Europe’s digital markets are dominated by giant companies, known as "digital gatekeepers." These companies, including Meta, Apple, and Google, fundamentally determine the conditions and ways consumers access digital services and the level of market competition. This high concentration of power led to the EU creating the Digital Markets Act in 2022, which represents a new, ex-ante regulation designed to prevent these large platforms from abusing their market power and ensure fair competition.
The DMA stipulates that once digital platforms reach a certain size and level of influence, they are designated as “gatekeepers” and must comply with a set of predefined rules. These regulations aim to prevent unfair business practices, such as self-preferencing of services and products, restrictions on removing pre-installed software and applications, and the use of targeted advertising and tracking.
Recently, this legal framework moved from theory to practice as the first court cases test the complexity of these new regulations. Cases C-252/21 and T‑319/24, which primarily focus on whether Meta’s newly introduced paid subscription model, the “consent and pay” model, offers users a genuine alternative. Under this model, Meta offers users the option either use their service for free, in exchange for access to personal data for targeted advertising, or pay to use the service without data usage. According to the European Commission, the subscription price is excessively high, meaning the option cannot be considered a “genuine choice.” As a result, Meta is seen as having violated both the GDPR and the DMA. This case is particularly noteworthy as it illustrates how EU regulation seeks to intervene in corporate business models while upholding the principle of proportionality and acknowledging the unique characteristics of the digital market.
Apple’s policies have also raised similar concern, especially around anti-steering regulations in their app store. Apple failed to inform users about alternative purchasing options outside the App Store, limiting competition. As a result, the EU is closely monitoring Apple’s compliance with the DMA, which aims to promote greater consumer choice, lower prices, and prevent arbitrary behavior by dominant platforms.
Google’s Android platform is also under EU investigation, with the European Commission examining whether the company is obstructing the integration of competing navigation and other apps. Google’s restrictions on third-party access to the Android Auto platform, justified on technical and security grounds, are being questioned under the DMA, as they may limit users’ freedom of choice. This case highlights the challenges of balancing digital regulation with technological innovation and is likely to set an important precedent for the future.
Thus, these cases are not just litigation but battlegrounds for legal interpretation, where courts must determine what exactly the DMA-prescribed "core platform service" or "gatekeeper obligations" mean. These concepts can be practically interpreted in multiple ways, and each judgement can be precedent setting for future digital competition litigation. Subsequently, these court decisions consider multiple aspects, such as security, consumer interests, and digital market innovation.
Another difficulty facing the EU’s and Europe’s legal system is the non-European origin of these dominant digital players. Meta, Google, and Apple are US companies, and their business models and interest enforcement strategies do not necessarily align with European legal norms. This divergence further complicates the implementation of regulation and law enforcement, as the Union attempts to harmonize within a global economic environment where regulatory authority and market dominance do not always coincide. Therefore, the DMA can be seen not only as a matter of competition policy and technology, but also as a question of sovereignty: can Europe effectively defend its digital sovereignty against global tech giants?
The DMA's enforcement mechanisms apply a new approach which operates reactively after damages occur. It establishes ex-ante and clear obligations for designated gatekeepers and this shift from ex-post to ex-ante regulation represents a fundamental change in how competition authorities approach digital markets, recognizing that traditional tools may not be sufficient for the fast-moving digital economy.
Financial penalties under the DMA are substantial, even for large tech companies. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to 10% of global turnover, rising to 20% for repeat violations. In addition to fines, the European Commission is empowered to impose structural remedies, including the breakup of companies that consistently fail to meet their obligations.
Implementing the DMA’s technical requirements poses significant challenges. For instance, the obligation to ensure interoperability between messaging services raises complex technical and security concerns. Companies must navigate the tension between compliance and maintaining platform security and functionality, a balance that is likely to prompt extensive legal disputes in the coming years. The ongoing T-1078/23 Meta case before the EU General Court is a clear example of this.
Consumer advocacy groups have generally welcomed the DMA as a long-overdue response to large tech companies' market dominance, while the tech industry argues that overly restrictive regulation could stifle innovation and harm Europe’s global competitiveness. The DMA's success will ultimately depend on effective enforcement and European regulators' ability to adapt to the rapidly evolving digital environment. European Court President Marc van der Woude warned in 2023 that the European Court expects massive litigation over the DMA. He considers it almost certain that the affected tech giants will try to find loopholes in the law, noting: "it will be lawyers' paradise."
President van der Woude anticipates legal disputes between tech companies and the EU in three key areas: challenges to gatekeeper designation, clarification of obligations, and the implementation of the law. A particularly likely source of litigation is the DMA’s rules on corporate acquisitions, which require gatekeepers to notify the European Commission of deals exceeding a certain value.
Overall, the DMA offers a completely new legal approach, opening a new chapter in European competition policy, which raises many legal questions and challenges for legal practitioners, regulators, and market players. However, this new approach is essential to prevent digital markets from becoming monopolistic and ensure consumer interests are protected. The first court trials in the Meta, Apple, and Google cases are crucial and precedent-setting because they will determine the framework within which these "gatekeepers" can operate in Europe and the future of digital markets, technological innovation, and consumer rights.
