The interim order, issued on Wednesday by the Italian antitrust agency (AGCM), targets clauses that regulators say risk locking competitors out of WhatsApp. 

This is meant to prevent harm while the investigation runs its course, not to prejudge the outcome. Still, it lands heavily on Meta at a time when Europe is stepping up its monitoring of Big Tech companies, keeping a close eye on their policies and market influence.

AGCM first opened the case in July, focusing on how Meta integrated its own AI assistant into WhatsApp. In November, investigators widened the scope to include updated terms tied to WhatsApp’s business platform. 

By December 24, the watchdog concluded that immediate action was needed. Its concern is that Meta’s behaviour could limit output, choke access to the market, and slow technical progress in AI chatbot services, with knock-on effects for users.

“These contractual conditions completely exclude Meta AI’s competitors in the AI chatbot services market from the WhatsApp platform,” the regulator said. 

Given WhatsApp’s scale, that is important. With more than two billion users worldwide, exclusion from the platform can decide which tools survive and which never get traction.

A Meta spokesperson described the decision as “fundamentally flawed,” adding that the rise of AI chatbots “put a strain on our systems that they were not designed to support”. The company’s line is that opening WhatsApp more widely to third-party AI would risk stability and performance.

This is not just an Italian fight. The European Commission launched its own parallel investigation earlier this month, examining whether Meta’s policies breach EU competition rules across the bloc. 

If regulators ultimately find wrongdoing, penalties could reach up to 10% of Meta’s global annual turnover, a figure that runs into tens of billions.

The case fits the European pattern. Brussels and national authorities have taken tough action against Apple over App Store rules, Google over advertising technology, and Amazon over marketplace practices. 

The approach contrasts with the United States, where enforcement has been looser, drawing complaints from the administration of President Donald Trump that Europe is singling out American firms.

Italy’s watchdog says it is working closely with the European Commission to address Meta’s conduct “in the most effective manner”. 

Brussels is pressing these platforms, classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) due to their reach of over 45 million EU users, to prove that they are taking real steps to shield children from illegal and harmful content. This includes exposure to drugs, vaping products, and material that promotes eating disorders.

The EU request centres on the companies’ age verification tools and internal measures for restricting harmful material regarding child safety. Officials also want explanations on how their algorithms handle potentially addictive recommendation systems and how app stores manage access to gambling, sexual content, and so-called “nudify” applications.

“Today, alongside national authorities in the member states, we are assessing whether the measures taken so far by the platforms are indeed protecting children,” said EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen.

The case is part of an enforcement under the DSA, the EU’s digital law designed to make tech giants more accountable for content circulating on their platforms. The Commission has issued formal Requests for Information (RFIs), a step that could lead to full investigations and fines reaching up to 6% of global turnover if breaches are confirmed.

Beyond enforcement, the EU is exploring policy changes, including setting a bloc-wide “digital age of majority” that could restrict minors’ access to certain online services, an idea inspired by Australia’s under-16 social media ban.

In the United States, several states such as Utah and Arkansas now require parental consent for minors to use social media. Meanwhile, within Europe, Denmark is pushing for a national social media ban for users under 15, while France and Spain have publicly backed tighter digital age limits.

The EU child safety investigation follows its child protection guidelines published in July 2025, which laid out clearer expectations for compliance with the DSA.

The General Court in Luxembourg ruled that regulators relied on the wrong legal procedure to calculate the levy, which currently stands at 0.05% of each company’s annual global net income. 

The methodology, judges said, should have been set through a delegated act rather than through implementing decisions. In other words, the Commission acted outside the precise legal framework of the DSA.

The judgment provides the Commission with a year to correct its approach, but importantly, it does not oblige regulators to refund the 2023 fees paid by Meta and TikTok. Both companies had argued that the formula was disproportionate and unfair, especially for platforms with large user bases but tighter profit margins.

In its reaction, the Commission downplayed the impact of the decision. A spokesperson stated: “The Court’s ruling requires a purely formal correction on the procedure. We now have 12 months to adopt a delegated act to formalise the fee calculation and adopt new implementing decisions.” 

Officials stressed that the ruling does not sabotage the principle of the supervisory fee itself, nor the amounts already collected.

The DSA, which came into force in November 2022, obliges very large online platforms to combat illegal and harmful content or risk fines of up to 6% of their global turnover. Compliance monitoring is expensive, and the supervisory fee is meant to fund that effort. 

The size of the fee is tied to two key factors: the average number of monthly active users and the financial results of the company in the previous year.

While Meta and TikTok led the challenge, other major platforms also fall under the DSA’s obligations. These include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Booking.com, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Elon Musk’s X platform. All are classified as “Very Large Online Platforms” because they exceed the threshold of 45 million active monthly users in the EU.

The ruling does not cancel the supervisory fee, but it does underline the need for procedural accuracy in the EU’s enforcement of digital rules. Analysts say the result may complicate future enforcement if other companies decide to contest the Commission’s methods.

The Lazio Regional Administrative Court confirmed on Tuesday that Amazon restricted competition in Italy’s e-commerce logistics sector. 

However, it ruled that the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM) had wrongly applied a discretionary 50% surcharge to the original figure. The judges said the regulator failed to adequately justify why Amazon’s global turnover should trigger such an increase.

Although the court did not provide a revised figure, removing the surcharge would bring the penalty closer to €750 million, according to calculations cited by Reuters. Amazon has yet to respond to the ruling.

The fine, handed down in December 2021, was one of the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a U.S. tech giant in Europe. Regulators accused Amazon of favouring its own logistics service, Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA), at the expense of independent providers. 

Sellers who chose FBA were reportedly rewarded with better visibility and access to Prime benefits, tilting the playing field in Amazon’s favour.

The court’s decision preserves the core finding of Amazon being engaged in anti-competitive issues. What it does change is the financial weight of the punishment. 

In striking out the surcharge, the ruling exposes a weakness in how competition regulators calculate penalties against multinational corporations with revenues that far exceed the scale of their local operations.

Across Europe, Amazon is still facing some issues. Authorities in Germany, France and at the European Commission have launched similar investigations, many centred on platform self-preferencing, data use, and unfair treatment of third-party sellers.

The case reveals that European regulators are determined to hold Big Tech accountable, and applying financial penalties in proportion to global tech revenues is still legally and politically complex.

At the heart of the issue is a supervisory fee introduced under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force in 2022. 

The law requires major online platforms, 19 in total, including Meta, TikTok, Google, and Amazon, to pay 0.05% of their global net income. 

The money funds the European Commission’s monitoring of platform compliance with the DSA’s rules. But how the Commission arrived at each company’s bill is now under investigation.

Meta’s counsel, Assimakis Komninos, made it clear that the issue wasn’t about dodging regulation but about the logic, or lack thereof, behind the numbers. 

“The provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results,” he told the five-judge panel in Luxembourg.

He objected the Commission’s choice to base the fee on the parent company’s revenue rather than that of the local subsidiary, a move he said distorted the true financial footprint of the entity being regulated. “Meta still does not know how the fee was calculated,” Komninos said.

Represented by lawyer Bill Batchelor, TikTok rejected the entire fee structure as inaccurate and discriminatory. “What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods,” Batchelor told the court.

According to him, TikTok’s supervisory fee was unfairly inflated by a method that counts the same users twice, once for using mobile, and again for desktop. 

“It inflates TikTok’s fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap,” he argued. He also accused the Commission of overreaching by basing the cap on group-wide profits instead of earnings by the regulated unit.

In response, the Commission stood its ground. Lawyer Lorna Armati argued that the financial strength of a group cannot be divorced from the regulatory burden of its platforms. 

“When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee,” she told the court. 

Armati insisted that the process was legally sound and transparent enough for companies to understand. “The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment.”

The court is expected to rule in 2026 and the result would impact how the EU funds regulatory enforcement, and determine whether Big Tech continues to foot the bill under current terms. 

If Meta and TikTok succeed, it might force the Commission back to the drawing board, possibly lightening the financial load for other global platforms doing business in Europe.

The cases are officially registered as T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.

According to the group, these charges have gone beyond hurting business margins to also suppressing innovation and weakening Europe’s competitive edge in global trade.

The retailers, including Amazon, Carrefour, Ikea, Marks & Spencer and others, sent a joint letter to the European Commission on 13 May, with a message that Visa and Mastercard’s pricing model is out of control, and regulators have been too slow to act.

“International Card Schemes (ICS) have been able to increase their fees without competitive challenge or regulatory scrutiny. They have also rendered their system of fees and rules so complex and opaque that players are unable to understand, let alone challenge, what they are paying for and why,” the letter stated.

Visa and Mastercard, both U.S.-based, control around two-thirds of all card payments within the eurozone. For years, European businesses have spoken up about how these firms calculate and increase their transaction fees.

However, the issue has taken on new urgency, with many accusing the companies of using their market position to avoid transparency and sidestep competition.

A study published this year by The Brattle Group revealed that fees charged by ICSs increased by 33.9% between 2018 and 2022, averaging 7.6% annually. This sharp rise, they say, has not been matched by any improvement in services offered to merchants or consumers.

In response, a Visa spokesperson, who spoke to Reuters, defended the company’s fee structure, saying, “This includes extremely high levels of security and fraud prevention, near-perfect operational resilience and reliability, and a wide range of consumer protections and high-quality, innovative products and services that serve consumer and merchant needs.” Mastercard, on the other hand, has not provided any response.

The retailers want immediate regulatory moves under EU antitrust laws, stronger enforcement around interchange fee rules, clear disclosure requirements, and an independent regulatory tool that can oversee actions taken by card payment networks.

This also highlights deeper structural concerns. As the EU drags its feet on implementing a digital euro, a move aimed at reducing reliance on U.S. payment networks, businesses are left absorbing higher costs without alternatives.

The European Commission’s slow progress on this front has angered both policymakers and the private sector, who say Europe’s digital sovereignty is being compromised.

Meanwhile, the concerns raised reiterate regulatory moves in other markets. In Nigeria, the Central Bank is rolling out the Payment System Vision 2025 to enhance digital payment security, promote financial inclusion, and ensure fairness in transaction fees.

Nigerian regulators are already reviewing switching platforms to make sure pricing is transparent and competitive.

Europe’s situation, by contrast, shows how slow regulatory inertia can allow monopolies to tighten their grip. 

Apple will pay $570 million, while Meta has been fined $228 million. Both companies have been accused of ignoring key provisions of the law meant to open up competition in the tech space.

Apple’s offence? Blocking app developers from telling users about better, cheaper deals outside its App Store. Meta’s? Forcing users to either accept targeted advertising or pay for a version of its platforms without ads. 

The Commission isn’t just punishing past behaviour, but demanding immediate change, giving both companies two months to comply or face daily penalties.

Apple has come out swinging. In a statement, the company said, “Today’s announcements are 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.” 

Meta also said, “The European Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards,” it said. “This isn’t just about a fine; the Commission forcing us to change our business model, effectively imposing a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service.”

From the Commission’s perspective, this is about power, not trade. They say these firms are taking over the space, setting their own rules and locking out competitors. That changes now.

The Apple ruling also questions the company for hindering sideloading — the ability to install apps from outside its store — and for imposing a Core Technology Fee that discourages developers from using alternative distribution channels. 

A separate probe into Apple’s browser restrictions has been closed after the company made changes, allowing users to pick their default browser more freely.

Meta, on the other hand, is being monitored after introducing a new ad model in late 2023 that lets users choose between personalised ads or paying for ad-free access to Facebook and Instagram. The EU argues that this model puts a price on privacy — something the DMA does not tolerate.

Interestingly, the fines could’ve been much higher. Under the DMA, the Commission can impose penalties of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover. The relatively lower figures reflect the short duration of the violations and a strategy focused more on compliance than maximum punishment — at least for now.

But this isn’t the end of it. Google’s ad business, Elon Musk’s X platform, and other tech giants remain under investigation. EU lawmaker Andreas Schwab has warned against letting up: “There can be no leeway in enforcement as this may also impact the importance of competition policy in general.”

Despite the diplomatic tension this might stir with Washington — especially given Donald Trump’s previous threats to retaliate against what he sees as EU hostility towards American tech — Brussels seems undeterred. For the EU, no company is above the rules. Not even Apple or Meta.

Apple and Meta now have two months to comply with the Commission’s orders or risk daily penalties.

This fine comes in response to what EU regulators describe as Meta’s alleged unfair advantage in the classified ads market by linking Marketplace with its popular social media platform, Facebook. 

According to the European Commission, Meta’s actions effectively forced users of Facebook to also engage with Facebook Marketplace, an arrangement described as an illegal “tie” under EU competition laws. 

In allegedly making Marketplace accessible only through Facebook, Meta is accused of creating an uncompetitive environment for other classified ad platforms. 

These platforms, as argued by EU regulators, face disadvantages due to the strong link between Facebook’s vast user base and Marketplace’s visibility within the same app. 

This structure, the EU says, may suppress competition from both large and emerging classified ad providers across the region.

Meta has countered these claims, stating that Facebook users have a choice whether to use Marketplace and that the EU has not presented evidence proving actual harm to consumers or its competitors. 

Meta plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that it believes the allegations overlook the optional nature of Marketplace for Facebook users, many of whom choose not to engage with it. 

Meta also reiterated its will to cooperate with EU regulators, saying that, despite its intent to appeal, it will work quickly to implement any necessary changes to address the Commission’s concerns.

The investigation into Meta has been ongoing since June 2021, with formal charges filed in December 2022. Regulators specifically spoke about possible anti-competitive behaviour arising from how Facebook Marketplace’s visibility is structured within the larger Facebook platform. 

Launched in 2016 and subsequently rolled out across several European markets, Facebook Marketplace competes with a range of online classified services.

The tech giant claims that Microsoft’s Azure platform exploits its dominant Windows Server to create barriers for businesses wishing to switch to other cloud service providers.

According to Google, Microsoft imposes financial penalties on companies choosing to operate Windows Server on platforms other than Azure, including a 400% price increase. 

Added to this, the company alleges that customers using rival cloud services are subjected to delayed and restricted security updates, further discouraging them from seeking alternatives.

The allegations come against the backdrop of a 2023 report by CISPE, a cloud services organisation, which estimated that European businesses and public sector entities are collectively paying up to €1 billion annually in licensing fees due to Microsoft’s restrictive policies.

Microsoft recently reached a €20 million settlement with CISPE regarding issues over its cloud licensing practices, effectively avoiding a formal EU investigation. 

However, Google and other tech giants like Amazon Web Services (AWS) and AliCloud were excluded from the agreement, which has led to further objections from these companies.

Amit Zavery, Google Cloud’s vice president, pointed to the urgency of regulatory intervention. He warned that if left unchecked, Microsoft’s dominance would lead to an increasingly restrictive cloud market, hindering competition and innovation. 

“The time to act is now,” Zavery urged, calling for the European Commission to step in and ensure that customers retain the freedom to choose their cloud providers without being penalised.

In response, Microsoft maintained that it had already addressed issues raised by other European cloud providers and noted its doubt about Google’s ability to convince the European Commission of its case. 

A Microsoft spokesperson stated, “Having failed to persuade European companies, we expect Google similarly will fail to persuade the European Commission.”

The conflict between the two tech giants comes at a time of high competition in the cloud market, where Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are vying to be the most preferred.

Microsoft’s cloud platform Azure, alongside its suite of products like Windows Server and Teams, remains central to this dispute, with Google claiming that only regulatory intervention will bring about meaningful change.

Google’s filing is yet another challenge to Microsoft’s business in Europe, adding to the company’s ongoing investigation over its bundling of Teams with other services, by the European Commission.

This decision follows an investigation by the European Commission, which raised issues about the scheme’s impact on young users’ mental health.

Earlier this year, the rewards mechanism, available in TikTok Lite, allowed users in France and Spain to earn points for engaging with in-app activities such as watching and liking videos. 

These points could be exchanged for Amazon vouchers. However, the European Commission halted the programme’s operation in April due to fears that it could lead to addictive behaviours among young people.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) was part of this investigation, which has now concluded with TikTok withdrawing the feature permanently. This prevents TikTok from reintroducing the rewards system under a different name or launching an equivalent version. 

The resolution does not prohibit TikTok from exploring other reward features in the future, provided they adhere to EU regulations.

Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner, commented on the importance of protecting young Europeans from harmful social media practices, stating, “The available brain time of young Europeans is not a currency for social media—and it never will be.”

TikTok’s spokesperson, Elliott Burton, confirmed the company’s cooperation with the European Commission, stating that TikTok is pleased to have reached an amicable resolution. The company had already voluntarily suspended the Lite Rewards programme following the investigation’s launch.

Although this particular case has been resolved, the European Commission continues to examine other aspects of TikTok’s operations. There are still ongoing issues about the main app’s algorithm, particularly the possibility of leading users towards more extreme content. The Commission is also assessing TikTok’s age-assurance measures and compliance with DSA transparency requirements.