Court upholds Amazon’s DSA VLOP designation
The General Court has dismissed Amazon’s action against the European Commission’s designation of the Amazon Store as a very large online platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act (DSA) in Case T‑367/23. The judgment confirms that Amazon’s user base exceeds the 45 million monthly active users threshold in the European Union, triggering the enhanced DSA obligations on transparency, data access, and systemic risk mitigation. The ruling consolidates the Commission’s margin of discretion in assessing which platforms may pose systemic risks and clarifies that marketplaces fall fully within the VLOP framework.
Amazon had argued that the VLOP regime infringes several fundamental rights, namely freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, equality before the law, freedom of expression, and the right to private life and confidentiality. The Court acknowledged that compliance with the DSA entails considerable costs and operational burdens, especially in terms of risk assessment, mitigation measures, and oversight obligations. Nonetheless, it held that such interferences with economic freedom are justified and proportionate, given the legislator’s objective of countering systemic risks, including the dissemination of illegal content and threats to consumer and fundamental rights.
In its assessment of property rights and equality, the General Court characterized the VLOP obligations as administrative in nature, not amounting to expropriation or deprivation of ownership. It concluded that the 45 million‑user threshold is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, as it is objectively linked to the potential impact on a large number of users exposed to harmful or illegal content. The Court emphasized that the EU legislature enjoys broad discretion in designing risk-based regulatory thresholds, provided that they are coherent, predictable, and grounded in a legitimate aim of general interest.
On freedom of expression, privacy, and confidentiality, the Court upheld key DSA mechanisms, including the requirement to offer a non‑profiling recommender-system option, public ad repositories, and structured data access for vetted researchers. It found that any interference with these rights is narrowly tailored, subject to clear safeguards, and justified by the aim of preventing systemic risks and achieving a high level of consumer protection within the internal market. The judgment strengthening the validity of the VLOP regime will guide ongoing enforcement against other large platforms and is likely to influence pending and future litigation around the DSA’s fundamental-rights balance.
