–Update March 30: This really happened the next three days after I published this; India made the moratorium lapse, with Brazil’s help
Opinion by Mathew carr
March 26, 2026, Cairo, Egypt — Time for a temporary lapse (at least a temporary one) of the digital-services moratorium that prevents tariffs on data?
I say yes.
The WTO e-commerce (digital services) moratorium, agreed under the World Trade Organization, is a commitment by member countries not to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions.
In practice, that means governments agree not to tax things like software downloads, streaming services, cloud data flows, e-books, or digital media at the border in the way they would tax physical imports. It has been in place since 1998 and has been repeatedly renewed at ministerial conferences, effectively keeping most cross-border digital trade tariff-free.
What it does not do is just as important. The moratorium does not prevent countries from taxing or regulating digital activity domestically—they can still apply VAT, digital services taxes, competition law, or data rules. Its sole function is to remove the option of tariffs on cross-border digital flows, which supporters say keeps the internet open and predictable, while critics argue it limits policy space and potential revenue as more trade becomes digital.
Use Trump’s tariff strategy against him
What “policy leverage” actually means in WTO terms
Leverage is about giving other countries or actors a credible threat or reward that is significant enough to change behaviour.
In this context:
The moratorium itself: it’s an agreement not to impose tariffs on digital services / data flows Threat of lapse: if the moratorium expires or is not renewed, theoretically the EU (or other big users of US tech) could impose tariffs on US digital exports
That tariff would hit US Big Tech companies financially
The idea of leverage is: the economic cost to US companies could push the US administration to consider policy concessions elsewhere eg climate action.
This heatwave might help sway WTO negotiators., especially from hot nations like India and Indonesia who are already lining up against the moratorium.
Tough negotiation is only way to pull tech bros into line.
I’m worried recent court judgements were timed to make it look like the tech companies are already being held to account by the law.
But they are coming too late and they are too little.
The tech bros have deliberately chosen to do news algorithms badly ….to bash woke, stoke inequality and help the far right.
See this:
How AI could* help news reflect real-world risks instead of emotion-charged hysteria (1)
Recent court decisions show countries need to take back control of data and limit propaganda.
The timing of these court decisions in 2026, three decades after the tech boom, show the law is an inadequate protection of the people’s data and privacy rights; and copyright
Will an Indian coalition win?
Maybe says ChatGPT
🇮🇳 India’s role (important, but not decisive on its own)
India has consistently been one of the most sceptical voices on the moratorium. It argues for: Policy space Potential tariff revenue Digital industrial strategy
👉 So yes, India is a key blocker candidate.
⚖️ But WTO decisions aren’t “population-weighted”
At the World Trade Organization, decisions like this are made by consensus, not voting power.
That means:
A small country can block an extension A large country cannot force an outcome
👉 So India’s population size, while geopolitically important, doesn’t give it formal extra weight here.
🌍 The real dynamic: it’s a coalition issue
India is influential because:
It often coordinates with others (e.g. South Africa, Indonesia) It frames the issue as a development concern, which resonates with many members
But:
Many developing countries are not fully aligned Some prefer a temporary extension compromise Others quietly benefit from tariff-free digital trade
👉 So the question isn’t:
“What does India want?”
It’s:
“Can India assemble (or sustain) a blocking coalition?”
🔮 What actually determines the outcome
Three things matter more than India alone:
1) Whether a compromise emerges
A short extension (e.g. 2 years) often breaks deadlocks Possibly tied to development concessions
2) How hard the US/EU push
They strongly support extension (even permanence) They can offer trade-offs in other areas
3) Whether any country chooses to “break consensus”
Letting the moratorium lapse is a big systemic step Some countries may hesitate to be seen as the one that triggers that
🧩 Bottom line
India is central to the opposition, no question But it is not sufficient on its own to determine the outcome
👉 The moratorium will lapse only if a coalition holds firm, not simply because India opposes it.
If you want a sharper prediction: right now the most likely outcome is still a last-minute temporary extension, precisely because it lets both sides claim partial victory. (ChatGPT view…not CarrZee)