The Netherlands must confront the growing threat of concentrated economic power, argues Martijn Snoep, chairman of the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), in a new blog ahead of the upcoming Dutch general election.
As Dutch voters prepare for snap elections this October, Martijn Snoep, head of the competition watchdog ACM, is urging political parties to prioritize one of the most overlooked but consequential economic issues: market power. In a policy blog published this week, Snoep draws a clear parallel between political autocracy and economic concentration, warning that unchecked corporate dominance poses risks not only to consumers, but to national sovereignty itself.
“Just as democracy is the antidote to political power concentration, competition is the antidote to economic power,” Snoep writes. “Very large businesses can be more powerful than countries like the Netherlands.”
Cloud Dependency and Strategic Risk
Among the key areas of concern highlighted in the blog is the Netherlands’ growing dependence on a small number of major US-based cloud service providers. According to Snoep, these companies—essential to government agencies and private enterprises alike—create technical and financial lock-ins that are difficult to escape. This not only distorts competition, he says, but creates a systemic strategic risk.
“Who controls the proverbial kill switch?” Snoep asks, suggesting that US jurisdiction over its cloud giants leaves Dutch institutions vulnerable. He calls for a coordinated government strategy to reduce this dependency and support European alternatives—a push he sees as urgent despite recent steps like the Dutch Digitalization Strategy.
Closing the Small Merger Loophole
Snoep also calls on the legislature to fix what he describes as a major gap in Dutch merger control: the inability of ACM to assess potentially harmful small acquisitions that fall below current revenue thresholds.
“Small mergers can create big problems,” he warns. While ACM does not seek blanket powers to review every minor deal, it does want a “call-in power”—a discretionary tool already proposed in a bill before parliament. The measure would allow ACM to scrutinize problematic deals without burdening most businesses.
The move, he argues, would level the playing field. “In the current system, companies with market power can outbid others and snap up smaller competitors without oversight,” Snoep notes.
Tackling Market Failures Without Waiting for Abuse
In another striking section, Snoep highlights the challenge of addressing market failures where no illegal conduct exists. In markets shaped by data, platforms, and algorithms, dominant firms may not breach competition law—but they can still stifle innovation and entrench their position.
Current Dutch law allows ACM to investigate such markets but not to take action unless lawmakers intervene—a process Snoep describes as too slow. He points to Germany and the UK, where regulators can impose obligations to open markets to new entrants or lower switching costs for consumers.
The Draghi report on EU competitiveness has also recommended giving competition authorities such tools. “More dynamism leads to new opportunities, lower prices, better quality, and more innovation,” Snoep argues.
Political Will Needed
While acknowledging that the Netherlands and the EU have made progress in combating market power, Snoep stresses that political support is essential to close the remaining gaps. “This is the time,” he writes, “to look at how we can combat market power better in order to ensure that markets function well.”
