Just a Slice of the Legal Perspective - A Comparative legal analysis of DMA and AML through the view of Apple’s digital platform
(2025) HARN63 20251Department of Business Law
- Abstract
- This thesis conducts a comparative legal analysis of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), examining their divergent regulatory approaches to governing digital platforms, with Apple’s App Store as a case study. The study investigates how the DMA’s ex ante structural remedies and the AML’s ex post behavioural enforcement shape platform behaviour, compliance costs, and market outcomes. It further explores whether these frameworks can converge into hybrid governance models to mitigate regulatory fragmentation.
The research addresses following core questions: How do the rights-obligations structures of the DMA and AML, rooted in distinct socio-legal contexts, influence platform strategies? What... (More) - This thesis conducts a comparative legal analysis of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), examining their divergent regulatory approaches to governing digital platforms, with Apple’s App Store as a case study. The study investigates how the DMA’s ex ante structural remedies and the AML’s ex post behavioural enforcement shape platform behaviour, compliance costs, and market outcomes. It further explores whether these frameworks can converge into hybrid governance models to mitigate regulatory fragmentation.
The research addresses following core questions: How do the rights-obligations structures of the DMA and AML, rooted in distinct socio-legal contexts, influence platform strategies? What drives the divergence between the DMA’s preventive thresholds and the AML’s reactive criteria? Can these regimes achieve functional equivalence despite doctrinal differences? Using a functional comparative methodology, the analysis reveals that both frameworks curtail platform dominance through jurisdiction-specific tools—structural interoperability mandates in the EU and retroactive fines in China. Apple’s dual compliance strategies (e.g., third-party payment integration in the EU vs. data localization in China) illustrate how divergent methods achieve analogous outcomes.
Key findings highlight the DMA’s emphasis on legal certainty and market contestability versus the AML’s administrative flexibility aligned with state priorities. Despite differences, both regimes exhibit functional equivalence in addressing market distortions. The study proposes tiered governance models integrating the EU’s compliance-by-design with China’s risk-based “graded supervision,” and even boldly inferring, digital rules in different regions may undergo asymmetric reforms in the future, emphasizing sovereignty-sensitive harmonization. However, geopolitical tensions, value conflicts, and complex legal culture remain challenges. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9192657
- author
- Chen, Dike LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- HARN63 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
- subject
- keywords
- Digital Markets Act (DMA), China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), Apple, digital platforms, regulatory divergence, functional equivalence, comparative law, compliance strategies
- language
- English
- id
- 9192657
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-05 13:19:55
- date last changed
- 2025-06-05 13:19:55
@misc{9192657,
abstract = {{This thesis conducts a comparative legal analysis of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), examining their divergent regulatory approaches to governing digital platforms, with Apple’s App Store as a case study. The study investigates how the DMA’s ex ante structural remedies and the AML’s ex post behavioural enforcement shape platform behaviour, compliance costs, and market outcomes. It further explores whether these frameworks can converge into hybrid governance models to mitigate regulatory fragmentation.
The research addresses following core questions: How do the rights-obligations structures of the DMA and AML, rooted in distinct socio-legal contexts, influence platform strategies? What drives the divergence between the DMA’s preventive thresholds and the AML’s reactive criteria? Can these regimes achieve functional equivalence despite doctrinal differences? Using a functional comparative methodology, the analysis reveals that both frameworks curtail platform dominance through jurisdiction-specific tools—structural interoperability mandates in the EU and retroactive fines in China. Apple’s dual compliance strategies (e.g., third-party payment integration in the EU vs. data localization in China) illustrate how divergent methods achieve analogous outcomes.
Key findings highlight the DMA’s emphasis on legal certainty and market contestability versus the AML’s administrative flexibility aligned with state priorities. Despite differences, both regimes exhibit functional equivalence in addressing market distortions. The study proposes tiered governance models integrating the EU’s compliance-by-design with China’s risk-based “graded supervision,” and even boldly inferring, digital rules in different regions may undergo asymmetric reforms in the future, emphasizing sovereignty-sensitive harmonization. However, geopolitical tensions, value conflicts, and complex legal culture remain challenges.}},
author = {{Chen, Dike}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Just a Slice of the Legal Perspective - A Comparative legal analysis of DMA and AML through the view of Apple’s digital platform}},
year = {{2025}},
}