Article 30 sets fine ceilings of 10%, 20% for a narrowly defined repeat infringement, and 1% for listed procedural failures. Article 31 separately permits daily payments of up to 5% of average daily turnover.
The percentages are maximums, not automatic tariffs. Use this guide to identify the correct category, turnover period, legal trigger, and supporting record.
Start a DMA penalty analysis by identifying the legal category. Article 30 fines punish intentional or negligent substantive or procedural failures and use total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year. Article 31 compel listed actions and use average daily worldwide turnover in that year. Cease-and-desist orders and Article 18 remedies are enforcement measures, not additional fine bands. The statutory percentages are ceilings; the Commission fixes any amount through a case-specific decision.
In a gatekeeper , Article 30 allows the Commission to impose a fine up to 10% of the gatekeeper's total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year. The Commission must find intentional or negligent failure to comply with an Article 5, 6, or 7 obligation, an Article 8(2) measure, an Article 18(1) remedy, an Article 24 interim measure, or an Article 25 binding commitment.
Article 30 raises the ceiling to 20% of total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year where the gatekeeper committed the same or a similar Article 5, 6, or 7 infringement in relation to the same core platform service as one found in a adopted in the preceding 8 years.
A separate ceiling of 1% of total worldwide turnover can apply to undertakings, including gatekeepers where applicable, and associations of undertakings. Article 30(3) lists the covered intentional or negligent failures, including specified designation information and notification duties, Article 14 information, Article 15 descriptions, data or algorithm access, information requests, inspections, Commission monitoring measures, the Article 28 compliance function, and Article 34(4) file-access conditions. Check the list rather than treating every procedural defect as a 1% offence.
The ceiling does not determine the fine. Article 30 requires the Commission to consider gravity, duration, and recurrence, plus delay caused to proceedings for procedural fines. A percentage should therefore be applied only to the legally relevant turnover base for a ceiling scenario; it is not an estimate of the likely fine. On 23 April 2025, the Commission imposed decision-specific fines of EUR 500 million on Apple and EUR 200 million on Meta. On 23 July 2026, it announced two Google fines of EUR 460 million and EUR 430 million.
Sources (4)
Article 30 sets the DMA fine caps: 10% for specified gatekeeper non-compliance, 20% for same or similar repeat infringements, and 1% for specified procedural failures.
fines not exceeding 10 % of its total worldwide turnover
Commission legislation page identifying Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 as the main DMA rulebook for gatekeeper designation, obligations, and enforcement.
The DMA contains the main rules
Official source for the 23 April 2025 Apple and Meta non-compliance findings and their decision-specific fine amounts.
Official source for the 23 July 2026 Google Search and Google Play decisions and their respective fine amounts.
Article 31 are daily compulsion tools, not Article 30 fines. The ceiling is 5% of average daily worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date set in the Commission decision.
The DMA lists the obligations that can be compelled this way: compliance with Article 8(2) measures, Article 18(1) decisions, information requests, data and algorithm access requests, inspections, interim measures, binding commitments, and Article 29 non-compliance decisions.
If the undertaking or association later satisfies the obligation, the Commission may set the definitive amount at a figure lower than the amount that would have arisen under the original periodic-payment decision.
Sources (1)
Article 31 authorises periodic penalty payments up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover per day to compel specified DMA actions.
periodic penalty payments not exceeding 5 %
Article 29 is the central enforcement trigger for many DMA penalties. A can cover failure to comply with Articles 5, 6, or 7, Article 8(2) specified measures, Article 18(1) remedies, Article 24 interim measures, or Article 25 commitments.
Before adopting a , the Commission must communicate preliminary findings to the gatekeeper and explain the measures it is considering or considers the gatekeeper should take. A final non-compliance decision must order the gatekeeper to cease and desist within an appropriate deadline and explain how it plans to comply.
For Article 18, a gatekeeper is deemed to have engaged in when the Commission issued at least three Article 29 decisions against it, concerning any core platform services, within the 8 years before the decision opening the market investigation. A remedy also requires the investigation to show systematic infringement of Articles 5, 6, or 7 and that the gatekeeper maintained, strengthened, or extended its gatekeeper position. The Commission may then impose only behavioural or structural remedies that are proportionate and necessary.
Sources (1)
Articles 18 and 29 define systematic non-compliance, remedies, preliminary findings, cease-and-desist orders, and post-decision compliance descriptions.
The Commission shall adopt an implementing act
The Article 11 compliance report template shows the evidence style the Commission expects: separate standalone annexes for each designated core platform service, covering each applicable Article 5 to 7 obligation, with compliance statements, supporting data, internal documents, implementation dates, product and geographic scope, technical or engineering changes, user-interface changes, terms and remuneration changes, consultation records, alternatives considered, testing, indicators, and monitoring tools.
That evidence can be relevant to whether the Commission finds intentional or negligent failure, whether the narrow repeat test is met, and whether an implementation claim can be verified. The template also states that failure to provide true, correct, and complete information may influence the Commission's prioritisation when considering Article 29 proceedings. It does not say that an incomplete template response automatically proves an Article 30 infringement.
Build a traceable penalties package showing the obligation, affected core platform service, change made, evidence of effectiveness, remediation owner, business-user or end-user feedback, and raw data that can be produced if requested.
Sources (2)
Commission template describing the compliance-report evidence gatekeepers should maintain for each core platform service and applicable Article 5 to 7 obligation.
separate and standalone annexes for each core platform service
Commission practical-information page hosting DMA templates and procedural materials used for gatekeeper submissions.
Templates
The DMA gives affected gatekeepers, undertakings, and associations of undertakings a right to be heard before specified Commission decisions, including Article 29 and Article 30 decisions and Article 31(2) decisions setting a definitive periodic penalty amount. Observations on preliminary findings must be allowed within a Commission-set time limit of at least 14 days.
Articles 32 and 33 set 5-year limitation periods for imposing and enforcing fines or , with interruption and suspension rules. The limitation clock for continuing or repeated infringements starts when the infringement ceases, and Commission actions such as information requests, inspection authorisations, and opening proceedings can interrupt the period for imposing penalties.
Article 44 requires publication of decisions under Articles 29, 30, and 31, including the parties, main content, and any penalties imposed, while protecting legitimate confidentiality interests. Article 45 gives the Court of Justice unlimited jurisdiction to review Commission decisions imposing fines or and to cancel, reduce, or increase the amount.
Article 30 caps the ordinary gatekeeper fine at 10% of total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year for specified intentional or negligent non-compliance. The cap can rise to 20% for the same or a similar Article 5, 6, or 7 infringement involving the same core platform service after a in the preceding 8 years.
No. Article 31 are daily compulsion payments, capped at 5% of average daily worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year per day from the date set in the Commission decision.
Keep the Commission request or decision, the affected core platform service and obligation, implementation dates, product and geographic scope, technical changes, user-interface changes, supporting data, raw-data availability, testing and indicators, management-body review, compliance-function reports, user feedback, and remediation status.
Sources (2)
Articles 32 to 34, 44, and 45 cover limitation periods, rights of defence, publication of penalty decisions, and Court of Justice review.
the opportunity of being heard
Procedural implementing regulation for DMA proceedings, including party rights to be heard and access to the file.
right to be heard
Classify the alleged failure, identify the applicable ceiling and turnover basis, and preserve the decision-specific evidence before estimating exposure.
Ask cited questions about DMA fine caps, periodic penalty payments, non-compliance decisions, remedies, and evidence records.
Walk through Article 30 and Article 31 exposure, evidence gaps, and remediation ownership with Sorena.
"fines not exceeding 10 %"
"fines not exceeding 10 % of its total worldwide turnover"
"periodic penalty payments not exceeding 5 %"
"The Commission shall adopt an implementing act"
"the opportunity of being heard"
"conduct of certain proceedings"
"right to be heard"
"Compliance Report"
"separate and standalone annexes for each core platform service"
"The DMA contains the main rules"
"Practical information"
"Templates"
Review DMA Article 13 anti-circumvention risks in gatekeeper product, interface, contractual, commercial, and technical changes with obligation mapping and evidence records.
Official source guide to EU Digital Markets Act Article 6 data access for business users, end users, authorised third parties, consent boundaries, and evidence handoffs.
Official source guide to DMA interoperability duties: Article 6(7) operating-system feature access, Article 7 messaging interoperability, request handling, security conditions, and compliance 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.
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.
Scope EU Digital Markets Act core platform services by service category, designation evidence, user thresholds, and Form GD service-boundary records.
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.
Build an official source DMA designation intake record covering core platform service classification, Article 3 thresholds, Form GD evidence, Commission handoff, and Article 11 readiness.
Follow DMA enforcement from investigation and preliminary findings to non-compliance decisions, fines, daily payments, interim measures, commitments, and remedies.
A cited 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.
A cited EU Digital Markets Act guide for assessing Article 3 gatekeeper thresholds, scoping core platform services, preparing Form GD evidence, handling rebuttal annexes, and planning Article 11 compliance reporting.
Review DMA-relevant product releases for Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, anti-circumvention, Article 11 evidence, and product-owner/legal signoff.
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.
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act and EU Data Act by scope, actors, data access, interoperability, reporting, evidence, and enforcement without merging distinct obligations.
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act by covered services, regulated actors, core duties, reporting, dates, 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.
Compare DMA gatekeeper duties with GDPR rules for personal-data processing, consent, lawful basis, portability, accountability evidence, and enforcement.
Build a DMA Article 11 compliance-report calendar with the correct designation trigger, service annexes, evidence owners, annual updates, and publication gates.
A source-grounded Sorena 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.
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.
Calculate DMA notification, designation, service-compliance, Article 11 reporting, concentration-notice, and profiling-audit deadlines from the correct legal trigger.
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.
DMA requirements for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scope, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reporting, anti-circumvention, evidence, remedies, and fines.
DMA timeline separating fixed legal dates, threshold and designation clocks, recurring reports, service-specific decisions, final enforcement, and the first Article 53 review.
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.
Official source guide to EU Digital Markets Act Article 11 compliance reports: report purpose, template evidence, non-confidential summaries, annual updates, and submission steps.
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.
How gatekeepers should use the DMA Article 11 compliance report template to document obligation-by-obligation measures, evidence, updates, and non-confidential summaries.
FAQ on EU Digital Markets Act core platform services: Article 2 service categories, gatekeeper designation evidence, user thresholds, service scoping, and Article 11 reporting.
Standalone FAQ on the EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper thresholds, Article 3 notification timing, Form GD evidence, and active user-count methodology.
How DMA Article 7 messaging interoperability requests work, including phased functions, the three-month operational deadline, reference offers, evidence, and safeguards.
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.