European Commission Fines Apple and Meta $800 Million
The penalty amounts to a "multibillion-dollar tariff," a Meta spokesperson says.

The European Commission has fined Apple and Meta 500 million euros ($568 million) and 200 million euros ($227 million), respectively, for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA). On top of forcing the tech giants to pay steep fines, the commission's proposed remedies would undermine the firms' business models and their ability to serve consumers.
The commission fined Apple on Tuesday for preventing developers from directly informing users of deals offered outside the App Store, thereby depriving consumers of the benefits of "alternative and cheaper offers." The commission has ordered the company to remove these restrictions on pain of additional fines. Apple has called the penalty "yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple in a series of decisions that are bad for the privacy and security of our users, bad for products, and force us to give away our technology for free," according to Reuters.
On the same day, Meta was fined for offering Facebook and Instagram users a choice between free versions of the apps with personalized advertising and paid ones without advertising—something the commission calls a "pay or consent model." In a statement, a spokesman for Meta accused the commission of "forcing us to change our business model" said this "effectively imposes a multibillion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service."
The stated goal of the DMA, which went into effect in November 2022, is to end the "unfair practices by companies that act as gatekeepers in the online platform economy." The DMA defines gatekeepers as those firms that operate "core platform services," including app stores and social networking services.
All of the 23 core platform services except TikTok, a subsidiary of the Chinese company ByteDance, are owned and operated by American tech firms. Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Booking, Meta, and Microsoft were designated gatekeepers in September 2023 and given until March 2024 to comply with the DMA.
Once a firm is designated as a gatekeeper, it must abide by the DMA's list of "do's" and "don'ts." For example, it must allow businesses to promote offers to customers outside the gatekeeper's platform, and it cannot track users outside of its services for targeted advertising without their express consent. If gatekeeper breaks the rules, the commission can impose fines of up to 10 percent of a company's income from worldwide operations—and 20 percent in the case of repeated infractions. The maximum fines Apple and Meta could have been subjected to, based on their gross revenues in the last fiscal year, were $39 billion and $16 billion, respectively.
Ethan Yang, an antitrust scholar at the American Institute for Economic Research, tells Reason that the DMA "was explicitly written with American tech firms in mind and effectively names 5 out of 7 companies as digital gatekeepers to be singled out for ex ante restrictions on their business models." Yang says the DMA is essentially "a powerful tool for the [European Union] to extract concessions from [those] firms."
Patrick Hedger, director of policy at the trade association NetChoice, agrees with Yang. The law's "vague and arbitrary nature," he says, "leaves them room to find violations when they want to extract fines."
Yang says forcing Apple to inform users of opportunities to spend money elsewhere is the equivalent of a steak house telling diners they could get a better deal if they just bought the meat themselves. In terms of consumer welfare, Yang argues that "Apple is far more willing to invest in and improve its App Store when it can maximize its profits and not have it be turned into essentially a public forum for third parties to advertise to consumers."
As for Meta, the commission concluded that the DMA requires the company to offer users "a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the 'personalised ads' service." Hedger argues that by refusing "to accept rational tradeoffs," the European Union is foreclosing the ability to do business on the continent for firms it doesn't like.
"We can only assume that more fines are on the way," says Yang.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These de facto tariffs are, of course, (D)ifferent.
As long as Europeans can get cheap shit off Aliexpress and Temu, what fucking difference does it make?
Libertarians (TM): "Tariffs are bad (when done by the evil orange man that is).
Meta using the current language of outrage, calling it a tariff, was amusing. Probably only reason it got mentioned here.
They can choose to not do business there. I mean, for chrissakes people, if we're still shocked that Europe is doing this shit, you're not paying attention.
Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. But the fines were carefully crafted so they can take the max amount while Meta and Apple can still be profitable in the European market. Classic shakedown.
Hey, nice website ya got there, be a shame if sumpthin’ happened to it.
10 percent of a company's income..
So basically, their entire profit margin. Communist going to communist.
Has there been any WTO discussions or maritime lawsuits regarding the practice of fines based on worldwide profits or earnings?
If Europe wants to fine companies for doing business in the EU, and companies what to continue to do business in the EU despite that, well, ok. But to fine a company based on profits and earning made outside of a country's jurisdiction seems a bit wiggy (and very sleezy).
Yes, essentially a "how dare you not be European" tax
Well, a US district court thinks it can dictate to El Salvador, so - - - - - - -
Has there been any WTO discussions or maritime lawsuits regarding the practice of fines based on worldwide profits or earnings?
That would involve acknowledging that a unified world government run entirely by unelected bureaucrats not only exists but exists and functions to some sort of social ends... and we don't talk about such conspiracy theory nonsense around here.
I don't know about WTO dicussions or maritime lawsuits specifically, but the US opened this door by taxing incomes regardless of jurisdiction. If they can demand taxes for profits and earnings made outside of a country's jurisdiction, it's hardly a big step to demand fines on the same basis.
Precisely why the USA should've never gotten so Dependent on foreign nations.
Precisely why it is a Constitutional power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
Precisely why the power to Tariff came long before the income tax.
The States created a Union of States government precisely for National Affairs/Defense.
Did they get due process?
Who cares? Their cabotage laws are more onerous, but different, and different plus foreign means diverse means better, than ours!
They knew for a long time that the EU was planning to fk them.
Rumble is banned in France because Rumble wouldn't play ball with French censorship rules. Now the French Maginot Firewall blocks Rumble. Let Europe become East Germany, for all I care. Stop playing pattycake with despotic regimes.
I would love to see what happens if those tech companies just abruptly stopped services in Europe. Maybe lack of WhatsAPp and Youtube would get the Euros to finally rise up and cast off their oppressors.
They would be further fined, and terrible copy-cat companies in Europe would replace them. Ever see those east german cars that the commies behind the iron curtain had to live on? Get ready!
And in fact, that is the EU's goal. They want an insulated domestic version of American social media companies that are completely under their thumb and subject to whatever online regulation they want to put in place to restrict unapproved messages.
These fines against American companies are mostly because they refuse to censor to the full extent of what the EU demands.
Then let them. If the EU wants to be stuck on stupid, then who are we to stand in their way of being stupid? They’ve spent the past five or six decades in a hedonistic fervor. Now they get to reap their reward.
You can't fine a company that does no business in Europe. Just because your website is 'visible' in Europe doesn't make you have to be compliant with EU rules. It's only when you have a corporate presence there.
That's actually not true. The EU asserts jurisdiction over anything that is even merely visible in Europe (if you also do common things like have cookies on your website, etc). Under some of their laws, you also either have to have an office or do business inside the jurisdiction but that is not a required element in all of their current digital laws and regulations.
The real question is whether a US court would enforce the judgement of an EU court against a US company with no EU operations. There are a number of good precedents you could use to make that a difficult judgement to enforce.
But even if the US court refused to enforce, the EU also has a nasty history of arresting executives of those companies when they travel to Europe for vacations, etc. (In fairness, that's an abuse that the US also regularly practices, though we claim we only do it for 'icky' things like drugs and sex.)
So pull a China like TikTok?
I have no sympathy for Apple or Meta. They wanted to do business in places that are overtly hostile to them, and only now realize that market share wasn't worth it? Cry me a fucking river.
This is right up there with trying to gain access to Chinese markets only to realize their technology is straight up stolen, repackaged, and resold to Chinese customers by Chinese companies.
They fucked around, and now they are starting to find out.
Both companies should 'boycott' the EU. Replace all screens with a simple display stating that service will resume after all these silly-ass laws have been repealed. Then remind the Europeans that they need to vote.
I agree. Though as Spiritus Mundi pointed out above, the fines are carefully calibrated to maximize the fines they can extract without quite making a boycott the more profitable response.
watching assholes beat on each other is fun, not reason to complain.
Yang says forcing Apple to inform users of opportunities to spend money elsewhere is the equivalent of a steak house telling diners they could get a better deal if they just bought the meat themselves. In terms of consumer welfare, Yang argues that "Apple is far more willing to invest in and improve its App Store when it can maximize its profits and not have it be turned into essentially a public forum for third parties to advertise to consumers."
That analogy is accurate, but incomplete. A more complete analogy would note how control over the market for steak in that town and on the methods of advertising steak.
Even so, I don't see these regulations as a remotely justifiable solution to any problem of digital "gatekeepers" limiting competition, even if any allegations of monopolistic behavior are accurate.
The core problem is that consumers do derive significant benefit from standardization and from having "one-stop shopping" for certain products and services. It is a conundrum trying to figure out how to allow that benefit to exist without it also giving the owner of that one-stop shop the ability to drive up their profits through anti-competitive behavior.
Pull WhatsApp from all the EuroTrash. It will be hilarious to watch.