Case T-435/25: Action brought on 4 July 2025 – Meta Platforms v Commission
Date: 2025-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: advertising, competition law, consumer protection, data protection, digital single market, personal data, protection of privacy, provision of services, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_202505214EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5214


6.10.2025






Action brought on 4 July 2025 – Meta Platforms v Commission


(Case T-435/25)

(C/2025/5214)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: J. Turner and J. Williams, Barristers-at-Law, J. Aitken and S. Malhi, Solicitors, and A. Green, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s Decision of 23 April 2025 in Case DMA.100055 Meta – Article 5(2) DMA (‘decision’) (1);










—


declare that there has been a breach by the European Commission of Meta’s rights of defence;










—


consequentially, or in the alternative, in the exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction, annul or reduce the fine imposed on Meta under Article 2 of the decision;










—


consequentially, or in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and/or 4 of the decision to the extent that those provisions fall to be interpreted in accordance with decision, par. 368 and 372-373; and,










—


in any event, to order the Commission to bear Meta’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision errs in law, fact and assessment in finding that Ads Choice does not comply with Article 5(2) DMA (2). In support of the first plea, the applicant relies upon two sub-pleas: (i) the decision errs in finding that users are not presented with a ‘specific choice’ for the purposes of Article 5(2) DMA because: (a) the decision errs in finding that the Without Ads Option does not constitute a less personalised but equivalent alternative to the With Ads Option; and (b) the decision errs in its assessment of the relevance and significance of Case C-252/21 Meta Platforms Inc and others v Bundeskartellamt (EU:C:2023:537) (in particular, paragraph 150) for the interpretation and application of Article 5(2) DMA; and (ii) the decision errs in finding that users have not provided freely given consent for the purposes of Article 5(2) DMA.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes essential procedural requirements and violates Meta’s rights of defence. In support of the second plea, the applicant relies upon two sub-pleas: (i) the Commission wrongly refused to provide relevant information/views from the competent data protection authorities; and (ii) the Commission wrongly refused to provide any documents that were placed on the file after the date of the Preliminary Findings.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision errs in imposing a fine and the amount of that fine. In support of the third plea, the applicant relies upon three sub-pleas: (i) the decision errs in imposing a fine since Meta did not act at least negligently; (ii) the decision fails to provide sufficient reasoning for the amount of the fine; and (iii) the decision errs in its calculation of the fine.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that if and to the extent that Articles 3 and 4 of the decision are directed to conduct beyond the subject matter of Article 1 (the Ads choice as offered between March to November 2024), those Articles are unlawful. In support of the fourth plea, the applicant relies upon three sub-pleas: (i) the Commission does not have competence to impose a cease-and-desist order in relation to matters beyond Meta’s Ads Choice; and (ii) the requirements to impose periodic penalty payments have not been fulfilled.






(1)  Commission Decision of 23 April 2025 relating to a decision pursuant to Articles 29(1), point (a), 30(1), point (a), and 31(1), point (h), of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (Case DMA.100055 – Meta – Article 5(2)) (OJ C 2025/3466)

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ 2022 L 265, p.1)


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5214/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)