

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE No 83/23 
Luxembourg, 24 May 2023 
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-451/20 | Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission 
Competition: The action brought by Meta Platforms Ireland (Facebook 
group) against a Commission request seeking disclosure of documents 
identified by means of search terms is dismissed 
The General Court finds that Meta Platforms Ireland has not successfully demonstrated that the request to 
provide documents to be identified by search terms went beyond what was necessary or that establishing a 
virtual data room failed to ensure that sensitive personal data was sufficiently protected 
On the basis of suspicions of anticompetitive behaviour by the Facebook group in its use of data and in the 
management of its social network platform, the European Commission, by decision of 4 May 2020 
1
, sent a request 
for information to Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd. That decision, adopted pursuant to 
Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 
2
, required Meta Platforms Ireland to provide the Commission with all 
documents prepared or received by three of its executives within the period concerned which contained one or 
more of the search terms defined in the annexes. That decision provided for a potential penalty payment of € 8 
million per day in the event of failure to provide the information requested 
3
. 
The decision of 4 May 2020 replaced an earlier similar decision, which laid down broader search criteria. That new 
decision, taken after exchanges between the Commission and Meta Platforms Ireland, reduced the number of 
documents requested by refining search terms and limiting the number of officials concerned. 
On 15 July 2020, Meta Platforms Ireland brought, first, an action for annulment of the decision of 4 May 2020 and, 
second, an application for interim measures. 
By interim order of 29 October 2020 
4
, the President of the General Court ordered that the operation of the decision 
of 4 May 2020 be suspended until a specific procedure had been put in place for the production of the requested 
documents which were not linked to Meta Platforms Ireland’s business activities and which also contained sensitive 
personal data. Subsequent to that order, the Commission adopted an amending decision 
5
 stating that those 
documents could be placed on the investigation file only after having been examined in a virtual data room in the 
manner specified in the interim order. 
                                                
1
 Commission Decision (C(2020) 3011 final of 4 May 2020 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 
1/2003 (Case AT.40628 - Facebook Data-related practices). 
2
 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102 
TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). 
3
 On the same date, the Commission adopted a request for information under Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in respect of Meta Platforms 
Ireland Ltd in the context of its parallel investigation into certain practices relating to the Marketplace product. The action for annulment brought by 
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd against that decision is dismissed by the Court in its judgment of the same date in Case T-452/20 Meta Platforms Ireland v 
Commission. 
4
Order of 29 October 2020, Facebook Ireland v Commission (T-451/20 R, EU:T:2020:515). 
5
 Commission Decision C(2020) 9231 final of 11 December 2020. 

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Meta Platforms Ireland modified its application for annulment to take account of that amending decision. The Fifth 
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the General Court dismisses the action in its entirety. In that context, the 
General Court examines, for the first time, the lawfulness under Regulation No 1/2003 of a request for information 
using search terms, as well as the lawfulness of a virtual data room procedure for the processing of documents 
containing sensitive personal data. 
Findings of the Court 
In support of its action for annulment, Meta Platforms Ireland argued, inter alia, that applying the search terms 
specified in the request for information would inevitably lead to the capture of a significant number of documents 
with no relevance to the investigation carried out by the Commission, which would be contrary to the principle of 
necessity set out in Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003. 
On that point, the Court recalled that, under Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission may, by simple 
request or by decision, require undertakings to provide ‘all necessary information’ in order to monitor compliance 
with the EU competition rules. It follows that the Commission is entitled to require the disclosure only of 
information which may enable it to investigate presumed infringements which justify the conduct of its 
investigation. Having regard to the broad powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by Regulation No 
1/2003, that necessity requirement is satisfied if the Commission could reasonably suppose, at the time of the 
request, that the information may help it to determine whether an infringement of the competition rules has taken 
place. 
In support of its complaints challenging whether the principle of necessity had been complied with, Meta Platforms 
Ireland had disputed certain search terms in the request for information, while arguing that those specific criticisms 
ought to be understood as non-exhaustive examples intended to illustrate its more general line of argument. In its 
view, it would have been unreasonable, if not impossible, to focus on each search term separately. 
However, the Court rejects that approach and considers that an overall assessment of compliance with the principle 
of necessity set out in Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 is not appropriate in the present case, even if it were 
possible. The fact that certain search terms may, as Meta Platforms Ireland submits, be too vague has no bearing on 
the fact that other search terms may be sufficiently precise or targeted to enable the finding – that they may help 
the Commission to determine whether an infringement of the competition rules has taken place – to be established. 
Having regard to the presumption that acts of the EU institutions are valid, the Court accordingly concludes that only 
the search terms specifically challenged by Meta Platforms Ireland may be reviewed as to whether the principle of 
necessity has been observed. The other search terms must, by contrast, be regarded as having been defined in 
accordance with that principle. 
In addition, after noting that the arguments concerning the search terms referred to for the first time at the stage of 
the reply are inadmissible, the Court examines only the search terms referred to in the application. Taking the view 
that Meta Platforms Ireland has not successfully established that those terms were contrary to the principle of 
necessity, the Court rejects the various arguments put forward in that regard as being unfounded. 
In its action for annulment, Meta Platforms Ireland also submitted that, by requiring the production of numerous 
irrelevant documents of a private nature, the decision of 4 May 2020, as amended (‘the contested decision’), 
infringed the fundamental right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms (‘the ECHR’). 
In that regard, the Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 7 of the Charter, which contains rights which 
correspond to those guaranteed by Article 8(1) ECHR, everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and 
family life, home and communications. 

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
As regards impediments to that right, Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the 
rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights 
and freedoms. In addition, subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are 
necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to 
protect the rights and freedoms of others. 
In the light of those clarifications, the Court examines whether the impediment to Article 7 of the Charter created by 
the contested decision satisfies the conditions set out in Article 52(1) thereof. 
After observing that Regulation No 1/2003 confers on the Commission the power to adopt the contested decision, 
such that the interference with privacy which it causes is provided for by law, that that decision meets objectives of 
general interest of the European Union and that Meta Platforms Ireland had not maintained that the contested 
decision compromises the essence of the right to privacy, the Court examines whether the contested decision 
disproportionately impedes that right. 
On that point, the Court confirms, in the first place, that a request for information under Article 18(3) of Regulation 
No 1/2003 constitutes an appropriate measure for attaining the objectives of general interest pursued by the 
Commission, namely the maintenance of the system of competition intended by the Treaties. 
As regards, in the second place, the question whether the contested decision goes beyond what is necessary in 
order to achieve those objectives of general interest, the Court notes that, following the delivery of the interim order 
of 29 October 2020, the Commission adopted a separate procedure for the treatment of documents to be produced 
by Meta Platforms Ireland but which, prima facie, were not linked with its business activities and which contained 
sensitive personal data (‘the Protected Documents’). 
Under that procedure, the Protected Documents were to be transmitted to the Commission on a separate electronic 
medium and placed in a virtual data room accessible to a limited number of members of the team responsible for 
the investigation, in the presence of Meta Platforms Ireland’s lawyers, with a view to selecting the documents to be 
placed on the file. In the event of continuing disagreement regarding the classification of a document, the amending 
decision also lays down a system for resolving disputes. In accordance with that decision, the Protected Documents 
may, moreover, be transmitted to the Commission in a redacted form by removing the names of the individuals 
concerned and any information allowing to identify them. Upon request by the Commission motivated by the needs 
of the investigation, those documents must nevertheless be provided to it in a full version. 
The Court observes, furthermore, that it is not disputed that certain documents requested by the Commission 
contained sensitive personal data capable of falling within the data referred to in Article 9 of Regulation 2016/679 
6
 
and Article 10 of Regulation 2018/1725 
7
, in relation to which the ability to undertake processing is subject to the 
following three conditions: 
the processing must pursue a significant public interest, with its basis in EU law; 
the processing must be necessary to fulfil that public interest; 
EU law must be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of the right to data protection and provide 
for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject. 
Since those conditions are also relevant for assessing whether, in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter, the 
                                                
6
 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the 
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 
L 119, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2018 L 127, p. 2). 
7
 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to 
the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39). 

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Stay Connected! 
contested decision does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of general interest which it 
pursues, the Court recalls, first, that a request for information such as the contested decision constitutes an 
appropriate measure for achieving the objectives of general interest pursued by the Commission (first condition) 
and, second, that the processing of personal data entailed by the contested decision is necessary to fulfil the 
significant public interest pursued (second condition). 
Referring to the arrangements for the transmission, consultation, evaluation and anonymisation of the Protected 
Documents, the Court considers that the third condition referred to above is also satisfied in the present case. 
Having thereby established that the contested decision, in so far as it lays down the virtual data room procedure, 
does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of general interest pursued, the Court finds, in the 
third place, that the disadvantages involved in that procedure were also not disproportionate to the aims pursued. 
In the light of all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the impediment to the right to privacy caused by the 
contested decision satisfies the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter and therefore rejects the complaints 
alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Charter. 
Since the other pleas in law raised by Meta Platforms Ireland have also proved to be unfounded, the Court 
dismisses the action in its entirety. 
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are 
contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain 
conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well 
founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the 
act. 
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or 
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and 
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings 
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the 
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal. 
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court. 
The full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.  
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆  (+352) 4303 3355 
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from 'Europe by Satellite' ✆ (+32) 2 2964106 
 
 

Meta's Legal Challenge Against EU Commission's Document Request Dismissed

The General Court of the European Union has ruled against Meta Platforms Ireland, formerly known as Facebook Ireland, in its legal challenge to a European Commission request for information. The court found that Meta failed to demonstrate that the request for documents identified by specific search terms was excessive or that the virtual data room established for document review did not adequately protect sensitive personal data.

 The Commission's request, issued on May 4, 2020, was part of an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices by Meta, particularly concerning its data usage and management of its social media platform. The request mandated Meta to provide documents from three executives that included certain defined search terms, with a potential penalty of €8 million per day for non-compliance.

 Meta initially sought to annul the Commission's decision, arguing that the search terms would lead to irrelevant documents being captured, thus violating the principle of necessity under EU competition law. However, the court ruled that the Commission's broad investigatory powers justified the request, as it could reasonably believe the information was necessary to determine if competition rules had been violated.

 Additionally, Meta claimed that the request infringed on its right to privacy as outlined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The court, however, concluded that the Commission's actions were lawful and proportionate, satisfying the conditions for limiting privacy rights under EU law. The court emphasized that the procedures established for handling sensitive documents were adequate to protect personal data.

 Ultimately, the General Court dismissed all of Meta's arguments, affirming the legality of the Commission's request and the procedures in place for document handling.



Meta's Legal Challenge Against EU Commission's Document Request Dismissed

The General Court has dismissed Meta Platforms Ireland's challenge against a European Commission request for documents, affirming the necessity of the request in light of suspected anticompetitive behavior.