Digital Markets Act: The application by Bytedance (TikTok) seeking suspension of the Commission decision designating it as a gatekeeper is dismissed

According to the Order of the President of the General Court in case T-1077/23 (R| Bytedance v Commission), the application by Bytedance (TikTok) seeking suspension of the Commission decision designating it as a gatekeeper is dismissed.

Bytedance has failed to demonstrate the urgency required for an interim order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage.

Bytedance Ltd is a non-operating holding company established in China in 2012 which, through local subsidiaries, provides the entertainment platform TikTok. By decision of 5 September 2023, the Commission designated Bytedance as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector). 

In November 2023, Bytedance brought an action for annulment of that decision. By separate document, Bytedance lodged an application for interim measures seeking suspension of that decision. 

By his order, the President of the General Court dismisses Bytedance’s application for interim measures. According to the President of the General Court, Bytedance has not shown that it is necessary to suspend the contested decision until the proceedings on the substance of the case are closed in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to Bytedance. 

Bytedance argued, inter alia, that the immediate implementation of the contested decision risks causing the disclosure of highly strategic information concerning TikTok’s user profiling practices, which is not otherwise in the public domain. That disclosure would enable TikTok’s competitors and other third parties to obtain insight into TikTok’s business strategies in a way that would significantly harm its business. 

According to the President of the General Court, Bytedance has not shown that there is a real risk of disclosure of confidential information or that such a risk would give rise to serious and irreparable harm. (curia.europa.eu/photo: freepik.com)

The full text of the order is available here

Comments

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

The Lawyer's right to refuse the defense of an accused person for ethical reasons

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs): What and Why?

Sanction imposed on judge for Facebook posts concerning matters of public interest infringed his freedom of expression (ECtHR)

Gigantic fine for unfair practices imposed on Booking.com by the Competition Authority of Hungary

First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

The rules of UEFA on ‘homegrown players’ could be contrary to EU law (ECJ)