The EU General Court today delivered a split ruling in Case T-1078/23, partially annulling the European Commission's September 2023 decision that designated Meta Platforms, Inc. as a Digital Markets Act gatekeeper. The court struck down the designation of Facebook Marketplace as a core platform service while confirming that Facebook Messenger remains a gatekeeper service. The judgment, bearing the citation ECLI:EU:T:2026:357, was delivered in Luxembourg on 3 June 2026 by the Eighth Chamber sitting with five judges.

For advertisers, marketers, and platform operators, the ruling matters because it tests - for the first time through a full merits examination - exactly where the boundaries of gatekeeper classification lie under Regulation (EU) 2022/1925, known as the Digital Markets Act or DMA. The question of which services count as distinct core platform services and which qualify merely as features of a larger platform has direct implications for what compliance obligations apply, what interoperability requirements gatekeepers must meet, and how the Commission may enforce the regulation going forward.

Background: the September 2023 gatekeeper decision

On 5 September 2023, the Commission issued Decision C(2023) 6105 final, designating Meta as a gatekeeper under Article 3 of the DMA. The decision identified several services as separate core platform services and concluded that each individually met the statutory thresholds for designation. Among the services listed were Facebook as an online social networking service, Messenger as a number-independent interpersonal communications service (NIICS), and Marketplace as an online intermediation service (OIS).

The DMA sets quantitative thresholds that trigger a presumption of gatekeeper status. According to the judgment, Article 3(2)(b) requires that a core platform service have at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the European Union and at least 10,000 yearly active business users in the EU. The Commission found Meta met those numbers for each of the three services - and for Messenger in particular, the number of businesses using the service was greater than [confidential] million in each year from 2020 to 2022, far above the 10,000 threshold.

Meta filed its annulment action on 15 November 2023, challenging the classification of Messenger and Marketplace. A hearing was held on 3 June 2025, exactly one year before today's judgment. The original designation of the six DMA gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft - marked the first exercise of the Commission's enforcement powers under the regulation.

The Messenger ruling: Commission's classification upheld

Meta's first plea contested the Commission's decision to treat Messenger as a standalone NIICS, separate from the Facebook social network. Meta argued that Messenger was simply the chat functionality of Facebook, forming an integral part of that service, not a distinct platform subject to its own set of DMA obligations.

The court rejected that argument on multiple grounds. According to the judgment, three factual findings were decisive. First, Meta had developed standalone mobile applications for Messenger on iOS and Android - and because mobile device usage predominates for Messenger, those standalone applications constitute the entry point for the majority of users. Second, users can access Messenger whether their Facebook account is activated or deactivated and regardless of whether they are simultaneously active on the Facebook social network. Third, Meta promotes tools specifically designed for businesses to engage users on Messenger, including lead generation, customer service, and customer re-engagement functions - tools the court described as consistent with Meta treating Messenger as "a self-standing platform within its ecosystem."

Meta had pointed to usage data showing that 100% of Messenger communications take place between users with Facebook accounts, and that between 80% and 100% of Messenger's monthly active users in 2022 were also monthly active users of other Facebook features. The court found those figures were merely a consequence of Meta's own design choice to require a Facebook ID to use Messenger, not evidence that the two services are a single unit.

The court also addressed the DMA's annex, which provides methodology for calculating active users. Section D(2)(c)(i) of that annex states that services offered in an integrated way but belonging to different CPS categories must be treated as distinct core platform services. Messenger, classified as a NIICS, belongs to a different category than the Facebook online social networking service. That structural distinction alone, the court held, supported separating the two.

On the question of whether Messenger is individually an important gateway, Meta submitted that it represented only 0-5% of business-to-consumer communications traffic in the European Economic Area, with telephone and email remaining the dominant channels. The court found that evidence insufficiently substantiated because it was based on a calculation methodology used in competition law contexts without explanation of its relevance to the DMA threshold. The court noted that Messenger significantly exceeded the 10,000 business user threshold - by millions - which under recital 23 of the DMA is itself a relevant factor in the gatekeeper analysis.

Meta also argued that 73% of end users use more than one online messaging service, suggesting that multi-homing undermines any claim of gateway status. The court found that figure insufficiently substantiated because it covered only Germany in a single year, 2021, and could not be extrapolated to the European Union as a whole.

The claim that business users cannot initiate contact on Messenger was rejected as well. According to the judgment, Article 3(1)(b) of the DMA does not require that business users be able to initiate communications. The existence of the "click-to-message" advertising function - which allows end users to start a Messenger conversation directly from an advertisement - was cited as an example of how the platform facilitates business-to-consumer contact without businesses needing to send first.

The Marketplace ruling: error of law and insufficient reasoning

The Marketplace portion of the case produced a different outcome. Meta had made changes to Marketplace on 31 July 2023, six weeks before the Commission's designation decision, limiting users to a maximum of 20 listings per month in each category and no more than 5 listings per month in the "Vehicles," "Auto parts," and "Properties for sale or rent" categories. Meta notified the Commission of these changes in its initial notification of 3 July 2023 and provided the full details in its reply of 3 August 2023 - before the decision was adopted on 5 September 2023.

The Commission had used what it called a "power sellers proxy" to identify business users on Marketplace. Under that proxy, a user with at least 28 listings in the same category in any given month, where at least 80% of listings fell in one category, was treated as a business user. The July 2023 listing cap reduced the maximum possible listings to 20 per month - below the 28-listing power seller threshold. Meta argued, and the Commission did not contradict, that the changes eliminated the Commission's own mechanism for identifying business users on Marketplace.

In the contested decision, the Commission described the July 2023 changes as "future limitations that Meta is in the process of implementing" - even though, by the date of the decision, those changes had already been live for five weeks. The court found that characterisation factually wrong and indicative of a deeper legal error.

According to the judgment, the Commission applied an incorrect time frame. It had taken the position - set out in recital 256 of the decision - that for designation purposes it needed to examine information only from the last three financial years, meaning 2020 to 2022. But the court drew a clear distinction between two separate questions: whether an undertaking has met the quantitative thresholds under Article 3(2)(c), which does require a backward-looking three-year review, and whether a service qualifies as a particular type of core platform service under Article 2, which the DMA does not limit to historical data. For the qualitative classification question, the legality of the act must be assessed on the basis of the facts as they stood when the measure was adopted. The Commission could not ignore a material factual change that had already occurred before it signed the decision.

The court went further, finding the Commission's reasoning on Marketplace insufficient under the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. Recital 262 of the contested decision had stated in vague terms that users creating 20 listings per month "could still be considered business users depending on the factual circumstances." The court found that reasoning incomplete because it did not specify which circumstances were relevant, did not analyze the concrete impact of the July 2023 changes on the power sellers proxy the Commission itself had chosen, and did not explain how Marketplace still met the second condition in the OIS definition - that it enables business users to offer goods or services to consumers with a view to facilitating direct transactions - once the proxy was no longer operative.

An intermediate development complicated the proceedings. On 23 April 2025 - the same day the Commission imposed fines of €500 million on Apple and €200 million on Meta for separate DMA violations - the Commission issued Decision C(2025) 2547, formally repealing the Marketplace designation under Article 4(1) of the DMA. The Commission had found that additional measures implemented by Meta in December 2023 and January 2024 demonstrated a substantial change in facts: the 10,000 business user threshold was no longer met.

That repeal did not moot Meta's court challenge. According to the judgment, a repeal takes effect from the date it is issued (ex nunc), while an annulment by the General Court would take effect retroactively from the date of the original act (ex tunc). Because Marketplace was covered by the gatekeeper designation from 5 September 2023 until 23 April 2025 - requiring DMA compliance by 7 March 2024 at the latest - Meta retained a legal interest in obtaining an annulment to establish the unlawfulness of the original decision for that period. That distinction matters for any future damages proceedings.

Costs and next steps

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, including the French Republic, which had intervened in support of the Commission. Under the DMA's procedural rules, an appeal limited to points of law can be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union within two months and ten days of notification of today's judgment.

For the Commission, the Marketplace annulment carries a methodological lesson: when an undertaking notifies material changes to its platform during a designation procedure, those changes must be incorporated into the qualitative classification analysis, not simply noted and set aside because the lookback period for quantitative thresholds is three years. The court's reasoning draws a firm line between those two assessments.

Meta's 2026 DMA compliance report submitted in March confirmed the company continues to contest its regulatory posture on multiple fronts, including the separate €200 million fine it is appealing. Today's partial victory on Marketplace does not affect the Messenger obligations, which remain in force, nor the separate consent-architecture enforcement proceedings. The European Consumer Organisation's March 2026 analysis concluded that Meta's updated advertising consent mechanism still fails DMA, GDPR, and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive requirements.

The judgment is the second major DMA gatekeeper ruling from the General Court. In July 2024, the court dismissed ByteDance's challenge to its own designation in Case T-1077/23, a decision the Commission cited extensively in the Meta proceedings as precedent on the standard of proof required to rebut DMA presumptions.

What it means for the advertising market

The DMA's gatekeeper framework directly structures the operating environment for digital advertising. Designated gatekeepers face obligations including data portability requirements, interoperability mandates for messaging services, bans on self-preferencing, and restrictions on combining personal data across services without explicit consent. The Messenger NIICS designation, now confirmed by the General Court, means Meta must continue complying with the interoperability obligations under Article 7 of the DMA for that service. Facebook Messenger interoperability with third-party services launched in September 2024.

The Marketplace result, by contrast, illustrates a constraint on the Commission's designation powers: it cannot rely purely on retrospective data if the platform's structure changes materially before the decision is signed. That principle has potential application to future designation cases where platforms modify their architecture after submitting their notifications. Whether the Commission appeals today's Marketplace ruling to the Court of Justice remains to be seen.

Timeline

  • 14 September 2022 - Regulation (EU) 2022/1925, the Digital Markets Act, enters into force, establishing the gatekeeper framework.
  • 3 July 2023 - Meta submits its gatekeeper notification to the European Commission, arguing Messenger and Marketplace do not individually meet designation thresholds.
  • 26 July 2023 - Commission sends Meta its preliminary view, indicating it intends to designate Messenger and Marketplace as distinct core platform services.
  • 31 July 2023 - Meta implements listing caps on Marketplace: maximum 20 listings per month per items category, maximum 5 in vehicles and property categories.
  • 3 August 2023 - Meta replies to the preliminary view, informing the Commission that the July 2023 changes eliminate the power seller proxy.
  • 5 September 2023 - Commission issues Decision C(2023) 6105 final, designating Meta and five other companies as DMA gatekeepers. Marketplace and Messenger listed as distinct core platform services.
  • 7 March 2024 - Deadline for Meta to comply with DMA obligations for all designated services, including Marketplace.
  • 23 April 2025 - Commission de-designates Marketplace via Decision C(2025) 2547, finding the 10,000 business user threshold is no longer met. Commission simultaneously fines Meta €200 million and Apple €500 million for separate DMA violations.
  • 3 June 2025 - Hearing held before the General Court's Eighth Chamber in Luxembourg.
  • 3 June 2026 - General Court delivers judgment in Case T-1078/23, annulling Article 2(f) of the Commission's 2023 gatekeeper decision (Marketplace), dismissing the action as regards Messenger.

Summary

Who: Meta Platforms, Inc. challenged the European Commission's decision before the EU General Court (Eighth Chamber, five judges). The French Republic intervened in support of the Commission.

What: The General Court today partially annulled Commission Decision C(2023) 6105 final of 5 September 2023. Article 2(f), which classified Facebook Marketplace as a core platform service and important gateway under the Digital Markets Act, was struck down for an error of law in the applicable time frame and insufficient reasoning. The classification of Facebook Messenger as a standalone number-independent interpersonal communications service was upheld.

When: The original Commission decision was issued on 5 September 2023. The court action was filed on 15 November 2023. A hearing was held on 3 June 2025. Judgment was delivered today, 3 June 2026.

Where: The case was heard and decided at the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg, as Case T-1078/23, citation ECLI:EU:T:2026:357.

Why: Meta argued that Messenger was merely Facebook's chat feature and that Marketplace no longer had identifiable business users after July 2023 listing restrictions. The court rejected the Messenger argument because Meta had developed Messenger as a standalone application accessible independently of Facebook. It accepted the Marketplace argument because the Commission relied solely on three years of historical data, ignoring changes Meta had already implemented before the decision was signed, and failed to provide clear reasoning on why Marketplace still qualified as an online intermediation service after those changes.