The Court of Appeal has allowed the Data Protection Commission’s appeals against orders pausing Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd’s challenges to a DPC decision that imposed fines totalling €265 million. It set aside the High Court orders and dismissed Meta’s applications to adjourn its proceedings until the outcome of separate litigation involving WhatsApp Ireland Ltd.
The ruling concerns case management, not whether the DPC was right to find that Meta breached the GDPR. The Court of Appeal did not determine Meta’s statutory appeal or judicial review challenge, and it did not decide the underlying fine or compliance issues.
The DPC’s November 2022 decision followed an inquiry into third-party scraping of personal data from Meta’s platforms between May 2018 and September 2019. The DPC found infringements of GDPR provisions on data protection by design and by default, ordered Meta to bring its processing into compliance, issued a reprimand and imposed fines of €150 million and €115 million. Meta is challenging that decision in the High Court.
Meta sought to pause those proceedings while the Court of Justice of the European Union considered WhatsApp’s appeal over the admissibility of its challenge to an earlier binding decision by the European Data Protection Board. The High Court adjourned Meta’s proceedings in full in May 2024, reasoning that waiting could avoid conflicting rulings on GDPR fine calculations.
The Court of Appeal said Meta had not shown a substantial or material risk of conflicting decisions. It held that the High Court could seek guidance directly from the Court of Justice through a preliminary reference, independently of the WhatsApp case. The judges also considered that waiting for that case, and potentially for further proceedings afterwards, could add years to the resolution of Meta’s challenges.
The court said the DPC decision remained presumed valid while under challenge. The appeal did not suspend its operation, except that the fines were not payable until Meta’s proceedings were determined; the court noted that Meta had brought its processing into compliance to the DPC’s satisfaction. The judgment did not decide an application to suspend the decision’s operation, as Meta had made no such application.
The court did not rule on whether a modular trial should be held. It also expressed a provisional view that the DPC should receive the costs of the motions in both courts. Meta may contest that proposed costs order by written submission within 14 days; the DPC would then have 14 days to reply.