Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Meta’s headline-making loss was narrower than a ban on targeted advertising: on July 4, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Germany’s competition authority could consider whether Meta’s data practices complied with the GDPR while investigating possible abuse of dominance. The case later ended in Germany in October 2024, after Meta withdrew its appeal and the authority accepted measures intended to give users better choices about combining data.
The ruling linked privacy and competition law without merging them. It did not impose a new fine, decide every remaining issue in Meta’s German appeal, or automatically prohibit Meta’s advertising model across the EU.
What Meta lost—and what it did not
The case was Meta Platforms and Others v Bundeskartellamt, Case C-252/21. Meta lost its central legal argument that the German Federal Cartel Office, or Bundeskartellamt, could not take GDPR compliance into account in an abuse-of-dominance investigation. The CJEU said a competition authority may consider whether data processing is consistent with the GDPR when assessing possible abuse, subject to cooperation with the competent data-protection authorities. The CJEU judgment did not turn every privacy-law breach into an antitrust violation.
- What was at stake: whether Meta could make continued use of Facebook conditional on combining data from different sources without valid consent.
- What the CJEU decided: GDPR considerations could be relevant to the German authority’s competition-law assessment.
- What it did not decide: it did not issue a new fine or a blanket ban on personalized advertising.
- What happened later: the German proceeding closed in October 2024 after Meta withdrew its appeal and the Bundeskartellamt accepted an implementation package.
What Germany challenged in 2019
On February 6, 2019, the Bundeskartellamt issued an order concerning Facebook’s practice of combining data from Facebook with information from Meta-owned services such as Instagram and WhatsApp, as well as data collected through third-party websites and apps using Meta tools such as social plug-ins and tracking technologies. The authority objected to making use of the social network conditional on that broad combination without valid consent. Its case focused on Facebook users in Germany. The Bundeskartellamt’s case overview sets out the original order and proceeding.
#1 Best Overall
The authority’s competition-law theory was that Facebook held a dominant position in the German market for personal social networks and users had limited practical ability to refuse extensive data combination while continuing to use the service. In the authority’s view, the terms could contribute to a data advantage that reinforced Meta’s position and made it harder for rivals to compete. The dispute therefore concerned both the lawfulness of the processing and the competitive consequences of imposing the terms.
Why a competition authority examined privacy terms
The GDPR question was whether Meta had a valid legal basis for processing and combining the data, including whether consent was freely given, specific and informed. The competition question was whether a dominant company’s terms and conduct amounted to abuse of its market position. Those are different legal tests, but the same data practices can be relevant to both.
Rank #2
The CJEU allowed the competition authority to consider GDPR provisions as part of its analysis; it did not make the Bundeskartellamt the primary GDPR regulator. Data-protection authorities retain their supervisory role, so coordination matters. The judgment also made clear that consent must be assessed in context: a user’s apparent agreement deserves careful scrutiny where a dominant platform may leave little practical room to refuse the processing and still use the service. Dominance alone, however, does not automatically invalidate consent.
What the July 2023 CJEU judgment did
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court referred questions to the CJEU while hearing Meta’s challenge to the German order. The July 4, 2023 ruling was a preliminary ruling on EU law, not the final German judgment on every factual and legal issue in the appeal. It addressed how a competition authority could consider GDPR compliance and the relationship between that work and data-protection enforcement. The CJEU case summary identifies the judgment and its principal issues.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Court’s reasoning made GDPR rules relevant to the competition authority’s assessment, including the legal bases for processing under Article 6 and the rules concerning special-category personal data under Article 9. The authority could not disregard the GDPR framework or replace the data-protection authorities. It had to coordinate with the relevant supervisory bodies when taking GDPR considerations into account.
What this means for advertising and user choice
The judgment did not declare personalized advertising unlawful. It put greater legal scrutiny on the way a dominant platform obtains consent and combines data across services or from outside websites and apps. The distinction matters: the case concerned particular data-combination terms and their competitive effects, not every use of personal data for advertising.
- Personalized advertising generally: not categorically prohibited by this judgment.
- Combining data across Meta services or with off-platform data: the practice at the heart of the German order, subject to the authority’s concerns about consent and competition.
- Consent: must be genuinely valid; the existence of a consent screen alone does not resolve whether the choice is freely given.
- Other legal bases: contractual necessity or legitimate interests cannot simply be assumed; the applicable basis and circumstances matter.
- User controls: the judgment did not itself create a universal, worldwide opt-out. Practical options depend on the measures implemented, service and applicable rules.
For users, the core issue was whether information gathered across Meta services and external sites could be linked to a Facebook profile as a condition of using the network. For competitors and regulators, the broader concern was whether extensive data accumulation could strengthen a dominant platform in ways rivals could not readily match.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the German case ended in 2024
The CJEU ruling did not itself close the German proceeding. After further proceedings and negotiations over implementation, Meta withdrew its pending appeal before the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court. On October 10, 2024, the Bundeskartellamt closed the matter after accepting a package of measures that it considered sufficiently effective in giving users better choices over data combination. The authority’s closure announcement describes the measures and the withdrawal.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallThat result is more precise than saying a court finally ordered Meta to lose every part of the case. The CJEU rejected Meta’s central objection to the competition authority’s ability to consider GDPR compliance; the remaining German process then concluded through Meta’s appeal withdrawal and the authority’s acceptance of implementation measures. The proceeding did not produce a new CJEU fine.
Why the ruling matters beyond Meta
The ruling gives EU competition authorities a route to examine privacy-related conduct when investigating whether a dominant company is abusing its position. It may be relevant where platform access is tied to broad data combination, where consent may be difficult to refuse, or where data accumulation could reinforce market power. It is not a general transfer of GDPR enforcement powers to competition authorities: their analysis must remain within competition law and coordinated with data-protection regulators.
The decision’s reach is broader than the German Facebook order because it interprets EU law, but the original order itself focused on Facebook users in Germany. It did not automatically apply worldwide or impose identical remedies throughout the EU.
Later developments are separate cases
The Bundeskartellamt’s 2024 account also referred to separate preliminary concerns expressed by the European Commission about Meta’s subscription-or-consent approach under the Digital Markets Act. That later regulatory issue involved related questions about choice, consent and advertising, but the CJEU’s 2023 judgment did not decide the subscription model.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Likewise, the General Court’s June 3, 2026 judgment in Case T-1078/23 concerned Meta’s Digital Markets Act gatekeeper designation and Facebook Marketplace, not the German data-combination order. The case record is available from CURIA. These proceedings should not be treated as one continuous ruling on Meta’s data practices.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
