Apple and Meta reach DMA compliance agreements amid transparency concerns

The shift toward negotiated settlements suggests the European Commission is prioritizing immediate market adjustments over protracted legal battles, potentially setting a precedent for how gatekeepers interpret platform neutrality. For the streaming ecosystem, Apple's fee recalibration—specifically the 5% Core Technology Commission—establishes a new baseline cost for alternative distribution that may still strain developer margins. This regulatory approach signals that while technical barriers to entry are lowering, the economic gatekeeping remains robust through complex commission structures. Watch for the General Court's upcoming ruling in Case T-357/24, which will determine if third parties can legally challenge these non-public regulatory compromises.

The European Commission's negotiated approach with Apple and Meta sits within a broader enforcement campaign against designated gatekeepers. In April 2025, the Commission opened formal proceedings against Apple over its App Store steering obligations, examining whether the company's restrictions on developers directing users to external offers comply with Article 5(4) of the DMA. That case remains separate from the compliance agreements now under criticism, and it underscores that the Commission is running parallel tracks: negotiated settlements on some obligations while pursuing adversarial proceedings on others. Meta, meanwhile, faced a preliminary finding in November 2024 that its "pay or consent" advertising model violated the DMA, which ultimately pushed the company toward the subscription-based compromise now in place.

The business implications of these settlements extend beyond the two companies directly involved. Apple's revised EU fee structure, which includes the controversial Core Technology Commission, has drawn criticism from developers who argue the new terms remain economically punitive for smaller studios. Spotify publicly challenged Apple's DMA compliance plan in March 2024, calling the alternative terms "extortion" and filed a formal complaint with the Commission. The European Commission's willingness to accept negotiated outcomes rather than impose fines has also raised questions among legal scholars about whether the DMA's enforcement architecture adequately protects third-party rights. Cseres and de Korte, writing on the Kluwer Competition Law Blog, argue that the absence of public consultation mechanisms in these compromise agreements creates an accountability gap that could undermine the regulation's deterrent effect.

On the technical and procedural side, the DMA's enforcement model is being tested in real time. The Commission designated six gatekeepers in September 2023, covering Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft, and the first compliance deadlines arrived in March 2024. Since then, the pace of enforcement actions has accelerated, with the Commission issuing preliminary findings against both Apple and Meta within the first year. The General Court case T-357/24, which challenges whether third parties have standing to contest non-public compliance decisions, could establish a critical precedent for how future gatekeeper negotiations are scrutinized. If the court rules that external parties cannot challenge these settlements, the Commission's negotiated approach will face even less external oversight, potentially cementing the transparency concerns raised by critics of the current process.