Categories: Technology

Austrian activist Schrems’ Facebook complaint referred to EU court

BERLIN, July 20 (Reuters) – Austria’s Supreme Court has questioned the legal basis on which Facebook (FB.O) collects user data and referred key issues for a ruling by Europe’s top court, after awarding symbolic damages to activist Max Schrems in his privacy case against the company.

In a 34-page ruling, the Austrian court accepted the request from Schrems, who has waged a years-long campaign against what he views as Facebook’s intrusive privacy practices, to refer key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The civil case revolves around Schrems’ assertion that Facebook deprives users of the rights and protections they enjoy under the EU’s privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), by treating consent as a contract that empowers it to use their data to deliver targeted ads.

“Facebook tries to strip users of many GDPR rights by simply ‘reinterpreting’ consent to be a civil law contract,” Schrems said in a statement on Tuesday. “This was nothing but a cheap attempt to bypass the GDPR.”

Facebook said it had received the court judgment and was reviewing its contents.

“We are committed to the principles of GDPR and have made major changes to our business as part of our ongoing efforts to give users meaningful transparency and control over their data,” a Facebook spokesperson said.

One question referred by the Austrian court asks whether Facebook’s declaration that it intends to process user data undermines the significantly higher protection that consent offers under the GDPR.

Further questions relate to whether Facebook’s collection of data from ‘Like’ buttons and other online sources respects the GDPR’s principle of data minimisation – in other words that it should not collect more user data than is necessary.

The Austrian court also awarded Schrems 500 euros ($589) in symbolic damages over Facebook’s obstructive tactics in response to his request to share the data it holds on him.

“The plaintiff rightfully points out that the GDPR is based on a one-time request for access, not on an ‘Easter egg hunt’,” the court wrote in its ruling.

($1 = 0.8492 euros)Reporting by Douglas Busvine; editing by Mark Potter and Jason Neely

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

World Economic Magazine

Recent Posts

Goodyear Installs Roger Wood as Interim CEO During Strategic Review

Mark Stewart exits immediately as the board continues examining the company’s business mix, footprint and…

21 hours ago

Securitize Seeks a Lending Foothold With River One Acquisition

The pending deal would connect asset-backed financing with its tokenization business, but market-size figures do…

2 days ago

LKQ Accelerates Sal Abbate’s Arrival as Chief Executive

The automotive-parts supplier ends its interim leadership arrangement more than a month ahead of the…

2 days ago

U.S. and 14 Partners Set Agenda on Manufacturing Excess Capacity

A joint ministerial statement calls for sectoral discussions and an end to market-distorting policies, without…

3 days ago

Aruba Signs Battery Deal to Coordinate Its Power System

Wärtsilä’s 35-megawatt storage project pairs batteries with energy management and maintenance, with takeover expected in…

4 days ago

BigBear.ai’s $225 Million Award Tally Requires a Funding Reality Check

The federal contractor reports customer expansion and retained work, but contract ceilings and unexercised options…

5 days ago