Search This Blog
Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

About Me

Load More
Trendy Right Now

Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Self-Accountability
Cybersecurity CyberThreat Cyercrime Data Safety and Protection Facebook GDPR Privacy Self-Accountability

GDPR Violation by EU: A Case of Self-Accountability

 


There was a groundbreaking decision by the European Union General Court on Wednesday that the EU Commission will be held liable for damages incurred by a German citizen for not adhering to its own data protection legislation. 

As a result of the court's decision that the Commission transferred the citizen's personal data to the United States without adequate safeguards, the citizen received 400 euros ($412) in compensation. During the hearing conducted by the EU General Court, the EU General Court found that the EU had violated its own privacy rules, which are governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 

According to the ruling, the EU has to pay a fine for the first time in history. German citizens who were registering for a conference through a European Commission webpage used the "Sign in with Facebook" option, which resulted in a German citizen being a victim of the EU's brazen disregard for the law. 

The user clicked the button, which transferred information about their browser, device, and IP address through Amazon Web Services' content delivery network, ultimately finding its way to servers run by Facebook's parent company Meta Platforms located in the United States after they were pushed to the content delivery network. According to the court, this transfer of data was conducted without proper safeguards, which constitutes a breach of GDPR rules. 

The EU was ordered to pay a fine of €400 (about $412) directly to the plaintiff for breaching GDPR rules. It has been widely documented that the magnitude and frequency of fines imposed by different national data protection authorities (DPAs) have varied greatly since GDPR was introduced. This is due to both the severity and the rigour of enforcement. A total of 311 fines have been catalogued by the International Network of Privacy Law Professionals, and by analysing them, several key trends can be observed.

The Netherlands, Turkey, and Slovakia have been major focal points for GDPR enforcement, with the Netherlands leading in terms of high-value fines. Moreover, Romania and Slovakia frequently appear on the list of the lower fines, indicating that even less severe violations are being enforced. The implementation of the GDPR has been somewhat of a mixed bag since its introduction a year ago. There is no denying that the EU has captured the attention of the public with the major fines it has imposed on Silicon Valley giants. However, enforcement takes a very long time; even the EU's first self-imposed fine for violating one person's privacy took over two years to complete. 

Approximately three out of every four data protection authorities have stated that they lack the budget and personnel needed to investigate violations, and numerous examples illustrate that the byzantine collection of laws has not been able to curb the invasive practices of surveillance capitalism, despite their attempts. Perhaps the EU could begin by following its own rules and see if that will help. A comprehensive framework for data protection has been developed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 

Established to protect and safeguard individuals' data and ensure their privacy, rigorous standards regarding the collection, processing, and storage of data were enacted. Nevertheless, in an unexpected development, the European Union itself was found to have violated these very laws, causing an unprecedented uproar. 

A recent internal audit revealed a serious weakness in data management practices within European institutions, exposing the personal information of EU citizens to the risk of misuse or access by unauthorized individuals. Ultimately, the European Court of Justice handed down a landmark decision stating that the EU failed to comply with its data protection laws due to this breach. 

As a result of the GDPR, implemented in 2018, organisations are now required to obtain user consent to collect or use personal data, such as cookie acceptance notifications, which are now commonplace. This framework has become the foundation for data privacy and a defining framework for data privacy. By limiting the amount of information companies can collect and making its use more transparent, GDPR aims to empower individuals while posing a significant compliance challenge for technology companies. 

It is worth mentioning that Meta has faced substantial penalties for non-compliance and is among those most negatively impacted. There was a notable case last year when Meta was fined $1.3 billion for failing to adequately protect European users' data during its transfer to U.S. servers. This left them vulnerable to American intelligence agencies since their data could be transferred to American servers, a risk that they did not manage adequately. 

The company also received a $417 million fine for violations involving Instagram's privacy practices and a $232 million fine for not being transparent enough regarding WhatsApp's data processing practices in the past. This is not the only issue Meta is facing concerning GDPR compliance, as Amazon was fined $887 million by the European Union in 2021 for similar violations. 

A Facebook login integration that is part of Meta's ecosystem was a major factor in the recent breach of the European Union's data privacy regulations. The incident illustrates the challenges that can be encountered even by the enforcers of the GDPR when adhering to its strict requirements.
Read more »
Trump
Facebook Instagram Meta Social Media Technology Trump

Meta Removes Independent Fact Checkers, Replaces With "Community Notes"


Meta to remove fact-checkers

Meta is dumping independent fact-checkers on Instagram and Facebook, similar to what X (earlier Twitter) did, replacing them with “community notes” where users’ comments decide the accuracy of a post.

On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg in a video said third-party moderators were "too politically biased" and it was "time to get back to our roots around free expression".

Tech executives are trying to build better relations with the new US President Donald Trump who will take oath this month, the new move is a step in that direction.  

Republican Party and Meta

The Republican party and Trump have called out Meta for its fact-checking policies, stressing it censors right-wing voices on its platform.

After the new policy was announced, Trump said in a news conference he was pleased with Meta’s decision to have  "come a long way".

Online anti-hate speech activists expressed disappointment with the shift, claiming it was motivated by a desire to align with Trump.

“Zuckerberg's announcement is a blatant attempt to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration – with harmful implications. Claiming to avoid "censorship" is a political move to avoid taking responsibility for hate and disinformation that platforms encourage and facilitate,” said Ava Lee of Global Witness. This organization sees itself as trying to bring big tech like Meta accountable.

Copying X

The present fact-checking program of Meta was introduced in 2016, it sends posts that seem false or misleading to independent fact-checking organizations to judge their credibility. 

Posts marked as misleading have labels attached to them, giving users more information, and move down in viewers’ social media feeds. This will now be replaced by community notes, starting in the US. Meta has no “immediate plans” to remove third-party fact-checkers in the EU or the UK.

The new community notes move has been copied from platform X, which was started after Elon Musk bought Twitter. 

It includes people with opposing opinions agreeing on notes that provide insight or explanation to disputed posts. 

We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations. We will take a more personalized approach to political content, so that people who want to see more of it in their feeds can.

Read more »
User Data
Amazon Chrome Cookie Data Facebook Safari Technology User Data

No More Internet Cookies? Digital Targeted Ads to Find New Ways


Google Chrome to block cookies

The digital advertising world is changing rapidly due to privacy concerns and regulatory needs, and the shift is affecting how advertisers target customers. Starting in 2025, Google to stop using third-party cookies in the world’s most popular browser, Chrome. The cookies are data files that track our internet activities in our browsers. The cookie collects information sold to advertisers, who use this for targeted advertising based on user data. 

“Cookies are files created by websites you visit. By saving information about your visit, they make your online experience easier. For example, sites can keep you signed in, remember your site preferences, and give you locally relevant content,” says Google.

In 2019 and 2020, Firefox and Safari took a step back from third-party cookies. Following their footsteps, Google’s Chrome allows users to opt out of the settings. As the cookies have information that can identify a user, the EU’s and UK’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) asks a user for prior consent via spamming pop-ups. 

No more third-party data

Once the spine of targeted digital advertising, the future of third-party cookies doesn’t look bright. However, not everything is sunshine and rainbows. 

While giants like Amazon, Google, and Facebook are burning bridges by blocking third-party cookies to address privacy concerns, they can still collect first-party data about a user from their websites, and the data will be sold to advertisers if a user permits, however in a less intrusive form. The harvested data won’t be of much use to the advertisers, but the annoying pop-ups being in existence may irritate the users.

How will companies benefit?

One way consumers and companies can benefit is by adapting the advertising industry to be more efficient. Instead of using targeted advertising, companies can directly engage with customers visiting websites. 

Advances in AI and machine learning can also help. Instead of invasive ads that keep following you on the internet, the user will be getting information and features personally. Companies can predict user needs, and via techniques like automated delivery and pre-emptive stocking, give better results. A new advertising landscape is on its way.

Read more »
Supreme Court
Cyber Security Data Disclosure Attack data security Facebook Legal Action Against Meta Meta Meta Platforms Supreme Court

Supreme Court Weighs Shareholder Lawsuit Against Meta Over Data Disclosure

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating on a high-stakes shareholder lawsuit involving Meta (formerly Facebook), where investors claim the tech giant misled them by omitting crucial data breach information from its risk disclosures. The case, Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, centers around the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where a British firm accessed data on millions of users to influence U.S. elections. While Meta had warned of potential misuse of data in its annual filings, it did not disclose that a significant breach had already occurred, potentially impacting investors’ trust. During oral arguments, liberal justices voiced concerns over the omission. 

Justice Elena Kagan likened the situation to a company that warns about fire risks but withholds that a recent fire already caused severe damage. Such a lack of disclosure, she argued, could be misleading to “reasonable investors.” The plaintiffs’ attorney, Kevin Russell, echoed this sentiment, asserting that Facebook’s omission misrepresented the severity of risks investors faced. On the other hand, conservative justices expressed concerns about expanding disclosure requirements. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether mandating disclosures of all past events might lead to over-disclosure, which could overwhelm investors with excessive details. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the SEC, rather than the courts, might be better positioned to clarify standards for corporate disclosures. 

The Biden administration supports the plaintiffs, with Assistant Solicitor General Kevin Barber describing the case as an example of a misleading “half-truth.” Meta’s attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, argued that such broad requirements could dissuade companies from sharing forward-looking risk factors, fearing potential lawsuits for any past incident. Previously, the Ninth Circuit found Meta’s general warnings about potential risks misleading, given the company’s awareness of the Cambridge Analytica breach. The Court held that such omissions could harm investors by implying that no significant misuse had occurred. 

If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, companies could face new expectations to disclose known incidents, particularly those affecting data security or reputational risk. Such a ruling could reshape corporate disclosure practices, particularly for tech firms managing sensitive data. Alternatively, a ruling in favor of Meta may uphold the existing regulatory framework, granting companies more discretion in defining disclosure content. This decision will likely set a significant precedent for how companies balance transparency with investors and risk management.
Read more »
NVIDIA
cryptocurrency Cyber Fraud Facebook Investors NVIDIA

Facebook, Nvidia Push SCOTUS to Limit Investor Lawsuits

 




The US Supreme Court is set to take two landmark cases over Facebook and Nvidia that may rewrite the way investors sue the tech sector after scandals. Two firms urge the Court to narrow legal options available for investment groups, saying claims made were unrealistic.


Facebook's Cambridge Analytica Case

The current scandal is that of Cambridge Analytica, which allowed third-party vendors access to hundreds of millions of user information without adequate check or follow-up. Facebook reportedly paid over $5 billion to the FTC and SEC this year alone due to purportedly lying to the users as well as to the investors about how it uses data. Still, investor class-action lawsuits over the scandal remain, and Facebook is appealing to the Supreme Court in an effort to block such claims.

Facebook argues that the previous data risks disclosed were hypothetical and therefore should not have been portrayed as if they already had happened. The company also argues that forcing it to disclose all past data incidents may lead to "over disclosure," making the reports filled with data not helpful but rather confusing for investors. Facebook thinks disclosure rules should be flexible; if the SEC wants some specific incidents disclosed, it should create new regulations for that purpose.


Nvidia and the Cryptocurrency Boom

The second is that of Nvidia, the world's biggest graphics chip maker, which, allegedly, had played down how much of its 2017-2018 revenue was from cryptocurrency mining. When the crypto market collapsed, Nvidia was forced to cut its earnings forecast, which was an unexpected move for investors. Subsequently, the SEC charged Nvidia with $5.5 million for not disclosing how much of its revenue was tied to the erratic crypto market.

Investors argue that the statements from Nvidia were misleading due to the actual risks but point out that Nvidia responds by saying that such misrepresentation was not done out of malice. However, they argue that demand cannot be predicted in such an ever-changing market and so would lead to unintentional mistakes. According to them, the existing laws for securities lawsuits already impose very high standards to deter the "fishing expedition," where investors try to sue over financial losses without proper evidence. Nvidia's lawyers opine that relaxing these standards would invite more cases; henceforth the economy is harmed as a whole.


Possible Impact of Supreme Court on Investor Litigation


The Supreme Court will hear arguments for Facebook on November 6th, and the case for Nvidia is scheduled for Nov 13th. Judgments could forever alter the framework under which tech companies can be held accountable to the investor class. A judgement in favour of Facebook and Nvidia would make it tougher for shareholders to file a claim and collect damages after a firm has suffered a crisis. It could give tech companies respite but, at the same time, narrow legal options open to shareholders.

These cases come at a time when the trend of business-friendly rulings from the Supreme Court is lowering the regulatory authority of agencies such as the SEC. Legal experts believe that this new conservative majority on the court may be more open than ever to appeals limiting "nuisance" lawsuits, arguing that these cases threaten business stability and economic growth.

Dealing with such cases, the Court would decide whether the federal rules must permit private investors to enforce standards of corporate accountability or if such responsibility of accountability should rest primarily with the regulatory bodies like the SEC.


Read more »
NVIDIA
Big Tech Cyber Security CyberCrime Cyberhackers CyberThreat Facebook Meta NVIDIA

Big Tech Prioritizes Security with Zuckerberg at the Helm

 


Reports indicate that some of the largest tech firms are paying millions of dollars each year to safeguard the CEOs of their companies, with some companies paying more than others depending on the industry. There has been a significant increase in the costs relating to security for top executives, including the cost of monitoring at home, personal security, bodyguards, and consulting services, according to a Fortune report.

There was a lot of emphasis placed on securing high-profile CEOs, considering the risks they could incur, according to Bill Herzog, CEO of LionHeart Security Services. Even though it has been two months since Meta cut thousands of jobs on its technical teams, its employees are still feeling the consequences. 

The Facebook core app is supported by employees in many ways, from groups to messaging, and employees who have spent weeks redistributing responsibilities left behind by their departed colleagues, according to four current and former employees who were asked to remain anonymous to speak about internal issues. 

Many remaining employees are likely adjusting to new management, learning completely new roles, and - in some cases - just trying to get their heads around what is happening. The cost of security services offered by LionHeart Security Services is $60 per hour or more, which could represent an annual budget of over $1 million for two guards working full-time. 

In terms of personal security for Mark Zuckerberg, Meta has invested $23.4 million in 2023, breaking the lead among the competitors. The amount of $9.4 million is comprised of direct security costs, while a pre-tax allowance of $14 million is reserved for additional security-related expenses that may arise in the future. 

The investment by Alphabet Inc. in 2023 will amount to about $6.8 million, while Tesla Inc. has paid $2.4 million for the security services of its CEO Elon Musk, in 2023. Additionally, other technology giants, such as NVIDIA Corporation and Apple Inc. have also invested heavily to ensure the safety of their CEOs, with the two companies spending $2.2 million and $820,309, respectively, in 2023. 

In recent years, tech companies have become more aware of the importance of security for their top executives. Due to the increasing risks associated with high-profile clients, the costs of these services have increased as a result of the increase in demand. The fact that these organizations have invested significant amounts of money into security measures over the years makes it clear that they place a high level of importance on the safety of their leaders, which is reflected in their significant investments in these measures. 

The article also highlights the potential risks that are involved in leading a major tech company in today's world, due to technological advancements. Since Zuckerberg joined Meta's platforms over a decade ago, he has faced increasing scrutiny to prove he is doing what is necessary to ensure the safety of children on its platforms. Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, apologized directly to parents who have complained their children are suffering harm due to content on Meta's platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, during a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

This apology came after intense questioning from lawmakers about Meta’s efforts to protect children from harmful content, including non-consensual explicit images. Despite Meta’s investments in safety measures, the company continues to face criticism for not doing enough to prevent these harms. Zuckerberg's apology reflected both an acknowledgement of these issues and his willingness to accept responsibility for them. 

However, it also highlighted the ongoing challenges Meta faces in addressing safety concerns in the future. In a multifaceted and complex answer to the question of whether Mark Zuckerberg should step down as Meta's CEO, there are many issues to consider. It is important to point out that there are high ethical concerns and controversy surrounding his conduct that have seriously compromised the public's trust in the leadership of the country. 

Meta has been well positioned for success due to his visionary approach and deep insight into the company which has greatly contributed to the success of the organization. What is important in the end is what will benefit the company's future, that is what matters in the end. However, if Zuckerberg can demonstrate that he is in fact trying to address ethical issues, as well as make the platform more transparent, and if he can prove it well and truly, then he might do well to keep the position at Meta, despite the fears that he may lose it. 

The business may require a change in leadership if these issues persist, which will lead to the restoration of trust, which will enable the business to maintain a more sustainable and ethical outlook.
Read more »
Privacy
Amazon Android Vulnerability Cyberattacks Cyberdrime Cybersecurity CyberThreat Facebook Kaspersky Passwords Privacy

Security Alert for Gmail, Facebook, and Amazon Users

 


The number of hacks that occur on Google, Gmail, and Amazon accounts keeps on rising, causing users to become anxious. By using phishing tactics, hackers are targeting users' passwords for Gmail, Facebook, and Amazon through phishing campaigns that pose significant risks to their personal information. 

A new notice has appeared warning users of Google Mail, Facebook, and Amazon that there has been a new attack on password hacking that puts their personal information at risk because society has gone digital and protecting your credentials is "the name of the game." There is no denying the fact that these platforms are among the most popular in the world, so it is vital to have a good understanding of what threats are coming and what possibilities there are to prevent these threats. 

Overall, cybersecurity experts predict a steady increase for the year, but they also note that the complexity of password hacks for Gmail and Facebook, as well as attempts to access Amazon accounts, has grown dramatically as well. It has been found that the complexity of password hacks for Gmail and Facebook has increased dramatically as a result of increased complexity in the attacks. 

Typically, these hacking attempts benefit from phishing attacks, brute force attacks, and social engineering attacks, all of which are designed to take advantage of overly trustful users or weaknesses within the platforms that make them vulnerable. Several new threat analyses, including those conducted by Kaspersky Labs, reveal that password theft attacks have become increasingly common against Amazon users, Facebook users, and, most of all, Google users. There have been several attacks targeting these platforms, including those aimed at stealing passwords. 

Kaspersky reported an increase of 40% in attempts of hackers to entice users to access malicious sites impersonating these brands in comparison to last year based on a study it conducted. It is no surprise that malicious hackers are seeking credentials for Gmail, Facebook, and Amazon accounts to spread their malicious programming. As a matter of fact, these accounts may be exploited to reach the full heights of cybercrime by committing data theft, malware distribution, and credit card fraud all at the same time. 

A Google account is a skeleton key that can be used to unlock an entire treasure trove of other account credentials, as well as personal information, enabling fraudsters to access a treasure trove of private information. The information contained in a user's Gmail inbox is immeasurable when compared to that contained in their inbox on the web, and the chances are that they will have one given how popular this web-based free email service is with most people these days. As per Kaspersky reports, hackers are mainly targeting Google, Amazon, and Facebook passwords in their effort to steal personal information. 

During the first half of 2024, Kaspersky Security reported a 243% increase in the number of attack attempts, with the company itself preventing approximately 4 million attempts. It is estimated that Facebook users were exposed to 3.7 million phishing attempts during the same period, and Amazon users were exposed to 3 million.  In an interview with Kaspersky Internet Security, Olga Svistunova, who is an expert in data security at the company, warned that a criminal with access to a Gmail account may be able to access "multiple services". 

Thus, it is important to note that not only may business information be leaked as a result, but also the personal information of customers can also be leaked as a result. To target these platforms, hackers are looking for account passwords, as getting access to these platforms allows them to commit fraud, distribute malware, and steal sensitive information. It is proposed that Google accounts are especially valuable since they can be used to hack into other accounts and to collect personal information that can be used in fraud attempts. 

According to researchers at GuidePoint Research and Intelligence Team, Rui Ataide and Hermes Bojaxhi of the GuidePoint Research and Intelligence Team, there is an ongoing phishing campaign targeting more than 130 U.S. organizations, which has been detected as a new and worrying one. There have been so many misuses of the term "highly sophisticated threat actor" in recent years that it almost has lost all meaning, but the tactics and intrusion capabilities that were employed by this as-yet-unnamed attacker have led the GRIT researchers to conclude that this attacker deserves to be called such a label. 

A spear-phishing attack, as with other spear-phishing campaigns, revolves around the targeting of specific employees within an organization rather than attempting to hit every single email account in an organization with a scattergun approach, as is so often the case with so-called spear-phishing campaigns. The attack has also targeted other tech giants, including Microsoft and Apple, as well as numerous smaller companies. Additionally, DHL, Mastercard, Netflix, eBay, and HSBC are also among the companies involved.  

Cloud security provider Netskope, in a recent report, found a 2,000-fold increase in traffic to phishing pages sent through Microsoft Sway, a cloud-based application that provides users with the ability to create visual instructions, newsletters, and presentations through the use of visual illustrations. Hackers are increasingly exploiting a technique known as “quishing,” a form of phishing that utilizes QR codes to deceive users into logging into malicious websites, thereby stealing their passwords. This method is particularly effective as QR codes can bypass email scanners designed to detect text-based threats. 

Additionally, since QR codes are frequently scanned with mobile devices—which often lack the robust security measures found on desktops and laptops—users become more vulnerable to these types of attacks. A new variant of QR code phishing has been recently detailed by J. Stephen Kowski, the Field Chief Technology Officer at SlashNext, in a LinkedIn article. Unlike traditional QR code phishing, which typically involves an image-based QR code redirecting users to a malicious site, this new method leverages Unicode text characters to create QR codes. 

According to Kowski, this approach presents three significant challenges for defenders: it evades image-based analysis, ensures accurate screen rendering, and creates a duality in appearance between the screen rendering and plain text, making detection more difficult. Given these emerging threats, individuals who frequently use platforms such as Google’s Gmail, Facebook, and Amazon, as well as other major online services, should exercise caution to avoid becoming victims of identity theft. The risk of falling prey to password-hacking attempts can be significantly reduced by adhering to best practices in security hygiene across different accounts and maintaining a high level of vigilance. 

In today’s technology-driven world, personal awareness and proactive measures serve as the first line of defence against such cyber threats. Protecting Business Accounts from Phishing Attacks 

1. Recognize Phishing Indicators

- Generic Domain Extensions: Be cautious of emails from generic domains like "@gmail.com" instead of corporate domains, as attackers use these to impersonate businesses.

- Misspelt Domains: Watch for near-identical domains that slightly alter legitimate ones, such as "Faceb0ok.com." These deceptive domains are used to trick users into providing sensitive information. 

- Content Quality: Legitimate communications are typically polished and professional. Spelling errors, poor grammar, and unprofessional formatting are red flags of phishing attempts. 

- Urgency and Fear Tactics: Phishing messages often create a sense of urgency, pressuring recipients to act quickly to avoid negative consequences, such as account suspensions or security breaches. 

- Unusual Requests: Be wary of unexpected requests for money, personal information, or prompts to click links or download attachments. Hackers often impersonate trusted entities to deceive recipients. 

2. Implement Security Software 

- Install robust security tools, including firewalls, spam filters, and antivirus software, to guard against phishing attacks. 

- Utilize web filters to restrict access to malicious websites. - Regularly update software to patch vulnerabilities and protect against new threats. 

3. Use Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) 

- Enhance account security by implementing MFA, which requires a second verification factor (e.g., a code, fingerprint, or secret question) in addition to a password. 

- MFA significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access and helps safeguard business credentials. By staying vigilant, maintaining updated security software, and utilizing MFA, businesses can better protect their accounts and sensitive information from phishing attacks.
Read more »
Thierry Breton
Data Privacy digital competition rules Digital Markets Act European Union Facebook Instagram Meta Platforms online gatekeepers personalized ads regulatory scrutiny Technology Thierry Breton

EU Claims Meta’s Paid Ad-Free Option Violates Digital Competition Rules

 

European Union regulators have accused Meta Platforms of violating the bloc’s new digital competition rules by compelling Facebook and Instagram users to either view ads or pay to avoid them. This move comes as part of Meta’s strategy to comply with Europe's stringent data privacy regulations.

Starting in November, Meta began offering European users the option to pay at least 10 euros ($10.75) per month for ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram. This was in response to a ruling by the EU’s top court, which mandated that Meta must obtain user consent before displaying targeted ads, a decision that jeopardized Meta’s business model of personalized advertising.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive body, stated that preliminary findings from its investigation indicate that Meta’s “pay or consent” model breaches the Digital Markets Act (DMA) of the 27-nation bloc. According to the commission, Meta’s approach fails to provide users the right to “freely consent” to the use of their personal data across its various services for personalized ads.

The commission also criticized Meta for not offering a less personalized service that is equivalent to its social networks. Meta responded by stating that their subscription model for no ads aligns with the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA. The company expressed its intent to engage in constructive dialogue with the European Commission to resolve the investigation.

The investigation was launched soon after the DMA took effect in March, aiming to prevent tech “gatekeepers” from dominating digital markets through heavy financial penalties. One of the DMA's objectives is to reduce the power of Big Tech firms that have amassed vast amounts of personal data, giving them an advantage over competitors in online advertising and social media services. The commission suggested that Meta should offer an option that doesn’t rely on extensive personal data sharing for advertising purposes.

European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who oversees the bloc’s digital policy, emphasized that the DMA aims to empower users to decide how their data is used and to ensure that innovative companies can compete fairly with tech giants regarding data access.

Meta now has the opportunity to respond to the commission’s findings, with the investigation due to conclude by March 2025. The company could face fines of up to 10% of its annual global revenue, potentially amounting to billions of euros. Under the DMA, Meta is classified as one of seven online gatekeepers, with Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and its online ad business listed among two dozen “core platform services” that require the highest level of regulatory scrutiny.

This accusation against Meta is part of a series of regulatory actions by Brussels against major tech companies. Recently, the EU charged Apple with preventing app makers from directing users to cheaper options outside its App Store and accused Microsoft of violating antitrust laws by bundling its Teams app with its Office software.


Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)