knowledge 25 March 2025 |

Meta Platforms Ireland v Data Protection Commission – Importance of Expediency in Challenges to Decisions of Public Bodies

Introduction

On 13 March 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the DPC’s appeal against a decision of the High Court, in which proceedings brought by Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (“Meta”) had been adjourned generally to await the outcome of separate proceedings currently before the European Court of Justice. The Court of Appeal upheld DPC’s appeal and refused to stay the proceedings, finding that the importance of expediency in progressing challenges to decisions of public bodies meant that alternative procedural steps could be taken to avoid the risk of conflicting rulings at a national and European level.

Background

On 25 November 2022, following the conclusion of a statutory inquiry, the DPC delivered a decision finding that between May 2018 and September 2019, third parties had ‘scraped’ personal data from Meta’s platforms and made a collated dataset of that data available online (the “Decision”).  The DPC found that Meta had violated Articles 25(1) and 25(2) GDPR and (i) issued an order requiring Meta to come into compliance with its relevant obligation; (ii) issued a reprimand to Meta; and (iii) imposed two administrative fines totalling €165 million. In December 2022, Meta issued a statutory appeal in respect of the Decision and also brought proceedings by way of judicial review in the High Court (the “Meta Proceedings”).

The WhatsApp Proceedings  

In the context of a different inquiry, on 20 August 2021 the DPC issued a decision which found that WhatsApp Ireland Ltd (“WhatsApp”) had infringed Articles 5, 12, 13 and 14 GDPR, and issued a reprimand against WhatsApp, an order requiring WhatsApp to come into compliance with relevant obligations and four administrative fines totalling €225 million. WhatsApp appealed the DPC’s decision in the High Court and also brought proceedings by way of judicial review. Those proceedings were stayed in the High Court pending separate proceedings brought by WhatsApp in the EU General Court, challenging the decision of the European Data Protection Board pursuant to Article 65 of the GDPR in relation to the DPC’s decision against WhatsApp (the “EDPB’s Decision”). WhatsApp’s challenge to the EDPB’s Decision was dismissed by the General Court on the basis that WhatsApp was not directly concerned by the EDPB’s Decision. WhatsApp appealed the General Court’s Decision to the Court of Justice. The decision of the Court of Justice in the WhatsApp appeal is still awaited (the Advocate General’s opinion is due to be delivered on 27 March 2025).

The High Court decision in the Meta Proceedings

On 10 July 2023 Meta issued motions seeking to adjourn its High Court proceedings against the DPC pending the determination of the WhatsApp Proceedings before the Court of Justice. In his judgment regarding the motions, Simons J in the High Court stated that Meta and the DPC were “in broad agreement” that the hearing and determination of at least part of the proceedings before the High Court must be deferred to await the outcome of the WhatsApp Proceedings and ultimately adjourned the Meta Proceedings in their entirety.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The DPC appealed the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal (the “COA”) which, on 13 March 2025 delivered a judgment setting aside the decision of the High Court.  

The COA referred to the “critical function” of legal certainty regarding decisions of bodies exercising a public power and stated that challenges to any such decisions should be prosecuted with “economy and celerity”. The COA noted that the Court of Justice’s decision in the WhatsApp Proceedings can reasonably be expected to be delivered at the end of this calendar year, potentially adding an initial delay of at least ten months to the date for the conclusion of the Meta Proceedings if they were stayed. The COA also observed that there would inevitably be further delays to the Meta Proceedings depending on the implications of the Court of Justice’s decision in the WhatsApp Proceedings. According to the COA, there were two potential scenarios arising from the Court of Justice’s decision in the WhatsApp Proceedings:

1. If the Court of Justice upholds the General Court’s decision in dismissing WhatsApp’s challenge to the EDPB’s Decision on grounds of inadmissibility, then the contentious issues of EU law in the Meta Proceedings will remain unresolved, and the parties in the Meta Proceedings will have to await a reference for a preliminary ruling in WhatsApp’s challenge to the DPC’s decision which is currently adjourned before the Irish courts. The Meta Proceedings would then have to wait until the disposal of WhatsApp’s High Court proceedings which could take in the region of 24 months.     
2. If the Court of Justice allows WhatsApp’s appeal and overturns the General Court’s dismissal of the proceedings, the substantive issues of law in WhatsApp’s challenge to the EDPB’s Decision will then be sent back to the General Court to rule upon (on the basis that the challenge is admissible), with the possibility of a further appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s decision. In this scenario, the COA estimated that the Meta Proceedings could be delayed for a further forty months. 

In considering whether the Meta Proceedings should be adjourned, the COA stated that the GDPR requires that any challenge to a decision of the DPC be brought before the courts in Ireland. The exclusive mechanism to resolve any doubts as to the interpretation of the GDPR in the context of the Meta Proceedings is therefore by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. According to the COA, there was no reason to delay the parties in asking the High Court to make such a request for a preliminary ruling if it was required. The COA observed that if such a request is made and the questions referred raise similar issues to those that may potentially fall to be considered by the General Court in the WhatsApp Proceedings (should the second scenario above come to pass), it would be open to Meta and/or the DPC at that point to apply to the Court of Justice and/or the General Court to have the WhatsApp Proceedings stayed pending the decision of the Court of Justice in any reference in the Meta Proceedings. Accordingly, the DPC’s appeal was allowed and Meta’s motions seeking an adjournment were dismissed.

Conclusion

The issues arising here in terms of the appropriate sequencing of the Meta Proceedings, considered against the backdrop of the long running challenge to the EDPB Decision in the WhatsApp Proceedings, illustrates some of the complexities that the DPC, as well as subjects of DPC decisions, have been contending with over the last number of years in terms of progressing challenges before the Irish courts.

It is clear that the outcome of the WhatsApp annulment action will be significant from a procedural perspective in terms of determining the appropriate route to challenge questions of European law arising from EDPB Article 65 decisions and will impact the sequencing and progress of ongoing and future challenges to DPC decisions in which the Article 65 mechanism has been employed.