CJEU - T‑319/24 - Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd v European Data Protection Board
| CJEU - T‑319/24 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd v European Data Protection Board | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | CJEU |
| Jurisdiction: | European Union |
| Relevant Law: | Article 64 GDPR Article 64(1) GDPR Article 65(1)(a) GDPR Article 111 EEA Agreement Article 263 TFEU |
| Decided: | 29.04.2025 |
| Parties: | Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. EDPB |
| Case Number/Name: | T‑319/24 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd v European Data Protection Board |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EU:T:2025:435 |
| Reference from: | |
| Language: | 24 EU Languages |
| Original Source: | Judgement |
| Initial Contributor: | cwa |
The General Court rejected Meta's claims for annulment of the EDPB's opinion of "consent or pay" models implemented by very large online platforms and for compensation for damage caused by the opinion.
English Summary
Facts
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. brought an action before the General Court seeking an annulment of Opinion 8/2024 of the EDPB of 17 April 2024 on valid consent in the context of “consent or pay” models implemented by large online platforms. They also sought compensation for the damages suffered as a result of the opinion under Article 268 TFEU.
The EDPB argued that the Court should dismiss both the action for annulment and compensation as inadmissible and order Meta to pay costs. The EDPB claimed that the contested opinion is not a challengeable act that it was not of direct or individual concern for Meta. The EDPB further argued that the opinions adopted under Article 64 GDPR differ from the binding decisions under Article 65(1) as they do not, on their own, create legal effects.
Meta argued that if such opinions were inadmissible, the autonomy of EU law would be undermined. Meta highlighted that data subjects may bring legal proceedings on the basis of such opinions before courts in the EEA, but not the EU, and that those courts cannot refer questions to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU. This creates, Meta argued, a risk of conflict in the interpretation and application of EU law. Meta also argued that if their action for annulment was declared inadmissible, this would lead to a breach of its right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter. Finally, Meta submitted that the opinion produces binding legal effects. In support of this, Meta highlighted the limited discretion afforded to supervisory authorities under the opinion and claimed that it demonstrated the EDPB’s desire to force its views upon the Data Protection Commission (DPC), Meta’s lead supervisory authority.
Holding
The Court upheld the claim of inadmissibility raised by the EDPB and rejected Meta’s claim for annulment. Accordingly, Meta’s action for annulment was dismissed.
The Court noted that it was settled case law (e.g. C-322/09 NDSHT v Commission) that actions for annulment can be brought against any acts adopted by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU which are intended to produce biding legal effects. In respect of the present opinion, the Court noted that, unlike binding opinions under Article 64(1), there is no special authority or obligation on the supervisory authorities to have regard to it. The Court further noted that it is only in the event of a subsequent, binding decision under Article 65(1)(a) where the guidelines contained within the contested opinion would become instructions of mandatory application. As such, the Court concluded that the contested opinion does not produce binding legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. The opinion was held, therefore, to be one which may not be challenged by Meta.
The Court also noted that, contrary to its claim, this ruling does not undermine Meta’s right to effective judicial protection. The Court reasoned that it is only where the considerations contained within the contested opinion are included in a supervisory authority or court decision that they could be said to affect Meta directly. The Court also rejected Meta’s argument about the possibility of the consistency of EU law being undermined by data subjects bringing actions in EEA countries on the basis of the contested decision before courts which cannot refer questions to the Court of Justice. The Court noted that such eventuality is inherent in the system in place for the EEA agreement, and a potential drawback in that system. The Court noted however, that there exists the dispute resolution process under Article 111 of the EEA Agreement, which can involve the Court of Justice if necessary. Finally, the Court noted that the endorsement of Meta’s reasoning on this point and allowing the action for annulment would disregard and subvert the conditions of admissibility for actions for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.
In respect of the claim for compensation, the Court ruled that there existed no evidence of actual and certain damage. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the necessary causal link between the alleged damage and the contested opinion had not been satisfied.
Finally, as Meta were unsuccessful in their application for annulment and compensation, they were ordered to pay the EDPB’s costs.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
