This page helps review product changes that can favour a gatekeeper's own services or products in ranking, indexing, crawling, search results, marketplace display, app-store placement, social feeds, video surfaces, or virtual-assistant answers.
The examples are based on DMA Article 6(5), Article 2 definitions of ranking and search results, recital examples of preferential treatment, and the Article 11 compliance-report template.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
The does not prohibit a designated gatekeeper from showing its own product merely because it is its own, or from that product highly when the same transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory conditions produce that result. It prohibits more favourable treatment of the gatekeeper's own services or products than of similar third-party services or products in ranking and related indexing and crawling. Start the review with the listed core platform service and product surface, identify the comparison set, and test the criteria, eligibility rules, data inputs, manual interventions, presentation, and outcome. The examples below are Sorena review patterns derived from Article 6(5) and the recitals, not Commission decisions or approved safe harbours.
Scope the review to a designated gatekeeper, a core platform service listed in the designation decision, and a surface where goods, services, apps, videos, marketplace offers, social posts, , or assistant responses receive relative prominence.
The DMA definition of is broad. It covers relative prominence in online intermediation services, online social networking services, video-sharing platform services, virtual assistants, and relevance in online , regardless of the technical presentation method and even where only one result is communicated.
Use these examples as review patterns, not as a substitute for checking the exact designated core platform service and release facts. Each example should be tested against whether the gatekeeper's own product receives a better position or equivalent advantage than a similar third-party product.
A compliant implementation should be able to explain the condition, apply it consistently to similar own and third-party offerings, and preserve product evidence showing that the rule was followed before and after release.
On 23 July 2026, the Commission adopted a final Article 6(5) non-compliance decision against Google. It found that Google gave its own shopping, hotel, transport, and sports services more prominent Google Search treatment, including top placement and enhanced visuals and filters that similar third-party services did not receive. The Commission imposed a EUR 460 million fine for that breach and ordered Google to end the non-compliance. This is an official enforcement example; the remaining examples are Sorena review patterns, not Commission-approved implementations.
The evidence file should let a reviewer reconstruct the user journey, the comparison group, and the reason each own or third-party result received its position. Keep pre-release and post-release evidence together because small interface, policy, or algorithm changes can create a issue.
Evidence should be specific to the surface. A generic competition-policy memo is not enough if the product change affected crawling priority, index inclusion, feature eligibility, result grouping, default sort order, result-card format, ratings treatment, or a voice-assistant handoff.
Article 11 connects product evidence to the gatekeeper's formal compliance reporting. Within 6 months after designation, the gatekeeper must provide the Commission with a detailed and transparent report on measures implemented to ensure compliance with Articles 5, 6, and 7, and must publish and provide a non-confidential summary. The report and summary must be updated at least annually.
For examples, do not wait until annual reporting to assemble evidence. Every release that changes , indexing, crawling, or display prominence should produce report-ready material that can be lifted into the Article 11 compliance report, the non-confidential summary, or an annex.
Build the review into product release gates for search, marketplace, app-store, feed, video, virtual-assistant, and indexing systems. The control should apply before launch, during experiments, when manual boosting rules change, and when a new gatekeeper-owned product enters a ranked surface.
The release owner should block launch or escalate where the team cannot identify similar third-party offerings, cannot explain why the gatekeeper's own result receives its position, or cannot produce neutral criteria that apply to own and third-party products alike.
No. The DMA definition of covers relative prominence across listed core platform service types and Recital 52 says ranking includes display, rating, linking, voice results, and one-result experiences. A review should therefore cover , marketplace display, app-store placement, social feeds, video recommendations, and virtual-assistant answers when the other Article 6(5) facts are present.
Save the affected core platform service and surface, the own and third-party comparison set, or prominence parameters, screenshots or journey samples, before/after results, engineering and policy changes, legal review, release approval, monitoring plan, and the Article 11 report-ready explanation.
Use the cited sources listed here to verify obligations and the supporting evidence requirements.
Verify DMA Article 6(5), ranking, indexing, crawling, and compliance-report evidence against the cited sources on this page.
Review a search, marketplace, app-store, feed, video, or assistant release for DMA self-preferencing risk and Article 11 evidence gaps.
"any changes to the customer experience made in connection with the implementation of the measure concerned"
"In total, 23 core platform services provided by those gatekeepers are currently designated."
"The gatekeeper shall not treat more favourably, in ranking and related indexing and crawling, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself"
"the gatekeeper shall provide the Commission with a report describing in a detailed and transparent manner the measures it has implemented"
"whether through legal, commercial or technical means"
"software applications which are distributed through software application stores, or videos distributed through a video-sharing platform"