July has been a busy month for Google's legal team: the European Commission issued four decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) against the tech giant. On 16 July, two compliance decisions were adopted specifying how Google must adjust Google Search and Google Android to open its services to rivals. One week later, on 23 July, the Commission released two non-compliance decisions, fining Google a total of EUR 890 million for self-preferencing in Google Search and restricting app developers on Google Play. These decisions open significant opportunities for businesses that have suffered harm from Google's practices. German courts are an attractive forum to pursue such claims. Private enforcement can be a good alternative to Brussels (see also here).

According to media reports, the European Union’s 21st package of sanctions against Russia and Belarus, published on 23 July 2026, was preceded by weeks of protracted and difficult negotiations. Several Member States succeeded in securing mitigations or concessions in favour of domestic businesses. Nevertheless, the latest package contains the most extensive listings of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies in four years, as well as a range of further tightening measures in relation to sectoral sanctions. Key measures include new restrictions targeting the Russian financial sector, the introduction of a new instrument which enables a complete prohibition on crypto-asset services from specific third countries, and the suspension of the automatic adjustment mechanism for the crude oil price cap until 15 July 2027. In addition, the package once again seeks to strengthen the legal position of European companies against abusive Russian jurisdiction.

On 22 July 2026, a coalition of European companies and organizations published an open letter calling on the Commission to enforce the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in full and without delay. The letter responds to hesitant enforcement posture, as the signatories see it: under pressure, particularly from the U.S., they accuse the Commission of holding back or delaying action under the DMA. As if reacting on the spot, the Commission announced two non-compliance decisions against Google under the DMA, just the following day imposing total fines of EUR 890 million. However, as sizeable as the fine may seem, it accounts for less than 1% of Alphabet's annual turnover and sits at the lower end of the DMA's sanctioning scale. Thus, instead of proving the signatories right by showing that public enforcement is ongoing, the decisions actually are best proof that political pressure from abroad continues to weigh on the Commission’s decision-making.

We take the opportunity to revisit the DMA's second pillar: private enforcement. Building on our March 2024 briefing, we summarize some rulings that German courts have handed down and shows how private action complements and, in some respects, outpaces the Commission's work in Brussels.

As in previous financing rounds, BLOMSTEIN advised Helsing on its Series E financing, which raised a total of USD 1.8 billion and values the company at USD 18 billion.  

Mobile game developers have long had to pay Apple and Google a 30% commission for every transaction. Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), this is no longer the case. The DMA as well as the German equivalent (section 19a Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC)) are the weapon that lets Mario defeat Bowser. The aim of the DMA is to hold tech giants accountable regarding how they operate their platforms and to empower smaller players. For video game studios, publishers and consumers, the DMA aims to reduce restrictions, create greater control and, ultimately, a better user experience. Here is what gaming companies are now able to do under the DMA.

On June 30, the Commission published the Guidelines for the application of the Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 (Forced Labor Regulation) which prohibits products made with forced labour from being placed or made available on the EU market or exported from the EU. At the same time, it launched the Forced Labour Single Portal, which will serve as the central access point for information and submissions under the Regulation.

The European gaming industry, like many digital sectors, is currently facing a perfect storm arising from an arguably incomprehensible – some might even say incoherent – patchwork of EU regulatory requirements. Driven by the European Commission’s (Commission) ambition to establish digital sovereignty, the regulatory net has tightened, moving from general data protection (GDPR) to specific technical and behavioural obligations for companies. The following briefing breaks down the key legislation on consumer protection as well as its implications on the European gaming industry.

The steel safeguards are dead, but steel protection lives on. On 30 June 2026, the safeguard measures that have protected European and British steel industries for eight years reach their legal limit. Both jurisdictions unveiled new instruments designed to tackle global steel overcapacity while sidestepping the constraints that apply to safeguards. Similar objective, different architecture. This briefing examines how the EU and UK have reinvented steel protection as from 1 July and what their new approaches reveal about the evolution of trade defence policy.

We are happy that the experienced team of Katharina Weiner (partner) and Stefanie Zenzen (associate) will join our Düsseldorf office in the third quarter of 2026 from an international law firm. They both bring extensive experience advising leading national and international companies as well as public sector clients on complex procurement, regulatory, and strategic infrastructure matters.

The recent surge in gaming M&A activity (see Drake Star Report, available here) has been matched by a sharp increase in regulatory complexity and unpredictability. No deal illustrates this better than the proposed USD 55 billion buyout of Electronic Arts by a consortium led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund; a transaction simultaneously navigating merger control, screening by the US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and FDI scrutiny. This convergence of three distinct regulatory regimes on a single transaction is no anomaly: It reflects a structural shift in how gaming deals are regulated. Companies pursuing transactions in this environment must navigate an increasingly dense web of regulatory hurdles, including merger control, FDI and potentially even the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), depending on the scale of the transaction and whether or not it involves state-backed parties. As authorities tighten their scrutiny, successful deal planning hinges on aligning transaction strategy with the current regulatory landscape.