Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., left, arrives at federal court in San Jose, California, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2022.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Facebook parent company Meta on Wednesday was slapped with a pair of fines totaling more than $400 million as the Irish privacy regulator concluded the company’s advertising and data handling practices were in breach of EU privacy laws.
The Irish Data Protection Commission said that Meta should be ordered to pay two fines — one, a 210 million euro ($222.5 million) fine over violations of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, and the second, a 180 million euro fine related to breaches of the same law by Instagram.
Combined, the penalties amount to 390 million euros ($414 million).
The fines mark the conclusion of two lengthy investigations into Meta by the Irish regulator, which had been criticized over delays in the process. The DPC began investigating the company on May 25, 2018, the day the EU’s GDPR came into effect.
GDPR places strict requirements on firms with regard to the processing of people’s information. Firms that run afoul of the rules risk facing penalties as high as 4% of global annual revenues.
In the ruling Wednesday, the DPC said that Meta must bring its data processing operations into compliance within three months. The watchdog is the lead regulatory authority for Meta and several other U.S. tech giants, which hold their headquarters in Ireland.
Meta, which changed its name from Facebook in 2021, said in a statement Wednesday that it planned to appeal the ruling. The decision does not amount to a ban on personalized advertising and businesses can continue using Meta’s platforms to target users with ads, it added.
“The suggestion that personalised ads can no longer be offered by Meta across Europe unless each user’s agreement has first been sought is incorrect,” a Meta spokesperson told CNBC via email.
“There has been a lack of regulatory clarity on this issue, and the debate among regulators and policymakers around which legal basis is most appropriate in a given situation has been ongoing for some time,” the spokesperson added.
“That’s why we strongly disagree with the DPC’s final decision, and believe we fully comply with GDPR by relying on Contractual Necessity for behavioural ads given the nature of our services. As a result, we will appeal the substance of the decision.”
A ‘huge blow’ to Meta’s EU profits
Previously, Meta relied on a user’s consent to process their information for the purposes of behavioral ads. However, after the entry into force of the GDPR, the company changed the terms of service for Facebook and Instagram, and switched the legal basis upon which it processes that information to something called “contractual necessity.”
That same year, Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist, submitted a complaint alleging this change forced users to accept the processing of their information for ad targeting in exchange for use of the platforms.
Schrems, in a statement Wednesday, said the DPC’s decision Wednesday meant that Meta would have to develop a version of its apps that doesn’t use personal data for advertising within three months.
He added Meta would still be allowed to ask users for consent to ads with a “yes/no” option, however.
“This is a huge blow to Meta’s profits in the EU,” Schrems said. “People now need to be asked if they want their data to be used for ads or not. They must have a ‘yes or no’ option and can change their mind at any time. The decision also ensures a level playing field with other advertisers that also need to get opt-in consent.”
In December, the European Data Protection Board, which coordinates regulatory action on data privacy across the bloc, said that Meta wasn’t entitled to rely on contracts as a legal basis for processing user data for targeted ads, effectively deeming the company’s advertising practices illegal.
Subsequent to that move, the DPC said it found Meta was “not entitled to rely on the ‘contract’ legal basis in connection with the delivery of behavioural advertising as part of its Facebook and Instagram services, and that its processing of users’ data to date, in purported reliance on the ‘contract’ legal basis, amounts to a contravention of Article 6 of the GDPR.”
The fines imposed by the DPC were raised substantially from those proposed in a draft decision in October, in which the regulator suggested a levy of between 28 million and 36 million euros.
Opendoor shares popped about 10% on Friday after CEO Carrie Wheeler said she’s resigning from the online real estate company, which has seen a surge in recent interest from retail investors.
Pressure began building on Wheeler, who took over the top job in 2022, after the company’s quarterly earnings report earlier this month failed to reassure investors that a turnaround is underway. The stock is up more than sixfold since bottoming out at 51 cents in June, a price that put the company at risk of being delisted from the Nasdaq.
“The last weeks of intense outside interest in Opendoor have come at a time when the company needs to stay focused and charging ahead,” Wheeler wrote in a post on X. “I believe the best thing I can do for Opendoor now is to accelerate my succession plans that I shared with the Board mid-year and make room for new leadership to take the reins.”
Opendoor’s business involves using technology to buy and sell homes, pocketing the gains. In its latest earnings report, Opendoor said it expects to acquire just 1,200 homes in the third quarter, down from 1,757 in the second quarter and 3,504 in the third quarter of 2024. It’s also pulling down marketing spending.
Read more CNBC tech news
Hedge fund manager Eric Jackson, who spearheaded Opendoor’s stock jump in July, celebrated the news and told his new band of followers on X, “Let’s start THINKING BIG AGAIN.” Jackson said last month on X that his firm had taken a stake in the company and was betting it would be a “100-bagger over the next few years.”
Jackson has been a loud voice on X pushing for Wheeler’s departure, and was recently joined by Opendoor co-founder and venture capitalist Keith Rabois, who posted on Aug. 13 that “not a single founder nor executive” who guided the company to its IPO supports Wheeler as CEO.
Opendoor on Friday named technology chief Shrisha Radhakrishna as “president and interim leader” and said a CEO search is underway.
Opendoor went public through a special purpose acquisition company in 2020, riding a SPAC wave supported by low interest rates and Covid-era market euphoria. The soaring inflation and rising interest rates that followed hit all of technology stocks, but had an outsized impact on Opendoor due it its direct exposure to mortgage rates.
The company lost 99% of its value from early 2021 through its trough in June. With Friday’s gains, its market cap stands at about $2.5 billion.
The company forecasted adjusted earnings of $2.11 per this quarter, falling short of the $2.39 per share expected by LSEG. The company projected $6.7 billion in revenue, versus the $7.34 billion estimate.
During an earnings call with analysts, CEO Gary Dickerson said that the current macroeconomic backdrop and trade issues have fueled “increasing uncertainty and lower visibility,” primarily within its China business.
He also said the guidance does not account for pending export license applications and assumes a significant backlog.
Read more CNBC tech news
Applied Materials also cited weakness from leading edge customers and said China clients are easing spending after rapidly ramping up equipment manufacturing in the region.
Bank of America‘s Vivek Arya downgraded shares to a neutral rating and lowered his price target, citing ongoing China and leading-edge headwinds.
“The uncertainty could persist, making it tougher for the stock to outperform despite reasonable valuation,” he wrote. “We suspect the slowdown is more company specific.”
Despite the weak guidance, Applied Materials topped third-quarter earnings and revenue estimates, posting adjusted earnings of $2.48 per share on $7.3 billion in revenue. Net income reached $1.78 billion, or $2.22 a share, versus $1.71 billion, or $2.05 a share, a year ago.
A government intervention in struggling chipmaker Intel is “essential” for the sake of national security, analyst Gil Luria said Friday, following a report that the Trump administration is weighing taking a stake in the company.
“We’re all capitalists,” Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson, said in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “We don’t want government to intervene and own private enterprise, but this is national security.”
Bloomberg reported Thursday that the Trump administration is considering having the U.S. government take a stake in Intel. The news sent Intel shares higher, and the stock climbed again Friday.
Intel previously declined to comment on the report.
Luria said such a deal is needed to revive Intel and reduce the country’s reliance on companies like Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor to manufacture chips. President Donald Trump has called for more chips and high-end technology to be made in the U.S.
Read more CNBC tech news
How the White House could structure such an intervention is still in question. Bloomberg reported Friday that the administration has discussed using funds from the CHIPS Act.
Intel received $7.9 billion from the Department of Commerce through the CHIPS Act, and it was awarded roughly $3 billion under the CHIPS Act for the Pentagon’s Secure Enclave program.
“Intel has had many opportunities over decades to get it right, and it hasn’t. So we need to intervene,” Luria said. “The government’s going to come in and it’s going to give Intel unfair advantages, and if it’s going to do that, it wants a piece of the business.”
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan met with Trump at the White House on Monday after the president called for his resignation based on allegations that he has ties to China.
Luria pointed to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s comments that the rise of superintelligent AI could be “the next wave of nuclear proliferation,” as evidence that direct intervention by the government is needed.
“We can’t rely on somebody else making shell casings for our nuclear arsenal,” Luria said. “We have to get it right.”