The Digital Markets Act (DMA)imposes specific obligations on designated gatekeepers. Competitors, business users and other affected market participants can enforce these obligations before national courts. In Germany, the Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, GWB) provides claims for injunctions, removal of the resulting impairment and damages for infringements of Articles 5, 6 and 7 DMA.
Foreign companies may bring DMA claims before German courts without having an establishment in Germany. Whether a German court has jurisdiction depends on the defendant, the alleged infringement and its connection with Germany. A German court has also granted a DMA injunction extending beyond German territory in proceedings concerning Google’s registration procedures. Whether such orders are compatible with the jurisdictional framework of Brussels I Recast remains open.
Private Enforcement of the DMA Under German Law
The European Commission is responsible for the public enforcement of the DMA. It investigates suspected infringements, adopts non-compliance decisions and imposes fines. This does not preclude civil proceedings before national courts, which may apply the DMA independently of the Commission.
The DMA itself contains no comprehensive rules on civil remedies. It nevertheless presupposes private enforcement, as Article 39 DMA on cooperation between the Commission and national courts and Article 42 DMA on representative actions confirm. Under the EU law principle of effectiveness, national rules must not render the exercise of rights conferred by the Regulation practically impossible or excessively difficult. In Courage(C‑453/99), the Court of Justice held that the full effectiveness of EU competition law would be put at risk if affected parties could not claim damages. By analogy, the same reasoning supports private enforcement of the DMA.
Germany introduced specific provisions for private DMA enforcement through the 11th amendment to the GWB in November 2023. Under Section 33 GWB, affected parties may seek removal of the impairment caused by an infringement of Articles 5, 6 or 7 DMA (Beseitigung) and an injunction against further infringements (Unterlassung). Section 33a GWB provides for damages where the defendant acted intentionally or negligently. The GWB also contains provisions on the binding effect of administrative decisions, disclosure of evidence and limitation periods. Private DMA enforcement thus follows the established system of private competition litigation.
Section 33(3) GWB defines affected parties as competitors and other market participants impaired by an infringement. A claimant need not compete with the gatekeeper on the same market. App developers, business users and providers of complementary services may also qualify, provided the infringement affects their market participation. The claimant must show an impairment resulting from an infringement of an applicable DMA obligation.
A prior infringement decision by the Commission is not required. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne (OLG Köln) rejected the argument that private enforcement was subordinate to public enforcement in its judgment of 23 May 2025 (15 UKl 2/25). The proceedings concerned Meta’s proposed use of personal data to train artificial intelligence systems. A consumer association had applied for interim relief under the German Injunctions Act (Unterlassungsklagengesetz, UKlaG), which covers DMA obligations in Section 2(2) No. 56 UKlaG. The case therefore did not concern a claim under Section 33 GWB. Although the court dismissed the application on substantive grounds, it confirmed that national courts can examine alleged DMA infringements independently of Commission proceedings.
In proceedings between competitors under Section 33 GWB, the Regional Court of Mainz (LG Mainz) likewise interpreted and applied Article 5(8) DMA without a prior non-compliance decision. The case concerned Google’s account registration procedures.
The companies and core platform services currently subject to the DMA are listed in our DMA Gatekeeper Designation Tracker.
For a more detailed analysis of the available remedies, see our German-language guide to DMA Private Enforcement.
International Jurisdiction: DMA Claims Before German Courts
International jurisdiction does not depend on the claimant’s place of establishment. A foreign company may sue in Germany if the applicable jurisdictional requirements are satisfied. The applicable rules depend primarily on whether the defendant is domiciled inside or outside the European Union.
Defendants Domiciled in the EU
For defendants domiciled in an EU Member State, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) generally governs international jurisdiction.
Under Article 4, the defendant may be sued in the Member State of its domicile. Article 7(2) provides an additional jurisdiction for matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict at the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. DMA infringements can fall within this provision.
This also applies where the claimant and the gatekeeper are contractually linked, as business users typically are. In Wikingerhof(C‑59/19), the Court of Justice held that a claim falls under Article 7(2) where it rests on a breach of a statutory obligation and the court need not interpret the contract to assess the lawfulness of the conduct. The obligations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 DMA arise from the Regulation itself, not from the gatekeeper’s terms.
A jurisdiction agreement under Article 25 Brussels I Recast may also be relevant. Whether it covers a DMA claim depends on its wording, the parties bound by it and the nature of the dispute. Competitors without a contractual relationship with the gatekeeper are not bound by such clauses. In Apple Sales International(C‑595/17), the Court of Justice accepted that a jurisdiction clause may cover abuse-of-dominance claims arising from a contractual relationship. Its application to DMA claims has not yet been clarified.
The Court of Justice held in Bier(21/76) that the place of the harmful event comprises both the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred and the place where the damage materialised. In disputes concerning digital platforms, these places need not coincide. The relevant conduct may originate in one Member State but affect competitors or business users in several others.
The existence of an EU-wide platform service alone does not establish jurisdiction in Germany. The alleged infringement must have a sufficient connection with Germany. Moreover, the distinction between the place of the causal event and the place where damage occurs may affect the territorial scope of the claims over which the court can adjudicate (see below on the territorial reach of injunctions).
In its judgment of 23 May 2025 (15 UKl 2/25), the OLG Köln accepted international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast in proceedings against Meta Platforms Ireland Limited. The contested data processing concerned data relating to users in Germany. The court considered that connection sufficient, although the defendant was established in Ireland.
The OLG Köln decision supports German jurisdiction in comparable disputes. It does not establish general jurisdiction over gatekeepers merely because their services are available in Germany.
Where a claimant sues several group companies, Article 8(1) Brussels I Recast allows co-defendants to be sued at the domicile of one of them if the claims are so closely connected that separate proceedings would risk irreconcilable judgments. The provision applies only to an anchor defendant domiciled in the Member State of the court seised. A claimant may not use it solely to remove a defendant from the courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction.
For further discussion, see Where to Litigate Under the DMA: Jurisdictional Considerations in Private Enforcement.
Defendants Domiciled Outside the EU
The position differs where the defendant is domiciled outside the European Union. Several gatekeeper groups have parent companies established in third countries, although European subsidiaries operate some of their core platform services.
Under Article 6(1) Brussels I Recast, jurisdiction over defendants not domiciled in a Member State generally follows national law, subject to the exceptions provided by the Regulation. In Germany, Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO) confers jurisdiction in tort matters on the court for the place where the harmful act was committed. Under the German principle of double functionality, this provision also determines international jurisdiction.
The relevant jurisdictional rules therefore depend on which legal entity the claimant intends to sue. A German subsidiary’s presence does not establish jurisdiction over every company belonging to the same group.
The Proper Defendant: Gatekeeper Designation and Corporate Liability
The choice of defendant also matters for substantive liability. Under Article 3 DMA, the Commission designates a gatekeeper undertaking and identifies the core platform services concerned. The undertaking may comprise several legal entities, but this does not necessarily make every subsidiary liable under Section 33 GWB.
The LG Mainz addressed this issue in its judgment of 12 August 2025 (12 HK O 32/24, MMR 2026, 446). The claimants sued both the Google group company responsible for the services at issue and a German subsidiary. The court granted relief against the responsible company but dismissed the action against the German subsidiary.
According to the LG Mainz, the subsidiary did not operate the relevant services in Germany. The claimants had also failed to establish the conditions for attributing liability on the basis of the economic unit doctrine developed by the Court of Justice in Sumal(C‑882/19). The gatekeeper designation was binding as regards the applicability of the DMA, but did not establish that the German subsidiary had itself infringed Article 5 DMA for the purposes of Section 33 GWB.
The question is whether the regulatory responsibility of the designated undertaking also determines the attribution of an infringement under Section 33 GWB. Following the case law on economic units, the Mainz court required a specific connection between the subsidiary’s activities and the infringement. Whether this approach adequately reflects the DMA’s undertaking-based obligations remains open. Conversely, membership of the group alone does not determine which company is the infringer under Section 33(1) GWB.
Injunctions, Removal and Damages
Injunctions and Removal
Section 33(1) GWB allows affected parties to seek removal of the impairment and, where there is a risk of recurrence, an injunction. Section 33(2) GWB also permits preventive injunctions against threatened infringements.
These provisions can address contractual restrictions, discriminatory conditions, technical barriers or other practices prohibited by the DMA. A removal claim may require positive measures, including modifications to contractual arrangements or technical systems.
The Mainz proceedings show the limits of such claims. The claimants, providers of the email services GMX and WEB.DE, challenged Google’s registration procedures for Android and other services. They argued that Google required users to register for Gmail in breach of Article 5(8) DMA.
The LG Mainz found a prohibited tying practice where registration resulted in the automatic creation of a visible and usable Gmail address. However, the court did not require Google to implement the specific choice-screen solution sought by the claimants. Google could remove the infringement through other means, including registration by telephone number without automatically creating a usable Gmail account.
The LG Mainz judgment distinguishes between the compliance obligation and the measures used to fulfil it. Where several lawful means of compliance exist, the gatekeeper may in principle choose between them. Each chosen measure must nevertheless achieve full and effective compliance.
Positive Obligations and Claims for Performance
Several DMA provisions require gatekeepers to provide access or interoperability rather than merely refrain from prohibited conduct. Article 6(7) DMA concerns interoperability with operating system and hardware or software features, while Article 6(11) DMA requires access to certain search data on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
Section 33(1) GWB may provide a claim for removal of an infringement where a gatekeeper refuses to comply with such obligations. Removal may require positive measures. Their scope depends on the underlying DMA obligation and the impairment suffered by the claimant.
Whether individual DMA provisions also confer directly enforceable claims for performance independently of Section 33 GWB remains unresolved. The Regulation is directly applicable, but this does not by itself determine the civil remedies available to individual claimants.
Articles 8 and 13 DMA also inform the assessment of compliance. Article 8(1) requires effective compliance with the obligations and their objectives. Article 13 addresses measures that undermine or circumvent these obligations. Section 33(1) GWB expressly refers to Articles 5, 6 and 7 DMA, but not to Article 13. The latter may therefore inform the interpretation of enforceable obligations without necessarily providing an independent claim under Section 33 GWB. The LG Mainz expressly left this question open (para. 86).
The Commission may specify compliance measures under Article 8(2) DMA, particularly for access and interoperability obligations under Articles 6 and 7. It adopted two such decisions concerning Apple’s interoperability obligations under Article 6(7) DMA on 19 March 2025 (DMA.100203 and DMA.100204). On 16 July 2026, two decisions concerning Alphabet followed: one on the interoperability of AI services with Android under Article 6(7) DMA (DMA.100220) and one on access to search data under Article 6(11) DMA (DMA.100209).
Source: Commission press release IP/26/1634 of 16 July 2026.
Specification decisions may be relevant to civil litigation where technical specifications or access procedures are disputed. The substantive obligation nevertheless arises from the DMA itself. Claimants need not wait for a specification decision, and Section 33 GWB does not provide a separate cause of action for every breach of such a decision.
Interim Injunctions
Interim relief is available under Sections 935 and 940 ZPO where the applicant shows both a claim (Verfügungsanspruch) and urgency (Verfügungsgrund). The applicant must establish both to the reduced standard of Glaubhaftmachung; affidavits are admissible for this purpose.
Applications for interim relief have already reached German courts in disputes concerning Meta’s use of personal data for AI training.
In the Cologne proceedings, the OLG Köln examined Article 5(2) DMA but rejected the application on substantive grounds. In a separate case, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig dismissed an application on 12 August 2025 (6 UKl 3/25) because the applicant had not established the necessary urgency.
The Cologne and Schleswig decisions concern proceedings brought by consumer organisations under the UKlaG rather than commercial claims under Section 33 GWB. They therefore do not settle the requirements for interim mandatory relief in disputes between businesses. An order requiring access, interoperability or other positive performance may raise additional difficulties where it would anticipate the outcome of the main proceedings.
Further reading: DMA Private Enforcement: Procedural Observations from the OLG Cologne.
Damages Claims
Section 33a(1) GWB provides a damages claim against a party that intentionally or negligently infringes Articles 5, 6 or 7 DMA. The claimant must establish the infringement, the damage and the necessary causal connection.
Possible claims include lost revenue resulting from prohibited anti-steering restrictions or financial losses caused by discriminatory platform conditions. Quantification generally requires a comparison between the claimant’s actual financial position and the position it would have occupied without the infringement.
Section 287 ZPO allows courts to estimate the amount of damage under reduced evidential requirements. Section 33a(3) GWB permits courts to consider the proportion of the infringer’s profit attributable to the infringement. Interest accrues from the date the damage occurred under Section 33a(4) GWB.
The statutory presumption of harm under Section 33a(2) GWB applies to cartels only, not to DMA infringements.
Section 33h GWB governs limitation periods, including the ordinary five-year period subject to the statutory requirements concerning knowledge and termination of the infringement. It also contains knowledge-independent limitation periods. Investigative or procedural measures by the Commission concerning suspected breaches of Articles 5, 6 or 7 DMA may suspend limitation.
Depending on the conduct, claims may also arise under Article 102 TFEU or Sections 19, 19a and 20 GWB. Section 20 GWB extends certain prohibitions to companies with relative market power on which other undertakings depend, even where those companies are not dominant. These provisions have their own substantive requirements and must be examined separately from the DMA.
EU-Wide DMA Injunctions: The Mainz Judgment and Open Jurisdictional Questions
The territorial reach of a German injunction matters most where a gatekeeper operates the same service throughout the European Union. The LG Mainz addressed this issue expressly in its judgment of 12 August 2025.
The Mainz Judgment
In paragraphs 94 – 97, the court rejected Google’s request to limit its injunction to Germany. It referred to the EU-wide application of the DMA and the defendant’s responsibility for the relevant services in Europe. The court also considered that the German and European case law cited by Google did not require a territorial limitation.
The court based its international jurisdiction over the first defendant on Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast (para. 47). When determining local jurisdiction, it held that the harmful event had occurred at least at the claimants’ seat in Montabaur (para. 48). The court thus relied in substance on the place where the damage occurred and left open where the event giving rise to it took place.
The LG Mainz therefore granted injunctive relief under the DMA without restricting its effect to Germany.
The judgment was not final when published.
Jurisdiction, Territorial Scope and Enforcement
Four questions must be distinguished when assessing the cross-border effects of a German judgment: international jurisdiction, the territorial scope of the substantive claim, the res judicata effect of the judgment, and recognition or enforcement abroad.
International jurisdiction determines whether the German court may hear the case. The territorial reach of the injunction concerns the conduct covered by the order. The judgment’s binding effect between the parties and its recognition or enforcement in other Member States follow separate rules, including those of Brussels I Recast.
The Mainz judgment concerns the territorial scope of the injunction. The question of jurisdiction nevertheless remains relevant. Under the Court of Justice’s case law, a court whose jurisdiction rests solely on the place where the damage occurred may generally adjudicate only on the damage suffered in that Member State (Shevill, C‑68/93). The Court has distinguished such territorially divisible claims from applications for the rectification or removal of online content, which it regards as indivisible (Bolagsupplysningen, C‑194/16; Gtflix Tv, C‑251/20). Whether these principles apply in the same way to injunctions enforcing uniform obligations under the DMA has not been decided.
A separate issue concerns the connecting factor on which the LG Mainz relied. The court referred to the claimants’ registered office in Montabaur. Under Universal Music(C‑12/15), financial loss at the claimant’s seat does not, by itself, establish jurisdiction. In competition damages cases, the Court has also considered the market affected by the alleged infringement (flyLAL, C‑27/17).
The reasoning of the LG Mainz on international jurisdiction (paras. 47 – 48) does not address these distinctions. Its reasoning on territorial reach rests primarily on the EU-wide application of the DMA and the defendant’s responsibility for the relevant services in Europe. The judgment does not establish that every German court with jurisdiction over a DMA infringement may issue an EU-wide order regardless of the relevant connecting factors.
The author has discussed the judgment, including the liability of gatekeeper subsidiaries and the cross-border effects of civil remedies, in MMR 2026, 451 – 452.
Commission Decisions and Evidence in Civil Proceedings
Stand-Alone and Follow-On Claims
In stand-alone proceedings, the claimant must establish the DMA infringement before the civil court. Follow-on claims rely on findings already made in administrative proceedings.
Section 33b GWB contains rules on the binding effect of qualifying final decisions in damages proceedings. These include final gatekeeper designations under Article 3 DMA and findings of infringements of Articles 5, 6 or 7 DMA in the decisions covered by the provision. The binding effect does not replace proof of the individual damage and causation.
The Commission adopted its first DMA non-compliance decisions on 23 April 2025, imposing fines of EUR 500 million on Apple for anti-steering restrictions and EUR 200 million on Meta in connection with its pay-or-consent model.
Further decisions followed on 23 July 2026, when the Commission fined Google EUR 460 million for self-preferencing in Google Search and EUR 430 million for restrictions concerning steering through Google Play (Commission press release IP/26/1670).
Apple and Meta have challenged their respective decisions before the EU courts. For the binding effect under Section 33b GWB, the finality of each decision matters. The position under Article 39 DMA must be considered separately.
Disclosure of Evidence
Section 33g GWB provides specific disclosure and information rights in connection with damages claims. These disclosure rights matter where a claimant lacks access to technical or commercial information held by the gatekeeper.
The claimant must make the damages claim credible and identify the requested evidence as precisely as reasonably possible on the basis of accessible facts. Disclosure is subject to proportionality and safeguards for confidential information, including trade secrets.
Section 33g GWB does not establish a general discovery procedure for all DMA claims. In proceedings seeking injunctive relief alone, evidence must generally be obtained under the ordinary rules of civil procedure.
Judicial Cooperation Under Article 39 DMA
Article 39 DMA regulates cooperation between national courts and the European Commission. Courts may request information or opinions concerning the application of the Regulation. The Commission may submit written observations and, with the court’s permission, oral observations.
Article 39(5) DMA also requires national courts to avoid decisions conflicting with Commission decisions or with decisions contemplated in proceedings the Commission has initiated. Unlike Section 33b GWB, this obligation does not presuppose that the Commission decision has become final.
The existence of Commission proceedings may therefore raise the question of a stay. The LG Mainz declined to suspend its proceedings against Google. The exchanges between Google and the Commission alone did not suffice; there were no sufficiently concrete indications of a contemplated Commission decision with which the civil judgment could conflict.
Further reading: Article 39 DMA: Judicial Cooperation and Coherence in Private Enforcement.
Procedure Before German Courts
Competent Courts and Legal Representation
Under Section 87 GWB, the regional courts (Landgerichte) have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over civil disputes concerning Articles 5, 6 and 7 DMA, irrespective of the amount in dispute. Section 89 GWB allows the federal states to concentrate these disputes at particular courts.
North Rhine-Westphalia, for example, has assigned the relevant competition disputes to the Regional Courts of Düsseldorf, Dortmund and Cologne. Representative actions under the UKlaG follow separate rules: under Section 6 UKlaG, the Higher Regional Courts have exclusive jurisdiction at first instance.
Representation by a lawyer authorised to appear before the regional court is mandatory under Section 78 ZPO.
Language of Proceedings
Under Section 184 of the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG), German is the language of the courts.
Since April 2025, certain commercial disputes may also be conducted in English before designated Commercial Chambers or Commercial Courts. This depends on the relevant jurisdictional rules, the court concerned and the statutory requirements, including the parties’ agreement where necessary. There is no general entitlement to conduct a DMA case in English.
Evidence, Costs and Duration
German civil procedure does not provide for broad US-style pre-trial discovery. The parties must ordinarily present the facts supporting their claims. Courts may order the production of particular documents and take other evidence within the limits of the applicable procedural rules.
Court fees and recoverable statutory lawyers’ fees generally depend on the value of the dispute. The unsuccessful party normally bears the recoverable costs; where both sides succeed in part, the court apportions them accordingly.
The Mainz case illustrates the effect of partial success. Although the claimants obtained an injunction, they failed on substantial parts of their claims and were ordered to bear a significant share of the costs.
There is no uniform duration for DMA proceedings. The time required depends on the court, the claims, the evidence and any appeals. Interim proceedings follow separate rules and require urgency.
German Counsel for DMA Litigation
DMA litigation in Germany requires an assessment of EU regulatory obligations alongside German competition and procedural law. Foreign companies affected by gatekeeper conduct may instruct German counsel directly. Where an international law firm already advises the company, that firm can retain the client relationship while German counsel handles the proceedings before German courts.
The division of responsibilities may cover jurisdictional questions, the identification of defendants, claims under Sections 33 et seq. GWB, interim proceedings and the use of Commission findings.
Louven Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB advises and represents companies in competition law and digital regulation disputes, including cases concerning access to markets, platforms and infrastructure. Our practice focuses particularly on the legal position of business users and competitors of gatekeepers. The firm’s academic work includes commentaries on the substantive obligations of the DMA and the abuse provisions of German competition law.
