European Consumer Groups Accuse Meta Over Illegal Data Practices
Meta has been accused by European consumer rights organizations of engaging in what has been described as a “massive” and “illegal” operation of data collection. The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), representing 45 consumer groups, highlighted that Meta allegedly collects extensive information on users without their explicit consent. This information ranges from inferences about sexual orientation to emotional states and susceptibility to addiction, raising substantial privacy concerns under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The complaints, lodged by eight of the BEUC’s member groups with their respective national data protection authorities, argue that Meta’s practices violate the GDPR, particularly emphasizing the non-transparent nature of data collection which users cannot freely consent to. Meta, however, has disputed these allegations, asserting its commitment to GDPR compliance and highlighting its efforts since 2019 to overhaul privacy practices. The company emphasizes its engagement with regulators and policymakers to align its operations with data protection standards.
The situation escalates as Meta faces potential legal action in Europe, a region where it has previously been scrutinized. Just last year, EU regulators imposed a record-breaking fine of approximately €1.2 billion on the tech giant for GDPR violations related to the transfer of personal data to servers in the United States. This incident underscores the ongoing tension between large tech companies and European data protection authorities, emphasizing the critical importance of data privacy as a fundamental right.
In response to regulatory pressures, Meta introduced a subscription service in Europe, allowing users to opt for ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram at a monthly fee of up to €12.99. This move, aimed at complying with GDPR mandates, has sparked further debate. Critics, including the BEUC, argue that this “pay-or-consent” model presents users with an unfair choice, lacking transparency in how it alters data processing practices. The controversy highlights the broader challenges facing tech companies as they navigate the complex landscape of global data protection regulations.
