Digital Markets Act Obligations

The Digital Markets Act in brief

The Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925, DMA) sets out obligations and prohibitions for large digital platforms designated as gatekeepers. Its aim is to keep digital markets contestable and fair, by preventing gatekeepers from using their position between businesses and consumers to impose unfair conditions or shut out rivals. Unlike traditional competition law, the DMA does not require proof of dominance or anti-competitive effects in each case: once a company is designated, the obligations apply directly to its designated core platform services.

For businesses in Germany, the regulation matters in two ways. Gatekeepers must comply with detailed rules on data use, self-preferencing, interoperability and access. And business users, such as app developers, online sellers, advertisers and comparison services, can rely on these rules, including before the German courts, which have explicit jurisdiction for DMA claims. This article explains who is covered, the main obligations, compliance reports and enforcement, and private enforcement in Germany.

Who is a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act?

The European Commission designates gatekeepers for specific core platform services, such as online intermediation services, search engines, social networks, video-sharing platforms, messaging services, operating systems, web browsers and online advertising services. The designation is based on quantitative thresholds relating to turnover or market capitalisation, user numbers and the duration of the position, which create a presumption that the company provides an important gateway for business users to reach end users. Companies can rebut the presumption in exceptional cases, and the Commission can also designate companies after a market investigation.

According to the Commission’s gatekeeper page, the following companies have been designated: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft (on 6 September 2023) and Booking (on 13 May 2024). The designated services include Google Search, Google Play, Google Maps, YouTube, Android and Chrome; Amazon Marketplace and Amazon Advertising; Apple’s App Store, iOS, iPadOS and Safari; TikTok; Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and Meta Ads; LinkedIn and Windows; and Booking.com. Obligations apply six months after designation.

Key obligations of gatekeepers

The obligations are set out in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the DMA. Article 5 contains obligations that apply without further specification. They include, among others, prohibitions on combining personal data across services without the user’s consent, on preventing business users from offering different prices or conditions through other channels, and on preventing business users from steering end users to offers outside the platform. Gatekeepers also may not require business users to use their identification or payment services.

Article 6 contains obligations that may be further specified by the Commission. They include allowing users to uninstall pre-installed apps and change defaults, allowing third-party app stores and sideloading, refraining from self-preferencing in ranking, ensuring interoperability with hardware and software features, allowing effective data portability, giving business users access to the data generated by their activities, and granting fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access conditions to app stores, search engines and social networks. Article 7 requires interoperability of number-independent messaging services with competing services.

Further duties

Gatekeepers must also inform the Commission of intended concentrations in the digital sector (Article 14), submit an independently audited description of their consumer profiling techniques (Article 15) and set up a compliance function independent of their operational functions (Article 28). They may not circumvent the obligations, for example through product design or by degrading the conditions of services provided to business users who make use of their rights.

Compliance reports and Commission enforcement

Gatekeepers must report to the Commission on the measures they have taken to comply with the DMA, within six months of designation and then at least annually (Article 11), and publish a non-confidential summary. These reports are an important source for business users who want to understand how a gatekeeper has implemented its obligations and where gaps may remain. The Commission can open specification proceedings to determine the measures a gatekeeper must take, as well as non-compliance proceedings.

The Commission is the sole enforcer of the DMA itself. It can impose fines of up to 10 percent of the gatekeeper’s total worldwide turnover, and up to 20 percent for repeated infringements, as well as periodic penalty payments; for systematic non-compliance, it can impose behavioural or structural remedies after a market investigation. On 23 April 2025, the Commission issued its first non-compliance decisions: it fined Apple EUR 500 million for breaching the anti-steering obligation and Meta EUR 200 million for breaching the obligation to give consumers the choice of a service that uses less of their personal data.

The role of the Federal Cartel Office

National competition authorities support the Commission. Under § 32g GWB, the Federal Cartel Office can investigate possible non-compliance by a gatekeeper with Articles 5, 6 or 7 of the DMA, using its ordinary investigative powers, and report its findings to the Commission. Where the investigation concerns Article 7, it gives the Federal Network Agency the opportunity to comment. The Federal Cartel Office also continues to apply § 19a GWB, which is explained in our article on digital gatekeepers under § 19a GWB.

Private enforcement of the Digital Markets Act in Germany

Germany has expressly opened its courts to private enforcement of the Digital Markets Act. Under § 33(1) GWB, anyone who infringes Articles 5, 6 or 7 of the DMA is obliged to the affected party to remove the impairment and, where there is a risk of repetition, to refrain from the conduct. Damages claims are also available. The regional courts (Landgerichte) have exclusive jurisdiction for civil disputes concerning these provisions, regardless of the value in dispute (§ 87 GWB), and many states have concentrated such cases at specialised courts.

Claimants benefit from binding effect: in damages actions, the court is bound by a final designation decision of the Commission and by findings of an infringement in a final decision of the competition authorities or the Commission (§ 33b GWB). This makes follow-on claims after a Commission non-compliance decision considerably easier, although the claimant must still prove damage and causation. Stand-alone claims, where no authority has yet acted, are also possible but require the claimant to prove the infringement. Our antitrust damages team advises on such claims.

Compliance for gatekeepers and companies near the thresholds

For designated gatekeepers, compliance with the Digital Markets Act is a continuous process. Product changes, new services, fee structures and contractual terms must be assessed against the obligations before they are launched, and the compliance function must be able to monitor implementation across the group. Because the Commission assesses not only formal compliance but also whether measures are effective, gatekeepers should document the reasoning behind their design choices and test the effect of their measures on business users and end users.

Companies that are not yet designated but are growing quickly should also keep the DMA in mind. The quantitative thresholds for designation relate to EU turnover or market capitalisation and to numbers of monthly active end users and yearly active business users, and a company that meets them must notify the Commission. Acquirers of digital businesses should also consider the information obligation under Article 14, which applies to gatekeepers’ acquisitions regardless of whether merger control thresholds are met, and which can enable member states to request a referral of the deal to the Commission.

Contracts with gatekeepers

For business users, the terms and conditions of the gatekeeper are often non-negotiable. Nevertheless, it is worth reviewing them against the DMA, in particular clauses on parity, data use, fees for using alternative distribution channels and conditions for access to app stores, search engines and social networks. Clauses that conflict with the obligations may be unenforceable against business users and may form the basis of a complaint or claim.

Where a gatekeeper changes its terms to implement the DMA, business users should compare the old and new conditions carefully, because new fees or technical requirements can reduce the practical value of the rights the regulation grants. Keeping a record of such changes, and of their commercial effect, makes later complaints and claims much easier to substantiate.

Practical implications for business users

For companies that depend on gatekeeper platforms, the DMA creates concrete rights. App developers can use alternative payment methods and inform users about offers outside the app store, subject to the gatekeeper’s implementation and the Commission’s decisions. Online sellers can request access to the data they generate on the platform. Comparison services and vertical search services can rely on the prohibition of self-preferencing in ranking. Advertisers and publishers can request information about prices and performance of advertising services.

Exercising these rights often requires persistence. Gatekeepers have implemented the obligations in different ways, sometimes with new fees or conditions that business users consider inconsistent with the DMA. The Commission has opened proceedings in several such cases. Business users should therefore check whether new terms are consistent with the regulation and react promptly. Illustration: a German travel comparison service finds that its offers are displayed less prominently than a gatekeeper’s own service in search results. It documents the ranking over several weeks, reviews the gatekeeper’s compliance report, and seeks an injunction before a German regional court under § 33(1) GWB in conjunction with Article 6(5) DMA, while informing the Commission.

Interaction with data protection and other regimes

Several DMA obligations overlap with the GDPR, the Digital Services Act and the Data Act, for example on consent to data combination, data portability and access to platform data. Companies should consider these regimes together when they formulate requests or claims. Our digital platforms team advises on the Digital Services Act, and our article on the Digital Services Act and its German enforcement provides further detail.

How TRW & Co helps with the Digital Markets Act

We advise business users on their rights under the Digital Markets Act, including requests to gatekeepers, complaints to the Commission and the Federal Cartel Office, and injunction and damages claims before German courts. We also advise digital companies on compliance with the DMA and § 19a GWB. Our antitrust and trade team works with our digital law specialists on these matters. To discuss a situation, contact us. This article provides general information and is not legal advice.