Meta Platforms is accusing European Union regulators of shifting goalposts and unfairly targeting its business model under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), in what is fast becoming a high-stakes showdown over data privacy, digital gatekeeping, and advertising power.

In a statement on Friday, the U.S. tech giant said the European Commission was enforcing the DMA unevenly, discriminating against Meta’s “pay-or-consent” model, which offers users a choice between using Facebook and Instagram for free with personalized ads, or paying to opt out of ad tracking. Meta said it had gone “well beyond” the DMA’s compliance requirements and that it had made extensive changes in good faith after ongoing consultations.

“We are confident that the range of choices we offer people in the EU doesn’t just comply with what the EU’s rules require—it goes well beyond them,” a Meta spokesperson said.

But EU regulators disagree. On June 25, the European Commission said Meta’s model might not provide a “real alternative” to users and warned the company to expect enforcement action unless it makes substantive changes.

Ongoing Clampdown: Fines, Probes, and a Shrinking Window for Compliance

The Commission’s scrutiny of Meta is not new—but it has intensified rapidly under the landmark Digital Markets Act, which officially came into force in March 2024 to rein in the dominance of “gatekeeper” tech companies.

In April 2025, the EU fined Meta €200 million over its existing pay-or-consent model, saying it violated the DMA’s requirement for user consent to be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. Regulators argued that by tying access to the platform to either full tracking or payment, Meta was not offering a real alternative, especially to economically disadvantaged users.

That fine came alongside a broader €700 million joint enforcement against both Meta and Apple, making it the first major crackdown under the DMA. The ruling followed investigations launched in March 2024, which also focused on Meta’s handling of data across services like Facebook Marketplace, where the company was accused of self-preferencing and unfair bundling.

Back in November 2024, Meta was fined €798 million over anticompetitive conduct related to Facebook Marketplace. The European Commission found that Meta was using advertising data from its competitors to favor its own services and integrating Marketplace into Facebook in ways that distorted competition.

Meta’s Counterargument: Regulatory Double Standards?

In its latest pushback, Meta accuses the EU of selectively applying its rules and treating it differently from other companies that also offer users ad-supported or subscription-based models.

“A user choice between a subscription for no-ads service or a free ad-supported service remains a legitimate business model for every company in Europe—except Meta,” the company said, implying that it is being held to a higher standard.

Meta also argues that regulators are effectively rewriting compliance requirements after the fact. According to internal sources cited by Reuters and AP, Meta is frustrated that its recent revisions to the consent model—offering new personalization settings, simplified interfaces, and regional pricing—have not been deemed sufficient by EU watchdogs.

The Commission, on the other hand, is adamant that Meta must offer a non-tracked version of its services without requiring users to pay, in order to meet DMA’s “freely given consent” requirement.

The Business Stakes: Revenue and Reach at Risk

Meta’s business in Europe is on the line. Advertising forms the core of its revenue model, and a significant percentage of that comes from targeting users based on detailed behavioral data. Any rollback in that capability—whether through opt-outs or subscription uptake—threatens to hit its bottom line.

More importantly, if the EU deems Meta non-compliant, the Commission can impose daily fines of up to 5% of global daily turnover. With Meta’s 2024 global revenue exceeding $130 billion, such penalties could exceed $17 million per day. This threat becomes active by June 27, 2025, if Meta’s model is still found in breach.

The showdown is not just about Meta. The DMA represents the EU’s most ambitious effort to curb the power of dominant digital platforms and restore competition across tech markets. Meta, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are all designated as “gatekeepers,” and their platforms—from app stores to messaging services—are now subject to stricter rules.

The EU is signaling it will not tolerate superficial compliance by making an example of Meta early on. Regulators are demanding not just checkbox conformity but a genuine reshaping of business models that historically thrived on opaque data monetization.

The EU’s latest moves also build on years of scrutiny. In 2022, Meta was fined €390 million by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission under GDPR for forcing users into data collection via its terms of service. That same year, the company’s ad targeting model was challenged by consumer groups across several EU member states.

What Happens Next?

Meta is expected to formally appeal the Commission’s findings and possibly further revise its pay-or-consent framework. But it may face additional probes related to the interoperability of Messenger and Instagram with rival messaging apps, another DMA requirement that remains under review.

The outcome of this battle will likely set the tone for how aggressively Brussels enforces the DMA—and whether Big Tech’s long-standing monetization models can survive in a future where user rights and privacy are increasingly protected by law.

Meta is escalating its AI push with an aggressive campaign to acquire top-tier talent, build cutting-edge infrastructure, and secure its place in the global race for AI dominance.

In its latest move, the company has hired Trapit Bansal, a prominent researcher from OpenAI credited with helping launch the company’s first AI reasoning model, o1, and contributing to reinforcement learning efforts alongside co-founder Ilya Sutskever.

Bansal’s defection to Meta’s newly formed AI superintelligence team marks a significant win for CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who has made no secret of his ambition to catch up with — and potentially outpace — rivals like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and emerging players like DeepSeek. Bansal will be joining a growing list of elite scientists Meta has lured away in recent months.

Among them are Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Xiaohua Zhai, all former OpenAI researchers, as well as Jack Rae from Google DeepMind and Johan Schalkwyk, who previously led machine learning at Sesame AI. Meta’s willingness to offer compensation packages rumored to reach as high as $100 million reflects just how serious the company is about claiming a leading position in AI.

The team’s goal is to develop cutting-edge AI reasoning models — the kind that can perform complex tasks, analyze and solve problems step by step, and power autonomous AI agents across Meta’s vast ecosystem, from social platforms to enterprise tools.

Meta currently lacks a publicly available reasoning model on par with OpenAI’s o3 or DeepSeek’s R1.

But Meta’s approach isn’t limited to hiring alone. It has also made strategic financial moves, including a 49% stake in Scale AI — a $14.3 billion investment that gave the conglomerate access to one of the world’s largest data-labeling platforms. Scale’s founder, Alexandr Wang, has joined Meta’s AI superintelligence team and is expected to play a central role in its infrastructure buildout.

Additionally, Meta explored acquisition talks with a string of influential AI startups, including Safe Superintelligence, co-founded by Sutskever; Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines Labs; and Perplexity AI, the search startup. While none of those deals materialized, they reveal a clear pattern of Meta targeting research labs and startups at the cutting edge of AI development.

All of this comes as AI reasoning models — which allow systems to “think through” problems before responding — become the next frontier in the race to build smarter, more adaptable systems. With OpenAI’s GPT-4o, Google’s Gemini 1.5, and DeepSeek’s R1 already raising the bar, and Meta has so far lagged in releasing an equivalent model, Bansal’s expertise may prove key to closing that gap.

Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, recently acknowledged that Meta has attempted to poach his company’s talent with the $100 million offer, although he insisted that “none of our best people have decided to take him up on that.” Still, the departures paint a different picture — and Meta’s momentum is hard to ignore.

Zuckerberg sees Meta’s superintelligence lab as more than just an R&D unit. Like Google’s DeepMind, it is expected to power a wide range of AI agents across Meta’s platforms, from WhatsApp and Instagram to business-facing tools being developed under former Salesforce AI chief Clara Shih. The company has already committed over $70 billion in AI capital expenditure through 2025.

With Bansal onboard and its infrastructure expanding rapidly, Meta is positioning itself as a central player in the next phase of AI evolution — one that will be shaped by talents and the ability to retain the brightest minds.

Nike is set to begin raising prices on its U.S. products starting this fall to offset a projected $1 billion tariff cost increase, adding to growing concerns that consumers will bear the brunt of escalating trade tensions.

The decision, disclosed Thursday during the company’s Q4 2025 earnings call, is part of a four-part strategy aimed at containing the financial blow from U.S. President Donald Trump’s expanded tariff policy—one that is already reshaping global supply chains and stoking inflation risks.

“These tariffs represent a new and meaningful cost headwind,” said Nike CFO Matthew Friend, while describing the price adjustments as a “surgical increase” that will be implemented in phases beginning in fall 2025. The company did not provide specific figures, but analysts at BMO Capital reported in May that some Nike products had already seen price increases of $5 to $10 on the company’s website.

In April, President Trump boasted that the U.S. is “taking in $2 billion per day from tariffs,” framing the trade levies as a national win. But the implications for global brands like Nike—and their customers—are more complex.

Under Trump’s trade agenda, which includes high tariffs on goods from China and other trading partners, companies in countries hardest hit by the levies are now being forced to reconfigure sourcing strategies or pass costs directly onto consumers. Nike is one of many multinationals recalibrating production away from China, where it currently sources 16% of its footwear for the U.S. market. That share is expected to fall to the high single digits by the end of fiscal year 2026.

Analysts warn that as more companies adopt similar measures and begin passing costs down the value chain, American consumers will face higher prices across a range of goods—including clothing, electronics, and furniture.

Nike’s response to the tariffs extends beyond price hikes. The company laid out a broader strategy to protect its margins and adjust to the new trade landscape:

• Diversify production away from tariff-heavy regions like China.
• Partner with suppliers and retailers to share costs and limit consumer impact.
• Cut corporate costs, including potential staff and operational reductions.

Nike said that the impact of tariffs would be most acute in the first half of fiscal 2026 and has started working with wholesale partners to coordinate mitigation steps.

The company’s annual revenue for FY 2025 declined 10% to $46 billion. Still, it exceeded Wall Street’s lower expectations for the quarter, suggesting early traction for some of its turnaround measures under new CEO Elliott Hill. Hill has focused on reducing heavy discounts, reviving relationships with key retail partners, and shifting Nike’s branding back toward core sports performance.

Rising Inflation Pressure

While Nike attempts to cushion the blow internally, the broader economic effect may be unavoidable. With brands facing similar tariff exposure, especially in apparel, consumer electronics, and automotive sectors, economists say the inflationary impact could accelerate.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) already reflects upward trends in the cost of imported goods. With new tariffs reinforcing price pressure, especially on essentials, the Federal Reserve may find it harder to bring inflation down in the near term without further tightening monetary policy.

Global Repercussions

Beyond U.S. borders, companies that export heavily to the American market are also feeling the squeeze. Factories in China, Vietnam, and Indonesia that supply U.S. brands are seeing reduced orders or being bypassed as companies move production to countries like India and Mexico to sidestep tariffs.

This shift threatens to destabilize existing trade relationships and could undermine global efforts to stabilize supply chains disrupted during the pandemic.

For Nike and others in the consumer goods sector, the road ahead will involve carefully balancing price increases against brand loyalty in a fragile economic environment. But for American consumers: higher tariffs mean higher prices, and the effects are just beginning to filter through.

Can you help? What is the most promising business sector in Nigeria right now? In other words, if one has funds, where do you think one can deploy?

Personally, I do think that the most promising sector in Nigeria is to give loans/credits to blue chip companies or businesses with fortress balance sheets. Give them the loans and you can sleep. If they pay you 25% APR, you are better off than any struggle building a factory or running around on services will give you.

Where you cannot do that big credit, there are many companies in the capital market which are mopping funds from small players to do just that. One man in Lagos closed his factory, sold everything, and put the funds in (…). Now you know why commercial papers are flying around in Nigeria.

That party remains but every party does end. So, be careful since the companies taking the loans have real structural issues until we have electricity, and things which can stimulate the real economy, away from the current financialization era which began in the early 1990s when financial services took over making things in Nigeria!

*I get these questions a lot and since a village boy does not offer financial advisory as that is above the pay grades of villagers, I am seeking public help to answer the questions.  In your opinion, what is Nigeria’s most promising sector for those with capital?