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 – Professional association – 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 27 November 2025, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.
14 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 15 January 2026, the Commission submitted its observations on CCIA’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 professional association 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. 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 Indeed, such a broad interpretation of the right to intervene in favour of representative professional associations is intended to facilitate assessment of the context of such cases submitted to the EU Courts while avoiding multiple individual interventions which would compromise the efficiency and the proper course of the procedure. However, unlike natural and legal persons acting on their own behalf, representative professional associations are likely to apply for leave to intervene in a case before the Court of Justice not in order to defend individual interests but rather to defend the collective interests of their members. Intervention by such an association offers an overall perspective of those collective interests, which are affected by a question of principle on which the result of the case depends, and is, accordingly, of such a nature as to enable the Court of Justice better to assess the context in which a case is submitted to it (order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023, Illumina v Commission, C‑611/22 P, EU:C:2023:205, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).
19 Therefore, an association may be granted leave to intervene in a case if, first, it represents a significant number of undertakings active in the sector concerned, if, second, its objects include the protection of the interests of its members, if, third, the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and if, therefore, fourth, the interests of its members may be affected significantly by the forthcoming judgment (order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023, Illumina v Commission, C‑611/22 P, EU:C:2023:205, paragraph 10).
20 In the present case, in the first place, it should be stated that, first, this case concerns the digital sector and, more specifically, that of online platforms, which are regulated under the DMA.
21 Secondly, it is apparent from the file that CCIA represents a significant number of undertakings active in the digital sector. Although, as the Commission states, CCIA has only 20 members, it appears that it includes some of the largest undertakings in the information and communication technology sector, 4 of which were designated as ‘gatekeepers’ under the DMA, namely, in addition to the applicant, the undertakings Amazon, Apple and Alphabet. Furthermore, it is not disputed that, of the 19 members of CCIA other than the applicant, 10 are undertakings which use its online advertising service ‘Meta Ads’, concerned by the present case, in order to publish advertisements, inter alia, on Meta’s social networks.
22 In those circumstances, it must be held that CCIA represents a significant number of undertakings active in the sector concerned, within the meaning of the first condition referred to in paragraph 19 above.
23 In the second place, according to Article 2A of CCIA’s amended articles of incorporation, its purpose is, inter alia, to promote the interests of the computer and communications industries and to promote the interests of its members.
24 It follows that CCIA satisfies the second condition referred to in paragraph 19 above.
25 That conclusion is not called into question by the Commission’s argument that CCIA should have explained the interests of its members that it specifically intends to defend in the context of the judicial proceedings, given that the contested decision does not prevent any of its members from advertising on Meta’s social networks.
26 An applicant for leave to intervene must demonstrate that it has an interest in the result of the case, which, in respect of a representative professional association, follows from satisfying the four conditions recalled in paragraph 19 above, including the necessity that the object of the association seeking to intervene must provide for the defence of its members’ interests, which is the case in this instance in relation to CCIA. The Commission’s argument described in the previous paragraph is therefore aimed more at establishing that CCIA has not proved that the interests of its members are likely to be affected by the result of the present case, which falls under the fourth of the aforementioned conditions and will therefore be examined below.
27 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.
28 Consequently, that case raises a question of principle affecting the digital sector, with the result that the third condition referred to in paragraph 19 above is satisfied.
29 In the fourth place, the judgment to be delivered in the present case is likely to affect the interests of CCIA’s members, in addition to the applicant, as regards, first, the extent of the obligations imposed, under Article 5(2) of the DMA, on undertakings designated as ‘gatekeepers’, as regards the combination of the personal data of their users that they are required to collect, for the purposes of other services. Secondly, the members of CCIA which are users of Meta’s advertising service, and in particular those which aim to sell products or services online, are also likely to be affected by the judgment to be delivered. Indeed, such a ruling could lead to a change of the structure of the advertising published on Meta’s social networks, with a reduction in the proportion of personalised advertising and an increase in the proportion of non-targeted advertising, which could have a financial impact for them.
30 It follows that the fourth of the conditions listed in paragraph 19 above is also satisfied.
31 Therefore, it must be concluded that CCIA satisfies all of the conditions recalled in paragraph 19 above and thus has a direct, existing interest in the result of the present case.
32 CCIA should therefore be granted leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.
33 The applicant stated that it intended to request that certain confidential information be excluded from the documents disclosed to CCIA. 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 CCIA, but that it reserved the right to do so regarding information submitted at a later stage.
34 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 CCIA, a non-confidential version of the procedural documents in question.
35 The communication to CCIA 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. Computer & Communications Industry Association is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑435/25 in support of the form of order sought by Meta Platforms, Inc.
2. A time limit shall be set within which Meta Platforms and the European Commission may lodge an application for confidential treatment and produce, for the purposes of communication to Computer & Communications Industry Association, a non-confidential version of the procedural documents in question.
3. The Registrar shall provide Computer & Communications Industry Association 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 Computer & Communications Industry Association 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 Computer & Communications Industry Association 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.