Understand how the European Commission enforces the DMA against gatekeepers, what fine and periodic-payment caps the regulation states, and what evidence should be ready before an Article 29 non-compliance proceeding.
Built for competition, product, engineering, data governance, compliance-function, and reporting teams that need a grounded enforcement evidence file instead of generic competition-law notes.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
The DMA enforcement path is Commission-led. For a designated gatekeeper, the practical question is whether a product, policy, data, interoperability, ranking, reporting, or compliance-function failure could become a Commission non-compliance decision, a fine, a periodic penalty payment, an interim measure, a commitment, or a remedy after a systematic non-compliance investigation. Timings in this page are source-linked; verify current legal source language before implementation decisions.
Article 29 requires the Commission to adopt a non-compliance decision when it finds that a gatekeeper has failed to comply with a DMA obligation in Articles 5, 6, or 7, a measure specified under Article 8(2), a remedy imposed under Article 18(1), an interim measure under Article 24, or a legally binding commitment under Article 25.
Before adopting a non-compliance decision, the Commission communicates preliminary findings to the gatekeeper. Those preliminary findings must explain the measures the Commission is considering or the measures it considers the gatekeeper should take to address the findings. The Commission may also consult third parties.
Article 30 lets the Commission impose fines in a non-compliance decision of up to 10 percent of the gatekeeper's total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year for intentional or negligent failures to comply with the listed DMA obligations, Commission measures, remedies, interim measures, or commitments.
For the same or a similar infringement of an Article 5, 6, or 7 obligation involving the same core platform service, Article 30 allows the Commission to impose fines up to 20 percent of total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year when the earlier non-compliance decision was adopted in the preceding 8 years. Article 30 also separately allows fines up to 1 percent for specified procedural failures, including incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information, inspection failures, and failure to introduce a compliance function.
Article 31 allows the Commission to impose periodic penalty payments of up to 5 percent of average daily worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date set by the decision, to compel compliance with listed DMA duties and Commission decisions.
The enforcement toolbox is broader than final fines. Article 24 allows interim measures in urgent cases involving a risk of serious and irreparable damage for business users or end users. Article 25 allows commitments offered during Article 18 proceedings to become legally binding. Article 18 allows behavioural or structural remedies after a market investigation into systematic non-compliance, where the regulation's conditions are met.
Article 11 reporting is not just a filing exercise. The Commission's Article 11 template says every gatekeeper must provide a detailed and transparent compliance report within 6 months after designation, provide a non-confidential summary, and update the report at least annually. The template also states that failure to provide true, correct, and complete information may influence the Commission's prioritisation when opening proceedings for a possible Article 29 non-compliance decision.
The evidence file should therefore align enforcement risk with the same material used to demonstrate effective compliance: obligation-by-obligation measures, assessment projects, audit or compliance-plan outputs, compliance-function reports, management-body replies, user feedback, and actions taken in response.
Use this checklist when a DMA issue could become a Commission question, preliminary finding, non-compliance decision, fine exposure analysis, periodic penalty payment, interim measure, commitment, or Article 18 remedy.
The purpose is not to predict the Commission's outcome. It is to ensure the gatekeeper can explain the relevant obligation, product facts, compliance measure, evidence, user impact, owner, and corrective action without relying on unsupported narrative.
The European Commission is the central DMA enforcement authority for gatekeeper obligations. Article 29 sets the Commission's non-compliance decision process, while other DMA provisions give the Commission investigative, interim-measure, commitment, remedy, fine, and periodic-penalty powers.
Article 30 allows fines up to 10 percent of total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year for listed intentional or negligent non-compliance, up to 20 percent for the same or similar repeated Articles 5, 6, or 7 infringement involving the same core platform service within the stated 8-year lookback, and up to 1 percent for listed procedural failures.
The strongest evidence is obligation-specific and tied to the affected core platform service: implemented compliance measures, tests or indicators, audit outputs, compliance-function reports, management responses, user feedback, corrective actions, and the Article 11 compliance-report section that explains the measure.
Use the cited sources listed here to verify obligations and the supporting evidence requirements.
Verify the following areas from the cited sources: DMA non-compliance decisions, fine caps, periodic penalty payments, remedies, and Article 11 evidence.
Walk through the enforcement evidence file, report gaps, and source-linked next steps for a specific gatekeeper service.
"demonstrate effective compliance"
"implementation and enforcement of the DMA"
"Practical information"
"cease and desist with the non-compliance"