Austrian Court Declares Meta's Ad Model Unlawful in EU

By Leo ‌Marchandon

Dec 18 (Reuters) - Austria's Supreme Court has ruled that Meta's personalized advertising model is unlawful and ordered ‍the ‌company to provide users across the European Union with complete access to their personal data within 14 ⁠days of any request, in a final and ‌directly enforceable decision that sets a binding legal precedent across the bloc.

The ruling, made on Tuesday and publicised on Thursday, requires Meta to disclose not just raw data but comprehensive information about sources, recipients and purposes for each piece ⁠of information, rejecting all of Meta's trade secret claims.

The court ruled that Meta illegally collected data from third-party apps and websites, processed ​sensitive information revealing political views, sexual orientation and health data alongside ‌other user data in violation of the EU's ⁠General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and pushed personalized content and advertisements without obtaining a "specific, informed, unambiguous and freely given" consent.

The case was brought to court by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems in 2014. It ​took 11 years to resolve and involved three Austrian Supreme Court decisions and two rulings by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU), the bloc's highest court, said Katharina Raabe-Stuppning, the lawyer representing Schrems.

"It is enforceable throughout the EU by the plaintiff, meaning that, depending on the country of enforcement, non-compliance could ​result in ‍daily fines or even a prison ​sentence for the relevant decision-makers at Meta," privacy advocacy group None Of Your Business (noyb), which was founded by Schrems, told Reuters.

The court ordered Meta to ensure sensitive data is not processed with other data, rejecting Meta's arguments that it does not intentionally collect such information or cannot technically separate it, and upheld a previous CJEU ruling that Meta cannot process Europeans' personal data for advertising.

"Platforms like Facebook or Instagram have huge ⁠influence, for example via pushing political views on users," Schrems said. "The decision makes clear that Meta must not use such user preferences without explicit consent ​by each user."

The court awarded Schrems 500 euros ($587) in damages for the GDPR violations, which noyb suggested almost any Meta user has experienced.

"The 500 (euros) was a conservative figure chosen in 2014, long before the GDPR came into effect. The court was bound by this upper limit ‌on claims. You would likely get more today, even if not US-style damages," noyb said.

Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

($1 = 0.8519 euros)

(Reporting by Leo Marchandon in Gdansk; Editing by Milla Nissi-Prussak)