Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has failed to meet a legal deadline set by a Dutch court. In October 2025, the Court of Amsterdam ordered Meta to provide its users in the Netherlands with a timeline view for the apps that is not driven by algorithm-based recommendations. The requirement was part of a case brought by the digital rights group Bits of Freedom, which argued that Meta’s feed design undermined user autonomy and breached the requirements of the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Despite the court’s ruling and the set penalty of €100,000 (up to a maximum of €5 million) per day for non-compliance, Meta informed the court that it cannot implement the required changes within the two-week timeframe and requested an extension until January 31, 2026.
The case hinged on how Facebook and Instagram currently present content to users. Rather than a purely chronological feed, both apps rely heavily on algorithm-driven “recommendation systems” that decide which posts a user sees, and in what order. The court found that Meta’s design directed users toward content curated by the company, and the option to switch to a non-algorithmic timeline was buried and not persistent. In particular, once the user closed the app or switched views, the feed would revert to the algorithmic default, a practice the court viewed as a “dark pattern”.
Under the DSA, platforms that use recommendation systems are required to explain how those systems work and give users control over their influence. The court said the existing setup did not meet the standard: “a non-persistent choice option for a recommendation system runs counter to the purpose of the DSA, which is to give users genuine autonomy, freedom of choice, and control over how information is presented to them.”
Meta says it needs more time
Meta’s response is that while it has made changes to comply with European regulations, the timeline demanded by the Amsterdam court is too tight, given the complexity of its systems. The company argues that its global product architecture, regional variations, and engineering dependencies make implementing the required changes within weeks unrealistic. Meta also claims that such regulatory issues should ideally be handled at the EU level rather than through country-by-country court rulings, arguing that the digital single market could be fractured by individual national orders.
For users in the Netherlands, the ruling means that, if enforced, they could switch their Facebook or Instagram feed to a version that is not based on algorithmic predictions by default. That could restore some control over what they see and reduce the influence of unseen ranking systems. Critics of timeline algorithms argue that they often privilege engagement-driving content (which may include sensationalism, polarising material, or advertisement-heavy posts) over what the user explicitly follows.
From a broader perspective, the case may set a precedent for how social media platforms must behave when faced with the DSA. If Meta is forced to change its feed design in the Netherlands, other EU nations could follow, and regulators may push for similar controls on how algorithms influence public discourse. It also raises questions about how much control platforms should have over information discovery and the tension between business models that rely on personalised content and regulatory demands for transparency and user choice.
The court is scheduled to review Meta’s request for an extension, and if it denies the extension, the original penalties may begin to apply. Whether Meta will appeal or how the company might alter its design remains to be seen. However, the company’s decision to seek more time indicates the technical and organisational challenge of rolling out significant feed-algorithm changes across millions of users and multiple markets.
Until then, users will remain in the status quo, where the default feed remains algorithmic and the alternative remains less visible. Advocacy groups like Bits of Freedom have expressed frustration, stating that the delay proves Meta is once again avoiding responsibility and resisting the democratic intent behind the DSA.
The clash between Meta and the Dutch court reveals more than just a fight over feed settings. It highlights the shifting terrain of digital regulation, user autonomy, and the hidden power of platform design. Whether or not Meta meets the court’s demands on time, the case underscores that platforms can no longer assume that algorithmic defaults are beyond scrutiny. If the ruling leads to change, users may gain more control over what they see and what they don’t.