I think "unfair" here is a legal term. Looking at the act they reference, I'm guessing they're arguing that Facebook abused its dominant market position to impo

I think "unfair" here is a legal term. Looking at the act they reference, I'm guessing they're arguing that Facebook abused its dominant market position to impose an "unfair" price per [0] (which is the only place "unfair" is mentioned in the document). I think they're also arguing that the price that users are paying isn't clear to them. The difference between what they're arguing and your supermarket example is that there's competition in the UK for supermarkets [1] and that the price of the meat in the supermarket is right there on the label, while on Facebook you have to dig through the T&Cs to figure out what they're doing. Your standard supermarket also has margins of ~5% [2], while Facebook has 36% [3], so it might be argued that Facebook's price is unreasonably inflated due to the lack of competition. [0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 [1]: https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/fmcg/2021-wp-new-baseline-for-uk-grocery-market-as-shopper-habits-stabilise https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/fmcg/2021-wp-new-baseline... [2]: https://finbox.com/OTCPK:TSCD.F/explorer/gp_margin https://finbox.com/OTCPK:TSCD.F/explorer/gp_margin [3]: https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Facebook-Reports-Third-Quarter-2021-Results/default.aspx https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...