EU Digital Markets Act | Platform Regulation | Judicial Review
Case T-1078/23 | ECLI:EU:T:2026:357 | June 3, 2026
Author: Yash Yogitta Joshi
College: Lokmanya Tilak Law College, Pune
LinkedIn Link : https://acesse.one/linkedin-yash-yogitta-joshi
Abstract
On June 3, 2026, the EU General Court delivered a landmark split judgment in Case T-1078/23, partially annulling the European Commission’s 2023 decision designating Meta Platforms as a ‘gatekeeper’ under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Regulation (EU) 2022/1925. The Court struck down Facebook Marketplace’s classification as a core platform service while upholding Facebook Messenger’s designation. Operating as the first full merits review of a DMA designation, the ruling establishes that the Commission’s duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU requires active engagement with material changes a platform makes during designation proceedings — not mere acknowledgement. The ex tunc annulment retroactively voids Marketplace’s gatekeeper status from September 2023, with significant implications for digital platform regulation across the EU.
To the Point
The Digital Markets Act created an ex ante regulatory regime to govern large digital platforms. Upon designation, a ‘gatekeeper’ must comply with sweeping obligations — including interoperability mandates, data-sharing requirements, and self-preferencing prohibitions — irrespective of any finding of abuse under competition law. On June 3, 2026, Meta secured a partial but precedent-setting victory: the EU General Court held that the Commission had not adequately justified its designation of Facebook Marketplace as an ‘online intermediation service.’ The ruling does not dismantle the DMA. It holds its enforcement machinery to the standard that EU administrative law has always demanded — reasoned, evidence-based, and responsive to the facts on record.
Use of Legal Jargon
Gatekeeper designation under Article 3 DMA requires satisfaction of quantitative thresholds: annual EEA turnover of EUR 7.5 billion or market capitalisation of EUR 75 billion, combined with 45 million monthly active end users and 10,000 annual active business users. A ‘core platform service’ under Article 2(2) includes online intermediation services and number-independent interpersonal communications services — the categories at issue for Marketplace and Messenger respectively.
The Commission’s duty to state reasons is anchored in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This obligation is not merely formal — it must enable the courts to exercise effective judicial review. The General Court applied ex tunc annulment, meaning the designation is treated as void ab initio from September 2023, distinguishing it from ex nunc revocation, which operates only prospectively. The ruling also implicates the principle of legal certainty, a general principle of EU law, which demands that regulatory acts affecting fundamental economic rights be grounded in precise and consistent reasoning.
The Proof
During the 2023 designation procedure, Meta restructured Marketplace to restrict it to peer-to-peer (end-user to end-user) transactions, excluding business users and enforcing updated terms of service. These changes reduced the number of business users below DMA thresholds. The Commission acknowledged the modifications but proceeded with designation, relying on the three-year quantitative lookback period. The General Court held this was insufficient — quantitative lookback periods govern threshold measurement but do not displace the obligation to conduct an accurate qualitative assessment of whether the platform, at the time of designation, genuinely serves as a gateway for business users to reach end users.
Crucially, the Commission itself de-designated Marketplace in April 2025 following Meta’s formal request under Article 4 DMA — an administrative concession that the platform no longer met designation criteria. The Court treated this subsequent conduct as corroborative evidence of the original decision’s reasoning inadequacy. The annulment, with ex tunc effect, closes the loop: Marketplace was never lawfully designated.
Case Laws
Meta Platforms v. Commission (Case T-1078/23, ECLI:EU:T:2026:357, 2026)
The primary judgment under review. The General Court partially annulled the Commission’s 2023 gatekeeper designation, removing Marketplace while upholding Messenger. The ruling establishes that material platform changes made during designation proceedings must be addressed in the Commission’s qualitative reasoning, not merely noted.
ByteDance Ltd. v. European Commission (Case T-1077/23, 2024)
The first DMA designation challenge, in which the General Court dismissed TikTok’s bid to overturn its gatekeeper status. The contrast with Meta is instructive: TikTok made no material structural changes during proceedings, leaving the Commission’s reasoning unchallenged on procedural grounds.
Commission v. Tetra Laval (Case C-12/03 P, 2005)
The Court of Justice held that the Commission must produce ‘sufficiently cogent and consistent evidence’ in complex economic assessments. This merger control precedent now resonates in DMA designation review, where the General Court applied an analogous standard of evidential adequacy.
Apple Inc. v. Commission (DMA Fine, 2025)
The Commission imposed a EUR 500 million fine on Apple for DMA violations, affirming that once designation stands, enforcement powers are broadly upheld. Read alongside Meta, the message is clear: designation must be procedurally sound, but compliant gatekeepers face robust obligations.
Conclusion
The General Court’s judgment in Case T-1078/23 is not a retreat from digital regulation — it is a correction of regulatory overreach in a specific procedural instance. The DMA remains intact. Its enforcement architecture, its interoperability mandates, and its power to designate dominant platforms are undiminished. What the ruling insists upon is that the Commission exercise those powers with the rigor that EU administrative law has always required.
The ruling’s lesson is plain: speed cannot excuse poor reasoning. Platforms that make material structural changes during designation proceedings are entitled to have those changes genuinely considered. As the Commission weighs a potential CJEU appeal, and as India develops its Systemically Significant Digital Enterprise (SSDE) framework under the Competition Amendment Act 2023, this judgment is a timely reminder that due process is not an obstacle to effective regulation — it is its foundation.
FAQs
Q1. What is a ‘gatekeeper’ under the Digital Markets Act?
A gatekeeper is a company providing a core platform service that meets DMA thresholds — EUR 7.5 billion EEA turnover or EUR 75 billion market cap, with 45 million monthly active end users and 10,000 annual active business users in the EU. Designation triggers ex ante obligations on interoperability, data portability, and fair dealing.
Q2. Did Meta escape all DMA obligations through this judgment?
No. Only Marketplace’s designation was annulled. Facebook Messenger, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp remain designated, and Meta continues to bear substantial DMA compliance obligations across those core platform services.
Q3. What does ‘ex tunc’ annulment mean practically?
It means the designation is void from its original date — September 2023 — not merely from the date of the judgment. Any DMA obligations Marketplace was subject to during that period are treated as never having lawfully applied.
Q4. Can the Commission appeal this ruling?
Yes. An appeal on points of law may be lodged before the Court of Justice of the EU within two months and ten days of the judgment’s notification. The Commission may contest the General Court’s interpretation of the duty to state reasons or its methodology for qualitative classification under Article 3 DMA.
Q5. Is this ruling relevant to India’s digital competition law framework?
Yes. India’s Competition Amendment Act 2023 introduced the concept of Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises (SSDEs), modeled broadly on the DMA’s gatekeeper concept. The procedural principles affirmed here — requiring reasoned engagement with material platform changes during designation — offer persuasive guidance for the Competition Commission of India as it develops SSDE designation rules.
