The EU’s highest court has ruled that Facebook-owner Meta must limit the use of people’s data for personalized advertising, following a complaint by privacy campaigner Max Schrems. Schrems argued that Facebook had targeted him with ads based on his sexual orientation without his consent. The Court of Justice for the European Union found that using sensitive data such as sexual orientation for targeted advertising is not allowed under data protection law.
Meta, responding to the ruling, stated that it does not use special category data for personalized ads and emphasized its commitment to privacy. However, the court’s decision is expected to have significant implications for the tech giant’s business model.
Legal experts believe that this ruling demonstrates the importance of data protection principles, particularly when it comes to big tech companies like Meta. Although the decision is not binding for UK courts, it could influence similar challenges in other jurisdictions.
The case originated in Austria, where the Supreme Court sought clarification on how the GDPR applied to Schrems’ complaint. The CJEU clarified that Schrems’ public reference to his sexual orientation did not authorize the processing of any other personal data for advertising purposes. Schrems’ legal team expects the Austrian Supreme Court to issue a final judgment soon.
This ruling underscores the ongoing privacy concerns surrounding the use of personal data by tech companies like Meta. It also highlights the evolving landscape of data protection laws and the challenges faced by regulators in ensuring the privacy rights of individuals in the digital age.
Vocabulary List:
- Consent /kənˈsɛnt/ (noun): Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
- Implications /ˌɪmplɪˈkeɪʃənz/ (noun): The possible effects or results of an action or a decision.
- Regulators /ˈrɛɡjʊˌleɪtərs/ (noun): Official organizations that oversee and enforce rules and regulations.
- Clarification /ˌklærɪfɪˈkeɪʃən/ (noun): The action of making a statement or situation less confused and more comprehensible.
- Advertising /ˈædvərˌtaɪzɪŋ/ (noun): The activity or profession of producing advertisements for commercial products or services.
- Principles /ˈprɪn.sə.pəlz/ (noun): Fundamental truths or propositions that serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior.
How much do you know?
According to the ruling by the EU's highest court, what must Meta do regarding people's data for personalized advertising?
Who filed the complaint that led to the ruling against Meta by the EU court?
What type of data did Schrems accuse Facebook of using for targeted advertising without his consent?
What is Meta's response to the ruling regarding the use of special category data for personalized ads?
What do legal experts believe this ruling demonstrates the importance of?
In which country did the case originate that led to the ruling against Meta?
The ruling stated that using sensitive data like sexual orientation for targeted advertising is allowed under data protection law.
The UK courts are legally bound by the decision made by the EU's highest court in this case.
The CJEU clarified that Schrems' public reference to his sexual orientation authorized the processing of other personal data for advertising purposes.
The ruling highlights the challenges faced by regulators in ensuring the privacy rights of individuals in the digital age.
The case originated in the UK and was later transferred to Austria for further jurisdiction.
Meta stated that it prioritizes profit over privacy concerns in its business operations.
The CJEU clarified that Schrems' public reference to his sexual orientation did not authorize the processing of any other personal data for advertising purposes. Schrems' legal team expects the Austrian Supreme Court to issue a final judgment .
Legal experts believe that this ruling demonstrates the importance of data protection principles, particularly when it comes to big tech companies like Meta. Although the decision is not binding for UK courts, it could influence similar challenges in other .
The case originated in Austria, where the Supreme Court sought clarification on how the GDPR applied to Schrems' complaint. The CJEU clarified that Schrems' public reference to his sexual orientation did not authorize the processing of any other personal data for purposes.
This ruling underscores the ongoing privacy concerns surrounding the use of personal data by tech companies like Meta. It also highlights the evolving landscape of data protection laws and the challenges faced by regulators in ensuring the privacy rights of individuals in the digital .