A Developer Community Spotlight with Five Unique Startup Founders

For startups, scaleups, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the Digital Markets Act (DMA) isn’t just an abstract policy; it’s a daily reality. These companies operate with limited resources and rely heavily on the tools and services that platforms provide. However, despite being intimately familiar with how these platforms function and how developers build their business on them, startups and SMEs have had limited opportunities to take part in the DMA conversation, until recently.

As part of the European Commission’s ongoing DMA compliance workshops this summer, SME developers, startup entrepreneurs, and innovators from across the app economy had the opportunity to engage directly with EU regulators. These sessions, part of the Commission’s enforcement track, opened the door for those voices that are often left out of the regulatory process.

Among them was Geoffroy Kretz, co-founder of Kwit, a Strasbourg-based health tech company whose seven-person team is on a mission to help 100 million people overcome addiction by 2030. From the Netherlands, Mitchel Volkering, founder of vaic.at shared how his privacy-focused apps like mEUvy and Salary Insights support EU talent and mobility, while also exposing the risks the DMA poses to small developers’ ability to innovate. Sveatoslav Vizitiu, co-founder and CEO of Rhuna, brought the perspective of a company powering more than 2 million users across 165+ events, showing how blockchain-based event infrastructure depends on clear rules for interoperability and data sovereignty. Clément Sauvage, chairman and CEO of France-based Bits’n Coffee Consulting, spoke candidly about how over-regulation destabilises trust and leaves SMEs paying the price when giants clash. Finally, Mike Griffin, a UK-based developer with decades of experience in EU research programs, underscored how fragmenting app stores creates confusion and cybersecurity risks, while reminding policymakers that SMEs remain the backbone of Europe’s economy.

In this Developer Community Spotlight, our members share what it meant to be in the room, what they took away, and why SME voices are essential to getting digital regulation right.

Q&A with our Developer Community

The DMA is a landmark shift in how platforms operate in the EU. Why did it feel important for you to engage in these compliance conversations?

Sveatoslav: As a company operating at the intersection of real-world infrastructure and blockchain technology, Rhuna is directly impacted by how dominant platforms shape access, visibility, and user rights. We power over 2 million end-users across 165+ events, processing millions in payments and access interactions. Participating in these DMA conversations gave us the chance to bring a practical, data-driven perspective to the table, highlighting how ecosystem rules affect real usage, not just theoretical compliance.

Geoffroy: As a French digital health startup, the DMA represents a critical shift for companies like Kwit. We’ve experienced firsthand the reality of platform dependency – our smoking cessation app serves 4.5 million users through Apple and Google’s ecosystems, yet we operate with just seven team members in Strasbourg. Engaging felt essential for the following reasons:

        • Real-world expertise: We navigate these platform complexities daily. When Apple changes privacy policies or app guidelines, it directly impacts our ability to help users quit smoking. We understand the friction points that larger players might miss.
        • Resource asymmetry: Unlike tech giants with dedicated regulatory teams, startups rarely get a voice in policies that fundamentally affect us. The DMA workshops offered a rare opportunity to be heard directly by EU regulators.
        • Innovation barriers: Our mission to help 100 million people overcome addictions by 2030 depends on our ability to innovate freely. Current platform restrictions can limit new features (like our healthcare professional dashboard developed with Pierre Fabre) or partnerships with insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

What was it like to speak directly with EU regulators about your experience as a small tech company?

Mitchel: The experience of interacting with EU regulators was quite intriguing. I had previously engaged in similar discussions with regulators at GAEC: EU, which made this interaction feel slightly easier to manage. However, it was still challenging as I don’t do it often—huge thanks to the App Association for setting that fly-in. The regulators were transparent about their objectives, emphasising the creation of fair digital markets and fostering greater competition within the EU. I respect their intentions and the commendable nature of their efforts, as they appear to be well-intentioned. However, I believe that the current strategy, as observed by my company and numerous other founders who participated in the DMA workshops, seems to have the opposite effect. Instead of gaining more trusted and secure platforms to distribute our applications, we are witnessing a decline in the availability of such platforms.

Clément: It was rare and necessary. We finally had the chance to remind everyone that innovation doesn’t only come from giants, but from those who create in the shadows, with limited resources but enormous agility. The reality is simple: when larger tech players fight, we — the SMEs — take the hits. And unlike them, we don’t have an army of lawyers to translate every new rule into strategy.

That said, the format of the workshop itself was frustrating. In practice, we weren’t really speaking to the European Commission at all — we were only allowed to address Apple representatives. The whole setting felt less like a dialogue and more like a trial à charge, with Apple cast as the ‘bad guy’ by default. To make matters worse, the moderator gave the floor seven times to the same lobbyist from the OpenSoftware Foundation, while SME voices struggled to be heard. That imbalance made the conversation feel neither fair nor constructive.

Do you think the current DMA compliance plans reflect what regulators set out to achieve?

Clément: Let’s be honest: not really. The DMA targets Apple head-on and tries to force it into a ‘Google-like’ model. But does that actually benefit European developers? History says no. The Epic vs. Apple conflict already damaged small developers badly: instability, blurred rules, and legal uncertainty. We became the battlefield, without asking for it. Now, the DMA risks replaying the same story on a European stage. And as always, it’s the smaller ones who end up paying the bill.

Geoffroy: From what we’ve seen in the workshops and early compliance measures, there’s a concerning gap between the DMA’s ambitious goals and its current trajectory. The spirit is right – creating fairer competition and more openness – but the execution feels like it’s being shaped more by platform convenience than genuine market transformation. We’re seeing compliance theatre.

The real test isn’t the compliance plans themselves, but whether regulators will push back when implementation falls short of the DMA’s intent. During the workshops, it became clear that gatekeepers are banking on technical complexity and compliance costs to discourage meaningful enforcement. For startups like us, we need regulators to focus less on whether boxes are technically checked and more on whether we can actually compete fairly – can we reach users without platform gatekeeping, can we innovate without seeking permission, can we build sustainable businesses without paying innovation taxes? The DMA’s success hinges on whether Brussels has the appetite to enforce the spirit, not just the letter, of the law.

Mitchel: From vaic.at’s viewpoint, the DMA is susceptible to manipulation or even exploitation by corporations with ulterior motives. It has transformed the law from a mechanism that would empower European companies to compete into a mandate that compels the forced dominance of a select few companies in the market without having to compete fairly. The current interpretation of the law appears to prioritise targeting gatekeepers rather than addressing the genuine needs of European companies (excluding a few multi-billion euro/dollar corporations). Furthermore, recent interoperability provisions exacerbate the situation. This represents a significant divergence from the DMA’s original objectives, and there are substantial risks associated with heeding the perspectives of individuals who disregard the privacy and security implications for both consumers and developers of the changes they advocate for.

How do these compliance plans impact your ability to build user trust as a small developer?

Mike: I’ll be clear about the DMA legislation in its current form. I didn’t ask for it, I don’t want it, and as a small software vendor, it’s going to make things a real pain. Although I have the freedom to set up my own store if I want to, or use third-party ones to sell my apps, why would I? Users will become confused, and the opportunities for man-in-the-middle attacks and other exploits will skyrocket, offering little benefit.

We will stick with the official Google and Apple stores as they will always be the best and safest. This does not stop others from ripping off our ideas and passing themselves off as us on other deregulated sites.

But the real question should be who will suffer the most from this? Firstly, the end users. They will now be confused as to where to go to safely access their services, and the chance of picking up malware or real financial or critical data loss has increased dramatically. Secondly, us – the small software businesses. Fragmentation introduces unwarranted risks and numerous opportunities for bad actors to attack our customers or at least cause unending confusion.

Why does it matter that small developers show up in these spaces and why is it important to do so as a community?

Sveatoslav: Because we’re the ones pushing the boundary between what’s possible and what’s already accepted. Rhuna is rolling out on-chain buy-now-pay-later, stablecoin-based financing pools, and real-time revenue shares via smart contracts. These models don’t just need regulatory approval, they need systemic understanding. Small developers bring innovation, agility, and real-world stress-testing into the room. Showing up collectively ensures that regulation supports the next wave of disruption, not just compliance from yesterday’s incumbents.

Mike: What governments tend to forget (until they get bitten badly in elections) is that SMEs, firms with fewer than 250 employees, dominate the EU economy, contributing over 50 per cent of GDP and 65 per cent of employment. It should be our voices heard first – but it isn’t.

The DMA was lobbied for by people (like the large U.S. gaming and media companies) who are doing this to solely improve their profit margins at the expense of the broader industry. How do we stop this? By banding together, they can show regulators that they are tackling the wrong problems. That’s why getting into a community and using our voices is so important.

Based on where you’re headed as a developer or company, what do you want regulators to take away from your experience?

Geoffory: Our mission is helping 100 million people overcome addictions by 2030 – a massive public health challenge that requires rapid innovation and seamless user access. What regulators need to understand is that current platform gatekeeping doesn’t just hurt our business, it actively impedes solutions to societal problems. When we develop breakthrough features like our COPD early detection tool with AstraZeneca or our professional dashboard for healthcare providers, platform approval delays can mean months where people who need help can’t access it. Every friction point – whether it’s scary alternative app store warnings or restrictive monetisation policies – potentially costs lives in our sector.

We need regulators to recognise that the DMA’s success should be measured by whether it enables meaningful innovation in areas like digital therapeutics, not just whether it creates technical compliance checkboxes. Give us genuine alternatives for distribution, fair revenue sharing that lets us reinvest in research and development (R&D), and the ability to integrate seamlessly with healthcare systems without seeking platform permission. Most critically, don’t let gatekeepers weaponise ‘user safety’ concerns to block legitimate health innovations. The EU has a chance to lead globally in digital health policy – but only if enforcement prioritises societal benefit over corporate convenience. We’re proving that small European companies can build world-class health solutions; we need regulatory frameworks that amplify rather than constrain that potential.

Mitchel: The primary takeaway for EU regulators is that every EU company adheres to its stated intentions and goals of enhancing Europe’s competitiveness. vaic.at is optimistic about this future and believes that applications like mEUvy, Salary Insights, and the upcoming EUorigin contribute to this objective.

However, the current regulatory direction has the opposite effect. While we primarily operate on Apple platforms, we observe a similar impact on Google’s platforms as well. We pay these companies for services that they may no longer be able to fully provide under the DMA. The ‘gatekeepers’ are compelled to choose between our demands as paying customers and the DMA’s requirements. These demands often directly contradict each other, resulting in a clear outcome: we are not becoming more competitive, and increasingly, small developers are forced to divert resources into reinventing the wheel in intellectual property (IP) protection, establishing initial trust with new customers, and more.

Additionally, it is incredibly challenging, time-consuming, and distracting for us as small developers to engage with regulators at this level. Therefore, the fact that we feel compelled to incorporate this into our schedules, budgets, and mind spaces should serve as a clear signal.