Meta wins Marketplace DMA challenge
Social-media giant Meta has been partially successful in a legal challenge to a European Commission decision to designate two of its services as ‘important gateways’ under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
The General Court annulled the EU body’s 2023 decision to classify Meta’s Marketplace as a core platform service, but backed its decision on Messenger.
The commission had already de-designated Marketplace last year.
‘Gatekeeper’
Under the DMA, services that meet certain thresholds can be designated as key services that, as a result, face certain obligations under the act.
In September 2023, the commission found that Meta was a ‘gatekeeper’ under the DMA, and that several of its services – including Facebook’s Messenger and Marketplace – were distinct core platform services.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, challenged the decision in relation to Messenger and Marketplace.
Stand-alone applications
On Messenger, the General Court found that it was a “number-independent” interpersonal communications service that was distinct from the Facebook social network.
It said that Messenger was offered by means of stand-alone applications, that it could be used independently of the social network, and that Meta promoted tools that were specific to that service.
“Arguments based on integration between the services do not call that finding into question,” the judges stated.
The General Court ruled that the commission did not err in finding that Messenger individually was an important gateway, adding that Meta had not provided strong enough arguments to call the decision into question.
2023 changes
On Marketplace, however, the court found that the commission had erred in law by relying solely on data concerning the last three years preceding designation, without taking account of changes made at the end of July 2023.
It ruled that the EU body had not provided any concrete analysis of those changes or explained their effect on its finding that Marketplace enabled business users to offer goods and services to consumers, a necessary condition for classifying a service as an online intermediation service.
“The factors relied on in the decision in that respect are, in particular, hypothetical and incomplete,” the judgment stated.