Amazon and European regulators are still fighting, and the European Union’s General Court just made things worse by refusing to change the company’s status as a “very large online platform.” This decision, which strengthens Amazon’s duties under the EU’s Digital Services Act, is part of a larger debate over the power and accountability of big internet companies around the world. The corporation has always said that it is a retailer first and a platform second. Still, European courts see Amazon as a digital ecosystem that has an impact that goes beyond just buying and selling.
The General Court’s decision makes it apparent that size and impact are very important in the EU’s rules. With tens of millions of European users, Amazon has questioned the legality of the law that put it in the top regulatory tier. Because of that classification, the corporation has to follow more rules, such as stricter rules for unlawful products, harmful content, and any manipulation that could influence consumers. Amazon said the rule was wrong and not right, but the court disagreed.
The court said in its decision that platforms with more than 45 million active users might be considered very large digital actors under the Digital Services Act. This decision wasn’t just based on the type of content published; it was also based on the bigger hazards that huge digital marketplaces would represent to society as a whole. The court said that even though Amazon said it was mostly a marketplace and not a source of information, the risks of illegal goods, fake listings, fake goods, and violations of consumer rights are still part of systemic digital risk.
Amazon was disappointed and said again that it will appeal. The business said, “The Very Large Online Platform status was created to deal with the systemic risks that very large companies that make most of their money from advertising and share speech and information pose.” The Amazon Store is an internet store that just sells things and doesn’t spread or amplify information, thoughts, or opinions. Amazon says that the court’s interpretation goes too far with the Digital Services Act and includes things that were never planned for regular retail. The company believes that selling tangible items should not be the same as sharing material or spreading information.
But the EU court focused on a different point. The group thinks that the hazards go beyond speech or media influence. It talked about the hazards that come with “spreading illegal content or violating basic rights, including consumer protection,” and said that regulatory action is necessary when a platform’s size makes these risks far more serious. The court also said that the costs of these duties do not mean that firms as big as Amazon can avoid them, especially where consumer safety and basic rights are at stake.
It seems that the main point of dispute is how Amazon sees itself contrasted to how regulators see it. Amazon thinks of itself as a very efficient store that runs on logistics and customer service. European regulators see a huge online market where millions of buyers and sellers do business. Even modest dangers can grow quickly because of how big the industry is. The different ways of looking at things have affected the tone of this court fight.
For someone watching, this fight is part of a larger global debate: how should we control modern tech-enabled businesses whose platforms work like small economies? The EU has always favored strict rules, openness, and responsibility. Amazon, like a lot of other digital companies, says that too many rules might make things less efficient and hurt customers by raising prices or making products harder to find. The General Court’s decision strongly supports further regulation, making it clear that marketplace platforms can’t avoid responsibility just by focusing on items instead of content.
The timing of this verdict makes it especially noteworthy. As online shopping expands, the need for people to talk about digital responsibility becomes increasingly important. Problems like fraudulent reviews, bogus products, unsafe goods, and manipulated listings have made people more aware of how weak big online stores can be. When looking at digital risk, regulators are no longer just looking at social media sites. They are broadening their focus to cover all significant online spaces where a lot of people engage.
This example also brings up something less obvious but just as important: trust. People may trust Amazon for fast shipping and good customer service, but authorities are getting more and more worried about how the platform works behind the scenes. The Digital Services Act is meant to make things like content control, product verification, and seller accountability clearer. Amazon’s huge size makes it uniquely responsible for the EU, whether it acts as a social network or a retail showroom.
In a bigger sense, the court’s judgment could affect how other big platforms in Europe get ready to follow the rules. Amazon’s appeal will probably get a lot of attention in the tech world, not just because of the legal issues at stake, but also because it could affect how corporations run their businesses in Europe in the future.
The conflict between innovation and regulation is still at the heart of this story. Some companies, like Amazon, say that too much regulation makes it harder for them to expand and move forward. Policymakers say that without solid rules, the dangers grow faster than the benefits. Most people are somewhere in the middle. They like how easy it is to use big platforms, but they also know that they may be dangerous.
The court’s decision doesn’t end the discussion. Amazon plans to appeal, and that appeal will probably start up talks about digital accountability, the limits of regulation, and safety in the marketplace again. It makes you think about where a platform’s accountability starts and ends, and if mega-marketplaces can ever really detach themselves from the effects they have on society.
