Action brought on 6 February 2024 – Tiktok Technology v Commission

(Case T-58/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tiktok Technology Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Batchelor and M. Frese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 8173 of 27 November 2023 determining the supervisory fee applicable to TikTok pursuant to Article 43(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council¹ in its entirety ; and

order the Commission to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 43(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (“DSA”) by using average monthly active recipients (“MAR”) estimates that do not comply with the DSA’s legal definition of MAR in Recital 77 and Article 3(p) DSA and by instead applying an estimation methodology that lacks a valid legal basis under Article 43 DSA.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 43(5)(c) DSA by failing to apply the fee cap of 0.05% of the provider’s net income (the “Fee Cap”) to the applicant.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 43(5)(b) DSA by applying residual charges to the applicant.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 43(2) DSA in imposing a supervisory fee based on costs outside the scope of Article 43(2) DSA.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s rights of defence. The provisional determination of the amount of the annual supervisory fee provided no opportunity for the applicant to comment on the MAR data used by the Commission or on the calculation of residual charges.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons. The contested decision does not provide adequate reasons in relation to the Commission’s costs covered by the supervisory fee, the Commission’s calculations of TikTok’s MAR, the identification of the providers who reached the Fee Cap, and the reasons for applying a common methodology.

____________

¹ Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).