Taming BIG TECH - A shift in Paradigm and Its Implications for the Principle of ne bis in idem

With the adoption and entry into force of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) at the EU level as well as national laws targeting similar issues (e.g., the German 19a GWB), questions concerning the consequences of parallel proceedings (PP) pursuant to the competition provisions and - in its broadest sense - 'digital regulatory law' become more and more pressing. Potential conflicts with the principle of ne bis in idem are thus about to occur in various different constellations. Against the bigger picture of diverging approaches to competition law and/or regulation in the digital sphere, this article depicts the current legal framework regarding the prohibition of double jeopardy in EU (competition) law. It then identifies scenarios of possible PPs of the different (EU and national) provisions mentioned and exemplifies potential frictions by means of hypothetical case studies. The latter shall be further scrutinized according to the law as it stands and illustrate the different strands of arguments on how to deal with such conflicts. The aim of this article is thus to show that while the current legal framework is workable, the decisive element in many potential scenarios of PPs surrounds the notion of the idem, that is, more precisely, the element of the identity of the facts. A corollary of this finding is that there are pivotal questions to be clarified with respect to the objectives of the two regimes, namely the traditional competition provisions on the one hand and the DMA or DMA-like provisions at the national level on the other hand.