This isn't even remotely what happened here. Similar to the case where Apple was fined, Meta had years to comply with the new regulations — they simply chose not to and put their fingers in their ears instead. It's naive to think Meta didn't know it was breaking the law, they simply hoped they could get away with a fine that was smaller than the profit made.

> Meta had years to comply with the new regulations

This has nothing to do with the DMA if that's what you mean.

EU is alleging Meta is infringing on the 1994 EEA Agreement specifically the generic "don't impose unfair trading conditions" clause. Which if it successful should frighten most companies. Because making life harder for your competitors is the entire point of business.

If Zuck is to be believed, he's not about making life harder for competitors, he's about competing vigorously.

If you leverage your business, and data obtained for other reasons, to unfairly depress competition, the end user loses out, and is part of why antitrust legislation exists.

Another example is what Amazon were accused of - using their internal data from providing seller services to then decide which products to launch in their Amazon Basics range - to the point where it makes those other products no longer profitable to sell, and an option for consumers is removed.

If they conducted research without using that data about what products people would like, that's different - that's competing vigorously and fairly.

"If you leverage your business, and data obtained for other reasons, to unfairly depress competition, the end user loses out, and is part of why antitrust legislation exists."

This is the most salient point on the thread. People are studiously refusing to frame the discussion around this as pro-consumer, and prefer to maintain that it's nothing more than a proxy success-tax on BigTech.

Making life harder for your competitors is fine. Doing so through illegal practices isn't.

If you want to operate as a marketplace, the EU denotes certain practices and standards for doing so. Don't like them? Don't operate as such.

That is absolutely not the case: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.BUS.EASE.XQ

Yes, the legislative landscape changes - just because you had fists from before it became illegal to hit people it doesn't mean that you are entitled to do so.

Also: One should expect Facebook given 3 years to comply would be able to do so.

What is FB going to do? Remove any reference to Marketplace on Facebook.com and move it to fbmarketplace.com?

This is not what the issue is about. The problem is that Meta is giving preference to their own ads over third party ads, not that the platforms reference one another.

The posted article is light on details. Is there another source that backs your statement?

I don't see how that link clarifies things.

  Tying its online classified ads service Facebook Marketplace to its personal social network Facebook. This means that all Facebook users automatically have access and get regularly exposed to Facebook Marketplace whether they want it or not. The Commission found that competitors of Facebook Marketplace may be foreclosed as the tie gives Facebook Marketplace a substantial distribution advantage which competitors cannot match.

This is exactly what we're talking about. EU is basically saying that Facebook.com, just by having a marketplace feature is already breaking the law.

  Unilaterally imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers who advertise on Meta's platforms, in particular on its very popular social networks Facebook and Instagram. This allows Meta to use ads-related data generated by other advertisers for the sole benefit of Facebook Marketplace.

Light on details.

They employ a bunch of the smartest people in the world - who all probably want to do legal stuff. I am sure they can figure out what to do to follow the law in the jurisdictions they work in.

Agreed. It feels like Europe's DMA is basically just a taxation on big American tech companies.

There is a very fine line between over regulation and enough regulation to maximize efficiency.

So what would your opinion be if the US passed a similar law?

Let's see then and discuss after?

> taxation on big American tech companies

And that's a bad thing how?

Totally agree, it's not a bad thing. It's a large area of the world saying you do not dictate the rules.

It depends. Is the EU presenting itself as a bastion of free trade?

I don't think so anymore. They're clearly protectionists with the recent actions against American big tech and Chinese EV companies.

I’d respectfully put it to you that you don’t seem to actually understand how any of this works. You picked two examples that have nothing to do with the accusation of “protectionism”.

I think EU is just building Meta’s monopolistic moat. It creates a chilling effect on challenger tech companies who may not be able to pay these fines. And yet they still know they might be arbitrarily fined.

Oh the other hand, one might say — “don’t be monopolistic and you won’t have to pay the fines”. But does this stand up under scrutiny? But how does a company compete with a monopoly without having any monopolistic traits? Duopolies by definition are very close to monopolies.

It’s like the EU is saying “no one be like these guys, but please would someone compete with them for the sake of our market!”