Summary statistics
Overlaps: 4 · Conflicts: 1 · Gaps: 2
7 article-level crossrefs catalogued between Data Act and DMA from the Fontvera EU regulatory corpus. Article numbers are verbatim from the underlying obligation_crossrefs table; descriptions are extracted, not paraphrased.
All crossrefs between these regulations
| Article (A) | Article (B) | Type | Severity | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMA Art 14 | Data Act Art 14 | overlap | low | [entity affected: Commission] Both regulations empower the Commission to request information or data from entities, requiring cooperation and provision of necessary details. |
| DMA Art 21 | Data Act Art 14 | overlap | low | [entity affected: Gatekeepers/Data Holders] Both regulations impose obligations on entities to provide information and data to the Commission or public authorities upon request. |
| DMA Art 11 | Data Act Art 10 | overlap | low | [entity affected: Commission] Both regulations require the Commission to publish lists or summaries of relevant entities or decisions on its website to ensure transparency. |
| DMA Art 13 | Data Act Art 19 | overlap | low | [entity affected: Gatekeepers/Data Holders] Both regulations require entities to take technical and organizational measures to protect business secrets and confidential data when sharing information. |
| DMA Art 1 | Data Act Art 14 | conflict | high | [entity affected: Member States] DMA Art 1 prohibits Member States from imposing further obligations on gatekeepers, while Data Act Art 14 imposes specific data sharing obligations on data holders (wh |
| DMA Art ? | Data Act Art ? | gap | medium | [entity affected: Small and Medium Enterprises] Neither regulation clearly defines the compliance obligations for SMEs that are not gatekeepers but hold significant data, leaving a regulatory gap for |
| DMA Art ? | Data Act Art ? | gap | medium | [entity affected: Cross-border Data Recipients] There is no clear mechanism defined in either regulation for resolving jurisdictional conflicts when data recipients in different Member States have con |
Conflicts explained
The 1 article-level conflicts between Data Act and DMA mean a control that satisfies one can pull the wrong way on the other:
- DMA Art 1 vs Data Act Art 14 — [entity affected: Member States] DMA Art 1 prohibits Member States from imposing further obligations on gatekeepers, while Data Act Art 14 imposes specific data sharing obligations on data holders (which may include gatekeepers) for public interest tasks, potentially creating a conflict if interpreted as a 'further obligation' under DMA.
Which regulation takes precedence
EU law does not lay down a universal precedence rule between Data Act and DMA. In practice three resolution approaches apply: lex specialis (the more specific provision wins when both purport to govern the same conduct); regulator guidance (EDPB, EBA, ESMA and the AI Office have all issued joint readings on overlapping articles — check the most recent applicable opinion); and document the choice (when the regulations leave the call to the controller, the audit defence is your written reasoning, not the regulator's silence). Where the corpus surfaces a conflict rather than an overlap, treat that as an escalation path to legal — not a control-design question.
What this means for your compliance team
Treat the 4 overlaps as design opportunities — one control, two regulatory anchors. Treat the 1 conflicts as escalation paths to legal: the regulations themselves don't resolve them, you do, and you document the reasoning. The 2 gaps point at scenarios where one regulation is silent while the other speaks — assume the regulator who has the explicit rule will win.
Related Fontvera pages
- data act article 37 commission
- data act obligations data services
- data act vs data governance act comparison
- data act vs dora comparison
Check your full compliance exposure with the 5-minute Fontvera diagnostic →