Account Suspension by Meta – Antitrust Limits on Platform Power Using the Example of Facebook and Instagram

For businesses, influencers, and agencies, social media platforms have long been an essential part of their commercial activity. They are used to acquire customers, promote products, facilitate collaborations, monetize content, and maintain business relationships. An account suspension can therefore have significant economic consequences.

Especially with market-dominant platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, the following question arises:

Are platforms permitted to suspend commercially used accounts or restrict functionalities at their own discretion? Or are there legal limits to platform power?

In addition to contractual claims, competition law claims are particularly relevant. These offer an important advantage: despite the terms of service stipulating the application of Irish law and the jurisdiction of Irish courts, such claims can, in principle, be asserted under German law and before German courts.

1. Dominant Market Position of Meta

A prerequisite for a competition law analysis is, first and foremost, a corresponding dominant market position of Meta. Factors such as user numbers, network effects, data holdings, switching costs, lock-in effects, and the actual alternatives available on other platforms may be relevant for this assessment.

The decisive factor is not merely whether other social networks exist. Rather, the key question is whether these offer economically viable and reasonable alternatives.

A professionally used account consolidates reach, followers, customer contacts, content, reviews, and established communication structures. These cannot simply be transferred to another platform.

Accordingly, courts have already affirmed a dominant market position for Meta in numerous decisions.

2. Account Suspension as Unfair Hindrance

Under § 19 GWB, the abuse of a dominant market position is prohibited. This includes, in particular, the unfair hindrance of other undertakings and their discriminatory treatment without objectively justified reasons. It is required that the competitive position of the affected undertaking is impacted.

An account suspension may, under these conditions, constitute an unfair hindrance.

This requires a balancing of the interests of both sides.

On Meta’s side, the following interests may be relevant:

• protection against unlawful content,
• combating fraud and spam,
• enforcement of Community Standards,
• protection of other users,
• prevention of abusive or automated use.

On the other hand, the following considerations may apply on the part of the affected undertaking:

• existing customer relationships and community,
• established reach and followers,
• ongoing advertising campaigns,
• monetization and revenues,
• existing cooperation agreements,
• investments in building the account,
• loss of customer contacts and digital reputation,
• lack of, or only hardly reasonable, alternative options.

The greater the economic dependence on the platform, the higher the requirements for objective justification of a suspension may be.

3. Relative Market Power as a Catch-All Provision

Even if classical market dominance by Meta cannot be established with certainty, § 20 GWB may be relevant.

In this case, a dominant market position is not required. The decisive factor is rather whether an undertaking is dependent on the intermediary services of the platform and whether no sufficient and reasonable alternatives are available. Particularly in the case of professionally built social media accounts, such relative market power may come into consideration on a case-by-case basis.

4. Art. 102 TFEU

Where trade between Member States is affected, Art. 102 TFEU may also be applicable. This provision prohibits the abuse of a dominant position within the internal market or a substantial part of it.

An abuse may exist in particular where a market-dominant undertaking uses its position to exclude a business partner or competitor from access to a platform essential for its economic activity without objective justification.

5. Choice of Law in Favor of Ireland Does Not Exclude German Competition Law

Meta offers its European services through an Irish company. The terms of service stipulate the application of Irish law and a place of jurisdiction in Ireland. However, this does not preclude the enforcement of German or European competition law before German courts.

For non-contractual obligations arising from anticompetitive conduct, the law of the state in whose territory the restriction of competition takes effect, or is likely to take effect, is, in principle, applicable.

If an account suspension on the German market affects the economic activity of an undertaking operating in Germany, this may support the application of German competition law. A contractual choice of law in favor of Irish law cannot readily override mandatory German or European competition law.

6. The DSA: Requirements for Justifying a Suspension

The Digital Services Act (DSA) also sets limits on platform power. Hosting service providers must provide affected users with a clear and specific statement of reasons for certain restrictions. This includes, in particular, the suspension or closure of a user account.

A generic notification such as

“Your account violates our Community Standards.”

may therefore be insufficient if it is not apparent which specific information or conduct triggered the measure.

The statement of reasons should enable the affected party to understand the decision and, where applicable, to effectively challenge it.

7. Claim for Reactivation

If an account suspension proves to be an unfair hindrance in violation of competition law, claims under § 33 GWB may arise.

This provision grants, in the event of a competition law violation, in particular a claim for the removal of the impairment as well as, where there is a risk of repetition, an injunctive relief claim.

Accordingly, in individual cases, the restoration of account access may also be demanded.

Conclusion

An account suspension by Meta is not to be assessed solely based on whether the terms of service generally permit a suspension.

In the case of professionally used accounts, several regulatory levels interact:

Contract law determines the rights and obligations between the platform and the user.

The DSA establishes binding requirements for content moderation decisions, particularly regarding their justification and the available complaint mechanisms.

Competition law limits the exercise of platform power where it turns into an abusive hindrance of economically dependent market participants.

The stronger the economic dependence on a platform, the less an account suspension can be viewed as a purely autonomous private decision. Where market dominance or relative market power, unfair hindrance, and a lack of objective justification are established, claims for remediation and injunctive relief under competition law may be available in addition to the requirements of the DSA.