LNB News 23/04/2025
Document Information
Issue Date: 23 April 2025
Published Date: 23 April 2025
Jurisdiction(s): European Union and Eire
The European Commission has fined Apple €500m and Meta €200m for breaching EU Digital Markets Act (EU DMA) obligations. Apple violated anti-steering rules by restricting app developers from informing users about alternative payment options outside the App Store. Meta breached user consent requirements with its 'consent or pay' model for Facebook and Instagram. Both companies have 60 days to comply with the Commission's decisions or face additional penalties. The Commission also removed Meta's Facebook Marketplace from EU DMA designation due to falling below business user thresholds.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Micklefield clausesWhat is a Micklefield clause?It is common for employee share plans to provide that, on termination of employment (or when an employee is given or receives notice of termination of employment), subsisting share awards will be forfeited and subsisting share options will lapse.It is
Financial clean break orders in family proceedingsDuty of the court to consider a clean breakAlthough there is no presumption in favour of there being a financial clean break between parties on divorce, the court is under a duty to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise its powers so
Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has provided concise guidance as to how misrepresentation should be analysed when considering jurisdictional gateways. Under Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention, in negligent misstatement cases, the place of the event giving rise to damage is normally
0330 161 1234