The European Commission has confirmed that it will not require Big Tech companies to cover the costs of monitoring their compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The announcement, made by Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen, comes amid growing enforcement activity and ongoing pressure from lawmakers to have gatekeeper platforms shoulder more of the regulatory burden.
The decision preserves the current funding model for DMA supervision but also raises critical questions: Who should pay for compliance oversight in the platform economy?
Background
The DMA, which has been enforced since 2023, imposes strict obligations on digital “gatekeepers” such as Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, ByteDance, and Microsoft. These include rules around self-preferencing, interoperability, and platform neutrality.
Timeline of recent weeks:
- July 1: Google argued at a Commission-hosted workshop that the DMA is hindering innovation and increasing costs for users, citing a need for clearer guidance.
- July 3: The Commission launched a public consultation to review the DMA’s scope and effectiveness, with feedback due by September 24, 2025.
- July 11: Meta’s refusal to tweak its “pay-or-consent” ad model despite Commission warnings suggests new fines may be imminent, possibly in the hundreds of millions.
“Supervisory Fees” Explainer
DMA enforcement is expensive. Investigating violations, hiring platform specialists, auditing source code, and issuing fines all require significant resources.
Some lawmakers (notably in Germany and the European Parliament) have pushed for a “supervisory fee” to be levied on Big Tech companies, arguing that the companies being regulated should help pay for the cost of regulation. This fee would be modeled after the Digital Services Act (DSA), which already charges large platforms 0.05% of their global net income to fund oversight.
However, this week, the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, stated that there are no plans to introduce a DMA supervisory fee at this time. For now, DMA enforcement will continue to be funded through the EU’s general budget, meaning taxpayers are footing the bill.
What This Means for Compliance Professionals
I see this moment as part of a broader pattern emerging across the globe:
- Laws are being implemented more rapidly than funding models can keep pace.
- Governments are asserting regulatory power even as they debate who should bear the cost of oversight.
- Companies must stay proactive as enforcement expands and compliance obligations evolve.
What to Watch Next
- DMA Consultation Window (closes Sept 24)
Companies can submit feedback to help shape the evolution of the DMA, especially regarding AI integration, platform transparency, and clarity of compliance.
- Enforcement Trends
Meta’s standoff could become a landmark case in defining lawful consent models under DMA. Watch closely for precedent-setting decisions.
- Cross-legislation Synergy
With the EU AI Act and Data Act also being rolled out, organizations must be prepared for overlapping obligations, especially when operating on or through gatekeeper platforms.
At Centraleyes, we’re building the tools to help organizations stay ahead of regulatory change. In today’s environment, regulatory tracking and GRC can’t be separate efforts. Staying ahead means connecting the dots between policy shifts, enforcement trends, and internal risk and compliance processes.
