Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)

The defendants are Facebook Netherlands B.V., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd and Meta Platforms Inc (established in the US), collectively referred to as Meta. In September 2025, Bits of Freedom (BoF), a Dutch non-profit advocacy group, in light of the upcoming national elections, filed an interim injunction against Meta before the court of first instance (Amsterdam District Court - Rechtbank Amsterdam). It argued that that Meta restricts users' freedom of choice and autonomy by the way it sets up its platforms (Instagram and Facebook) regarding their recommendation systems and that it thereby violates Article 27, Article 38 and Article 25 DSA. More specifically it argued that: i. The place to choose a non profiled recommendation system is difficult to find and thus not directly and easily accessible on the platforms. ii. After a user opens (the apps and/or websites of) the platforms, a profiled recommendation system is automatically applied to the home page, the comments section, and the reels section, even if the user selected a chronological recommendation system before the app/website was last closed. This "switching back" to a profiled recommendation system also happens automatically during a session when a user navigates between different sections of the platform. iii. It is impossible to set a "persistent" choice in the apps or on the websites. That is, a choice to set a non-profiled recommendation system that does not "switch back" to a profiled recommendation system the moment the user navigates between different sections of the platform, or closes and reopens the platform's app or website. Bof requested that Meta is ordered to respect the user’s choice, to make the choice persistent and more accessible, to include the written text "Profiled" or "Profiling" at the top of each profiling and to include information on recommendation systems. Meta Ireland argued that there was no evidence that profiled recommendation systems would influence the electoral process, that any measures imposed should apply only up to the election and that it was impossible for it to implement these orders within two weeks. First, the court held that the obligations arising from the DSA only rest with Meta Ireland, since it is the one offering the platforms to Dutch users. This means that the claims brought against Facebook Netherlands and Meta Inc will be dismissed. Second, the court examined BoF’s claims in relation to the interfaces of Instagram and Facebook as very large online platforms and found that: Regarding point (i), the discoverability of the setting of an unprofiled recommendation system on Instagram's home page on the Android app, Instagram's reels section (on both apps and website), and Facebook's home page and reels section do not meet the requirements set by the DSA. This functionality is not "directly and easily accessible" in accordance with Article 27(3) DSA. Regarding points (ii) and (iii), the 'switching back' to a profiled recommendation system, the court held that the unauthorised interference with users' autonomy referred to in Article 25(1) DSA is considered a "dark pattern". According to the court, the user-chosen preference option for an unprofiled recommendation system on the platforms is not "persistent", meaning that the choice for that recommendation system is not retained until the user changes it again. Therefore, Meta Ireland violates the Article 27(3) and Article 38 DSA. Third, the court highlighted the that the freedom of information gathering is a fundamental right, which is part of freedom of expression. This fundamental right is protected for the purpose of public debate, which is fundamental to a democratic society. In light of this, the claims filed in these interim proceedings were by their nature urgent, taking into consideration the upcoming elections. Fourth, the court ordered Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, within two weeks of this judgment, to: 1. make the choice of recommendation system indicated by users of the platforms’ websites and/or apps, persistent, including the choice of a chronological or otherwise unprofiled recommendation system, to the effect that a choice of unprofiled recommendation system set by users will be preserved even if the user navigates to other sections within the platform, and even if the user has closed and then reopens the platforms' apps and/or website to make the preferred option for an unprofiled recommendation system directly and easily accessible in all platforms, 2. to make non-profiled recommendation system choices directly and easily accessible on (i) Instagram's home page on the Android app, (ii) Instagram's reels section (all apps and websites), and (iii) Facebook's home page and reels section (all apps and websites), 3.to pay to BoF a penalty payment of €100,000 for each day or part thereof that it fails to comply in full with the orders until a maximum total of €5,000,000. Fifth, the court rejected the claims to include the written text "Profiled" or "Profiling" at the top of each profiling and to include information on recommendation systems. Lastly, the court noted that the measures to be imposed only relate to offering the platforms to users within the Netherlands and will continue to apply beyond the elections.