A Dutch court has ordered Meta Platforms Inc. to provide users of Facebook and Instagram with a direct and persistent option to view their content feeds in a non-profiled, chronological order. The landmark preliminary injunction, issued by the District Court of Amsterdam on October 2, 2025, gives the tech giant two weeks to comply or face significant daily fines. The ruling directly challenges the company’s practice of defaulting users to an algorithmically curated timeline, a core feature of its social media platforms designed to maximize engagement by showing content based on user data and activity.
The court found that Meta’s current interface violates the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) by not sufficiently empowering Dutch users to make free and autonomous choices. At present, users can manually select a chronological feed, but the platforms automatically revert to the algorithm-driven version every time the app is closed and reopened. This practice, the court declared, constitutes a prohibited “dark pattern” designed to nudge users toward the profiled feed, thereby infringing on their freedom of information. The decision was expedited in part due to the upcoming parliamentary election in the Netherlands on October 29, with the court noting the importance of protecting user choice during such a critical period.
Specifics of the Court’s Mandate
The Amsterdam court’s order is precise, requiring Meta to implement a “direct and simple” method for users to select a non-profiled timeline. This choice must be persistent, meaning that once a user opts for a chronological or other non-algorithmic feed, that preference must be saved and remain in effect across all subsequent sessions. The current system, which resets the user’s choice upon each new session, was a key point of contention. The judges determined this automatic reversion undermines the user’s initial selection and fails to provide a genuine alternative to the algorithmically sorted content.
If Meta fails to adhere to the order within the two-week deadline, it will be subject to a daily fine of 100,000 euros (approximately $117,450), up to a maximum penalty of 5 million euros. This financial penalty underscores the court’s seriousness in enforcing the provisions of the DSA and ensuring timely compliance. The ruling specifies that the changes must be implemented for all Facebook and Instagram users within the Netherlands.
Violation of the Digital Services Act
The legal foundation for the court’s decision rests on the European Union’s Digital Services Act, a comprehensive piece of legislation approved in 2022 aimed at creating a safer and more transparent online environment. The DSA imposes strict obligations on large online platforms like those operated by Meta. A central tenet of the act is to prevent the use of deceptive designs or “dark patterns” that manipulate users into making choices they did not intend, particularly regarding how they receive information and are exposed to content.
The case was brought by the Dutch digital rights organization Bits of Freedom, which argued successfully that Meta’s timeline design infringed on these specific DSA rules. The court agreed, stating in its judgment that “People in the Netherlands are not sufficiently able to make free and autonomous choices about the use of profiled recommendation systems.” This ruling is one of the most significant applications of the DSA’s principles in a national court, setting a potential precedent for how the legislation will be interpreted and enforced across the EU.
Implications for User Autonomy
Freedom of Information Concerns
The court’s decision links the functionality of a social media timeline directly to the fundamental right to freedom of information. By defaulting to and repeatedly pushing users toward a profiled feed, the platform curates the world its users see based on opaque algorithms. The judges asserted that providing a clear and lasting option for a non-curated, chronological feed is essential for user autonomy. This allows individuals to see posts from their networks as they happen, rather than through a lens optimized for engagement, which can create filter bubbles and amplify certain types of content over others.
Timing Ahead of National Elections
The court explicitly acknowledged the proximity of the Dutch parliamentary elections on October 29 as a factor in its decision-making process. The ruling noted that ensuring users can freely choose how they receive information is especially critical in the run-up to a major political event. Algorithmic curation has been a subject of intense debate regarding its potential to influence public opinion and political discourse, and the court’s order aims to provide a safeguard by empowering users to opt out of such systems easily.
Reaction from Plaintiff and Defendant
The digital rights group Bits of Freedom celebrated the verdict as a major victory for consumer rights and online transparency. Spokesperson Maartje Knaap stated, “It is unacceptable that a few American tech billionaires can determine how we view the world.” The group emphasized that the ruling confirms that Meta must respect the choices of its users and cannot use interface design to subtly coerce them into using a feature they have actively tried to disable.
Meta has announced its intention to appeal the court’s decision. In a statement, a company spokesperson said, “We fundamentally disagree with this decision.” The company maintains that it has already taken steps to comply with the DSA, including notifying Dutch users about how to access non-personalized settings. Meta’s legal position is that such regulatory matters should be handled uniformly by the European Commission, which is the primary regulator for the DSA, rather than through litigation in the courts of individual member states. The company argued that fragmented legal proceedings like this one “threaten the digital single market and the harmonized regulatory regime that should underpin it.”
Wider Regulatory Context
This Dutch court order is the latest in a series of regulatory challenges and enforcement actions faced by major technology companies in the European Union. Since the DSA came into force, the European Commission and national bodies have been actively scrutinizing the practices of Big Tech. Platforms from Apple to Google’s parent company, Alphabet, have faced investigations and substantial fines for various violations of the EU’s growing body of digital regulations.
The ruling in Amsterdam serves as a powerful signal that national courts are prepared to enforce the DSA’s provisions directly and swiftly. It highlights a key area of conflict between tech platforms, which prioritize engagement-driven product design, and European regulators, who are increasingly focused on protecting user rights, data privacy, and the integrity of public information. The outcome of Meta’s appeal will be closely watched, as it could further define the balance of power between sovereign courts and EU-level regulators in overseeing the world’s largest digital platforms.