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 – 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 26 November 2025, Station F 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 22 December 2025, the Commission submitted its observations on Station F’s application to intervene, stating its opposition to such an application.
Law
15 In support of its application to intervene, Station F states, principally, that it meets the requirements to which the right to intervene in the case provided for in the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as applicable to associations of undertakings, is subject, for the purpose of representing the interests of small and medium-sized undertakings established in the territory of the European Union. In the alternative, it submits that its legal position is directly affected by the contested decision and that it thus has an interest in the result of the case.
16 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.
17 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).
18 In that regard, it is settled case-law of the Court of Justice that 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).
19 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).
20 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).
21 In the present case, in the first place, Station F submits that it satisfies the conditions listed in paragraph 20 above.
22 In that regard, Station F states that it operates as a business incubator and business nursery and hosts more than 1 000 start-ups at its campus in Paris (France) and that, accordingly, it is inherent in its business to act in support of those start-ups by offering them the services necessary for their development and the protection of their interests. The activities of Station F in relation to its members take the form, inter alia, of the provision of advertising services that Station F negotiates with the applicant in order to enable its members to purchase advertising at preferential rates.
23 However, as the Commission contends, it must be stated that Station F is a commercial company providing services to start-ups, and not a non-profit organisation whose purpose is to defend the interests of its members.
24 In that regard, under Article 2 of its articles of association, Station F has as its object ‘the development of business incubator and business nursery activities, and all activities involving the provision of services that businesses need during their start-up phase, and in particular … the provision and marketing of logistical, technical, managerial and commercial support services of all kinds enabling the formation and development of new undertakings, in particular in the high-technology, digital, IT and telecommunications sectors’, or ‘any advice and support to those undertakings in the context of their development’.
25 In addition, as it stated in its application for leave to intervene, Station F invests in its best-performing undertakings and obtains a shareholding in them in exchange for its investments.
26 Therefore, there is an economic relationship between Station F and the start-ups it supports and assists, to which it provides commercial services and in which it invests, with the result that its situation differs, not only from a formal point of view but also from a substantive point of view, from that of a non-profit organisation whose mission is to represent and protect the interests of the undertakings who are its members.
27 In those circumstances, Station F has not established that its object was the representation and protection of its members, which is sufficient in order to reject its argument that it satisfies the conditions recalled in paragraph 20 above, without it being necessary to examine all of those cumulative conditions that are relevant in that regard.
28 In the second place, Station F submits that it is an undertaking directly concerned by the contested decision, which gives it an interest in the result of the case. It argues that, if the contested decision were upheld by the final judgment in the present case, the undertakings in which it invested would be harmed in so far as they could no longer have recourse to personalised advertising, whereas that advertising constitutes a significant part of their commercial success, in particular as regards fast-growing innovative start-ups.
29 In that regard, as for an application to intervene brought by an undertaking, it should be ascertained, inter alia, whether the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether its interest in the result of the case is established, as recalled in paragraph 17 above. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only to the extent to which that result is likely to alter the legal position of the person seeking leave to intervene (see order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2022, Google and Alphabet v Commission, C‑48/22 P, not published, EU:C:2022:668, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).
30 That being so, it should be stated that the question whether a person has an interest in the result of the case, upon which the admissibility of an application for leave to intervene under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union depends, is different from the question whether a person has standing as an applicant for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect, order of 10 November 2020, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission, T‑865/19, not published, EU:T:2020:570, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
31 In the present case, it should be noted that Station F states that it is ‘the world’s biggest campus for start-up companies’, which is not disputed by the Commission.
32 Station F also states that it provides the start-ups which it supports and assists as part of its business as an incubator and nursery of undertakings, ‘pre-negotiated packages’ of advertising services and tools at preferential rates, which it negotiates with providers of advertising space on online social networks, including ‘Meta Ads’, the applicant’s online advertising service. In that regard, Station F states that 40% of those start-ups are regularly in contact with the applicant for that purpose, which the Commission does not call into question.
33 Station F further submits that personalised online advertising is a central and strategic focus, as well as being a significant cost item, for innovative undertakings capable of developing new products or services on the market. In that regard, as observed in paragraph 24 above, Station F’s object is to promote the ‘formation and development of new undertakings, in particular in the high-technology, digital, IT and telecommunications sectors’.
34 It is true that, as the Commission contends, the contested decision is not intended to declare personalised advertising unlawful, either in general or in the applicant’s case, and it is common ground that that type of advertising may continue to be offered regardless of the result of the present case.
35 However, by that decision, the Commission found, in essence, that the ‘Consent or Pay’ model implemented by the applicant did not meet the requirements of Article 5(2) of the DMA, since it failed to provide the possibility for the users of Meta’s social networks to continue accessing those networks by means of a less personalised offer, but one which is equivalent to the option with personalised advertising. Therefore, if the contested decision were upheld in the result of the present case, it is possible that the applicant might offer such a less personalised option, which could lead to a reduction in the proportion of personalised advertising and an increase in the proportion of non-targeted advertising.
36 In those circumstances, having regard to the contractual links between Station F and the applicant, the particular nature of Station F’s business, which consists in assisting and supporting start-ups in respect of which personalised advertising is of particular importance, in particular by providing them with ‘pre-negotiated packages’ of advertising services and tools, and to its position as ‘the world’s biggest campus for start-up companies’, it must be held that the result of the case is likely significantly to affect its commercial strategy and economic activity. That conclusion is supported by the fact that the start-ups receiving the assistance and support from Station F are the subject of an investment by Station F, which obtains a shareholding in them, as observed in paragraph 25 above.
37 In addition, it is clear from the information submitted in the application for leave to intervene that, on 27 November 2024, that is to say, during the administrative proceedings that preceded the adoption of the contested decision, Station F took the initiative to contact the Commission, by email, to express its concerns regarding the importance of personalised advertising in respect of the start-ups it assists and supports. On 2 December 2024, the Commission replied that it would take into account the considerations set out by Station F in the context of its discussions with the applicant during the administrative proceedings.
38 Although the admission of an applicant to intervene is not conditional on that person’s participation in the administrative procedure which preceded the adoption of the contested act (see order of 28 July 2021, Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission, T‑762/20, not published, EU:T:2021:503, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited), such an exchange remains a factor to be taken into account in that it enables, together with the other factors noted in paragraph 36 above, the situation of Station F to be distinguished from that of other economic operators publishing advertisements on Meta’s social media platforms.
39 It must therefore be concluded that Station F has established its interest in the result of the case and that it must therefore be granted leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.
40 The applicant stated that it intended to request that certain confidential information be excluded from the documents communicated to Station F. 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 Station F, but that it reserved the right to do so regarding information submitted at a later stage.
41 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 Station F, a non-confidential version of the procedural documents in question.
42 The communication to Station F 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. Station F 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 Station F, a non‑confidential version of the procedural documents in question.
3. The Registrar shall provide Station F 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 Station F 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 Station F 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.