Meta Platforms Inc v Bundeskartellamt
A competition authority may consider whether a dominant undertaking's data processing complies with the GDPR in assessing abuse, and Meta's combination of users' off Facebook data without valid consent could be examined.
Facts
The German competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, found that Meta, which operated Facebook and was dominant in the German market for social networks, had abused its dominant position by making the use of Facebook conditional on users agreeing to Meta collecting data about their activities outside Facebook, on other websites and apps, and combining it with their Facebook data. Meta argued that a competition authority could not decide whether its conduct breached the data protection rules.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that a national competition authority may, in examining whether there has been an abuse of a dominant position, find that the undertaking's general terms of use relating to the processing of personal data, and their implementation, are not consistent with the General Data Protection Regulation, if that finding is necessary to establish the abuse, subject to a duty of sincere cooperation with the data protection authorities. Compliance or non compliance with the GDPR can be a vital clue in determining whether conduct entails resorting to methods governing normal competition. The court also held that the dominant position of an operator does not in itself prevent users from validly consenting, but is an important factor in assessing whether consent was freely given.
Related cases on dominance and exclusionary abuse
- Europemballage Corp and Continental Can Co Inc v Commission Case 6/72, [1973] ECR 215
- Google LLC and Alphabet Inc v Commission (Google Shopping) Case C-48/22 P, EU:C:2024:726
- Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Commission Case 85/76, [1979] ECR 461
- Intel Corp v Commission Case C-413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632
- Microsoft Corp v Commission Case T-201/04, [2007] ECR II-3601
- Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading [2002] CAT 1, [2002] Comp AR 13
- Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie Michelin NV v Commission (Michelin I) Case 322/81, [1983] ECR 3461
- Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Post Danmark I) Case C-209/10, EU:C:2012:172
Studying competition law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
