On 19 November 2025, in Case T-367/23, Amazon EU v European Commission, the General Court of the European Union (the Court) delivered a seminal judgment on an action for annulment brought against a decision of the European Commission (the Commission) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (the Digital Services Act).
In its ruling, the Court upheld the Commission’s decision in its entirety, dismissing all arguments raised by Amazon EU SARL ("Amazon"), both as regards the alleged unlawfulness of certain provisions of the regulation and the Commission’s application thereof, in particular in relation to the designation of Amazon as a “Very Large Online Platform” ("VLOP").
Background to the dispute
The Digital Services Act, adopted on 19 October 2022, aims, inter alia, to establish a harmonised regulatory framework for digital services within the European Union ("EU"), in response to the growing fragmentation of national rules governing rapidly evolving online business models. It specifically targets services such as online marketplaces and social networks, which increasingly mediate business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions and shape the digital economy.
Given the systemic risks associated with such platforms, including risks for consumers, public order and market integrity, the Digital Services Act imposes a set of due-diligence obligations on providers of intermediary services. These obligations become particularly stringent where an online platform qualifies as “very large”. Under Article 24(2), of the regulation, providers of online platforms are required to publish information on the average monthly active recipients (AMAR) of their services in the EU. Where this figure exceeds 45 million users, the platform may be designated as a very large online platform, triggering enhanced regulatory obligations.
On 17 February 2023, Amazon notified the Commission that the AMAR of its Amazon Store platform exceeded the statutory threshold. On that basis, the Commission, by letter of 22 February 2023, informed Amazon of its preliminary assessment that the platform met the conditions for designation as a very large online platform. Following the submission of Amazon’s observations, the Commission confirmed its assessment by decision of 25 April 2023, formally designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform. Amazon subsequently brought an action for annulment of that decision under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), leading to the judgment at issue.
The issues at stake
Several elements made the stakes of this case particularly high. First, the obligations imposed by the Digital Services Act on very large online platforms entail significant compliance costs for providers such as Amazon. These costs include not only the technical and operational adjustments required to meet the regulation's substantive requirements, but also the annual supervisory fee established under Article 43 of the Digital Services Act, which may amount to up to 0.05% of the platform's worldwide annual net income. As such, it may represent a significant amount for Amazon. Despite its size and global relevance, Amazon Store operates in an increasingly competitive environment, challenged by emerging players often adopting aggressive market strategies to gain market share. In this context, additional regulatory burdens may directly affect competitiveness and market positioning, making the outcome of the case economically crucial for Amazon.
Second, this was one of the first judicial disputes concerning the application of the Digital Services Act, following shortly after the judgment in Case T-348/23 Zalando v Commission rendered on 3 September 2025. Given the novelty and complexity of the regulatory framework, judicial guidance was required to clarify both its scope and interpretative principles, making the Court’s intervention particularly significant. A potential annulment of the contested provisions would have threatened the very philosophical foundations of the EU’s new digital regulatory framework, of which the regulation forms part, alongside the Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925). Together, these instruments reflect a deliberate policy choice to protect European citizens and residents from the most aggressive market practices, particularly where such practices endanger fundamental rights and democratic values.
Third, the judgment was delivered in a highly sensitive geopolitical context, where the United States administration has been expressing growing hostility towards EU regulatory policies, portraying them as a threat to US digital and non-digital champions, including Amazon. While judicial review of EU legislation is not unusual, this case unfolded amid mounting transatlantic tensions over the EU’s regulatory model. Adopted to strengthen consumer protection in rapidly evolving digital markets, the Digital Services Act seeks to prevent systemic risks and ensure that digital services are provided without jeopardising fundamental rights. Against this background, the case acquired a symbolic dimension, extending well beyond its strictly legal implications.
The findings of the Court
The Court dismissed in their entirety all arguments raised by Amazon challenging the lawfulness of the Digital Services Act. In particular, Amazon relied on alleged infringements of Articles 16 (freedom to conduct a business), 17 (right to property), 20 (equality before the law), 11(1) (freedom of expression) and 7 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). As regards the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property, the Court acknowledged that the Digital Services Act does interfere with those rights, notably due to the technical adjustments and significant compliance costs imposed on very large online platforms.
While the Court did not deny the existence of restrictions, it assessed Amazon’s arguments through two foundational principles governing judicial review of EU legislative and administrative action. First, fundamental rights are not absolute: limitations may be imposed provided that they respect the essence of the right, pursue an objective of general interest and comply with the principles of legality and proportionality. Second, where EU institutions adopt measures involving complex political, economic and social assessments, the EU legislature enjoys a broad margin of discretion. Judicial review is therefore limited to verifying whether the contested measures are manifestly inappropriate in light of the objectives pursued.
Applying those principles, the Court observed that although Amazon remains free to exercise its economic activity, the obligations imposed by the Digital Services Act pursue a legitimate public interest objective, namely the protection of users against systemic risks inherent in very large online platforms. This was particularly relevant in Amazon’s case, given that the Amazon Store platform reaches a significant proportion of EU users, as demonstrated by its AMAR figures. The Court recalled that the regulation specifically targets systemic risks such as, inter alia, the dissemination of illegal content, threats to fundamental rights, risks to public health and security and issues relating to gender protection and democratic integrity.
From this perspective, the fact that Amazon had already adopted internal policies to mitigate such risks did not, in the Court’s view, undermine the rationale of the Digital Services Act. On the contrary, the Court stressed that reputational incentives alone are insufficient guarantees to effectively prevent systemic risks, thereby justifying the need for a binding regulatory framework. The Court also rejected Amazon’s argument that less restrictive measures, such as qualitative criteria or rebuttable presumptions, would have been sufficient, on grounds that such alternatives would not ensure an equivalent level of effectiveness in achieving the objectives pursued by the regulation.
The Court also addressed Amazon’s specific claims relating to the costs generated by the regulation, in particular those concerning recommender systems. These systems, based on artificial intelligence and machine learning, are designed to predict user preferences and suggest content or products. Under Article 34 of the regulation, very large online platforms using such systems must offer users at least one option not based on profiling, as defined under the General Data Protection Regulation. Here again, the Court held that the additional costs and technical adjustments required by this obligation do not render the measure disproportionate, given its aim of strengthening user autonomy and data protection.
Finally, the Court dismissed Amazon’s remaining pleas based on other Charter provisions. While acknowledging that the Digital Services Act entails interferences with certain fundamental rights, it consistently applied the same constitutional test (as described above) and concluded that none of those interferences could be regarded as manifestly inappropriate or unjustified. Regarding the right to property, the Court determined that whilst Articles 34 to 43 impose administrative burdens on very large online platforms, they do not deprive providers of ownership of their platforms. On confidentiality concerns, the Court ruled the interference was justified because Article 39 is time-limited, advertising represents only a small portion of Amazon's revenue, particularly sensitive information remains protected from disclosure, and vetted researchers under Article 40 must meet specific confidentiality criteria.
The way forward
Given the high stakes of the dispute, the Court delivered a landmark judgment confirming the legality and enforceability of the Digital Services Act in the face of Amazon’s challenge. Following the approach already adopted in the aforementioned Zalando v Commission case-law, the Court confirmed that platforms, whether a marketplace, social network, content-sharing service or search engine exceeding the 45 million user threshold must be designated as very large online platforms. Such qualification undoubtedly entails substantial compliance obligations under a comprehensive regulatory framework, requiring platforms to significantly adapt their operations, governance, transparency and risk-management practices. The Court nevertheless held that these obligations are well-founded and justified by the objective of protecting users in the European Union against systemic risks and abuses of their rights.
The judgment acquires particular significance in light of the increasingly hostile, at times openly intimidating, stance recently adopted by the United States administration towards EU regulators and, more generally, towards the European regulatory model. In a more stable geopolitical context, such case law might not appear as remarkable. However, the deterioration of international relations and the mounting pressure on EU institutions to soften their regulatory approach vis-à-vis major US market operators give this decision a distinct political and constitutional dimension.
Together with other recent enforcement actions, including major sanctions imposed by the Commission against large digital operators (see for instance the recent Commission’s EUR 120 million fining of X), this case illustrates a broader trend: the EU judiciary firmly supports the Union’s regulatory strategy, ensuring that political pressure does not undermine the consistent application of EU law. Far from acting on purely political impulses, the EU legislature is shown to operate within a coherent legal framework, grounded in established principles of proportionality, legality and judicial review, and, as to the judiciary, in its well-consolidated case law.
Share on
