Today, a handful of technology companies control significant portions of the global digital stack, spanning cloud infrastructure, software platforms, communication networks, artificial intelligence systems, and semiconductor ecosystems. As governments, businesses, and citizens have become increasingly reliant on these technologies, states around the world have developed deep structural dependencies on a small number of private firms.

This dependence is not merely economic or technological; it increasingly shapes states’ regulatory choices, digital sovereignty, and calculations of national security. Consequently, Big Tech’s power derives from its ability to become deeply embedded within the functioning of modern societies, making disengagement costly and, in some cases, strategically unfeasible.

Further, major technology companies possess forms of power that increasingly transcend national borders and rival the reach traditionally associated with states. WhatsApp surpassed 3 billion monthly active users in 2026 across more than 180 countries, while Amazon Web Services serves over one million customers in 250 countries. Together, major technology firms, the “magnificent seven” account for over 30 per cent of the market capitalisation of the S&P 500, illustrating their enormous global reach and economic significance.

This article thus examines how Big Tech has accumulated forms of: 1. Regulatory; 2. Normative; 3. Infrastructural; and 4. Cognitive power, that has produced entrenched dependencies across jurisdictions. This has increasingly constrained state autonomy and complicated efforts at collaborative frameworks of governance. Additionally, these dimensions were selected because they represent the primary pathways through which technology firms move beyond being sole market actors to becoming structurally embedded within public institutions and governance ecosystems.

Manifestations of Big Tech’s Structural Power

Big Tech’s influence stems not only from its enormous economic resources but also from its control over the technologies and infrastructures that underpin modern societies. Their financial strength enables large-scale investments, acquisitions, and political engagement, while their platforms, data, and computing capabilities increasingly position them as indispensable actors in global economic activity, governance, and national security. The following is a descriptive analysis of these multi-dimensional manifestations of power.

Regulatory Power: Shaping the Rules of Dependence

In recent years, Big Tech has increasingly spent record amounts on political lobbying, especially in the United States, where spending on super political action committees reached nearly US$200 million for the 2026 US presidential elections. This trend has continued with an expenditure of €151 million annually on lobbying efforts in the European Union (EU) in 2025. Tech firms are additionally able to propose and amend regulations around the globe.  During debates over the US Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in 2012, companies including  Google, Wikipedia, and Reddit mobilised users and coordinated opposition campaigns that led to widespread internet blackouts, ultimately contributing to both proposals being indefinitely shelved. This episode illustrates Big Tech’s capacity not merely to lobby policymakers but to influence public opinion and derail unfavourable regulatory initiatives.

Further, companies can resist unfavourable regulation, often by challenging previous regulations in response to ongoing petitions, thus stalling decisions for years and increasing administrative burden. In India, Apple has challenged the 2023 amendment to the Competition Act, 2002, and the 2024 Monetary Penalty Guidelines in the Delhi High Court, which allow the Competition Commission of India to calculate penalties based on a company’s global turnover, rather than only India-specific or product-specific revenue. This comes on the heels of a potential US$38 billion fine, following accusations of anti-competitive practices.

Normative Power: Setting Standards States Must Adopt

Increasingly, private governance frameworks developed by technology companies are shaping global digital norms, often functioning as de facto public standards. Governments frequently rely on existing industry frameworks rather than creating entirely new governance systems due to the pace of innovation and expertise within tech communities. This is especially visible in AI governance, where corporate “Responsible AI” frameworks are developed by companies such as Microsoft and OpenAI. These have influenced the broader regulatory discussion, including within OECD voluntary reporting mechanisms.

Similarly, many foundational digital standards, including encryption protocols like Transport Layer Security, identity systems like OAuth and OpenID, and web standards developed through the World Wide Web Consortium, have emerged through corporate and industry-led collaboration rather than democratic legislation.

Infrastructure Power: Creating Technological Lock-in

Companies are now deeply involved in the construction and ownership of critical communication and power infrastructure. Investment firms and technology-linked infrastructure operators are rapidly expanding hyperscale data centre campuses operated by tech firms like Amazon Web Services (AWS) in Brazil and across Latin America. At the same time, companies such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon have become major owners and investors in submarine cable networks, giving them influence over the physical routes through which global data flows.

Amazon has also become the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy for the fifth consecutive year, reflecting how cloud infrastructure increasingly depends on privately controlled energy systems. Meanwhile, SpaceX’s Starlink has demonstrated how private satellite networks can provide parallel communication infrastructure during wars, disasters, or internet shutdowns, operating with critical strategic importance. Additionally, the recent Middle Eastern crisis highlighted the growing securitisation of digital infrastructure, as AI data centres in the Gulf were considered acceptable targets due to their role in hosting cloud services and frontier AI capabilities. This demonstrates that data centres have become critical infrastructure whose disruption carries significant economic and strategic consequences, rendering them increasingly salient targets in contemporary conflicts.

Together, these developments show that Big Tech’s power now extends far beyond software and platforms into the physical infrastructure that underpins connectivity, communication, cloud computing, and economic activity worldwide.

Narrative and Cognitive Power: Mediating Information and Public Discourse

Big Tech platforms increasingly shape not only what information people see but also how societies understand politics, what counts as legitimate, and shape perceptions of truth itself. Moreover, because of the scale of these platforms, it has become easier to spread misinformation, as people are incentivised to monetise attention. Emotional material drives engagement and advertising revenue. Further, technology can sometimes undermine democratic processes as smart targeted advertising, biases and algorithms allow companies to influence political opinions on a massive scale. The Cambridge Analytica scandal showed how Facebook user data could be used to build psychological profiles for targeted political advertising during the 2016 US election.

Recent scholarship has therefore argued that private technology firms are increasingly “telling the stories and calling the shots” in AI governance and public discourse, allowing corporate narratives to shape how societies perceive technological risks and opportunities.

Structural Dependence and the Limits of Governance

In light of the above analysis, robust governance of technology companies has become increasingly important. However, regulating these firms is a complex balancing act. Governments seek to prevent monopolistic behaviour, data exploitation and misinformation, while also ensuring that regulation does not stifle innovation, weaken the state’s competitiveness, or discourage foreign investments.

At the same time, governance is important due to national security and privacy concerns, and to ensure the development of safe and trusted systems which are accountable. Some risks are relatively visible and quantifiable, such as the economic losses caused by data outages or cyberattacks targeting civilian infrastructure and public financial institutions. However, entrenched dependence is more difficult to manage.

As states increasingly rely on a small number of cloud and platform providers, switching systems becomes extremely costly due to vendor lock-in, data migration costs, and infrastructural dependence accumulated over time. This is particularly visible in Africa, where Chinese technology firms such as Huawei and ZTE have played a major role in building telecommunications networks, smart-city systems, and surveillance infrastructure, through initiatives linked to China’s Digital Silk Road.

However, such dependence is not unique to Africa. In Europe, concerns over digital sovereignty have intensified as US hyperscalers—AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud—dominate the cloud market. This prompted the creation of the GAIA-X initiative to reduce reliance on foreign providers. Policymakers feared that the concentration of US digital infrastructure outside European control undermined digital sovereignty, exposed sensitive data to extraterritorial legal regimes such as the US CLOUD Act, and limited Europe’s strategic autonomy.

In the UK, similar concerns have been voiced. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority found that high data-egress fees, incompatible services, and low switching rates had created significant lock-in effects, limiting customers’ ability to move away from AWS and Microsoft. In the Middle East, Gulf states’ ambitions to become AI hubs have been built largely through partnerships with US technology firms such as Microsoft, Nvidia, and OpenAI, embedding critical AI and cloud capabilities within foreign technological ecosystems and creating long-term dependencies in compute and cloud infrastructure.

Governments are also often reluctant to strongly regulate Big Tech because these companies contribute far beyond direct economic gains. Firms such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and OpenAI fund university research (fellowships, awards, hackathons), invest in digital education programmes, finance internet connectivity and health tech, and work closely with think tanks and policymakers. In many lower- and middle-income countries, Big Tech companies also help fill gaps in state capacity by building and expanding digital infrastructure, investing in skilling workforces (AI yatra), and supporting local innovation ecosystems. This creates a difficult political trade-off: stricter regulation may protect citizens from immediate known risks, but governments also fear losing massive investment, access to frontier technology, and broader financial support for economic empowerment.

Big Tech, Geopolitics and the State Response

Big Tech firms are increasingly becoming intertwined with geopolitical power and state strategy. In some cases, they function not merely as private corporations but as indirect extensions of state influence. For example, under the US CLOUD Act, American authorities can compel US-based technology companies to provide access to data stored anywhere in the world, even if that data belongs to foreign users or is hosted overseas. Similarly, China’s Cybersecurity Law and Data Security Law require Chinese firms to cooperate with state authorities and to pass a national security review when requested. This has intensified concerns that digital platforms may serve not only commercial interests but also broader geopolitical and intelligence objectives.

States today increasingly see technology as a source of strategic power, not just economic growth. National security is no longer determined only by military strength or territorial control; it now depends heavily on technological and data sovereignty, AI capability, semiconductor access, and resilient supply chains. This is especially visible in AI, where countries such as the United States and China have openly entered an AI race, each seeking technological dominance through economic and sophisticated policy means to secure a long-term strategic advantage. As a result, governments are trying to reduce dependence on rivals and secure their own technological ecosystems. This has led to the weaponisation of supply chains, which is now a defining aspect of modern statecraft.

At the same time, Big Tech companies are becoming deeply integrated into national security ecosystems. Software such as Palantir’s Gotham now supports US military intelligence, real-time battlefield analytics, predictive surveillance, and defence operations. Others, such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, provide cloud and AI infrastructure for governments and defence agencies (secure sovereign cloud platforms). India, too, is increasingly exploring AI-enabled defence systems, surveillance, reconnaissance and military modernisation. In this environment, Big Tech is no longer just a commercial actor but increasingly functions as a strategic partner and, at times, a direct extension of state power itself.

The Future of Governance

Big Tech’s significance lies not simply in its economic scale or technological sophistication, but in its ability to become central to the functioning of contemporary societies and states. Through their influence over regulations, infrastructure, and information environments, these firms have generated forms of dependence that increasingly shape governance choices and constrain state autonomy.

The challenge for governments is therefore not merely to regulate powerful corporations but to manage and reduce strategic dependencies on digital ecosystems that have become indispensable to economic activity, national security, and public administration. In this context, the future of governance will likely depend on states’ ability to foster innovation while simultaneously strengthening digital sovereignty, building resilient domestic capabilities, and developing robust governance frameworks that prevent excessive concentration of power. The strategic dilemma for governments is therefore this—how to harness the benefits of digital innovation while avoiding forms of dependence— that may; constrain their strategic autonomy.