The European Union Commission has hit Meta with yet another big fine, this time for breaches of its data consent regulations, relating to the way in which Meta has sought to offer EU users alternatives to avoid providing their personal info for ad targeting purposes.
The penalty specifically relates to Meta’s alternative subscription offering in Europe.
Back in 2023, Meta launched its ad-free subscription option to European users, in response to EU rules which dictate that social platforms must offer users an opt-out from targeted ads.
The solution here seemed fairly simple, and in a business operation sense, fair, with Meta announcing that EU users could indeed opt out of having their personal data used for ad targeting by paying €9.99 per month to keep using its apps.
That means that Meta’s not losing out, as a result of related impacts to its ad business by users refusing to share their data, while EU users would have a clear option to restrict their personal info, if they so choose.
But various advisory groups challenged Meta’s subscription alternative, arguing that it undermined the focus of the GDPR, and its protections against “data capitalism.” That led to more scrutiny from EU officials, which saw Meta then offer to halve the price of the option in order to make it more accessible, and appease concerns.
EU regulators are still considering Meta’s alternative options on this front, but based on the period of time within which Meta has already offered its subscription package, the EU Commission has fined Meta €200 million for Digital Markets Act (DMA) breaches.
Which, as you would expect, Meta is not happy about:
“The European Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards. This isn’t just about a fine; the Commission forcing us to change our business model effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service. And by unfairly restricting personalized advertising the European Commission is also hurting European businesses and economies.”
The language used by Meta’s recently appointed Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan here is important, as it invokes both anti-American sentiment and foreign trade tariffs, both of which the Trump Administration is super keen to address.
Well, super keen in terms of public statements either way.
Earlier this year, for example, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) publicly criticized the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which he says is “incompatible with America’s free speech tradition.” Vice President JD Vance also criticized EU regulations, while Trump himself has also threatened European imports with tariffs in penalty for tech regulations that harm U.S. companies.
Trump, of course, has also implemented massive tariffs on virtually every nation, for perceived imbalances in U.S. trade. Most of those tariffs have since been suspended, or are being reviewed, with a view to lifting them once again. But the Trump team’s moves do show that the new administration does seemingly intend to help U.S. companies fight back against penalties of this type.
And Meta’s hoping to prompt U.S. government support to push back on this new penalty.
Which makes sense.
Over the past few years, Meta has been fined over a billion U.S. dollars per year by EU authorities, related to data breaches, the linking of Facebook Marketplace to Facebook, alleged tax fraud, and more.
And some of these penalties do seem like a tax on Meta’s success, as opposed to addressing actual market violations.
For example, several nations have sought to tax Meta for the use of local publisher content in its apps. That’s despite Meta stepping back from news content entirely, and repeatedly noting (correctly) that publishers gain far more from its apps than it gains from their material.
Regulations like this seem less aimed at addressing market imbalance, and more aligned with penalizing Meta, and other U.S. tech platforms, for their relative success in winning local ad market share. And Meta and Google do dominate regional ad spend, in many markets, but that’s predominantly because their products are more valuable, not because they’ve squeezed out local providers through anti-competitive practices.
But under pressure from local corporations, who are also often big political donors, many regulators have been forced to act. Which has, undoubtedly, led to the development of some policies that seek to penalize the tech giants, as opposed to addressing any other area of concern.
As such, Meta should push back, but it can’t do it alone. It’ll need the backing of the U.S. government, which, again, does seem to be on the cards.
Now we just need to see it.
Trump and his team have said they’ll support U.S. companies in such actions, but thus far, they’ve done nothing to stop the fines coming Meta’s way.
Maybe, this latest penalty will see the Trump team initiate a stronger defense.
