Appeal brought on 29 January 2026 by Amazon EU Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, sitting with five Judges) delivered on 19 November 2025 in Case T-367/23, Amazon EU v Commission
(Case C-40/26 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Amazon EU Sàrl (represented by: A. Conrad and M. Frank, Rechtsanwälte, I. Ioannidis, dikigoros, H. Saugmandsgaard Øe and R. Wittrup Laursen, advokater, and R. Spanó, lögmadur)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Bundesverband E-Commerce und Versandhandel Deutschland eV (bevh), European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment under appeal;
make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court to give final judgment in the matter;
annul Commission Decision C(2023) 2746 final of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the contested decision’);
in the alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it imposes on the appellant:
the obligation to provide recipients with an option for each recommender system that is not based on profiling under Article 38 of Regulation 2022/2065 1 ; and/or
the obligation to compile and make publicly available an advertisement repository under Article 39 of Regulation 2022/2065;
in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the application; and
order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appeal is based on the following pleas in law.
First, the General Court misinterpreted the notion of 'systemic risks' and thereby misapplied Article 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the term 'systemic risk' by equating any risk appearing on a very large online platform with a "systemic" risk solely because of the platform's reach. It thereby distorted the proportionality assessment of the interference with the appellant's rights under the Charter.
Second, the General Court failed to consider that the legislature had not exercised its discretion and thereby misapplied Articles 52(1) and 47 of the Charter. The General Court erred in law by failing to properly consider the legislative process and by failing to recognise that there is no evidential basis for applying Section 5 of Chapter III of Regulation 2022/2065 to very large online marketplaces. Furthermore, the General Court unlawfully substituted its own reasoning for that of the legislature, and erred in law by requiring the appellant to demonstrate that the measures in question are based on objective criteria connected to the legislature's aims and that the resulting burdens are proportionate to these aims.
Third, the General Court misapplied Articles 20 and 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court erred in law by applying an erroneous approach to legislative discretion and the standard of review. Due to this error in law, it erroneously assumed that subjecting very large online marketplaces to the same obligations as very large social media platforms, content-sharing and search services, despite differences in their business models and risk profiles, was justified under Article 20 of the Charter. Further, the General Court erroneously found that treating very large online marketplaces differently to smaller online marketplaces and retailers, despite similarities in their business models and risk profiles, was justified under Article 20 of the Charter.
Fourth, the General Court misapplied Articles 16 and 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court erred in law by relying on an incorrect standard of review, failing to adequately assess each stage of the required proportionality analysis, and by disregarding the lack of legitimate purpose and proportionality of Articles 38 and 39 of Regulation 2022/2065 vis-à-vis online marketplaces.
Fifth, the General Court misapplied Articles 11 and 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court erred in law by relying on an incorrect standard of review and by erroneously finding that the interference by Article 38 DSA (Digital Services Act) with the appellant's right to disseminate commercial information was justified.
Sixth, the General Court misapplied Articles 7 and 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court erred in law by relying on an incorrect standard of review and by erroneously finding that the interference by Article 39 DSA with the right to privacy was justified.
____________
1 Regulation (EU) No 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).