On 15 October 2026, Advocate General Andrea Biondi advised the EU Court of Justice to dismiss ByteDance's appeal in Case C-627/24 P against TikTok's designation as a Digital Markets Act (DMA) gatekeeper. According to the report of the opinion, he said that users also using other social networks does not show TikTok is not an important gateway. The opinion is non-binding, and the Court has not ruled. But the case is the first major DMA fight to reach the EU's highest court, and its outcome will set a legal test that American companies will live under.
The case for the designation
The strongest argument for the Commission is administrative. The DMA works through bright-line presumptions: a firm that crosses the quantitative thresholds is presumed a gatekeeper, and it carries the burden of rebutting that presumption. Regulators argue this is the point of the law. Competition cases take years, and by the time a dominant position is proven, rivals are gone. A fast, rule-based designation is meant to avoid that.
The General Court accepted this logic. In its 17 July 2024 judgment in T-1077/23, as summarised by eucrim, it held that ByteDance met the quantitative criteria. It also held that ByteDance had not rebutted the presumption that TikTok has considerable influence on the internal market. It rejected the argument that TikTok's smaller scale and lack of an ecosystem or network effects meant it was not a crucial gateway for businesses. And it found that competition from Meta's Reels and Alphabet's Shorts did not stop TikTok consolidating its position.
The appeal, heard on 12 May 2026, challenges whether the General Court applied the right legal test. Biondi's reported view, that multi-homing does not disprove gateway status, is a coherent reading. Users who also use other networks still reach businesses and creators through the platform in question.
Why US firms should read this opinion closely
The case is formally about a Chinese-owned app. But the test it settles is not specific to TikTok. The Commission lists seven gatekeepers with 23 core platform services between them. Five of the seven are US-headquartered: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft. If multi-homing is no defence for TikTok, it is no defence for them either. Every one of those firms can say that its users also use competitors. Under the reading the Advocate General reportedly endorses, that argument fails.
That has a practical consequence. The gateway test acts as a ceiling on how much future litigants can argue their way out of designation. It also bears on how readily the Commission can designate new services, including AI assistants and cloud products, once they cross the thresholds. A broad, presumption-driven test makes designation predictable for regulators. For companies, it makes the question of which services get swept in harder to contest.
The trade overlay
The ruling will land in a charged environment. On 23 July 2026 the Commission fined Google €890 million under the DMA: €460 million for self-preferencing in Search and €430 million over Google Play steering restrictions and fees. The next day, President Trump said the US would launch a Section 301 investigation of the EU and impose tariffs. As of 27 July, the formal USTR steps had not yet happened.
This follows earlier steps. CSIS notes that USTR listed the DMA and the Digital Services Act as digital trade barriers in its March 2025 National Trade Estimate report, and that the State Department imposed visa restrictions in January 2026 on five European officials tied to drafting the two laws. CSIS also records the Commission's position that the DMA is not part of US-EU trade talks, and sees no sign the EU is retreating.
A TikTok ruling is therefore unlikely to move Washington. It targets a Chinese company, so it hands the Commission a politically convenient win. But a judgment confirming a broad gateway test strengthens the Commission's hand against US firms on the same legal ground. That is where the friction will rise.
A proportionate view
A pro-innovation reading should not simply defend the incumbents. The Commission is right that some digital gateways need rules, and Google's Play fees and Search self-preferencing are legitimate targets. But three concerns follow from this case.
- Presumptions need real exits. A rebuttal route that cannot succeed when users multi-home is a formality, not a safeguard. The Court should state what evidence could rebut gateway status, so firms and regulators know the standard.
- Designation is not the same as harm. Being an important gateway describes a position. The DMA's obligations should be tied to demonstrated conduct problems, not to size alone.
- Trade retaliation is the wrong remedy. Tariff threats do not give US firms legal certainty, and they let the EU cast a contested regulatory design as a matter of sovereignty. The better route is for US companies to argue the test on its merits in Luxembourg, and for US officials to press for clarity in the DMA's review process.
What to watch
The Court is expected to rule in the coming months. Courts often follow Advocates General, though not always, so a judgment that departs from the opinion remains possible. If the Court adopts a broad test, expect gatekeeper challenges by US firms to turn on narrower questions, such as whether a specific service meets the core platform service definition. If the Court narrows the test, the Commission will have to justify future designations with more evidence. Either way, the ruling will define how far the DMA reaches, and the US-EU dispute will be argued over that boundary.