(AGENPARL) – Wed 19 November 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 144/25
Luxembourg, 19 November 2025
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-367/23 | Amazon EU v Commission
DSA: Amazon’s action against the Commission’s decision designating the
platform Amazon Store as a ‘very large online platform’ is dismissed
The Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 imposes specific obligations on providers of certain services designated by the
European Commission as ‘very large online platforms’ or ‘very large online search engines’ once they exceed the
threshold of 45 million users in the European Union (that is to say, 10% of the Union population). Amazon EU Sàrl,
which operates the platform Amazon Store, sought the annulment of the Commission’s decision designating that
platform as a ‘very large online platform’ under the DSA.
Amazon contests the lawfulness of the provision in the regulation that specifies which online platforms, including
marketplaces, are to be designated as very large online platforms and imposes on them specific obligations of
transparency, cooperation and access to data. According to Amazon, that provision infringes several fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the freedom to conduct a
business, the right to property, the principle of equality before the law, freedom of expression and information, and
the right to private life and the protection of confidential information.
In today’s judgment, the General Court of the European Union dismisses the action.
With regard to freedom to conduct a business, the Court notes that it is true that the obligations imposed by the
DSA constitute an interference with that freedom, in so far as they may entail significant costs, affect the
organisation of activities and require complex technical solutions. However, that interference, which is provided for
by law and does not affect the essence of the freedom to conduct a business, is justified for the purpose of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU legislature, which has a broad discretion, did not commit a manifest error in
considering that very large online platforms, including marketplaces exceeding the threshold of 45 million users,
could pose systemic risks to society, in particular by disseminating illegal content or infringing fundamental rights,
including consumer protection. The obligations imposed on those platforms, such as those relating to the option of
a recommender system which is not based on profiling, the public repository of advertisements or researchers’
access to certain data, are intended to prevent those risks, even if they entail significant financial burdens for those
platforms.
As regard the right to property, the Court notes that the obligations imposed by the DSA mainly constitute
administrative burdens which do not deprive providers of very large online platforms of ownership of their
platforms. Furthermore, even if an interference with that right were established, it would be justified by the
objectives of preventing systemic risks pursued by the EU legislature.
On the principle of equality, the Court notes that the EU legislature had a broad discretion to treat very large
online platforms, including marketplaces, in a uniform manner since the latter may also present systemic risks to
society. Furthermore, the distinction made in the DSA between online platforms based on their number of users is
neither arbitrary nor manifestly inappropriate for the objective of preventing such risks, since online platforms with
more than 45 million users may expose a large number of persons to illegal content.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
With regard to freedom of expression and information, the Court notes that the obligation imposed on very large
online platforms to offer a recommender system option which is not based on profiling may restrict the way in
which products marketed on those platforms can be presented, but that such interference is justified. That
measure, provided for by law, does not affect the essence of the freedom of expression and pursues a legitimate
objective of consumer protection. Accordingly, the EU legislature was able, without exceeding its broad discretion, to
weigh up the freedom of commercial expression of those platforms and consumer protection.
With regard to the right to private life and the protection of confidential information, the Court notes that the
obligations of advertising transparency and of access by researchers to certain data do indeed constitute an
interference with that right, but that they are provided for by law, proportionate and justified by an objective of
general interest, namely the prevention of systemic risks in order, inter alia, to contribute to a high level of
consumer protection. It emphasises that the public nature of the repository is strictly regulated, while researchers’
access is subject to strict security and confidentiality guarantees.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to EU law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions,
bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act
is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.
NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending
Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Regulation).
Communications Directorate