Opera Loses EU Court Challenge Over Microsoft Edge’s DMA Exemption

Opera Norway lost its attempt to bring Microsoft Edge under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) gatekeeper rules. On 2 September 2026, the EU General Court dismissed Opera’s case in full and upheld the European Commission’s February 2024 decision not to designate Microsoft as a gatekeeper for Edge. 1

The decision matters because Edge had met the DMA’s quantitative criteria. But the Court confirmed that those figures create a rebuttable presumption—not an automatic gatekeeper designation.

Why Edge remained outside the DMA’s gatekeeper rules

The DMA asks whether a core platform service is an important gateway for business users to reach end users. The Commission concluded that Edge was not such a gateway, even though Microsoft met the law’s numerical thresholds for the browser. 1

The General Court agreed that the Commission could look beyond those thresholds and assess Edge’s real-world position. In particular, it could rely on Edge’s low scale of use and compare its usage with competing browsers when deciding how important the service was as a route from businesses to users. 1

The assessment also considered Microsoft’s level of autonomous control over key browser-service features, given Edge’s use of the Blink browser engine, and whether Edge’s links to Microsoft’s wider ecosystem had actually made it sufficiently important as a gateway. The Commission found that the effects of measures such as Windows pre-installation and promotion did not establish that level of gateway importance. 1

Opera’s argument—and why the Court rejected it

Opera argued that the Commission had misapplied the DMA criteria by accepting Microsoft’s response to the statutory presumption created by the thresholds. Its action specifically challenged the finding that Edge was not an important gateway for business users to reach end users.

The Court rejected that argument. It held that the Commission was entitled to consider actual usage and to compare Edge with other browsers, because both were relevant to evaluating the browser’s practical importance as a gateway. 1

In short, the Court did not treat the thresholds as a substitute for the DMA’s substantive test. A service can clear the numerical benchmarks yet still avoid designation if the evidence sufficiently calls its gateway role into question.

What “sufficiently substantiated arguments” means here

The Court found that Microsoft had put forward sufficiently substantiated arguments demonstrating that Edge did not constitute an important gateway under the DMA. 1

That conclusion is significant for future designation disputes. It shows that the Commission may accept a company’s evidence rebutting the DMA presumption where it directly addresses the service’s actual role in connecting businesses with end users. For Edge, the relevant context included its scale of use, its standing relative to rival browsers, technical considerations and the limited practical effect of its ecosystem advantages. 1

The judgment does not mean that numerical thresholds lack force. Rather, it confirms that the DMA’s framework permits a contextual inquiry where a company presents evidence capable of rebutting the presumption.

What the ruling means for challenges to DMA decisions

The General Court’s ruling preserves the Commission’s discretion to make evidence-based assessments in technically and commercially complex platform markets. It also demonstrates that such decisions remain open to judicial review: Opera was able to challenge the non-designation, but the Court found no substantive error in the Commission’s analysis. 1

For companies seeking to challenge a DMA designation—or a decision not to designate a service—the central question is not simply whether a numerical threshold was crossed. The stronger issue is whether the Commission properly assessed the service’s real importance as a gateway between businesses and users.

A new chapter in Opera’s long dispute with Microsoft

Opera’s Edge case follows a much older browser-competition conflict with Microsoft. In December 2007, Opera complained to the European Commission about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. That dispute led to browser-choice commitments intended to give users a selection screen, and Microsoft was later fined €561 million in 2013 for failing to comply with those commitments. 4

The two cases address different legal questions. The earlier dispute focused on Microsoft’s conduct around Windows and browser choice. The Edge litigation instead concerned the DMA’s distinct designation test: whether Edge, in its current market position, was important enough as a business-to-user gateway to trigger gatekeeper obligations. 14

For now, the answer remains no. Edge stays outside the DMA obligations tied to gatekeeper designation for that browser service, unless a further appeal changes the outcome. 1