The European Commission has paused planned enforcement actions under its Digital Markets Act (DMA) against both Apple and Meta Platforms, according to people familiar with the matter cited by The Wall Street Journal.
The DMA is a set of EU rules designed to ensure fair competition by regulating large online platforms designated as “gatekeepers.” The decision to hold off on potentially issuing fines and cease-and-desist orders, initially anticipated this week after at least one company was informed of the timing, stems from a desire within Brussels to prevent friction with the Trump administration while sensitive trade negotiations are underway. These talks specifically concern a Trump-era dispute over steel and aluminum tariffs with an upcoming deadline.
The potential actions were linked to separate DMA investigations. For Apple, the scrutiny centers on App Store rules that allegedly prevent app developers from informing users about cheaper alternatives outside the store.
Meta faces charges over its “pay or consent” model for Facebook and Instagram in Europe – a system forcing users to choose between paying a subscription fee or consenting to extensive data tracking for targeted ads. Launched in late 2023, the model initially required users to pay €9.99/month (web) or €12.99/month (mobile) to opt out of tracking, though Meta later reduced the fee to €5.99/month following criticism.
The Commission’s concern, articulated in a preliminary assessment from 2024, is that “Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model may not provide a real alternative in case users do not consent, thereby not achieving the objective of preventing the accumulation of personal data by gatekeepers.” Before this week’s postponement, reports indicated Meta could face a potential fine nearing $1 billion for this system.
Political Headwinds Influence Regulatory Timing
This delay materializes against a backdrop of heightened transatlantic tension over tech regulation. President Trump, in a memorandum, labeled the EU’s regulatory actions against American firms as “overseas extortion.” Reporting from The Wall Street Journal earlier this month indicated that Meta had actively sought support from Trump and U.S. trade officials, framing the DMA enforcement as a trade barrier and suggesting it be linked to the ongoing tariff negotiations.
This echoed comments from Meta’s policy chief in February, warning the EU that the company would appeal to Trump if it felt unfairly targeted.
The EU itself had signaled a potential softening of its initial DMA enforcement posture even before this delay. Reports in late March suggested Brussels was exploring more modest penalties than the maximum allowed under the DMA (up to 10% of global revenue) to avoid what one official described as “a rerun of the transatlantic trade tensions.”
This followed a temporary freeze on DMA investigations into Apple, Meta, and Google announced in January 2025, attributed to a need for a broader strategy review by the Commission.
Diverging Paths for Tech Giants
While Meta appears headed for a continued clash with Brussels over its core advertising model, Apple seems to have navigated its initial DMA challenge more smoothly. The company was under investigation regarding user choice for browsers and search engines on its iOS platform.
In March, Apple implemented changes to its policies to address these DMA requirements, adjustments that reportedly allowed it to avoid fines, with expectations that the EU investigation will be closed soon without formal sanctions.
This contrasts sharply with Meta’s situation and its history of substantial EU fines. These include a record €1.2 billion GDPR penalty in May 2023 for data transfers and a €797 million fine over Facebook Marketplace practices in November 2024. The GDPR, or General Data Protection Regulation, is the EU’s comprehensive data privacy law governing how companies collect and process personal information.
Navigating the New Digital Rulebook
The Commission’s decision to postpone action, while officially unconfirmed according to reporting language used by Bloomberg and Reuters, reflects the complex interplay between regulation and geopolitics. By pausing potentially inflammatory enforcement steps during critical trade discussions, Brussels appears to be prioritizing diplomacy, at least temporarily.
However, this approach has drawn concern from digital rights advocates and some lawmakers, who worry that delaying or softening penalties could diminish the DMA’s effectiveness in curbing the power of designated digital “gatekeepers.” The ultimate impact of the DMA will depend heavily on how consistently and forcefully the EU applies its provisions moving forward, balancing its regulatory goals with international political realities.
