21.8.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 296/3
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Deutschland GmbH v Bundeskartellamt (Case C-252/21, (1) Meta Platforms and Others (General terms of use of a social network)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Online social networks — Abuse of a dominant position by the operator of such a network — Abuse which entails the processing of the personal data of the users of that network as provided for in its general terms of use — Powers of a competition authority of a Member State to find that processing is not consistent with that regulation — Reconciliation with the powers of the national data protection supervisory authorities — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Points (a) to (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679 — Whether the processing is lawful — Article 9(1) and (2) — Processing of special categories of personal data — Article 4(11) — Concept of ‘consent’) (2023/C 296/03) Language of the case: German Referring court Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Deutschland GmbH
Defendant: Bundeskartellamt
Intervener: Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV
Operative part of the judgment 1.
Article 51 et seq. of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), as well as Article 4(3) TEU
must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to compliance with its duty of sincere cooperation with the supervisory authorities, a competition authority of a Member State can find, in the context of the examination of an abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, that that undertaking’s general terms of use relating to the processing of personal data and the implementation thereof are not consistent with that regulation, where that finding is necessary to establish the existence of such an abuse.
In view of this duty of sincere cooperation, the national competition authority cannot depart from a decision by the competent national supervisory authority or the competent lead supervisory authority concerning those general terms or similar general terms.
Where it has doubts as to the scope of such a decision, where those terms or similar terms are, simultaneously, under examination by those authorities, or where, in the absence of an investigation or decision by those authorities, the competition authority takes the view that the terms in question are not consistent with Regulation 2016/679, it must consult and seek the cooperation of those supervisory authorities in order to dispel its doubts or to determine whether it must wait for them to take a decision before starting its own assessment.
In the absence of any objection on their part or of any reply within a reasonable time, the national competition authority may continue its own investigation;
2.
Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/679