On 13 April, the mystery that had been roaming the corridors of Brussels was dispelled: Anthony Whelan, a longtime veteran of the institution and architect of the European digital strategy, has taken the helm of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition. With his appointment, Ursula von der Leyen manages to place her preferred candidate in one of the EU Executive’s most influential posts. This confirms the triumph of the president’s vision for the development of antitrust policy.
From digital advisor to director-general: a cross-cutting profile
Whelan’s trajectory is a roadmap of the European institutions and presages the technical rigor of his mandate. His path through the Court of Justice, the Commission’s Legal Service and the General Directorates of Competition and Communications attests to a broad, transversal experience. However, it is his role as von der Leyen’s digital advisor since 2019 that best defines his profile. He was one of the fundamental engines behind the Digital Markets Act.
“Thus, markets can offer higher quality and better prices, to the direct benefit of the European citizen’s wallet”
As Director-General of Competition, he will wield very powerful tools. They have been used to shield the single market, to rein in the tech giants and to prevent state subsidies from favoring certain companies. Thus, markets can offer higher quality and better prices, to the direct benefit of the European citizen’s wallet.
A more economic 2.0 approach
What can be expected from this mandate? All signs point to a renewed attempt to strengthen the more economic approach, an echo of the great reform from more than twenty years ago. At the end of the 1990s, the Commission chained notable defeats before European courts, in cases like Airtours or Tetra Laval. A sense of arbitrariness settled in that forced Brussels to backpedal. Back then, and increase the predictability of the system.
“With the previous model, the mission of competition authorities was reduced to pursuing economic efficiency, leaving any social consideration out”
In its early days, the turn suggested convergence with the American model. In 2005, then-Commissioner Neelie Kroes explained that the purpose of antitrust norms was “to protect competition to improve consumer welfare and ensure an efficient allocation of resources”. And this does not necessarily entail a more economic analysis, but a different economic and ideological model. Specifically, there was an attempt to adopt the Chicago School model, which defends an almost absolute free market, deregulation and minimal state intervention. It translates into a light competition policy, whose analytical simplicity is seductive for those who advocate for legal certainty. Under this lens, the mission of competition authorities reduces to pursuing economic efficiency, leaving social or political considerations off their radar.
This model never fully took root in the European ecosystem. Here, competition law beats to the rhythm of the Community project, which integrates an unavoidable social dimension. Moreover, the turn coincided with the unstoppable rise of the big tech. The new European antitrust policy approach gave them even more room to maneuver. It allowed them to consolidate their dominance, sometimes even stifling emerging innovation. If a company could cast a shadow over them, either they bought it or they used their power to push them out of the market.
Vestager and European resistance to the free market
Efforts to reverse this inertia have been notable, especially under the tenure of former commissioner Margrethe Vestager. In the digital front, Brussels has struck the Google empire on several occasions with historic fines for choking its rivals. Apple, for its part, had to repay €13 billion after ruling that its favorable tax arrangement in Ireland constituted illegal state aid. But the hard line was not limited to Silicon Valley. A turning point was the blocking of the Siemens and Alstom merger. Despite pressure from France and Germany for the Commission to allow the creation of a European champion capable of competing with China, it stood firm. The damage would have been unbearable.
“A too rigid regulatory framework could be preventing European companies from facing the giants of the US and China”
The Commission won, but the debate was not closed. In 2024, the Draghi Report acted as a catalyst for a new direction. According to the report, an overly rigid regulatory framework could be preventing European companies from facing the giants of the US and China. To this internal pressure must be added Donald Trump’s repeated tariff threats against those who challenge his tech powers.
Towards a new pragmatism?
Teresa Ribera took over the portfolio of Competition Commissioner with the mandate to revitalize European growth, so that the business fabric can breathe. Although it is too early to define her mandate, Ribera appears to seek a pragmatic balance between firm enforcement of the law and the need to foster business development. In this moment, Whelan presents an ideal profile: a veteran well-versed in facing the big tech, but whose track record alongside figures like Kroes and von der Leyen bodes a conciliatory approach. His appointment has been received with relief in Brussels offices, where it is read as a bet on dialogue rather than sanctions.
“Success in the business world should be the result of efficiency and innovation”
The first digital-rulebook cases and the imminent reform of the mergers and acquisitions system will be the definitive thermometer of Whelan’s leadership. For now, the draft of the new guidelines for concentration control points to a laxer stance, oriented toward industrial growth. It is a somewhat risky u-turn. The success in the business world should be the result of efficiency and innovation, not mergers that could end up eroding competition.
The Commission must not forget that the powerful Brussels effect resides precisely in its regulatory capacity, essential to ensuring accessible and competitive markets. This entails defending the rigor of the legal system and demanding that everyone plays by the same rules, regardless of market power or origin.
