In a recent development, Amazon (AMZN.O.) has obtained interim relief in its ongoing struggle against European Union (EU) tech regulations that categorize it as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) obligated to grant access to its ad repositories for research and regulatory scrutiny.
This legal dispute began in April when EU antitrust regulators classified Amazon as a VLOP, along with 18 other digital platforms and search engines. In response to this classification, the U.S. online retail giant brought its concerns before the General Court of the European Union, the second-highest court in Europe, located in Luxembourg, in July.
Amazon’s specific request was for an interim measure to suspend certain provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA). These provisions required Amazon to compile and make public an advertisement repository and offer users an alternative to recommender systems based on profiling. This suspension was sought until the Court could render a verdict on Amazon’s challenge to its VLOP designation.
In a decision dated September 27, the General Court ruled in favor of Amazon regarding the suspension of these DSA requirements. The judges pointed out that this interim measure merely preserves the status quo for a limited period.
Amazon welcomed this interim decision, viewing it as “an important first step that supports our broader position that Amazon doesn’t fit the description of a ‘Very Large Online Platform’ (VLOP) under the DSA and therefore should not be designated as such.”
However, it is important to note that the Court did not grant Amazon relief on the second part of its application.
This legal battle, with the case identifier T‑367/23 R, Amazon Services Europe Sarl vs. Commission, highlights the complex and evolving relationship between major tech companies and regulatory bodies, especially in Europe, where stringent regulations aim to balance the interests of digital giants with the protection of consumer rights and competition. Amazon’s victory in securing an interim measure signifies a temporary reprieve, but the ultimate outcome of this dispute remains uncertain as the Court continues to assess the merits of the case.