The Berlin Summit 2025: Big Tech And European Sovereignty

Against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions, growing technological dependencies and profound upheavals, the role of large technology companies (‘Big Tech’) was at the centre of the discussion. The focus was on the structural market power of global corporations, the blurring of the boundaries between economic and political control and Europe’s strategic options for action in the digital age.

A central starting point was the realisation that European countries are highly dependent on companies from the USA and China in a variety of technological infrastructures – from cloud services and social media to generative artificial intelligence. These corporations not only have dominant market positions in their core businesses, but also increasingly control the underlying digital infrastructures and innovation networks. The resulting structural power goes far beyond ownership: it is based on the ability to control production chains, research agendas and data flows. During the discussion on Europe’s digital sovereignty at the Berlin Summit 2025, there was a consensus that this would not be secured by regulation alone but would require the targeted development of proprietary technological infrastructures. Coordinated European efforts are needed to avoid path dependencies and long-term dependence on global platform players.

A central argument of the discussion was that Big Tech not only dominates markets, but is also increasingly taking on governance functions. Increasingly, the companies in question are gaining the ability to set rules and control resources, calling into question state sovereignty in core areas such as education, healthcare, administration and security. Another focus was on the ‘infrastructure power’ of big tech. Cloud platforms, for example, act as digital territories in which digital services are developed, distributed and consumed. As these platforms not only distribute their own products, but also control third-party providers, this creates a dense network of dependencies – for start-ups as well as established companies and state institutions. European companies, it was emphasised, are increasingly operating within these ecosystems and are therefore structurally integrated into a power structure that they themselves do not control.

The political response to this has so far been ambivalent. On the one hand, important regulatory instruments have been created in Europe with the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. On the other hand, there has so far been a lack of ability to strategically and sustainably develop its own technological alternatives. Although there are promising research and development projects in Europe, they are hardly ever systematically scaled or strategically managed. Criticism was levelled in particular at overambitious top-down initiatives that lack concrete implementation and long-term demand.

Different approaches to solutions were identified in the discussion. While some voices referred to the short-term need to work with existing tech providers (‘second-best world’), it was also emphasised that strategic alternatives need to be developed. These include public digital infrastructures, open platforms and targeted innovation support in the area of socially and ecologically compatible technologies. Public procurement is a key lever here: alternative structures can only emerge if the state acts as an institutional buyer.

The discussion also reflected the cultural dimension of the digital transformation. It was emphasised that the use of digital platforms is strongly characterised by individual practice – users voluntarily access services that simultaneously increase their dependency. This tense relationship makes regulation more difficult, as interventions in algorithmic control or content moderation can quickly be perceived as censorship.

Finally, reference was made to global dynamics: The USA is purposefully driving the spread of digital currencies and the deregulation of digital markets, while China is building geopolitical influence with open technology standards. Europe is at a structural disadvantage – not least due to fragmented markets, a lack of economies of scale and institutional inertia. The challenge therefore lies not only in the technological race to catch up, but also in the political clarification of who makes and implements strategic decisions within Europe.

The discussion made it clear that digital sovereignty is more than just a technological goal – it is a social project that requires new forms of cooperation between states, companies, science and civil society. Without such alliances, Europe risks remaining permanently dependent on global platforms.