ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE EIGHTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
25 June 2026 (*)
( Regulation of digital markets – Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 – Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Association whose objective is to defend the interests of consumers – Request for confidential treatment )
In Case T‑435/25,
Meta Platforms, Inc., established in Menlo Park, California (United States), represented by J. Turner, J. Williams, Barristers-at-Law, J. Aitken, S. Malhi, Solicitors, and A. Green, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by A. Bouchagiar, P.-J. Loewenthal, G. Meeßen, I. Naglis and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents,
defendant,
makes the following
Order
1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Meta Platforms, Inc., seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2025) 2091 final of 23 April 2025 pursuant to Articles 29(1), point (a), 30(1), point (a), and 31(1), point (h), of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector – Case DMA.100055 – Meta – Article 5(2) (‘the contested decision’).
Facts and proceedings
2 The applicant is an undertaking in the technology sector, founded in the United States in 2004, which operates non-advertising services, including the online social networks Facebook and Instagram (together, ‘Meta’s social networks’). Furthermore, the applicant also provides an online advertising service, called ‘Meta Ads’, by which it offers, inter alia, the publication of advertising on Meta’s social networks.
3 On 5 September 2023, the European Commission adopted Decision C(2023) 6105 final, designating the applicant and all the legal entities directly or indirectly controlled by it as a gatekeeper, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ 2022 L 265, p. 1; ‘the DMA’).
4 Under Article 3(10) of the DMA, the applicant was required, within six months of its designation as a gatekeeper, that is to say, from 7 March 2024, to comply with certain provisions of the DMA, including, in particular, Article 5 thereof.
5 In that regard, the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the DMA provides as follows:
‘2. The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:
(a) process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;
(b) combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;
(c) cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and
(d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data,
unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.’
6 On 6 March 2024, under Article 11(1) of the DMA, the applicant submitted a report to the Commission on the measures that it had implemented to ensure compliance with the obligations set out in the provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above. In particular, as regards compliance with Article 5(2) of the DMA, the measures taken by the applicant consisted in offering the end users of Meta’s social networks a ‘Consent or Pay’ model, consisting in an alternative between:
– on the one hand, an option enabling end users to access Meta’s social networks free of charge, on which personalised advertisements are published, implying their prior consent to the combination of their personal data for the purposes of personalised advertising;
– on the other, an option enabling end users to access Meta’s social networks, without any advertising, in return for the payment of a monthly subscription.
7 On 25 March 2024, pursuant to Article 20(1) of the DMA, the Commission decided to open proceedings with a view to the possible adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 29, 30 and 31 of that regulation, relating, respectively, to a finding of non-compliance by a gatekeeper with certain of its obligations, the imposition of fines on that gatekeeper and the imposition of periodic penalty payments.
8 At the end of the administrative proceedings, on 24 April 2025, the Commission adopted the contested decision.
9 By that decision, first, it found that the ‘Consent or Pay’ model, implemented by the applicant between 7 March and 11 November 2024, did not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) of the DMA. In essence, after considering that that model offered two options with different conditions of access to Meta’s social networks, it inferred from that that such a model resulted in a combination of the personal data of end users of Meta’s social networks, for the purposes of the online advertising service ‘Meta Ads’, without offering them the ‘specific choice’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2), in fine, of the DMA, of another, less personalised, possibility but one which is equivalent to that of the option with personalised advertising. Furthermore, according to the Commission, the configuration of the applicant’s ‘Consent or Pay’ model also did not enable end users of Meta’s social networks freely to consent, in compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), to the combination of their personal data for the purpose of personalised advertising.
10 Secondly, by the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine in the amount of EUR 200 000 000 on the applicant.
11 Thirdly, by the same decision, the Commission ordered the applicant to bring to an end the non-compliance of its ‘Consent or Pay’ model within 60 days of its notification, failing which it would incur periodic penalty payments.
12 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 4 July 2025, the applicant brought the present action seeking, inter alia, the annulment of the contested decision.
13 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 November 2025, the Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
14 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 December 2025, the applicant submitted its observations on BEUC’s application to intervene, stating its opposition to such an application.
Law
15 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to proceedings before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case other than a dispute between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between Member States and institutions of the European Union, may intervene in that case.
16 The concept of an interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver. It is necessary, in particular, to ascertain whether the intervener is directly affected by the contested measure and whether its interest in the result of the case is established (order of 6 April 2006, An Post v Deutsche Post and Commission, C‑130/06 P(I), not published, EU:C:2006:248, paragraph 8).
17 However, it is settled case-law of the Court of Justice, a representative organisation whose objective is to protect the interests of its members may be granted leave to intervene where the case raises questions of principle which are liable to affect those interests (see order of the President of the Court of 12 March 2019, Germany v Esso Raffinage, C‑471/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:198, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited). Therefore, the requirement that such an association has a direct, existing interest in the result of a case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, must be found to be fulfilled where that association establishes that it is in such a situation, irrespective of whether the result of the case is likely to alter the legal position of the association as such (see order of 10 March 2023, Illumina v Commission, C‑611/22 P, EU:C:2023:205, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).
18 It has thus been held that, in the case of an association whose object is to protect consumers, such an association may be granted leave to intervene in a case if, first, it represents an appreciable number of consumers concerned, secondly, its objects include protecting the interests of those consumers, thirdly, the case may raise questions of principle affecting those consumers and, fourthly, the interests of its members may be affected to an appreciable extent by the judgment to be delivered (see order of 17 December 2018, Google and Alphabet v Commission, T‑612/17, not published, EU:T:2018:1007, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).
19 In the present case, in the first place, it should be stated that BEUC holds itself out as a federation of consumer associations comprising 45 independent consumer organisations spread across 32 countries, either within the European Union or in third countries located in Europe, a fact which the applicant does not dispute.
20 Accordingly, BEUC must be regarded as representing an appreciable number of consumers concerned, within the meaning of the first condition referred to in paragraph 18 above. Furthermore, it should be noted that BEUC has already been granted leave to intervene in cases before the General Court likely to affect the interests of consumers (see, to that effect, orders of 16 January 2013, Health Food Manufacturers’ Association and Others v Commission, T‑296/12, not published; of 17 December 2018, Google and Alphabet v Commission, T‑612/17, not published, EU:T:2018:1007, paragraphs 16 and 17; and of 17 April 2026, Apple v Commission, T‑438/25, not published, paragraphs 28 to 30).
21 In the second place, as regards the condition relating to the object of the association seeking leave to intervene, BEUC submits that, according to Article 2.1 of its Articles of Association, its purpose is to ‘promote, defend and represent the interests of European consumers’, which the applicant does not dispute.
22 Accordingly, BEUC satisfies the second condition referred to in paragraph 18 above.
23 In the third place, it should be noted that, in the present case, the Court may rule on the interpretation of Article 5(2) of the DMA and on the lawfulness, in the light of that provision, of a ‘Consent or Pay’ model such as that offered by the applicant to the end users of Meta’s social networks. As the case may be, the Court would therefore be required to determine whether a gatekeeper, such as the applicant, may combine the personal data of the users of an online social network, for the purpose of sending them personalised advertising, without offering them any non-personalised alternative to access that network other than a paid option.
24 Consequently, that case raises a question of principle which concerns the consumers of the European Union and the detailed arrangements in respect of their access to online social networks, with the result that the third condition referred to in paragraph 18 above is satisfied.
25 In the fourth place, the judgment to be delivered in the present case is likely to affect the interests of the members of the consumer associations constituting BEUC as regards, first, the detailed arrangements under which they may have access to online social networks and the manner in which their data may be processed by the undertakings operating those networks. Secondly, the judgment to be delivered in the present case is also likely to affect the consumers to a significant extent in their purchase of goods or services, given that it may have an impact on the advertising that they are likely to be faced with when they use the online social networks.
26 It follows that the fourth of the conditions listed in paragraph 18 above is also satisfied.
27 Therefore, it must be concluded that BEUC satisfies all of the conditions recalled in paragraph 18 above and thus has a direct, existing interest in the result of the present case.
28 BEUC should therefore be granted leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
29 The applicant stated that it intended to request that certain confidential information be excluded from the documents communicated to BEUC. In its observations concerning the application for leave to intervene, the Commission stated in essence that, at that stage of the proceedings, it did not intend to request the confidential treatment of information in the file, in respect of BEUC, but that it reserved the right to do so regarding information submitted at a later stage.
30 Consequently, a time limit shall be set within which the applicant and the Commission may lodge an application for confidential treatment and produce, for the purposes of communication to BEUC, a non-confidential version of the procedural documents in question.
31 The communication to BEUC of the documents served or to be served on the main parties will be limited to a non-confidential version, in accordance with Article 144(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. A decision on whether the applications for confidential treatment are well founded will, should the need arise, be taken at a later stage in the light of any objections that may be submitted in that regard.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE EIGHTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. The Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑435/25 in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.
2. A time limit shall be set within which Meta Platforms, Inc. and the Commission may lodge an application for confidential treatment and produce, for the purposes of communication to BEUC, a non‑confidential version of the procedural documents in question.
3. The Registrar shall provide BEUC with a non-confidential version of each procedural document served on the main parties as soon as each of those non-confidential versions is available.
4. A time limit shall be set for BEUC to submit, as appropriate, its objections regarding the applications for confidential treatment concerning it. The decision on whether those applications are well founded is reserved.
5. A time limit shall be set for BEUC to submit its statement in intervention, without prejudice to the possibility of supplementing it later, should the need arise, following a decision on whether the applications for confidential treatment are well founded.
6. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 25 June 2026.