Compatibility of subscription-based models with Article 5(2) of the DMA. Case study : Commission v Meta Platforms Inc.
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Thomas HOEREN and Bernd HOLZNAGEL (eds), Arbeitsberichte zum Informations-, Telekommunikations- und Medienrecht, Wien : LIT Verlag, 2025, 25
Cite
FUCHS, Nora-Marie, HOEREN, Thomas, Compatibility of subscription-based models with Article 5(2) of the DMA. Case study : Commission v Meta Platforms Inc., in Thomas HOEREN and Bernd HOLZNAGEL (eds), Arbeitsberichte zum Informations-, Telekommunikations- und Medienrecht, Wien : LIT Verlag, 2025, 25 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/94169
Abstract
This work examines the relationship between Article 5 (2) Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding consent requirements for data combination by digital gatekeepers. The central argument challenges the view that Article 5 (2) DMA establishes an independent notion of “specific choice”, and instead it is demonstrated that Article 5 (2) DMA's “specific choice” requirement is functionally identical to GDPR standards for obtaining valid consent. Through systematic analysis of legislative text, judicial precedent, and regulatory guidance, this work reveals that the DMA's consent provisions represent a sectoral application of existing data protection principles rather than a departure from established law. The textual interpretation demonstrates that “specific” within the DMA context mirrors Article 4 (11) GDPR, requiring consent for clearly defined purposes with individual choice for each specific purpose. The absence of an independent definition in Article 2 DMA supports this interpretation, indicating no legislative intent to create GDPR-independent requirements. The analysis critically examines the European Commission's enforcement approach against “Pay or Con-sent” models, particularly in the latest Meta case. The Commission's attempt to isolate DMA interpretation from relevant GDPR precedent undermines EU data protection law coherence. The European Court of Justice's decision in Meta v Bundeskartellamt provides crucial support for this thesis, establishing that offering an equivalent alternative charging a fee does not invalidate GDPR consent. Since Article 5 (2) DMA is to be interpreted within the meaning of the GDPR, this ruling is applicable. The paper concludes that prohibiting “Pay or Consent” models contradicts the DMA's balanced approach to gatekeeper and end-user interests while potentially infringing fundamental rights. Since the DMA does not indicate different thresholds should apply, GDPR jurisprudence and guidance remain applicable.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 17 September 2025