Tracking: Regional court orders Meta to pay several thousand euros in damages

In six judgments, the Berlin II Regional Court has ordered Meta to pay comparatively high damages of 2,000 euros each to the plaintiffs for recording user traces and the associated violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Specifically, the case concerns the use of Meta Business Tools, which serve users as a central platform for managing marketing and advertising activities on Facebook and Instagram. According to the rulings, the US company must also provide information about the personal data collected with these tools and delete or anonymize some of it.

According to the Berlin court, the plaintiffs claimed that Meta reads and records all digital movements on websites and mobile apps of all Facebook and Instagram members if these third-party services have installed the Meta Business Tools. These make it possible to link the collected data to a user account once it has been created and thus create a profile about individuals. This could include particularly sensitive information such as their political and religious views, sexual orientation or illnesses. This would make it possible, for example, to read information about orders placed with pharmacies, details of problematic addictive behavior or the use of the Wahl-O-Mat. It is unclear with whom the defendant shares the profiles created in this way.

The use of meta business tools on websites and apps was only recognizable to a limited extent, the plaintiffs complained. According to estimates, the associated tracking functions are used on at least 30 to 40 percent of websites worldwide and on the vast majority of the 100 most visited websites in Germany. This is not only done without consent, but also against the express will of the data subjects.

No legal basis for data processing

Meta countered that the third-party companies were responsible for the installation and use of the business tools and therefore for the disclosure of the data. The group itself only processes data for the provision of personalized advertising if the users have expressly consented to this. Otherwise, transmitted information would only be used to a limited extent, for example for security and integrity purposes.

The regional court did not find the defendant's arguments conclusive and upheld the claims (case no.: 39 O 56/24 et al.). It ordered Meta to comply with the rights of data subjects under the GDPR. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to information in accordance with Article 15 of the Regulation, for example, as the defendant had processed and stored the plaintiffs' personal data obtained via Meta Business Tools to create personality profiles. The right to erasure or anonymization exists under Article 17 GDPR, as there is no legal basis for the data processing.

Meta: No comment

The judgments of April 4 are not yet final. Both sides can appeal to the Court of Appeal within one month of receiving the written reasons for the judgment. Meta intends to await the reasons first. A spokeswoman for the company told heise online that she would not comment on the matter at present.

As recently as February, the Stuttgart Regional Court also convicted Meta of illegitimate data harvesting via the Business Tools suite. This mainly concerned the integration of these tools on bild.de. However, according to this decision, Meta only has to pay the plaintiff 300 euros in damages plus 227 euros in pre-trial legal fees. The Stuttgart judges ordered the plaintiff to pay 90 percent of the legal costs of the expensive legal victory.

The amount of damages in GDPR legal disputes is not fixed across the board and depends heavily on the individual case. There are no fixed amounts or a generally applicable basis for calculation in the regulation itself. German courts have often awarded plaintiffs only symbolic amounts in the region of a few hundred euros in cases in which they classified the non-material damage to be proven as low. For more serious infringements, the sums awarded are in the region of several thousand euros. According to the Federal Court of Justice, it is not necessary to prove concrete economic damage.

(wpl)