The charges will apply when adverts reach audiences in Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Rates will range from 2% to 5%, depending on the country where the ad is shown.

The company disclosed the change in a notice sent to advertisers and in an update on its website.

Meta explained that the additional charge is tied to government taxes and other levies linked to digital services in those markets. Until now, the company said it had absorbed those expenses.

“Until now, Meta has covered these additional costs. These changes are part of Meta’s ongoing effort to respond to the evolving regulatory landscape and align with industry standards,” the company said.

How the new charges will work

The fee depends on where the audience is located and where the advert is delivered, not where the advertiser’s business operates.

If a campaign targets users in Italy, for example, a 3% location fee will apply to the value of the adverts delivered there. A $100 advertising campaign delivered in Italy would attract an additional $3 charge, bringing the total to $103 before any applicable VAT.

Meta said the location fees will be calculated after adverts are delivered. Campaign budgets will not automatically include the extra charge.

The company also confirmed that the charges will apply across different ad formats. Image adverts, video adverts and WhatsApp click-to-message campaigns are included. Marketing messages billed together with adverts will also attract the fee, although other WhatsApp paid messaging will not.

Charges will appear on invoices with clear descriptions for each jurisdiction.

Countries and rates

The new location fees will apply in six markets where digital services taxes are already in place.

Austria and Türkiye will attract the highest rate at 5%, France, Italy and Spain will carry a 3% fee, while the United Kingdom will have the lowest rate at 2%.

Meta noted that both the list of jurisdictions and the rates could change over time.

Several European governments introduced digital services taxes in recent years. The policy targets revenue generated by large digital platforms in their markets, even when those companies do not maintain a physical presence locally.

The taxes have drawn objections from the United States government, which argues they unfairly target American technology companies.

Other major platforms already pass those costs on to advertisers. Google and Amazon have implemented similar adjustments in Europe.

Meta had continued to absorb the charges until now and the company said the new fee structure shows changes in the regulatory environment and brings its approach closer to industry practice.

What it could mean for advertisers

Businesses outside Europe that target customers in those markets will also pay the new charges.

For companies in Nigeria or elsewhere in Africa, the effect will show up as slightly higher advertising costs when campaigns reach users in the affected countries.

Meta advised advertisers to review the ad accounts listed in its notice and inform finance, procurement and marketing teams so they can adjust budgets where necessary.

The company said advertisers with questions should contact Meta Pro support or their Meta sales representative for clarification.

The company said users on paid plans like Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise and Education, will not see adverts. 

The test applies only to logged-in users and is not running for accounts linked to people under 18.

OpenAI said the ads are clearly marked and kept separate from responses, also noting that they do not change how ChatGPT answers questions and advertisers cannot see user conversations or personal details. 

Only overall figures, such as how many people viewed or clicked an advert, are shared.

In a statement, the company said: “Ads do not influence the answers ChatGPT gives you, and we keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers.”

The aim is to support free and low-cost access by helping to cover the cost of running the service. Individuals who do not want to see ads can upgrade to a paid plan or opt out on the Free tier, with fewer daily messages as a trade-off.

During the test, ads are chosen based on the topic of a conversation and past interactions with ads. For example, someone asking about cooking may see adverts linked to food shopping or meal services. 

The company said ads will not appear alongside topics such as health, mental health or politics.

Users can dismiss adverts, give feedback, see why a particular advert appeared, delete their ad data and adjust personalisation settings at any time, according to OpenAI.

This comes as the company looks for new revenue streams to support the growing use of its chatbot. Competitors have criticised the idea publicly, arguing that advertising could disrupt the user experience. 

OpenAI has rejected that view and says the trial is about learning from feedback before making any wider changes.

OpenAI also noted it will expand the programme only as safeguards improve, adding that privacy and safety will remain important as the test continues.

If the CMA designates Google under this new status, enabled by powers granted under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act that took effect earlier this year, the tech giant would face a set of binding obligations. 

These include offering users alternatives to Google Search, giving publishers more control over how their content is used, and ensuring that businesses have fair access to search visibility. Simply put, the UK is moving to weaken Google’s grip on online discovery.

“Google search accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries in the UK, with millions of people relying on it as a key gateway to the internet,” said Sarah Cardell, CEO of the CMA. “If competition was working well, we would expect these costs to be lower.”

The regulator is particularly concerned about the implications of Google’s market monopoly on innovation, business costs, and user choice. In 2023 alone, UK businesses reportedly spent over £33,000 per advertiser on Google search ads, a figure the CMA believes reflects limited competitive pressure.

Should the SMS designation go through, Google would be required to implement “choice screens” that allow users to switch easily between competing search engines, including potentially AI-driven assistants. 

It would also have to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory search result rankings, a demand long stated by publishers and rival firms.

Another focus is how Google’s AI-enabled search features, such as AI Overviews, use third-party content. The CMA wants publishers to have more say in how their work is used, particularly given that such content often drive these AI-generated results without sufficient visibility or compensation.

The regulator hasn’t shied away from the fact that this is a transition in oversight. While the EU has already introduced digital regulations under the Digital Markets Act, the UK is opting for a case-by-case, targeted approach that still carries substantial consequences. 

The CMA now has the authority to impose fines and enforce decisions directly, a post-Brexit empowerment it intends to wield.

Google, unsurprisingly, has objected. “Punitive regulation could stop us bringing new features and services to Britain,” warned Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director for competition. He added, “Proportionate, evidence-based regulation will be essential to preventing the CMA’s roadmap from becoming a roadblock to growth in the UK.”

Though the CMA is quick to stress that its proposed intervention is not a judgment of wrongdoing, it’s also clear that the agency believes Google has used its authority to suppress innovation. 

Beyond traditional search, the CMA also plans to monitor how generative AI technologies, which Google is increasingly embedding into search, may further entrench the company’s position. 

For now, the Gemini AI Assistant will not be covered under the proposed designation, but the regulator says this could change depending on how the technology evolves and is adopted.

This isn’t the only front on which Google faces such in the UK. The CMA is also examining its control over the Android mobile operating system in a separate probe, which could lead to an additional SMS designation targeting mobile software.

Globally, Google’s regulatory issues are increasing. It’s been hit with landmark antitrust cases in the United States, and in the EU it faces accusations of violating digital platform rules. 

The CMA is currently collecting input from industry stakeholders. Its final decision is expected by 13 October 2025.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of Regulatory Affairs.

That “other half” carries weight. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google “willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power” in two critical markets: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges—key infrastructure that powers how digital ads are bought, sold, and delivered across the web.

According to the ruling, Google’s control wasn’t just strong—it was illegal. The court found that the company’s tactics, particularly tying the use of its ad exchange to its ad server, locked out competitors and harmed not just rival firms, but publishers and consumers. 

“In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” Brinkema wrote.

The ruling has set off a chain of consequences. The U.S. Department of Justice is now pushing for a radical solution: a breakup. Specifically, it wants Google to sell off its Google Ad Manager, the umbrella under which both the ad server and exchange operate.

This is the second time in under a year that a U.S. court has declared Google a monopoly—first in search, and now in ads. What makes this one particularly potent is that it hits a core part of Google’s business model: advertising revenue. 

And while the financial impact of this ruling may not shake the company’s bottom line immediately—Google’s shares only dipped 1.4%—the structural risk is enormous.

A second trial is expected, though a date hasn’t been set. That hearing could determine the full extent of penalties, including which assets Google may be forced to spin off to restore competition.

The DOJ’s case argued that Google used classic monopoly-building tactics: buying rivals, locking in clients, and manipulating how ad transactions happened.

While Brinkema cleared Google of wrongdoing related to past acquisitions like DoubleClick and AdMeld, she firmly rejected the company’s defence of its publisher tools.

Still, Google is holding its line. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective,” Mulholland said. The judge’s findings, however, suggest that those “choices” may not have been as free as the company claims.

The ruling has drawn praise from regulators and lawmakers. U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi called it “a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolising the digital public square,” adding, “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

Outside the courtroom, market analysts are watching closely. Michael Ashley Schulman, chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, described the ruling as a “major inflection point” for the broader tech industry. 

He warned that it could “increase regulatory risk premiums across major tech stocks,” especially those with tightly integrated services like Amazon and Meta.

Those companies aren’t off the hook either. Meta is currently in court over alleged dominance in personal social networking. Apple and Amazon are facing similar battles over control of mobile ecosystems and online retail.

The DOJ, alongside a coalition of state attorneys general, outlined these suggestions in a legal submission, addressing issues about Google’s take-over in the search and online advertising industries.

Following a ruling in August that found Google guilty of monopolising the search engine market, the DOJ’s proposals target various facets of Google’s operations. 

These proposals include structural and behavioural remedies, with the potential to separate key Google services such as its Chrome browser, Play Store, and Android operating system. The department aims to restrict Google’s influence not just in search and advertising but also in the field of artificial intelligence.

In the area of search distribution, one of the central remedies involves limiting Google’s agreements with device manufacturers, which currently ensure that Google’s search engine is pre-installed and set as the default on numerous smartphones and browsers. 

The DOJ argues that this has contributed to Google maintaining its overwhelming market share, processing 90% of all U.S. internet searches. To level the playing field, the department proposes introducing educational programmes to inform consumers about alternative search engines.

Further recommendations include mandating the sharing of Google’s search index and algorithms with competitors, enforcing transparency in search result rankings and advertising systems, and allowing websites to opt out of being used in AI training. 

This is intended to prevent Google from leveraging non-public data to maintain its dominance and to support emerging rivals in both search and AI-related fields.

In the advertising sector, the DOJ proposes scaling back Google’s ad services, which have become increasingly reliant on AI. One suggestion involves licensing Google’s ad feed separately from its search results, providing more transparency for advertisers.

Google, unsurprisingly, responded by calling these proposals “drastic” and warned that they could harm innovation. The tech giant defended its search engine’s position, claiming that it owes its success to quality and user preference, not anti-competitive practices. 

The company also said that such remedies could negatively impact the growing AI sector, arguing that government interference could limit innovation in critical industries.

The Justice Department’s stand comes with growing investigations of large tech firms in the U.S. A separate case earlier this week saw a U.S. judge ordering Google to open its Play Store to greater competition, while other tech giants like Meta, Amazon, and Apple also face antitrust lawsuits. 

While this case against Google is a step towards reigning in Big Tech, the legal issue is far from over. Google has stated its intention to appeal and has until December to submit its own remedy proposals. 

This Google breakup case, however, may not be the end of the tech giant’s legal conflicts. The DOJ remains focused on addressing Google’s alleged monopolistic practices, not just in the U.S. but globally, with similar cases being considered in Europe.