Meta's pay-or-consent ad model could still face fresh DMA fines
Meta was fined €200 million under the EU's DMA in April over an advertising model that offers Facebook and Instagram users a binary choice of paying to access an ad-free version of the services or agreeing to be tracked for Meta's ad targeting.
The Facebook and Instagram owner tweaked the pay-or-consent ad model in November 2024, offering users a lower price to access an ad-free version of its services and claiming it would reduce the amount of personal data used for ad targeting free users. But the Commission fine handed down in April was for Meta's practices prior to those changes.
On Wednesday, the Commission confirmed to Euractiv that it has sent a letter to Meta related to the ongoing DMA proceeding – on what the Commission's spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, described as "the remaining issues".
The Commission would not confirm exactly what these are or whether Meta's subsequent changes to the ad model are sufficient to rectify the company's non-compliance.
"We are considering the next steps, including the possible application of periodic penalty payments in case of continuous non-compliance, as already indicated in the non-compliance decision," Regnier added.
In June, Meta confirmed to Euractiv that it had introduced limited changes to its advertising model, primarily tweaking the wording and design flow of the text that its app users see.
Separately, the social media giant also announced that it would be appealing the Commission's decision and fine.
Under the DMA, each day of non-compliance after a deadline has passed can lead to penalty payments of up to 5% of a gatekeeper's average daily worldwide turnover.
(nl)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
2 days ago
- Euractiv
FIREPOWER: Kubilius to present EU leaders with 2030 war plan
Take a free trial of Euractiv Pro to get FIREPOWER in your inbox. Good afternoon and welcome back to Firepower, This week we sat down with Andrius Kubilius, the EU's commissioner for defence and space, in his office which is decorated with miniature satellites. More on that below. We also have updates on Parliament's rapporteurs for the defence omnibus regulation, and what topics Parliament's security and defence committee plans to dig into in the coming months. Finally, don't miss out on the latest moves to repurpose huge sums from EU cohesion funds for the defence industry, a controversial idea that shifts money away from civilian priorities. We also look at the Commission's ambition to directly handle contracts with arms manufacturers. INTERVIEW: Andrius Kubilius plans to brief EU leaders on what's needed by 2030 EU defence chief Andrius Kubilius told Firepower that he's making a checklist to prepare Europe for a possible war by 2030, which he plans to have ready to present to EU leaders by October. The key questions, as he put it to us: 'What kinds of projects we are going to develop, what is the calendar and what are the financial resources needed?' A top goal, Kubilius told us, is to give Europe its own high-end military systems to kill the continent's excessive reliance on US-made kit, especially when it comes to satellites for secure communication, in-air refuelling, surveillance aircraft and more. That'll come at a hefty price. Europeans are promising to budget billions more for defence in the coming years. But to do what? There are numerous options on the market, and spending must be optimised. 'Spending from the EU budget is an instrument to incentivise member states to spend trillions in a more effective way to go for joint procurement,' he said. This autumn, Kubilius hopes to start a broader discussion about creating a 'European Defence Union'. In his view, the UK, Norway and Ukraine should be a part of it. Launching that kind of a project means more reflecting on equipment needs, adequate financing and regulations. Speaking in his office, Kubilius suggested that those three non-EU countries could join the EU's secure telecommunications constellation system, IRIS², as well: 'I would not be opposed.' Kubilius also gave us his views on how to use the SAFE loans, what the European defence industry should look like in the future and more. Look for more from our interview with Kubilius on Monday. The SAFE Corner SOFT DEADLINE. EU countries officially have until Tuesday to tell the Commission if they're interested in taking loans from the €150 billion SAFE funding mechanism to buy arms, and to detail just how much €€€ they're interested in. But don't fret if you're not ready – it's a soft deadline, a Commission official told Firepower, with late applications still considered. TRACKER. Kubilius told us 20 countries are interested in borrowing €100 billion. Firepower's count of participants includes Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Austria, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia are still thinking. Greece, Italy, Latvia, Portugal are likely to want the cash. Denmark is unlikely to request it. Germany and Sweden are expected to join procurement deals but not request the loans. The Netherlands is not interested in the loans either. FRANCE, we're hearing, is considering a very modest amount. That would signal support for the made-in-the-EU programme without adding too much extra debt to France's already strained finances. Meanwhile, POLAND is planning on using SAFE money for procurement, but notably including solo deals in addition to joint European contracts, two people told Firepower. One of the two sources also said Warsaw is considering using SAFE cash to pay for orders already signed earlier this year. Going it alone is allowed for one year under SAFE rules, and there is no limit to how much of the €150 billion overall pot can go to single-country purchases. But the move undermines the fundamental SAFE concept of seeding European procurement cooperation, as some of our sources complained. The UNITED KINGDOM has shown interest in the programme, but is still waiting for the Commission and EU countries to decide on the terms for allowing British firms to get involved. The EU executive is expected to set out the basis for talks with the UK to the Council next week, two diplomats said. The KEY HURDLE to drafting a proposal has been defining what is 'fair', both in terms of how much of a SAFE-funded military product British defence firms can produce, and how much the UK government needs to contribute to Brussels, three people told Firepower. The Commission does not have a template or equation to objectively calculate the UK's contribution to the plan, an official of the EU executive recognised, which means some EU countries have felt free to push the Commission in different directions. Patriots drama incoming After a bunch of countries said they were ready to buy more US equipment to help speed up Ukraine's air defence fortifications, Germany said it was open to "contribute to providing" another five Patriot missile-defence systems to Ukraine early in the week (Kyiv reportedly already operates six). But that was before the country's defence minister Boris Pistorius made it clear they would need the US to backfill German military stocks within a few months to actually move forward with the delivery, as the US promised. Romania previously did the same thing by pledging its batteries as long as they were replaced by allies. The waiting list for a Patriot system or missile runs years, though, and there are still serious questions about whether the US can pressure industry to deliver faster, or if Washington is ready to tap into its own stocks to help Europe. FCAS family drama has Brussels reconsidering participation There's been plenty of drama this summer around the French-German-Spanish FCAS next-generation fighter jet programme, including public feuding among top aerospace contractors. The latest? Belgium is now trying to join the programme – and promptly saw the Dassault Aviation CEO and the country's defence minister publicly sniping at each other. "The timing of a Belgian membership request appears suboptimal,' Alain De Neve, aerospace expert at the Belgian Centre for Security and Defence Studies, told Firepower. 'FCAS is nearing a decisive moment: either a major industrial realignment will occur to save the 2045 timeline, or the programme may unravel into divergent national or bilateral efforts.' The German and French defence ministers, meanwhile, met on Thursday to discuss FCAS and acknowledged there's a long list of questions that need to be sorted out by the end of the year. On your radar Berlin backs Paris against EU Commission's plan to review arms export control Germany and France are united in their belief that Brussels has absolutely no role to play on weapons exports decisions, as the defence ministers from both countries made clear on Thursday. This will bolster France's opposition, which Euractiv first reported earlier this spring, against the EU executive's repeated proposal. In other news: NO MONEY FOR DEFENCE START-UPS? Some key EU countries are sceptical of shifting EU cash earmarked for civilian start-ups through the European Innovation Council's accelerator (EIC) to fund defence projects instead, according to draft Council conclusions. The Council 'invites' the Commission to 'explain the proposed extension of the EIC accelerator programme to dual use applications in view of the geopolitical situation', the document reads. The idea featured both in the Commission's proposed start-up scale-up strategy and in an earlier proposal in April, before von der Leyen put the spotlight on the EU supporting defence start-ups at the NATO summit last month. WHO'S THE HOLD-UP? Five countries – Austria, Germany, Ireland, Malta and the Netherlands – are not fully on board with letting the EIC invest its money in defence projects instead of civilian initiatives, sources told Firepower. That concern has become one of the last sticking points in negotiations over the Commission's 'mini omnibus' pitched in April, one source close to the file told Firepower. EPF DYNAMICS. The Commission has long offered to handle contracts with defence firms to buy defence equipment for third countries directly via its FPI (foreign policy instrument) and so changing the way the off-budget European Peace Facility fund operates – an idea EU countries are now warming up to, according to a person involved in the talks. Shifting purchasing responsibility from EU countries to the Commission would remove the informal supervision over contracts that capitals currently exercise, but could open the door to a more transparent procurement process. OMNIBUS RAPPORTEURS. The European Parliament is looking at who's going to lead the negotiations on the dense slate proposals from the Commission, known as the 'defence omnibus', to simplify EU rules for the defence industry. Firepower is hearing that MEPs plan to split talks over the package into three parts, each of them led by three different rapporteurs, from S&D, EPP and Renew. PARLIAMENT'S HOMEWORK. The Parliament's defence committee is planning three own-initiative reports next year, according to committee plans discussed earlier this month: 'European defence readiness 2030: assessment of needs', 'Tackling barriers to the single market for defence' and 'Flagship European defence projects of common interest'.
Euractiv
2 days ago
- Euractiv
Germany and France to EU: Stay out of arms export policy
The defence ministers from Germany and France both declared that the European Union has absolutely no role to play in weapons export decisions, issuing a clear rebuke to European Commission ambitions to ease trade within the EU weapons market. Weapons export decisions are 'exclusively' the preserve of national governments, and the EU and the European Commission 'have no role to play in this regard ', German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said on Thursday evening at a joint press conference with his French counterpart, Sébastien Lecornu. The remarks demonstrate strong and united opposition from the EU's two most important members to the Commission's push to l oosen export controls within the EU in order to fast-track arms production. The EU executive has proposed allowing countries to skip obtaining approval before reselling key sensitive components used in weapons manufacturing. Many countries control how weapons and other sensitive products can be used, and retain the right to veto the further resale of defence equipment to third countries. France has for months opposed the idea of loosening those rules within the EU, as Euractiv first reported earlier this spring . Paris has argued that the move goes beyond existing agreements on transfers of defence-related products within the EU – and would effectively strip France of the right to control and keep track of where critical components end up. But despite those protests from Paris, the Commission has kept pitching the idea of loosening export rules, most recently last month in its package to ease regulation on the defence sector, known as the "defence omnibus". The Commission also announced plans to revise the existing intra-EU transfer directive, which governs trade in defence-related products within the bloc, sometime in the coming months. Pistorius's remarks, however, clearly bolster France's opposition to those changes. "There is no question of the European Commission interfering in the competences of the member states, especially when it comes to arms exports," Lecornu said. (bts, aw)
Euractiv
3 days ago
- Euractiv
As the AI Act falls short on protecting copyright, creatives eye licensing reform
Copyright holders are turning their attention towards a potential licensing framework, after being left disappointed by the AI Act's transparency obligations and Code of Practice for general-purpose AIs (GPAIs). The Commission released Thursday much-anticipated template for AI developers to summarise the data used to train their models. However, the measure has been met with scepticism from creators, who believe that transparency alone is not enough to safeguard their copyrights. By nature, GPAI models – the technology that underpins the likes of ChatGPT, Le Chat, or Midjourney – require vast amounts of data to produce outputs that are more accurate and less likely to be biased. But the provenance of the data is often opaque, and creatives and artists worry that they have no way of knowing whether their work was used to train AI systems – and therefore no way to object to its use. Transparency as a first step The EU's landmark Artificial Intelligence Act is intended to bring greater transparency to AI systems and enable creators to assert their copyright claims. The law requires developers of GPAI models to produce summaries of the data used for training, and to implement systems allowing right holders to "opt out" of having their content used for model development. On Thursday, the Commission published the template it expects AI developers to use for these summaries of training data. This aspect of the AI Act faced intense lobbying by copyright holders, who wanted the templates to be as granular as possible, and AI companies, who worried too much detail could reveal trade secrets. But industry is not convinced by the Commission's implementation. "It falls short of safeguarding the creative sector and, if not corrected, risks undermining Europe's AI Act and copyright framework in favour of a few global tech companies," Burak Özgen, deputy general manager of GESAC, the authors and composers' lobby, told Euractiv. A Code of Practice for GPAIs was also negotiated between experts, lobbyists and civil society over several months to further flesh out compliance around key issues such as copyright. But for rights holders, the final text also fell short. The improvements in the final version of the Code are " certainly insufficient", said Özgen, arguing that it lacks "concrete" detail which would make it "actionable". His blunt summary is that the Code does "nothing useful to help exercising and enforcing the rights of authors". Copyright rules fit for GenAI At the core of the disagreement between right holders and AI developers is how copyright rules apply to generative AI tools – and what should come next. The EU's Copyright Directive allows the use of software that crawls the internet, on lawfully accessed websites and databases, to collect copyrighted text and images for data analytics or research – aka text and data mining (TDM) – unless copyright holders have actively opted out of having their work scraped. For the tech lobby CCIA, the TDM exception is essential to support AI innovation. The rules were " carefully designed to strike a vital balance between fostering innovation and protecting intellectual property," CCIA Europe's Senior Policy Manager, Boniface de Champris, told Euractiv. However, a study ordered by the Parliament's legal affairs committee takes a very different view, finding that the TDM rules were not intended for generative AI – and "do not provide legal certainty, transparency, or effective rights control", as the report puts it. The two camps remain divided over this issue, which may be why right holders are now turning their attention towards a potential dedicated framework for licensing agreements. Finding a way to be appropriately compensated for use of their works to train AI remains a central concern for them, especially as GenAI uptake accelerates. A draft Parliament report led by MEP Axel Voss – who also negotiated the EU's existing Copyright Directive – makes the case for a new framework to enable licensing deals to be concluded. The report must still be amended by other MEPs before it can represent the Parliament's official position. But the composer and songwriters lobby ECSA was happy that Voss' draft report " rejects the application of the TDM exceptions to Generative AI, and calls to ensure fair remuneration," as Helienne Lindvall, its president, told Euractiv. The ball is now in the Commission's court. It must decide whether to respond to the rise of GenAI by revising the EU's copyright framework – with the Copyright Directive up for review in 2026 – and, if so, figure out how to ensure that any new rules strike the right balance between support for AI innovation and protecting human creativity. (nl, aw)
