TikTok, the Chinese online social media giant, has taken a stand against a supervisory fee imposed by EU regulators, marking the second company to challenge the levy following Meta Platforms’ lead. Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), TikTok, along with 19 other very large online platforms, is mandated to pay an annual charge to cover the costs of EU regulators’ oversight of compliance with new EU rules.
The fee, amounting to 0.05% of TikTok’s annual worldwide net income, has sparked contention. A TikTok spokesperson voiced their disagreement, citing concerns over the methodology used for calculating the fee. The spokesperson highlighted the use of purportedly flawed third-party estimates of monthly active user numbers as a basis for determining the total amount.
In response, the European Commission has stood firm, asserting the solidity of its decision and methodology. A spokesperson for the EU executive emphasized the commission’s commitment to defending its position in court.
Read more: TikTok Updates Data Usage Regulations To Fit EU Laws
The deadline for payment of the fees was December 31, 2023, with assurances from the European Commission that all the concerned Very Large Online Platforms/Search Engines honored their commitments. Notably, companies such as Amazon and Elon Musk’s X, which incurred losses in 2022, are exempt from paying the 2023 fee. However, Amazon, having returned to profitability last year, will be obligated to pay for the current year.
This dispute underscores the evolving landscape of regulation in the digital sphere and the ongoing tensions between tech giants and regulatory bodies. As TikTok and Meta challenge the supervisory fee, the outcome of this legal battle will likely have significant implications for the relationship between online platforms and EU regulators.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand