Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2025)
CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action
This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. brought an action before the General Court seeking an annulment of [https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay_en.pdf Opinion 8/2024 of the EDPB of 17 April 2024 on valid consent in the context of “consent or pay” models implemented by large online platforms]. They also sought compensation for the damages suffered as a result of the opinion under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF Article 268 TFEU]. The EDPB argued that the Court should dismiss both the action for annulment and compensation as inadmissible and order Meta to pay costs. The EDPB claimed that the contested opinion is not a challengeable act that it was not of direct or individual concern for Meta. The EDPB further argued that the opinions adopted under Article 64 GDPR differ from the binding decisions under Article 65(1) as they do not, on their own, create legal effects. Meta argued that if such opinions were inadmissible, the autonomy of EU law would be undermined. Meta highlighted that data subjects may bring legal proceedings on the basis of such opinions before courts in the EEA, but not the EU, and that those courts cannot refer questions to the Court of Justice under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF Article 267 TFEU]. This creates, Meta argued, a risk of conflict in the interpretation and application of EU law. Meta also argued that if their action for annulment was declared inadmissible, this would lead to a breach of its right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter. Finally, Meta submitted that the opinion produces binding legal effects. In support of this, Meta highlighted the limited discretion afforded to supervisory authorities under the opinion and claimed that it demonstrated the EDPB’s desire to force its views upon the Data Protection Commission (DPC), Meta’s lead supervisory authority. The C
GDPR Articles Cited
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. brought an action before the General Court seeking an annulment of [https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay_en.pdf Opinion 8/2024 of the EDPB of 17 April 2024 on valid consent in the context of “consent or pay” models implemented by large online platforms]. They also sought compensation for the damages suffered as a result of the opinion under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF Article 268 TFEU]. The EDPB argued that the Court should dismiss both the action for annulment and compensation as inadmissible and order Meta to pay costs. The EDPB claimed that the contested opinion is not a challengeable act that it was not of direct or individual concern for Meta. The EDPB further argued that the opinions adopted under Article 64 GDPR differ from the binding decisions under Article 65(1) as they do not, on their own, create legal effects. Meta argued that if such opinions were inadmissible, the autonomy of EU law would be undermined. Meta highlighted that data subjects may bring legal proceedings on the basis of such opinions before courts in the EEA, but not the EU, and that those courts cannot refer questions to the Court of Justice under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF Article 267 TFEU]. This creates, Meta argued, a risk of conflict in the interpretation and application of EU law. Meta also argued that if their action for annulment was declared inadmissible, this would lead to a breach of its right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter. Finally, Meta submitted that the opinion produces binding legal effects. In support of this, Meta highlighted the limited discretion afforded to supervisory authorities under the opinion and claimed that it demonstrated the EDPB’s desire to force its views upon the Data Protection Commission (DPC), Meta’s lead supervisory authority. The C
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-9199About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. - European Union (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: