Users Score Big Win Against Meta's Data Practices in Berlin Trial
- Individuals Victorious in Data Lawsuit Against Meta's Top Dog, Facebook, in German Court
In a blow to Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, six plaintiffs have scored a victory in a German court over the tech giant's data collection tactics.
These users accused Meta of assembling comprehensive profiles on them, detailing their political and religious beliefs, sexual orientations, illnesses, and more. According to the plaintiffs, the data collection extended to sensitive information such as orders from pharmacies, problematic addiction behaviors, and data obtained from the Wahl-O-Mat site.
The purpose of the compiled profiles remained unclear, with the plaintiffs arguing that Meta shared them without consent and against the express will of the users. They further stated that Meta utilized their business tools not only without but also against user consent on popular German websites, including the 100 most-visited ones.
Meta attempted to shift blame to third-party companies, suggesting they were responsible for the use of business tools and, consequently, the disclosure of data. The company maintained its stance that it collects data only to offer personalized advertising, obtain user consent, and utilize the data for limited purposes, such as security.
However, the court sided with the plaintiffs in regards to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), delivering a setback to Meta even though the judgments are not final.
Behind the Curtain of Meta's Data Practices: Worthy of Scrutiny
Meta's data practices have been a subject of intense controversy, focusing mainly on privacy protection, user consent, and adherence to the GDPR. These are some key points highlighting Meta's data practices and the surrounding debate:
1. Data Collection Grounds: - Meta gathers user data for multiple reasons, including service provision, advertisements, and research. - The company must adhere to GDPR standards mandating a valid basis for data collection, including consent, contractual necessity, or legal obligations.
2. Surveillance-Based Advertising: - Meta's advertising model is largely dependent on surveillance-based tactics, which involve extensive and often unprompted data collection for targeted ads. - Critics argue these methods erode individual privacy rights by overstepping the mark on data collection and consent requirements.
3. Legal Battles: - In a landmark UK case, Meta agreed to cease targeting ads based on users' specific data, marking a significant shift in their practices under legal pressure. - This case emphasized Meta's responsibility to honor users' right to object to data processing for direct marketing under GDPR.
However, Meta's data practices have been under close scrutiny, with concerns over user privacy violations and GDPR compliance. The company has faced substantial fines and legal challenges over surveillance-based advertising and international data transfers.
- The Commission, as yet, has not yet adopted a decision on the application of Article 93 (2) of the Treaty in relation to Meta's data practices, particularly concerning the compilation of comprehensive profiles that include sensitive information such as political and religious beliefs, sexual orientations, illnesses, orders from pharmacies, problematic addiction behaviors, and data obtained from the Wahl-O-Mat site.
- The court processes in Berlin have highlighted the critical role of profiles and information in the debate over Meta's data practices, with six plaintiffs successfully arguing that Meta shared their compiled profiles without consent and against the express will of the users.
- In the wake of the Berlin trial, it remains uncertain how Meta will adapt its data practices, including its welfare policies, to address concerns over privacy protection, user consent, and adherence to GDPR.
