The Digital Markets Act (DMA) has been in force since 1 November 2022. Two and a half years later, the European Commission issued its first two non-compliance decisions, fining Apple and Meta for breaching the DMA. These landmark decisions open the door for injured parties to initiate follow-on damage proceedings. This blog explores how such private enforcement can take place in the Netherlands.
Recent developments in European Commission enforcement
The DMA introduced a set of harmonized rules for gatekeepers, i.e., large digital platforms providing core platform services, such as online search engines, social networking and messenger services, web browsers and app stores. These platforms function as crucial gateways for businesses to reach consumers on the internal market for digital services. The DMA seeks to prevent gatekeepers from abusing their position, complementing EU competition law by imposing upfront obligations and prohibitions on gatekeepers.
To date, the Commission has designated seven gatekeepers (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft, and Booking.com) across 23 core platform services.
On 25 March 2024, the Commission launched formal investigations into Alphabet, Apple, and Meta. These culminated in the April 2025 non-compliance decisions against Apple and Meta. Apple was fined €500 million for anti-steering practices, while Meta received a €200 million fine for not giving users the choice of a service that uses fewer personal data.
What were Apple and Meta fined for exactly?
In short, Apple breached the DMA’s anti-steering prohibition by charging developers recurring fees for directing users outside the App Store and mandating a ‘scare screen’ that warned users about supposed privacy and security risks outside Apple’s digital environment. These measures discouraged developers from offering alternative purchasing channels and were penalized with a € 500 million fine.
The Commission also fined Meta € 200 million for violating the DMA by failing to offer users a genuine choice between personalized and non-personalized social media services. From March to November 2024, it presented users with a binary option: use Facebook or Instagram for free and accept extensive data tracking, or pay € 9.99/month to avoid it. The Commission found this pay-or-consent subscription model incompatible with the requirement to offer users a privacy-respecting equivalent service.
What are the possibilities for private enforcement of the DMA?
The Commission has confirmed that DMA obligations are directly enforceable in national courts and may form the basis for damages claims. Furthermore, the DMA explicitly refers to the possibility of collective redress.
Without a prior non-compliance decision, claimants must independently prove that a gatekeeper breached the DMA. This requires separate factual proof that a gatekeeper has infringed the rules laid down in the DMA. While this is unlikely to require the comprehensive economic analysis common in competition cases, it may still present a burden on claimants. In contrast, follow-on claims – like those now possible after the Commission’s decisions against Apple and Meta – benefit from findings of infringement that are binding on national courts. This helps claimants with substantiating infringements and facilitates recovery of damages.
Anyone who has suffered harm as a result of a DMA infringement can file a claim for damages. This may include developers and digital service providers who lost out on revenue because of Apple’s anti-steering rules, or Facebook and Instagram users suffering immaterial damages through loss of control over their personal data as a result of Meta’s unlawful data policies.
Why is the Netherlands a prime jurisdiction for DMA enforcement proceedings?
Dutch courts are well-established as a popular venue for standalone and follow-on damages claims in competition cases. This strong track record can be attributed to the courts’ cost efficiencies, extensive experience with market regulation matters and pragmatic approach in respect of case management. Many of these benefits are expected to translate to follow-on damages claims in DMA cases as well.
Moreover, the Dutch Act on Collective Damages Claims (WAMCA) offers a robust framework for collective redress. This has made the Netherlands one of the EU’s most attractive jurisdictions for third-party funders and representative organisations to bring collective damages claims.
Dutch procedural law is regarded as generally favorable to settlement of follow-on claims, both in regular as well as collective proceedings. A recently introduced law on evidence has further simplified and streamlined the process for requesting and obtaining evidence. Building on this solid base, the Netherlands is positioning itself as a key hub for private enforcement of the DMA.
National proceedings are already emerging. In a recent interlocutory ruling, a Dutch court accepted jurisdiction over a civil claim by a Facebook and Instagram user who was denied access to Meta’s services unless he consented to personalized ads or a paid subscription. The court rejected Meta’s argument that the case should be brought in Ireland and explicitly invited further submissions on the applicability of the DMA.
Conclusion
The Commission’s non-compliance decisions against Apple and Meta mark a turning point in the DMA’s enforcement regime. Injured parties now have a practical pathway to private enforcement of the DMA, including the possibility of claiming damages. These decisions mitigate the burden of proof on claimants so that lengthy and costly discussions on the substance of the infringements may be avoided. The Netherlands, with its favorable legal landscape and procedural tools, is poised to become a key jurisdiction for DMA litigation.
In the meantime, the Commission is gearing up for more regulatory action, with two formal investigations into Alphabet on the way: one for alleged anti-steering measures in the Google Play Store, and one for preferential treatment of its own services in Google Search. Google is attempting to steer off a fine by tweaking its services. And on 27 May 2025, the Commission released a 68-page excerpt of its April decision, reiterating that Apple is still out of compliance with the DMA and has less than 30 days remaining to re-align its App Store rules, under the threat of periodic penalty payments. However, it remains to be seen whether those will see the light of day. Nevertheless, additional enforcement actions against gatekeepers are expected in the near future.
