What changed

B100190/2026

P10_TA(2026)0160

European Parliament resolution on the enforcementEnforcement of the Digital Markets Act

(2026/2596(RSP))

PE785.295

European Parliament resolution of 30 April 2026 on the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (2026/2596(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act), in particular Article 53 thereof,

– having regard to the question to the Commission on the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (O-0000(O-000016/2026 – B100000/2026),B100010/2026),

– having regard to the Commission decisions of 6 September 2023, adopted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925, designating Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft as gatekeepers in respect of a number of core platform services,

14. Notes the emergence of alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the single market, but expresses concern that their practical viability and scalability remain limited due to user journey design and restrictive economic and contractual conditions; highlights that gatekeepers are restructuring their fees in ways that leave developers worse-off than the pre-DMA status quo; urges the Commission to assess whether Apple’s terms and conditions of access are fair and non-discriminatory, as is required under Article 6(12) DMA;

✦ Adds a paragraph noting that gatekeepers may use safety justifications to restrict app distribution, and calls on the Commission to investigate such measures and ensure they are not pretexts to circumvent the DMA.

15. Notes that certain gatekeepers, as recently announced by Google for instance, invoke safety and cybersecurity justifications to impose registration and identification requirements on application developers, thereby limiting effective access to alternative application distribution channels in a manner that may conflict with Article 6(4) DMA; calls, therefore, on the Commission to investigate whether the security-related measures invoked are strictly necessary and proportionate, and to ensure that they are not being used as a pretext to circumvent the DMA’s objective of enabling genuine third-party software access, ensuring fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access conditions while safeguarding developers’ ability to steer users towards alternative distribution channels;

16. Recalls that, under Article 5(4) DMA, business users should be able to inform end users free of charge of alternative offers and to steer them to those offers and conclude contracts; notes that Recital 40 of the DMA recognises the possibility of remuneration for facilitating the initial acquisition of an end user, while stressing that any such remuneration must be strictly limited to the initial acquisition, proportionate and commensurate, and must not undermine steering in practice; urges the Commission to ensure that Apple’s redesigned terms are rigorously assessed against the DMA’s requirement for any charges linked to steering and that any attempts at circumvention are closely scrutinised and, if necessary, sanctioned without waiting for the outcome of the ongoing US judiciary process on the Epic Games v Apple case; underlines that enforcement of EU law should be pursued independently of third-country litigation;

31. Stresses that the review should focus on strengthening the effectiveness and enforceability of the existing framework while addressing challenges posed by rapidly evolving technologies and ecosystems by making full use of the powers available under the current framework, including through clarifications and guidance where necessary, and should avoid reopening the core objectives, scope or architecture of the DMA unless clearly justified by demonstrated enforcement gaps or significant market developments;

✦ Adds a paragraph stressing complementary use of competition and trade instruments, citing the Ceconomy/JD.com acquisition, and calls on the Commission to apply the Foreign Subsidies Regulation and assess data risks under FDI screening.

32. Stresses that effective enforcement of the DMA requires complementary use of general competition policy and all other EU trade defence and market surveillance instruments, as systemic risks to fairness and economic security can also arise from transactions outside the scope of the DMA; notes, in this context, concerns regarding the acquisition of Ceconomy AG by JD.com, which would transfer control of a major European retail and distribution network to a non-EU entity, raising risks of non-EU state access to sensitive consumer data and potential distortions linked to state-backed financial support; calls on the Commission to apply the Foreign Subsidies Regulation rigorously and to examine any foreign subsidies underpinning both this transaction and future ones; calls on the Commission to assess risks to European consumer data under the Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regulation and to ensure effective data localisation in line with EU data sovereignty and the enforcement framework of the DMA;

33. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission.