Meta's Challenge to €265M Fines Adjourned Pending EU Court Ruling

The High Court has adjourned Meta's challenge to the €265 million fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commission until a related EU court decision. The adjournment aims to avoid prolonged proceedings and ensure cooperation between national and EU courts.

author-image
Bijay Laxmi
New Update
Meta's Challenge to €265M Fines Adjourned Pending EU Court Ruling

Meta's Challenge to €265M Fines Adjourned Pending EU Court Ruling

The High Court has ordered the adjournment of Meta's challenge to the €265 million fines imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) until a decision is made in a related case by the EU court. The court cited the need for cooperation and avoiding prolonged proceedings in its decision.

Why this matters: This case has significant implications for the regulation of tech giants and their handling of user data, as it sets a precedent for the enforcement of EU privacy rules. The outcome may influence the approach of data protection authorities across the EU, potentially leading to more stringent regulations and larger fines for non-compliant companies.

Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd brought a statutory appeal against the fines imposed for breaching EU privacy rules, affecting over 500 million Facebook users. Additionally, Meta instituted a judicial review challenge to the constitutional validity of the Data Protection Act 2018, questioning the powers conferred upon a non-judicial body to impose significant financial penalties.

Separately, WhatsApp Ireland has brought challenges in Ireland and the EU regarding the DPC's interpretation of GDPR regulations related to administrative fines. The General Court of the EU ruled the EU proceedings inadmissible, and WhatsApp appealed to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). A decision on this appeal is pending.

Meta applied to the High Court to adjourn its proceedings against the DPC pending the outcome of the WhatsApp EU appeal. Meta argued that "a national court owes an obligation of sincere cooperation to the European court," and when there is a dispute before the national court, which is already the subject of a case before the European court, the national court should stay the proceedings.

The DPC initially opposed the adjournment, citing the need to determine domestic proceedings expeditiously. However, the DPC later agreed with Meta that some issues raised in the domestic proceedings cannot be determined until the EU WhatsApp proceedings are resolved.

Mr. Justice Simons granted the adjournment, citing that the issues in the domestic proceedings cannot be sensibly separated out because the question of liability and sanction are inextricably bound up together. The judge stated, "The making of an order directing a modular trial would not result in legal effect being given to the DPC's decision any quicker." He noted that a modular trial may prolong the proceedings.

The High Court's decision to adjourn Meta's challenge to the €265 million fines imposed by the DPC highlights the complex interplay between national and EU courts in data protection cases. With the outcome of WhatsApp's appeal to the CJEU pending, the final resolution of Meta's case in Ireland remains uncertain. The court's emphasis on cooperation and avoiding prolonged proceedings underscores the importance of a coordinated approach in such cross-jurisdictional matters.