Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1555

17.3.2025

(Case T-66/25)

(C/2025/1555)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States), Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Aitken, S. Malhi, Solicitors, T. Oeyen, A. Pliego Selie, lawyers, D. Jowell and D. Bailey, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul European Commission decision C(2024) 8053 final of 14 November 2024 pursuant to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in Case AT.40684 - Facebook Marketplace (the ‘contested decision’);

—in the alternative, annul, in whole or in part, Article 1(a), Article 1(b), Article 2, Article 3 and/or Article 5 of the contested decision;

—in the further alternative, annul or reduce substantially the level of the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision;

—order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of eventual interveners that would not bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in its findings of market definition and dominance.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in finding that the applicants’ conduct constitutes abusive ‘tying’.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in finding that the applicants’ alleged ‘tying’ conduct is capable of foreclosing competition.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in concluding that the applicants’ alleged ‘tying’ conduct was not objectively justified.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in finding that the applicants have imposed abusive unfair trading conditions.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in establishing the level of the fine.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in setting out the specific remedies the applicants should implement.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1555/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—