Designation GuideEU DMA

DMA gatekeeper designation Article 3 and Form GD guide

Use this guide to assess whether an undertaking providing core platform services must notify the European Commission under DMA Article 3.

It covers the Article 3 criteria and quantitative presumptions, per-service Form GD evidence, rebuttal annexes, designation follow-up, and the Article 11 compliance-report clock.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
May 9, 2026
Sections
5

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
5

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated May 9, 2026
Overview

The DMA gatekeeper designation question is not a generic competition-law screening exercise. Article 3 asks whether an undertaking has a significant impact on the internal market, provides a core platform service that is an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and has an entrenched and durable position or is expected to have one soon. The quantitative presumptions, Form GD notification process, and post-designation Article 11 reporting work should be managed per core platform service, not only at group level. Timings in this page are source-linked; verify current legal source language before implementation decisions.

Section 1

Article 3 gatekeeper test and quantitative presumptions

Start with the three cumulative Article 3(1) requirements: significant impact on the internal market, an important gateway core platform service, and an entrenched and durable position or a foreseeable near-term position. Article 3(2) then creates quantitative presumptions for those requirements.

For internal-market impact, check whether the undertaking achieved annual Union turnover of at least EUR 7.5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or whether its average market capitalisation or equivalent fair market value was at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and whether it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States. For the gateway presumption, check whether the relevant core platform service had at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10,000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year. For durability, check whether those user thresholds were met in each of the last three financial years.

  • Document the undertaking or group boundary used for turnover, market-capitalisation, and fair-market-value evidence.
  • Build a separate threshold line for each core platform service that may meet the Article 3(2)(b) user thresholds.
  • Keep the Article 3(1) requirement, Article 3(2) presumption, data source, calculation period, and reviewer together in the same record.
  • If a threshold is not met, keep enough evidence to explain the conclusion because the Commission can assess undertakings below the quantitative thresholds under Article 3(8).
Section 2

Core platform service scoping before Form GD

Designation work should be scoped at the core platform service level because Article 3(9) requires the Commission to list the relevant core platform services in the designation decision. The DMA Annex also makes the undertaking responsible for the completeness and accuracy of active end-user and active business-user data submitted under Article 3(3).

Avoid collapsing distinct services merely because they share infrastructure, brand, accounts, domains, or data pipelines. The Annex says services in the same core-platform-service category should not be split mainly by domain names or geography, but services used for different purposes by end users or business users should be treated as distinct, including when provided in an integrated way.

  • Create a CPS inventory with service name, DMA service category, Member State availability, business-user population, end-user population, and the purpose served by each user group.
  • Record whether end-user counts rely on signed-in/logged-in environments, alternative metrics, or both, and explain under-counting or over-counting risks.
  • Record business-user counts at business-account level where that concept applies, or explain the alternative method used.
  • Flag integrated products where different components fall in different CPS categories or serve different user purposes.
Section 3

Form GD notification evidence and submission controls

When all Article 3(2) thresholds are met, Article 3(3) requires notification to the Commission without delay and in any event within two months after the thresholds are met. Regulation (EU) 2023/814 requires Article 3(3) notifications to contain all information and documents indicated in Form GD, and the information must be correct, complete, not misleading, clear, well structured, and intelligible.

The Commission's DMA legislation page adds practical routing: submit Form GD and any needed Power of Attorney through eTrustex with relevant DMA case numbers, copy EC-DMA@ec.europa.eu and the relevant CPS mailing lists, and use the subject 'DMA Form GD' if case numbers have not been received. The practical information page states that digital Form GD notifications and Power of Attorney documents must use at least one Qualified Electronic Signature; scanned signatures and non-QES advanced signatures are not accepted.

  • Keep a Form GD evidence pack for each notified CPS: threshold calculations, raw-data location, methodology explanation, assumptions, and known limitations.
  • Include written proof that submitters are authorised to act for the undertaking.
  • Prepare business-secret markings and reasons in separate documents where confidentiality is requested.
  • Track the upload notice, DMA Registry acknowledgement, email copy, CPS mailing-list copy, signature validation, and case-number subject line.
  • During Commission review, communicate material changes or new information without undue delay; materially incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information can affect when the notification becomes effective.
Section 4

Rebuttal annexes when thresholds are met

A threshold hit does not automatically end the analysis. Article 3(5) allows the undertaking to submit sufficiently substantiated arguments showing that, exceptionally, although it meets all Article 3(2) thresholds, the relevant core platform service does not satisfy one or more Article 3(1) requirements because of the circumstances in which that service operates.

Regulation (EU) 2023/814 makes the rebuttal operational: arguments must be provided in an annex to the notification, a separate annex is required for each distinct core platform service, and each argument must identify which of the three Article 3(1) requirements it addresses. If the Commission considers the arguments not sufficiently substantiated because they do not manifestly call the Article 3(2) presumptions into question, it may reject them within the Article 3(4) timeframe.

  • Do not use one group-level rebuttal for multiple services; keep a distinct annex for each CPS being challenged.
  • Label every rebuttal point against Article 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), or 3(1)(c).
  • Explain why the service exceptionally fails the relevant Article 3(1) requirement even though the corresponding Article 3(2) threshold is met.
  • Keep rebuttal facts, source data, economic analysis, supporting documents, confidentiality markings, and sign-off history together with the Form GD file.
Section 5

Designation decision follow-up and Article 11 readiness

After complete Article 3(3) information is received, Article 3(4) requires the Commission to designate a qualifying undertaking without undue delay and at the latest within 45 working days. The designation decision lists the relevant core platform services under Article 3(9), and Article 3(10) gives the gatekeeper six months after a core platform service is listed to comply with Articles 5, 6, and 7.

Article 11 readiness should start before designation is final. The Commission's Article 11 template says every gatekeeper must provide, within six months after designation, a detailed and transparent compliance report and a non-confidential summary, and update the report at least annually. The template asks for separate standalone annexes for each designated core platform service and for each applicable Article 5 to 7 obligation, including measures, supporting data, internal documents, implementation timing, technical changes, customer-experience changes, and reasons when an obligation cannot by nature apply to a relevant CPS.

When must an undertaking notify the Commission that it meets DMA gatekeeper thresholds?

If an undertaking providing core platform services meets all Article 3(2) thresholds, Article 3(3) requires it to notify the Commission without delay and in any event within two months after those thresholds are met.

What should Form GD evidence cover for DMA gatekeeper designation?

Form GD evidence should cover the Article 3(2) financial, geographic, end-user, business-user, and three-year durability information for each relevant core platform service, plus supporting documents, methodology explanations, authorisation proof, confidentiality claims where needed, and any material changes or new information during review.

Can a company rebut DMA gatekeeper designation after meeting the thresholds?

Yes. Article 3(5) allows sufficiently substantiated arguments that, exceptionally, a relevant core platform service does not satisfy the Article 3(1) requirements despite meeting the Article 3(2) thresholds. Under Regulation (EU) 2023/814, those arguments belong in separate annexes for each distinct core platform service.

What happens after a core platform service is listed in a DMA designation decision?

The listed gatekeeper must comply with Articles 5, 6, and 7 within six months after the core platform service is listed in the designation decision. Article 11 reporting should be prepared on the same per-CPS basis, with a detailed compliance report, non-confidential summary, and at least annual updates.

  • Open an Article 11 workstream as soon as a CPS is likely to be listed, using the same CPS inventory and evidence owners as the Form GD process.
  • For each listed CPS, map every Article 5, 6, and 7 obligation to a compliance owner, product or engineering owner, legal reviewer, evidence repository, and non-confidential-summary owner.
  • Keep pre-designation and post-designation measures separate so the report can explain what already existed and what changed because of the DMA.
  • Prepare report evidence that can support data points, visual illustrations, recorded demos, technical changes, user-journey changes, terms changes, and reasons for non-applicability where the template calls for them.
  • Track Article 4 review triggers: substantial changes in designation facts or incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information can lead the Commission to reconsider, amend, or repeal a designation decision.
Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Article 2(3) of the procedural regulation requires separate rebuttal annexes per distinct core platform service and ties each argument to the relevant Article 3(1) requirement.
"A separate annex shall be submitted"
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • The Article 11 template specifies the compliance report, non-confidential summary, six-month timing after designation, annual updates, and per-CPS annex structure.
"within 6 months after its designation"
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • The Commission page gives practical Form GD submission routing through eTrustex, email copies, case-number subject lines, and acknowledgement expectations.
"Please submit your Form GD"
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • The practical information page states that digital Form GD and Power of Attorney submissions must use a Qualified Electronic Signature.
"must be signed using at least one Qualified Electronic Signature"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Article 3(4), 3(9), and 3(10) support the 45-working-day designation timing, CPS listing, and six-month compliance obligation clock.
"within 45 working days"
Related guides

Explore more topics

DMA Anti-Circumvention Design Review for Gatekeeper Product Changes
Review DMA Article 13 anti-circumvention risks in gatekeeper product, interface, contractual, commercial, and technical changes with obligation mapping and evidence records.
DMA Article 11 Compliance Report Template FAQ
How gatekeepers should use the DMA Article 11 compliance report template to document obligation-by-obligation measures, evidence, updates, and non-confidential summaries.
DMA Article 6 Business User Data Access Guide
Grounded guide to EU Digital Markets Act Article 6 data access for business users, end users, authorised third parties, consent boundaries, and evidence handoffs.
DMA Article 6(7) and Article 7 interoperability obligations
Grounded guide to DMA interoperability duties: Article 6(7) operating-system feature access, Article 7 messaging interoperability, request handling, security conditions, and compliance evidence.
DMA Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations mapped to CPS evidence
Map EU Digital Markets Act Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations to affected core platform services, product evidence, legal owners, and Article 11 compliance-report artifacts.
DMA compliance program and monitoring for gatekeepers
Build a DMA compliance program around Article 8 effective compliance, Article 11 reporting evidence, Article 13 anti-circumvention controls, and Article 28 compliance-function governance.
DMA Core Platform Service Scoping
Scope EU Digital Markets Act core platform services by service category, designation evidence, user thresholds, and Form GD service-boundary records.
DMA core platform services FAQ
FAQ on EU Digital Markets Act core platform services: Article 2 service categories, gatekeeper designation evidence, user thresholds, service scoping, and Article 11 reporting.
DMA CPS Obligation Matrix Workflow: Articles 5, 6, 7 and Article 11 Evidence
Build a DMA core platform service obligation matrix that links each designated CPS to Articles 5, 6 and 7 duties, product owners, designation evidence, Article 11 report artifacts and review gates.
DMA designation intake workflow for gatekeeper notifications
Build a grounded DMA designation intake record covering core platform service classification, Article 3 thresholds, Form GD evidence, Commission handoff, and Article 11 readiness.
DMA enforcement, penalties, and remedies: Commission powers and evidence
EU Digital Markets Act enforcement guide covering Commission non-compliance decisions, DMA fine caps, periodic penalty payments, remedies, interim measures, commitments, and Article 11 evidence.
DMA Gatekeeper Compliance Checklist for Articles 5, 6, 7 and 11
A grounded EU Digital Markets Act checklist for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scope, Article 5/6/7 controls, Article 11 report evidence, anti-circumvention checks, and review gates.
DMA gatekeeper thresholds: what counts and when to notify
Standalone FAQ on the EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper thresholds, Article 3 notification timing, Form GD evidence, and active user-count methodology.
DMA interoperability requests: Article 7 and Commission guidance
How EU Digital Markets Act interoperability requests work for Article 7 messaging services, Article 6(7) operating-system access, gatekeeper evidence, requester evidence, and security safeguards.
DMA penalties and fines: caps, triggers, and enforcement evidence
EU Digital Markets Act penalties guide covering Article 30 fine caps, Article 31 periodic penalty payments, non-compliance decisions, remedies, and evidence records.
DMA Product Change Review Workflow for Articles 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13
Review DMA-relevant product releases for Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, anti-circumvention, Article 11 evidence, and product-owner/legal signoff.
DMA Self-Preferencing Compliance Examples for Ranking and Display
Examples and release-review controls for DMA Article 6(5) self-preferencing checks across ranking, indexing, crawling, search results, marketplaces, app stores, feeds, and virtual assistants.
DMA vs Data Act: gatekeeper duties compared with EU data-sharing rules
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act and EU Data Act by scope, actors, data access, interoperability, reporting, evidence, and enforcement without merging distinct obligations.
DMA vs DSA: Digital Markets vs Services Act
A grounded comparison of the DMA and DSA focused on gatekeepers, core platform services, DMA obligations, Article 11 reporting, interoperability, data access, and enforcement.
DMA vs EU competition law: gatekeeper obligations, Article 11 evidence, and enforcement
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act with EU competition law: ex ante gatekeeper and core platform service duties, Articles 5 to 7, Article 11 reports, penalties, and evidence records.
DMA vs GDPR: gatekeeper data obligations compared
Compare DMA gatekeeper obligations with high-level GDPR overlap for consent, combining personal data, data access, portability, and Article 11 reporting.
EU Digital Markets Act Article 11 Evidence Calendar
Build a source-grounded DMA Article 11 compliance report calendar with evidence owners, annual update checkpoints, report sections, and review gates.
EU Digital Markets Act checklist for gatekeeper compliance
A source-grounded DMA checklist for designated gatekeepers and core platform services, covering scope, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reporting, evidence, anti-circumvention, and governance.
EU Digital Markets Act compliance: gatekeeper obligations and evidence
DMA compliance guide for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scoping, Articles 5, 6 and 7 controls, Article 11 reports, anti-circumvention checks, interoperability evidence, and enforcement risk.
EU Digital Markets Act deadlines and compliance calendar
Track DMA notification, designation, six-month obligation start, Article 11 reporting, Article 14 concentration notices, Article 15 profiling audits, and preparation milestones using official EU sources.
EU Digital Markets Act FAQ: gatekeepers, DMA obligations, reports, and enforcement
Concise FAQ on the EU Digital Markets Act for gatekeeper designation, core platform services, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reports, interoperability, business-user data access, compliance evidence, and enforcement.
EU Digital Markets Act requirements for gatekeepers
DMA requirements for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scope, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reporting, anti-circumvention, evidence, remedies, and fines.
EU Digital Markets Act Timeline and Key Milestones: practical obligations and evidence guide
Practical EU Digital Markets Act guide to Timeline and Key Milestones: scope, owners, evidence, edge cases, checklist steps, and external source-linked citations.
EU DMA Applicability Test: gatekeeper thresholds, core platform services, and evidence
Test whether the EU Digital Markets Act may apply to a platform service using the DMA gatekeeper criteria, core platform service categories, EU user thresholds, notification steps, and evidence records.
EU DMA Article 11 Compliance Reporting Guide
Source-grounded guide to EU Digital Markets Act Article 11 compliance reports: report purpose, template evidence, non-confidential summaries, annual updates, and submission steps.
EU DMA do's and don'ts for product teams
Product release checks for designated DMA gatekeepers: Article 5, 6 and 7 obligations, anti-circumvention review, data access, interoperability, self-preferencing and Article 11 evidence.
What do DMA Articles 5, 6, and 7 require from gatekeepers?
FAQ explaining how EU Digital Markets Act Articles 5, 6, and 7 group gatekeeper obligations, what product evidence they require, and how Article 11 reporting connects.