In April, the European Commission issued a decision regarding Meta’s business operations in Europe, asserting that the company’s dual offering of an ad-free subscription and a free, ad-supported service does not align with the stipulations of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Meta, however, believes this decision to be both incorrect and unlawful and has opted to appeal against it. This report aims to delve into the complexities of this situation, exploring the implications of the decision, the perspectives involved, and the broader impact on digital markets and consumers.
### The Decision and Its Disregard for Judicial Precedents
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) was established to govern major technology companies, referred to as “Gatekeepers,” like Meta. Among its provisions, Article 5(2) necessitates that these companies secure GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) consent for the use of personal data specifically for targeted advertising purposes.
Prior to the enforcement of Article 5, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, on July 4, 2023, ruled that dominant companies could legitimately obtain user consent by presenting a choice between a subscription-based service and a free, ad-supported service. This judgment was significant as it provided a legal framework for companies like Meta to operate within the EU’s data protection laws.
However, the European Commission’s decision seems to overlook this ruling. It insists that the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment is irrelevant, thus concluding that Meta’s model is non-compliant with the DMA’s requirements. This is a perplexing stance given that the judgment directly pertains to Meta, addresses similar data processing issues, and evaluates the viability of its advertising model.
Moreover, the decision ignores the broader support Meta’s model has received from national courts and data protection authorities in countries like France, Denmark, and Germany. These bodies have recognized and upheld business models that offer a paid subscription alternative to consent for personal data usage in personalized advertising. Consequently, the decision not only contradicts CJEU’s judgment but also sets a precedent wherein Meta is uniquely barred from offering both subscription-based and free ad-supported services in Europe. Instead, Meta is required to provide a free service featuring less personalized ads, which could result in suboptimal outcomes for users, advertisers, and the platform itself.
### The Commercial Implications of the Decision
The Commission’s ruling mandates that Meta provide a less personalized ad service at no cost, disregarding factors such as cost implications and service effectiveness. This requirement imposes a potentially unsustainable business model by ignoring the commercial reality that fair compensation is crucial for sustaining innovative and valuable services. In a market economy, it is standard for businesses to receive remuneration for their services, which is essential for innovation and economic growth.
The Commission posits that Meta must justify its entitlement to compensation for its services. This notion is founded on the assumption that social media services are integral to the daily lives of citizens in the European Economic Area (EEA). Yet, other services deemed essential, such as telecommunications and broadband, are not provided for free. This inconsistent approach raises questions about the fairness of the Commission’s decision.
### The Impact on Users and Advertisers
Meta’s personalized advertising services have previously been linked to substantial economic benefits within the EU, generating €213 billion in economic activity and supporting 1.44 million jobs in 2024. Despite these contributions, the Commission has mandated that Meta offer less personalized ads for free. In response, Meta launched its Less Personalized Ads (LPA) service in November 2024, which utilizes approximately 90% less data than personalized ads. This shift has significant implications for user experience and advertiser returns.
The introduction of LPA has yielded negative feedback, with users reporting an 800% increase in ad closures due to ads being perceived as “irrelevant” or “repetitive.” This represents a marked deterioration in user experience. Additionally, European advertisers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), have been adversely affected. The effectiveness of direct response advertising, crucial to SMEs, has diminished with LPA, resulting in significantly fewer conversions both onsite and offsite compared to personalized ads.
Despite numerous advertisers expressing concerns to the Commission, these issues appear to have been overlooked. By diminishing the efficacy of personalized ads, the Commission’s ruling may inadvertently undermine the very objectives of the DMA. It creates uncertainty, hinders the ability of new European market entrants to monetize through traditional methods, and weakens a critical marketing strategy for new businesses while degrading the user experience.
### The Need for Constructive Regulatory Dialogue
Meta has engaged in constructive dialogues with the Commission, even before the initiation of any investigation. However, as 2024 progressed, the regulatory landscape seemed to constantly shift, with feedback being inconsistent and often not aligned with the DMA’s text. Despite Meta’s significant investments to comply with and address the Commission’s feedback, the Commission has maintained that it will not endorse DMA compliance proposals.
This situation raises important questions about the substance behind the Commission’s claims that the DMA is not about imposing fines but fostering participative regulatory dialogue and compliance. Now is the time for all stakeholders, including the industry and the Commission, to demonstrate what effective regulatory dialogue entails and how everyone can contribute to improving the regulatory system. This is in the best interests of Europe, European consumers, and businesses, aligning with the core objectives of the DMA.
In summary, the European Commission’s decision concerning Meta’s business model in Europe has sparked significant debate. The decision’s disregard for judicial precedents, its commercial implications, and its impact on users and advertisers have raised important questions about the future of digital markets in Europe. As Meta appeals the decision, it remains to be seen how this situation will unfold and what it will mean for the broader landscape of technology and data regulation in the EU.
For more Information, Refer to this article.
