlights a structural weakness: more than 300 different EU and national bodies share responsibility for digital oversight, many lacking the staff, expertise, or independence to act consistently. "Enforcement of the AI Act, DSA and DMA is ramping up, but their enforcement is split across more than 300 different EU and national bodies – many without the staff, expertise, or independence to act consistently," Koomen told Euronews.
The Commission's conflicting roles
The authors argue that the European Commission, which leads enforcement of these flagship rules, is itself part of the problem. The executive simultaneously legislates, enforces, and evaluates digital policy while also negotiating trade and security agreements with third countries. This dual role exposes the Commission to political pressure and may even lead to pre-emptive underenforcement.
Last year, media reports revealed that Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič lobbied to delay an antitrust sanction against Google, fearing it could jeopardise the fragile trade truce between the EU and the US, known as the Turnberry Agreement. Such incidents illustrate how geopolitical considerations can compromise regulatory integrity.
For Koomen and Zenner, the combination of geopolitical capture, fragmented governance, the national interests of influential member states, and inadequate resources creates an enforcement gap that leaves the EU's digital rules failing in practice. The result is a patchwork of inconsistent application across the 27 member states, undermining the single market and legal certainty for businesses and citizens alike.
A three-step path to centralisation
The idea of centralising digital enforcement is not new, but it has faced strong opposition. National capitals are reluctant to cede regulatory powers, and member states are wary of financing a costly new EU body. To overcome this resistance, the paper proposes a phased approach.
First, a short-lived cooperation forum would bring together existing regulators to share best practices and align approaches. In the medium term, this would evolve into a fully-fledged Digital Enforcement Agency with binding powers. Finally, after treaty reform, the agency would gain fully independent status, insulated from political interference.
The authors argue that the timing is opportune. The Commission is about to launch a broad review of EU digital legislation, and negotiations over the bloc's next long-term budget are entering a critical phase. This creates a window to push for institutional change.
While the proposal is likely to spark debate, it reflects growing frustration among policymakers and experts that the EU's ambitious digital agenda is being undermined by its own governance structure. As the bloc seeks to position itself as a global leader in tech regulation, the question of who enforces the rules is becoming as important as the rules themselves.
For now, the paper adds to a growing body of research suggesting that without a more coherent enforcement mechanism, the EU risks seeing its digital laws remain paper tigers. The challenge will be to convince member states that a centralised agency is worth the cost and the loss of national control.
