Meta can’t use sexuality to target adverts, EU court rules
Meta can’t use your sexual orientation to target adverts, top EU court rules (Getty Images)
A court has ruled that Meta, the owners of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, cannot target users in the EU with adverts based on their sexual orientation.
The lawsuit was brought by gay Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems, who claimed he had been targeted by ads for nearly a decade, arguing that the Meta had violated the EU’s data protection rules.
He alleged that advertisers on Meta platforms can figure out users’ sexualities from their online behaviour, such as app logins or website visits, even when they don’t declare it on their profiles. The company denied that it showed Schrems personalised ads based on his off-Facebook data.
Wired reported Meta saying it excludes any sensitive data it detects from advertisers.
The case was brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), after a lower Austrian court ruled that Meta had a right to target Schrems based on his sexuality because he had spoken about it at a public event.
The CJEU overturned that decision, ruling that a person’s sexuality cannot be used for targeted advertising, even in those circumstances.
“The fact that Mr Maximilian Schrems has made a statement about his sexual orientation on the occasion of a public panel discussion does not authorise the operator of an online social network platform to process other data relating to his sexual orientation, obtained, as the case may be, outside that platform, with a view to aggregating and analysing those data, in order to offer him personalised advertising,” the court ruled earlier this month.
Schrems’ lawyer, Katharina Raabe-Stuppnig, said: “It’s really important to set ground rules… there are some companies who think they can just disregard them and get a competitive advantage from this behaviour.”
Matt Pollard, a spokesperson for Meta, said the company will review the ruling when it is published in full.
“Meta takes privacy very seriously and has invested over five billion euros to embed privacy at the heart of all of our products,” he continued. “Everyone using Facebook has access to a wide range of settings and tools that allow people to manage how we use their information.”
The LGBTQ+ community has previously alleged that the social media company failed to moderate “extreme anti-trans hate” and profited from posts that included anti-gay slurs.
A GLAAD report published in March claimed that posts, some including transphobic slurs, and the “groomer” slur, as well as promoting conversion therapy, were left on Meta platforms despite being flagged as hateful content.
“Meta either replied that posts were not violative, or simply did not take action on them,” the report claimed.
The report followed an open letter from more than 250 celebrities, including Elliot Page and Laverne Cox, in June 2023, urging Meta to address the “epidemic” of anti-trans hate. GLAAD reported that “extreme anti-trans hate” remained “widespread” in the months that followed.
Meta has previously said that “hate speech has no place on our platforms”, adding: “We believe people use their voice and connect more freely when they don’t feel attacked on the basis of who they are. That is why we don’t allow hate speech on Facebook, Instagram or Threads.”
Share your thoughts! Let us know in the comments below, and remember to keep the conversation respectful.
