The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) chair Andrea Jelinek following the announcement said, Meta's breach is "very serious since it concerns transfers that are systematic, repetitive and continuous."
Highest fine imposed by EU The penalty doled out for Meta surpassed the highest previous record fine imposed by the EU for Amazon $821 million (746 million euros). This comes after Amazon was forced to pay a fine of the previously mentioned amount by Luxembourg, in 2021 for similarly flouting the EU’s privacy standards.
Meta hit with record-breaking $1.3 billion fine over Facebook data transfers to the US
/
The fine is the largest of its kind, and accompanies an order to stop data transfers to the US. The case stems back to 2013 and revelations about US mass surveillance.
Share this story
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22977155/acastro_211101_1777_meta_0001.jpg)
Meta Fined Record $1.3 Billion by EU Over Data Transfers. The Stock Is Falling.
- Order Reprints
- Print Article
Meta META –0.49% Platforms has been fined around $1.3 billion by European Union regulators for sending user information to the U.S. – a record under the bloc’s data-protection laws.
- Order Reprints
- Print Article
Meta META –0.49% Platforms has been fined around $1.3 billion by European Union regulators for sending user information to the U.S. – a record under the bloc’s data-protection laws.
EU fines Facebook parent company Meta record $1.3 billion over data transfer to US
Why is Facebook being fined?According to Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, the social media giant for failing to heed a top court warning aimed at protecting users’ data from the security services in the United States once it’s shipped to servers across the Atlantic.
The commission also alleged that Meta continued data transfers to the US without addressing "the risks to the fundamental rights and freedoms" of people whose data was being transferred across the Atlantic. The court may also demand that Facebook stop using complex legal instruments to move EU data to the US, called standard contract clauses (SCCs), Politico had reported earlier.
As per Bloomberg, the social media giant was given five months to "suspend any future transfer of personal data to the US" and six months to stop "the unlawful processing, including storage, in the US" of transferred personal EU data. . .
Why now?
The decision reportedly follows revelations by Edward Snowden, the former US National Security Agency contractor back in 2013 and a legal challenge brought by an Austrian privacy campaigner, Max Schrems.
As per media reports, Schrems has expressed concerns that European users’ data is not sufficiently protected from the US’ intelligence agencies after Snowden disclosed that officials across the Atlantic have repeatedly accessed people’s information via tech companies like Facebook, Google, and so on.
Notably, Scherms’ lawsuit began a decade-long legal battle over the legality of transferring EU data to the US. According to Reuters, EU regulators led by Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon have also been in the midst of finalizing the ban on a legal tool used by Facebook to transfer European user data. . .
Facebook’s previous responses
> Meta following the announcement of the fine, on Monday, said it would appeal the decision, including the "unjustified and unnecessary fine," and seek a stay of the orders through the courts.
The company which also owns WhatsApp and Instagram had also previously warned that suspending data transfers on the basis of (SCCs) could have “a far-reaching effect on businesses that rely on SCCs (Facebook and other tech giants) and on the online services many people and businesses rely on”.
Similarly, Meta, earlier this year, reiterated that without SCCs or “other alternative means of data transfers” it would “likely” not be able to offer access to social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram, across Europe, reported The Guardian."
(With inputs from agencies)
Read more > WION News
EQUAL TIME - But first this report from Business Insider
Nick Clegg led Meta's decision to reinstate Trump to Facebook and Instagram. Here's how the former UK deputy prime minister charmed his way into Mark Zuckerberg's inner circle.
- Nick Clegg has risen quickly to become one of Mark Zuckerberg's closest confidants at Meta.
- Clegg, a former UK deputy prime minister, led the decision to reinstate Donald Trump to Facebook.
- People close to Clegg charted his rise from UK politics to Zuckerberg's inner circle.
This article was originally published on November 19, 2021. It was updated on February 16, 2022 following the news that Nick Clegg had been promoted to the role of President for Global Affairs. It was updated again on January 26, 2023 to include details about Donald Trump's reinstatement to Facebook and Instagram.
When Mark Zuckerberg threw President Trump off Facebook after the storming of the US Capitol in January 2021, it marked probably the most high-profile moderation decision in the company's history. After all, deplatforming a sitting head of state is no small matter.
A Facebook insider familiar with the internal discussions at the time said that a former senior UK lawmaker took center stage as Zuckerberg and his inner circle deliberated over how to respond to Trump's incitements. That lawmaker was Nick Clegg, a former UK deputy prime minister, who left behind a tumultuous career in politics in 2018 to join Facebook, now known as Meta, as its communications chief.
Clegg took the spotlight again in October 2021 as Facebook announced its corporate rebrand to Meta and outlined its vision for the "metaverse." Somewhat unusually for a glitzy tech product launch, Clegg joined Zuckerberg at the virtual presentation to discuss how regulation hasn't kept pace with the speed of tech innovation.
With his boss looking to the metaverse, Clegg's job was to keep the show on the road. . .Clegg's European savvy appealed to Meta executives -After a short stint in the political wilderness, Clegg resurfaced at Facebook in 2018 to serve as its vice president for global affairs and communications. He moved to Atherton, California, with his wife, Miriam González Durántez, a lawyer, and their three sons: Alberto, Antonio, and Miguel. . .A former Lib Dem minister said: "The reason Nick must be so valuable to Facebook is that he has impeccable connections with the European elite. He speaks all their languages. He has worked there. He can pick up the phone to anyone in the Commission."
One of Clegg's closest confidants in the UK, an ex-minister who served in the coalition government, said they weren't surprised that he took the job at Facebook. . ."
Read more > Business Insider
Our Response to the Decision on Facebook’s EU-US Data Transfers
- Thousands of businesses and organisations rely on the ability to transfer data between the EU and the US to operate and provide everyday services.
- This is not about one company’s privacy practices – there is a fundamental conflict of law between the US government’s rules on access to data and European privacy rights, which policymakers are expected to resolve in the summer.
- We will appeal the ruling, including the unjustified and unnecessary fine, and seek a stay of the orders through the courts.
- There is no immediate disruption to Facebook in Europe.
"The ability for data to be transferred across borders is fundamental to how the global open internet works. From finance and telecommunications to critical public services like healthcare or education, the free flow of data supports many of the services that we have come to rely on. Thousands of businesses and other organisations rely on the ability to transfer data between the EU and the US in order to operate and provide services that people use every day.
Without the ability to transfer data across borders, the internet risks being carved up into national and regional silos, restricting the global economy and leaving citizens in different countries unable to access many of the shared services we have come to rely on. That’s why providing a sound legal basis for the transfer of data between the EU and the US has been a political priority on both sides of the Atlantic for many years.
In 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated Privacy Shield – a key legal mechanism for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US. This decision created considerable regulatory and legal uncertainty for thousands of organisations, including Meta.
At the time of its decision in 2020, the CJEU confirmed that an alternative legal mechanism called Standard Contractual Clauses (or SCCs) would continue to be valid subject to various legal safeguards. As such, like thousands of other businesses, Meta used SCCs believing them to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Today, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has set out its findings into Meta’s use of this common legal instrument to transfer Facebook user data between the EU and the US. Despite acknowledging we had acted in good faith and that a fine was unjustified, the DPC was overruled at the last minute by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). We are appealing these decisions and will immediately seek a stay with the courts who can pause the implementation deadlines, given the harm that these orders would cause, including to the millions of people who use Facebook every day.
Meta Uses the Same Legal Mechanisms as Other Organisations
Ultimately, the invalidation of Privacy Shield in 2020 was caused by a fundamental conflict of law between the US government’s rules on access to data and the privacy rights of Europeans. It is a conflict that neither Meta nor any other business could resolve on its own. We are therefore disappointed to have been singled out when using the same legal mechanism as thousands of other companies looking to provide services in Europe.
The DPC initially acknowledged that Meta had continued its EU-US data transfers in good faith, and that a fine would be unnecessary and disproportionate. However, this was overruled by the EDPB, which also chose to disregard the clear progress that policymakers are making to resolve this underlying issue. This decision is flawed, unjustified and sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and US.
It also raises serious questions about a regulatory process that enables the EDPB to overrule a lead regulator in this way, disregarding the findings of its multi-year inquiry without giving the company in question a right to be heard.
There is Already a Political Agreement to Solve the Underlying Conflict of Law
Policymakers in both the EU and the US are on a clear path to resolving this conflict with the new Data Privacy Framework (DPF). In March 2022, President Biden and Commission President Von der Leyen announced that they reached an agreement on the principles of a new framework to enable the free flow of transatlantic data. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic have committed to fully implementing the DPF “as quickly as possible.”
Regulators, including the EDPB, have welcomed the improvements made by the DPF. We are pleased that the DPC also confirmed in its decision that there will be no suspension of the transfers or other action required of Meta, such as a requirement to delete EU data subjects’ data once the underlying conflict of law has been resolved. This will mean that if the DPF comes into effect before the implementation deadlines expire, our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users.
At a time where the internet is fracturing under pressure from authoritarian regimes, like-minded democracies should work together to promote and defend the idea of the open internet. No country has done more than the US to align with European rules via their latest reforms, while transfers continue largely unchallenged to countries such as China.
Our priority is to ensure that our users, advertisers, customers and partners can continue to enjoy Facebook while keeping their data safe and secure. There is no immediate disruption to Facebook because the decision includes implementation periods that run until later this year. We intend to appeal both the decision’s substance and its orders including the fine, and will seek a stay through the courts to pause the implementation deadlines."
MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment