ECJ | PRESS RELEASE No 158/22, 20 Sep meta-media operator-cognition

Advocate General's Opinion C-252/21 | Meta® Platforms and Others (General terms of use of a social network)

According to Advocate General Rantos, a competition authority may, in exercising its powers, take account of the compatibility of a commercial practice with the General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR]

However, it must take into account any decision or investigation by the competent supervisory authority under that Regulation Meta® Platforms  is the owner of the online social network ["media company"] 'Facebook'. Users of this social network must accept Facebook's terms of service, which refer to Meta Platforms' data and cookies policies. Under those terms, Meta® Platforms collects data from other Meta® Platforms group services ["media market operators"], such as Instagram and WhatsApp, as well as from third-party websites and applications, via integrated interfaces or via cookies placed on the user's computer or mobile device. In addition, Meta® Platforms links those data to the Facebook account of the user concerned and uses them for advertising purposes, < wipes tears > among other things.

Schrems Mania!

The German Federal Competition Authority prohibited Meta® Platforms from processing data in accordance with Facebook's terms of service and from implementing those terms, and imposed measures to stop it from doing so. The authority found that the data processing in question, which did not comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), constituted an abuse of Meta® Platforms' dominant position on the social network market for private[?!] users in Germany.
[...]

file in How to code/contradictions in terms/blue screen
curia.europa | OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RANTOS, 20 September
reference
Atik and Groussot, "A WEAPONIZED COURT OF JUSTICE in Schrems II", Nordic Journal of European Law (2021)

In two succeeding negotiations—first the Safe Harbour and then the Privacy Shield&mdashU.S. and EU officials reached agreement that qualifying U.S.-based data processors [!]—such as digital platforms [sic] Google and Facebook—would enjoy the protection of the GDPR adequacy determinations by compliance with these accommodations. And twice—in actions brought by the same complainant, Max Schrems—the CJEU struck down the Commission's underlying adequacy decisions as well as other spects of the accorded frameworks. The absence of deference by the Court of the EU institution charged with th conduct of external relations is surprising; that said, the Court's assertion of the prerogative of re-assessing determinations by EU administrative officials is a settled matter of EU law, squarely within the competence of the CJEU. It is less clear whether the Court's invocation of human rights bases for rejecting the finding adequacy should escape external scrutiny. ...

[emphasis added]