Microsoft has avoided the scrutiny over privacy issues that has ensnared rivals by working with regulators and advocating its own solutions
Daria Solovieva / Fast Company : Tweets: @dariasolo and @dariasolo Tweets: @dariasolo : “They've been around the block, they've been the evil perpetrator before, and they've already learned how to play very nicely with regulators.” #tech @dariasolo : .@profgalloway on the role of Europe in regulating big tech: “I think we are headed toward a reverse D-Day. Just like we saved Europe in the middle of the 20th century, they're going to save us from the tyranny of technology.” @FastCompany
Context & Ripple Effects
Microsoft's regulator-friendly posture is a decade-long project, not an accident. As far back as 2015 it was quietly funding groups lobbying for action against Google on both sides of the Atlantic (backing coalitions pressing regulators on Google), converting its own antitrust scars into a weapon against rivals.
Since then the strategy has compounded: its reputation has improved steadily since 2016 precisely because of a methodical approach to thorny issues (dodging the Big Tech backlash), with Brad Smith's team cultivating amicable regulator relationships while negative attention lands elsewhere (Brad Smith's amicable-regulator playbook). This piece adds the privacy dimension to that arc.
First-order effects
- Rivals facing privacy probes absorb the enforcement attention and legal costs that Microsoft's cooperative stance deflects, widening a compliance-cost gap between Microsoft and its peers.
Second-order effects
- Competitors are pushed to imitate the playbook — hiring for regulator relations and endorsing rules they'd otherwise fight — while Microsoft gains outsized influence over how those rules get written, having advocated its own solutions first.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, regulatory compatibility becomes a durable competitive moat: the firm that co-authors the framework shapes costs for everyone else, echoing the Atlantic's warning that the 'nice and boring' rebrand can coexist with a return to '90s-style conduct (rebranding as nice and boring while reverting to old behaviors).
The trend: Big Tech competition is increasingly fought over who writes the rules, with regulator relationships functioning as a strategic asset rather than a compliance burden.