DMA compliance scrutiny continues as EC opens five investigations into Apple, Google, and Meta

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,181   +1,427
Staff member
What's at stake: Unlike many corporate fines we have seen in the past, the EU's DMA penalties aren't a mere slap on the wrist. Initial offenses could cost the company 10 percent of its global revenue, while subsequent violations are double. For example, Apple would be looking at a fine of over $35 billion. To put that into perspective, that is equivalent to half of Apple's iPhone sales evaporating instantly.

On Monday, the European Commission opened investigations into three of the Big Six tech gatekeepers due to suspicions of non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). There are five probes in total – two for Google, two for Apple, and one for Meta.

The EC suspects that Google Play breaks anti-steering rules with its app store and Google Search continues to "self-preference" Alphabet's services in search results. Apple faces a similar charge of steering in the App Store, but the EC also thinks it is skirting requirements that allow users to pick their default apps. Finally, Meta's ad-free subscription model might be a "pay or consent" scheme to avoid user-privacy violations.

"We suspect that the suggested solutions put forward by the three companies do not fully comply with the DMA," said Commission Vice President of Competition Policy Margrethe Vestager. "We will now investigate the companies' compliance with the DMA to ensure open and contestable digital markets in Europe."

Also read: Spotify bashes Apple's new App Store policies in the EU, calls them "extortion"

The EC has ordered the companies to "retain certain documents" so it can review them to determine if they comply with the law. Additionally, Amazon and Microsoft received retention orders, but the Commission stopped short of investigating them. It seems that Bytedance is the only gatekeeper that is not under a microscope.

The steering, self-preferencing, and user choice probes are straightforward and mundane. What is interesting is the EC's interest in Facebook's ad-free subscription offering. Under the model, users can pay a fee to disable advertising on Facebook and Instagram.

Initially, Meta charged €9.99 per month (more when subscribing through Apple or Google). Reuters notes that after the EC got hung up on the fee, Meta Competition and Regulatory Director Tim Lamb told the Commission they would slash the fees to €5.99. However, this investigation and comments from EC Commissioner Thierry Breton indicate that 40 percent off might not cut it.

"The DMA is very clear: gatekeepers must obtain users' consent to use their personal data across different services," Breton said in a separate statement. "And this consent must be free!"

Breton appears to view the subscription as a "pay or consent" scam. However, if the EC rules that Meta's ad-free subscription is unlawful, what does that make other subscription services with ad-free tiers? It will be interesting to watch how this one plays out.

The probes come as no surprise, as competitors have been bellyaching about Big Tech's efforts – most notably Apple's – to implement DMA compliance policies since the beginning of the year. The EC expects its investigations to conclude within 12 months.

Permalink to story.

 
Maybe if they hadn't been so greedy and asked for 30% of each sale they could still have their monopoly on their respective app markets. Heck, banks only ask for 0.5%-2% of each sale
 
Ummmm, yeah, you either pay with money, or pay with (consented) data harvesting. Is the EU expecting Meta to go entirely free or something? That's not how a successful business works lol, this Breton guy sounds like an id!ot.

Also, you don't have to use their services. Though, that monthly fee (as I've stated before) is waaaaay too high still.

Edit: Added some context.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm, yeah, you either pay with money, or pay with (consented) data harvesting. Is the EU expecting them to go entirely free or something? That's not how a successful business works lol, this Breton guy sounds like an id!ot.

Also, you don't have to use their services. Though, that monthly fee (as I've stated before) is waaaaay too high still.
They're complaining about the app stores where Google and Apple take 30% off of each transaction just for facilitating. Apple is especially vial because they won't let you side load apps or install other app stores. So each company sells you a device that they make money on and then make you use their app stores so they can make more money on other people's products. You can install other stores and sideload things on android, but let's be real, noone does that.
 
Ummmm, yeah, you either pay with money, or pay with (consented) data harvesting. Is the EU expecting them to go entirely free or something? That's not how a successful business works lol, this Breton guy sounds like an id!ot.

Also, you don't have to use their services. Though, that monthly fee (as I've stated before) is waaaaay too high still.
In a world where you get turned down on a job application because lack of social media is a Red Flag now, yes it IS necessary.

Perhaps if these companies didnt invasively pry into their user's lives they wouldnt have to be banned from doing so. If they didnt lock their platforms down like the soviet union, they wouldnt need forced open.

They brought this upon themselves. Better yet, if they cant make money without massive privacy invasions and monopoly control of a market, they should consider that their business model sucks rocks.
They're complaining about the app stores where Google and Apple take 30% off of each transaction just for facilitating. Apple is especially vial because they won't let you side load apps or install other app stores. So each company sells you a device that they make money on and then make you use their app stores so they can make more money on other people's products. You can install other stores and sideload things on android, but let's be real, noone does that.
But... I do : ( I am the 0.1%
 
With Apple and the sideloading issue, I think the EU overcomplicated things with how they wrote the law; they could have simply passed a rule that states "Device manufacturers are forbidden from using cryptographic means to prevent device owners from using said devices with third party software or hardware". Not only would that fix the Apple sideloading issue, but fix quite a few other issues as well - see John Deere DRMing tractors in the US or Newag DRMing trains in Poland to prevent third party repairs.
 
They're complaining about the app stores where Google and Apple take 30% off of each transaction just for facilitating. Apple is especially vial because they won't let you side load apps or install other app stores. So each company sells you a device that they make money on and then make you use their app stores so they can make more money on other people's products. You can install other stores and sideload things on android, but let's be real, noone does that.
Bud, read the article. Specifically the FB/Meta stuff........
 
In a world where you get turned down on a job application because lack of social media is a Red Flag now, yes it IS necessary.

Perhaps if these companies didnt invasively pry into their user's lives they wouldnt have to be banned from doing so. If they didnt lock their platforms down like the soviet union, they wouldnt need forced open.

They brought this upon themselves. Better yet, if they cant make money without massive privacy invasions and monopoly control of a market, they should consider that their business model sucks rocks.
An employer asking/expecting Social Media sounds like the red flag to me (unless there's a particular context why, like SM manager).

But my point still stands; there's no such thing as free. And expecting a gov't to try and make it free-free is a bad precedence (and a red flag) no matter how you slice it.
 
Bud, read the article. Specifically the FB/Meta stuff........
I wasn't talking about their digital markets because I don't know anything about their digital markets, but I DO KNOW what the EU is going after Apple and Google for with the DMA.
 
I wasn't talking about their digital markets because I don't know anything about their digital markets, but I DO KNOW what the EU is going after Apple and Google for with the DMA.
Breton is only mentioned in the FB/Meta stuff. Figured that was enough context.

As for App Store stuff, yeah, I hope Apple (and Google/Amazon) get hammered hard for their anti-competitiveness.
 
An employer asking/expecting Social Media sounds like the red flag to me (unless there's a particular context why, like SM manager).

But my point still stands; there's no such thing as free. And expecting a gov't to try and make it free-free is a bad precedence (and a red flag) no matter how you slice it.
Agreed. What Breton said amounts to one application of the law for one group (Big Tech) and one application for another (small tech). Trust me. I'm no fan of Meta, but it is simply applying an industry standard that many companies use. How is an ad-free Facebook different from an ad-free Hulu? Unequal application of the law is tyrannical. Maybe I am misinterpreting what Breton said, but I don't think I am. Here's the quote in its full context:

"You all heard about Meta's 'Subscription for No Ads' model. With this new model, users have to pay if they want to use Facebook and Instagram without targeted advertising. And this has forced millions of users across Europe into a binary choice: 'pay or consent'. And if you consent, Meta can use your data, generated for example on Messenger, to target ads on Instagram.

"But the DMA is very clear: gatekeepers must obtain users' consent to use their personal data across different services. And this consent must be free! We have serious doubts that this consent is really free when you are confronted with a binary choice. With the DMA, users who do not consent should be provided with a less personalised alternative of the service, for example financed thanks to contextual advertising. But they do not have to pay.

"This is because with the DMA, we want to give back to our users the power to decide how their data is used: to pave the way for business models where citizens' rights are at the centre of operations."

So what is is saying is pretty clear to me.

Also, he is completely off-base in saying it's a "binary choice." It's not a binary choice. You can either 1) consume Meta's services for free by consenting to targeted advertising, 2) pay for the service with no advertising, or 3) not consume Meta's services at all. What Breton suggests is that the EC force Meta to give away its service for free, which, as I mentioned, is tantamount to tyranny. Couple in the fact that smaller businesses are not subjected to the same treatment under the law, and you invite an environment that disincentivizes making the best product out there because you will be punished if it's so good you get too big.

He does mention context-based advertising, which might make a suitable alternative, but the infrastructure is not there for that and it can't be built overnight. Google has even talked about this, but still hasn't implemented anything that is suitable.

It's backward logic.

EDIT: Added commentary regarding contextual advertising.
 
Agreed. What Breton said amounts to one application of the law for one group (Big Tech) and one application for another (small tech). Trust me. I'm no fan of Meta, but it is simply applying an industry standard that many companies use. How is an ad-free Facebook different from an ad-free Hulu? Unequal application of the law is tyrannical. Maybe I am misinterpreting what Breton said, but I don't think I am. Here's the quote in its full context:

[…]

It's backward logic.

Writing so much, but not getting the main idea - it is not about evading all ads, but about TARGETED ads - companies CAN show you ads, but they cannot use your private data (to show you TARGETED ads) without your consent, and that consent CANNOT be forced with “else pay yourself”.

Private data is private (at least in EU). And Breton says that no business logic or lacking “instrastructure” can change that.
 
Back