Meta platforms: How the CJEU leaves competition and data protection authorities with an assignment

Q2 Social Sciences
Inge Graef
{"title":"<i>Meta platforms</i>: How the CJEU leaves competition and data protection authorities with an assignment","authors":"Inge Graef","doi":"10.1177/1023263x231205836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Competition authorities can identify a violation of the data protection rules when such a finding is necessary to establish an abuse of dominance under the competition rules. This is the main outcome of the judgment that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered in Meta Platforms on 4 July 2023. The judgment is the next step in the saga that started with the 2019 competition decision of the Bundeskartellamt (the German Federal Cartel Office) requiring Facebook (now Meta) to refrain from combining user data from different sources beyond its social network. The judgment provides a welcome confirmation that data protection standards can also matter for the interpretation of the competition rules. However, what is more remarkable and less expected is the general framework the CJEU sets out for coordination between competition and data protection authorities building on the duty of sincere cooperation and the clarity with which it evaluates the different legal bases Meta invoked for processing user data. The judgment can become a reference point for assessing the legality of personal data processing by powerful firms, but also leaves competition and data protection authorities with an assignment to explore how to coordinate their work in the future.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x231205836","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Competition authorities can identify a violation of the data protection rules when such a finding is necessary to establish an abuse of dominance under the competition rules. This is the main outcome of the judgment that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered in Meta Platforms on 4 July 2023. The judgment is the next step in the saga that started with the 2019 competition decision of the Bundeskartellamt (the German Federal Cartel Office) requiring Facebook (now Meta) to refrain from combining user data from different sources beyond its social network. The judgment provides a welcome confirmation that data protection standards can also matter for the interpretation of the competition rules. However, what is more remarkable and less expected is the general framework the CJEU sets out for coordination between competition and data protection authorities building on the duty of sincere cooperation and the clarity with which it evaluates the different legal bases Meta invoked for processing user data. The judgment can become a reference point for assessing the legality of personal data processing by powerful firms, but also leaves competition and data protection authorities with an assignment to explore how to coordinate their work in the future.
元平台:欧洲法院如何将竞争和数据保护机构留给任务
竞争管理机构可以识别违反数据保护规则的行为,如果这种发现是根据竞争规则建立滥用支配地位的必要条件。这是欧盟法院(CJEU)于2023年7月4日在Meta平台案中做出的判决的主要结果。这一判决是2019年德国联邦卡特尔局(Bundeskartellamt)要求Facebook(现在的Meta)不要将其社交网络以外的不同来源的用户数据合并在一起的决定的下一步。该判决提供了一个令人欢迎的确认,即数据保护标准也可以影响对竞争规则的解释。然而,更值得注意和更令人意想不到的是,欧洲法院为竞争和数据保护当局之间的协调制定了总体框架,该框架建立在真诚合作的义务和评估Meta在处理用户数据时援引的不同法律依据的明确性之上。该判决可以成为评估强大公司处理个人数据合法性的参考点,但也给竞争和数据保护机构留下了一项任务,即探索如何在未来协调他们的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信