Global tech giants Meta Platforms and TikTok have secured a major win in their court fight with the European Commission on how to calculate a supervisory fee under the Digital Services Act (DSA). In a ruling issued on 10 September 2025 by the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg, the court upheld both firms, saying the method employed to calculate the charge was flawed in procedure and pushing EU regulators to reassess the legality of the charge.
Foot-stomping infringement referred to the DSA-prescribed supervisory fee in the guise of 0.05% of a firm’s worldwide net revenue per year and as calculated based on user volume and profitability—levied by the European Commission to finance monitoring and enforcement costs. Meta and TikTok opposed the regime, arguing that it was founded on a flawed legal process and delivered inflated, outsized fees.
The court’s decision reflected a key procedural aspect: the method had to have been pursued through a delegated legal act, as mandated by the DSA, and not through implementing decisions. Implementing decisions typically involves less scrutiny and procedural formality than delegated acts.
Regulators are now accordingly provided with a 12-month window within which to reframe the calculation mechanism in the proper legal instrument. Notably, however, the Court did not order a refund of any supervisory fees already paid for 2023.
The European Commission responded reassuringly, framing the judgment as a technical correction rather than a substantive rejection of its approach. TikTok promised to “closely observe the evolving of the delegated act” as regulators remake the formula, while Meta cited an inherent imbalance: loss-making companies pay no fee—be they never the slightest bit big or their user bases—and successful ones can be charged disproportionately high. Meta stated that the remake will address the shortcomings in the methodology.
This choice resonates across the technology sector. The DSA, which has been in force since November 2022, is to be applied to Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) such as Amazon, Apple, Booking.com, Google, Microsoft, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Elon Musk’s X, all of which are liable to the supervisory fee. Accordingly, the recalibration of the fee’s legal basis may have long‑term financial and compliance impacts.
On a policy level, the decision serves as a reminder to regulators of the delicate balance they must maintain between ensuring transparency and maintaining legal respectability. Technology firms have become increasingly hostile towards EU regulatory frameworks, invoking opacity, excessive expense, or abuse of the law. The Commission, by contrast, is attempting to impose requirements, ranging from content moderation to data protection, without diluting its rule-making authority or operational efficiency.
In the future, the Commission response will be closely watched. The 12‑month lead time allows for a more robust framework to be built but also introduces uncertainty for other affected companies. Fee calculation methodology understanding will be paramount to budgeting, legal forecasting, and fair treatment throughout the industry.
In the new delegated act, regulators must ensure that the fee formula aligns with the legislative objective of the DSA: proportional, transparent and zero‑sum, but not punishing large user bases or rewarding financial opacity. If mistakes are repeated, the Commission will be exposed to greater litigation, reputational damage, and eroding the credibility of the DSA.
Meta and TikTok’s win in court might look technical, but its strategic implications are profound: it protects procedural integrity, signals unjustified cost burdens, and makes regulators more keen to hone the legal rightness and fairness of the DSA’s enforcement tools. As the recalibration process happens, everyone will be watching Brussels to determine if it can produce a reworked model that strikes a balance between effectiveness and fairness—something that will be able to resist both legal challenge and the unstoppable force of international digital trade
