Apple and Meta hit with the EU’s first DMA antitrust fines

The Verge - Apr 23rd, 2025

The European Commission has levied significant fines against Apple and Meta, marking the first enforcement actions under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). Apple was fined €500 million for its App Store's 'anti-steering' practices, which restrict developers from promoting alternative payment systems. Meta received a €200 million penalty for its Facebook and Instagram ‘pay or consent’ ad model, which was deemed anticompetitive. Both companies have 60 days to comply or face additional penalties, and both have announced plans to appeal the rulings. The fines, though substantial, fall below the maximum penalties allowed under DMA guidelines, which could reach as much as 10% of a company's annual revenue. These actions are part of a broader EU strategy to enhance competition and limit the power of major tech firms designated as 'gatekeepers' under the new law.

The Digital Markets Act, which became law in May 2023, aims to curtail anticompetitive behavior by major tech companies like Apple, Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, ByteDance, and Microsoft. This legislation is part of the EU’s effort to ensure consumer choice and business freedom in digital markets. Despite the fines, which are a fraction of the maximum possible, both Apple and Meta argue that the EU's approach unfairly targets American companies while favoring European and Chinese firms. The rulings have stirred tensions between the EU and the US, with implications for ongoing trade relations. The enforcement of DMA requirements represents a significant shift in how digital markets are regulated, emphasizing compliance over hefty penalties, but still underscoring the EU's commitment to reining in the power of Big Tech.

Meta Apple Instagram European Union Antitrust Facebook App Store Digital Markets Act Tech Regulation Fines

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the fines imposed on Apple and Meta under the EU's Digital Markets Act. It accurately reports the key facts and presents multiple perspectives, including those of the companies involved and the European Commission. The story is timely and relevant, addressing important issues of market competition and consumer rights. However, it could benefit from additional context and perspectives, particularly from independent experts, to enhance its balance and transparency. Overall, the article effectively informs readers about a significant regulatory development in the tech industry, while highlighting the ongoing debates and potential implications for digital market regulation.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports the fines imposed on Apple and Meta under the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA). It states that Apple was fined €500 million and Meta €200 million, which aligns with the factual data. The story correctly identifies the reasons for the fines: Apple's App Store restrictions and Meta's 'pay or consent' ad model. However, it could benefit from additional verification on the exact impact of these fines on the companies' global operations and revenue. The story's claims about the DMA's purpose and the potential penalties are consistent with known facts, but the broader implications of these fines on trade relations and the effectiveness of the DMA in reducing anticompetitive practices need further exploration.

Balance

The article presents multiple viewpoints, including statements from both Apple and Meta, as well as a European Commission representative. This provides a balanced perspective on the issue. However, the article leans slightly towards the perspectives of the companies, especially in quoting their criticisms of the EU's actions. While it includes a quote from Henna Virkkunen of the European Commission, additional context or viewpoints from independent experts or consumer advocacy groups could enhance the balance by providing a broader range of perspectives on the DMA's impact.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language. It effectively outlines the key events and the rationale behind the fines, making it easy for readers to follow. The logical flow is maintained throughout, with each paragraph building on the previous one. However, the inclusion of more background information on the DMA and its specific rules could improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the legislation.

Source quality

The article cites reliable sources, such as statements from Apple and Meta, and a European Commission official. These sources are credible and directly involved in the events described. However, the article could improve by including more diverse sources, such as independent legal experts or economists, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the DMA's implications and the potential impact of the fines.

Transparency

The article provides clear attributions for direct quotes from company representatives and the European Commission. However, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology or criteria used to determine the fines' amounts. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence the perspectives presented. Greater transparency in these areas would enhance the reader's understanding of the context and motivations behind the actions described.