New details have emerged about Apple and Meta’s appeals against the European Commission’s inaugural Digital Markets Act non-compliance fines, with the iPhone maker also claiming that the agency exceeded its competence when issuing specification decisions against the company.
The EU today published details of Apple and Meta’s legal arguments in their ongoing appeals before the EU General Court – filed in July – against their respective €500 million and €200 million DMA non-compliance penalties.
It also published Apple’s appeals against the commission’s first-ever DMA specification decisions, which forced the company to make its technology more interoperable.
Meta’s challenge attacks the EU’s finding that a model offering users a choice between free Facebook and Instagram services with personalised ads or paid-for versions without targeted ads – known as ‘pay or consent’ – was unlawful under the DMA.
The company argues that the commission incorrectly concluded that users are not given a ‘specific choice’ regarding Meta’s combination of personal data as defined in the DMA.
The social media giant also claims the decision incorrectly ruled that users had not freely given their consent to the processing.
Apple will tell the court that the commission's decision to fine the company for infringing the DMA’s anti-steering obligation had “misinterpreted and misapplied” the provision.
Apple’s grounds for appeal also allege that the commission had “no legal basis” to sanction the company, and that the fine was disproportionate.
Meanwhile, the EU Official Journal today lifted the lid further on Apple’s legal challenges against the agency’s specification decisions, which the company has previously claimed “hand data-hungry companies sensitive information” at “massive privacy and security” risk to its EU users.
In addition to asking the General Court to quash the new specification requirements, Apple is pushing for a declaration that the DMA provision underpinning those decisions is “inconsistent with the requirements of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality”.
Apple will argue the commission “exceeded the limits on its competence” set out by the regulation itself when it imposed the measures, although no further detail was provided.
Details of the appeals, published in the EU’s official journal, come just over a week after Apple called on the EU to repeal the DMA, claiming this would be “the most effective way” to fully repair the “damage” caused by the commission’s “radical” interpretation of the ruleset.
Meta has also actively criticised the rules. When the non-compliance penalty was announced, the company’s chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan slammed the decision as “attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards.”
Apple is currently steering several other legal challenges against aspects of the DMA, which will be aired on 21 October at the General Court in Luxembourg, including the designation of its App Store as a core platform service under the regulation.
Counsel to Meta
Freshfields
Partners James Aitken and Sharon Malhi in London and Aaron Green in Brussels
Monckton Chambers
Jon Turner KC and Jack Williams
Counsel to Apple
Freshfields
Partners Winfred Knibbeler in Amsterdam, Simon Orton and Ramya Arnold in London and Laura Knoke in Hamburg
Monckton Chambers
Daniel Beard KC and James Bourke
Brick Court Chambers
Sarah Love
11KBW
Ben Mitchell