An adviser to Europe’s highest court has sided with EU competition authorities in a legal fight with Meta Platforms over document demands tied to two antitrust probes, handing a procedural victory to regulators and a setback to the U.S.-based social media company.
Advocate General Athanasios Rantos told the Court of Justice of the European Union on Thursday that Meta’s appeal should be dismissed and that a lower tribunal’s decision supporting the European Commission ought to be upheld. In a non-binding opinion, Rantos wrote that "The Commission has broad powers of investigation which enable it to request all necessary information in order to carry out its tasks."
Rantos added that the materials referenced by Meta did not contain sensitive data and that the Commission’s access to documents "was subject to strict limits and safeguards, with no disproportionate interference with privacy." Judges at the court - who historically follow the majority of such recommendations - will issue a final ruling in the coming months.
Meta took its challenge to the Luxembourg-based court after the Commission pressed for records as part of two investigations. The company objected to what it described as intrusive requests, pointing to documents it said included autopsy reports on family members, children’s school reports, information about individuals and their families, and security details.
While Meta’s judicial challenge was pending, EU regulators concluded the probes in 2024 by imposing a 797.7 million euro fine - equivalent to $941 million using the exchange rate of ($1 = 0.8477 euros) - against the company. The enforcement action found that Meta had tied its Facebook Marketplace online classified ads service to the Facebook social network and had imposed unfair trading conditions on other providers of online classified ads services.
The litigation before the Court of Justice covers two cases: C-496/23 P Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Facebook Marketplace) and C-497/23 P Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Facebook Data). The Advocate General’s recommendation does not decide the cases but constitutes formal guidance that the judges will consider when issuing their rulings.
For now, the legal sequence leaves open the court’s ultimate judgment, but the adviser’s view supports the regulator’s investigative reach and the prior tribunal decision upholding it.