The owner of WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook has been slapped with a record fine of €1.2bn (£1.04bn) by the Irish data protection regulator.
It is the biggest fine ever levied for breach of the general data protection regulations (GDPR), which require the data holder’s permission before using their personal information.
Meta has incurred the fine for transferring EU users’ data to the United States for processing, despite a 2020 verdict handed down by the highest EU court saying the data was insufficiently protected from US spying agencies.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:31
November 2022: Is this the end of ‘Big Tech’?
Facebook has been ordered to halt the practice and has been given at least five months to suspend future transfers and six months to stop unlawful processing and storage of data in the US. Instagram and WhatsApp are not subject to the order.
The issue has been ongoing for a decade after privacy activist Max Schrems instigated legal proceedings in 2013 against Facebook, as the company was called at the time.
The Data Protection Commission (DPC) in Ireland has jurisdiction over Meta, effectively operating as the EU privacy regulator, as Meta’s European headquarters are in Dublin.
Meta said it would appeal the decision and there would be no disruption in service. It said the decision was “unjustified and unnecessary” and sets a “dangerous precedent”. Meta added it is seeking stays of the order through the courts.
Prior to Monday’s fine, the largest penalty EU regulators handed out was €746m to Amazon in 2021.
A new pact is being worked on between the EU and US to facilitate safe and legal data sharing and may be operational by the summer but also could face legal challenges. Meta said in April it expects the pact to be completed before it is compelled to cease the current, illegal data transfer.
Even if the arrangement is not in place services will continue to operate, Meta said. Previously it had said a ban could suspend services in Europe.
Ending the data transfer could cost an estimated 10% of its advertising revenue, Meta said in an investor call last month – an amount that is multiples larger than Monday’s £1bn fine.
Fine significant but unlikely to hurt Meta financially
This is a historic fine. The largest ever from the EU relating to its GDPR regulations.
But how much will it matter to Meta?
For the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp with a market capitalisation of $680bn (£546bn), the $1.3bn (£1bn) fine from the Irish regulator won’t hurt Meta that much.
It’s only 1% of its annual advertising revenues from Facebook alone.
But it certainly shows that the EU is prepared to stand up to big tech companies over how they treat its citizens’ data.
And Meta has been given five months to come up with a new plan for keeping EU data secure from the prying eyes of the US government or others.
In fact, that work is already under way.
The Biden administration is already working on an EU-US data privacy framework, designed to satisfy GDPR rules if data is moved from Europe to the US.
While Meta is appealing this decision, it will likely have to come up with a new way to manage user data from Facebook and its other platforms – a process its competitors will be watching closely.
However, Big Tech has consistently shown that it is adept at keeping one step ahead of regulators in terms of innovative ways to make money out of their users’ data.
This won’t be the last time Meta or one of its rivals will be called out on data protection and privacy.
Driving south from Los Angeles along the coast, you can’t miss the San Pedro port complex. Dozens of red cranes pop up from behind the freeway.
The sound of industry whirs as containers are unloaded from hulking ocean liners on to waiting lorries and freight trains that seem to never end.
The port of Long Beach combines with the port of Los Angeles to make the busiest port in the western hemisphere.
Image: The San Pedro port complex
The colourful metal containers contain anything and everything, from clothes and car parts to fridges and furniture. Around $300bn of cargo passes through here every year and 60% of it is from China.
But at the moment, it’s far less busy than usual. Traffic is down by a third, compared with this time last year.
In the closest part of the mainland United States to China, this is Donald Trump‘s new tariffs policy in action, the direct result of frozen trade between the two countries.
“For the month of May, we expect that we’ll be down about 30% from where we were in May of 2024,” Noel Hacegaba, the port of Long Beach chief operating officer, tells Sky News.
More on China
Related Topics:
“What that translates into is fewer ships and fewer containers. It means fewer trucks will be needed to transport those containers from the port terminal to the warehouses. It means fewer jobs.”
Image: Noel Hacegaba, chief operating officer of the port of Long Beach
‘We’re barely surviving’
Helen Andrade knows all about that. She and her husband, Javier, are both lorry drivers. Helen only got her license in the last few years, so when work dries up, she is likely to be impacted first.
“I’m lying awake at night worrying about this,” she says.
“We’re barely surviving and we’re already seeing work slowing down. In my case, there are two incomes that are not going to come in. How are we going to survive?”
Helen adds: “I’m scared for the next two weeks, because over the next two weeks, I’m going to see where this is going, whether I have saved up enough money, which I know that I have not.”
Image: Lorry driver Helen Andrade
In Long Beach, one in five jobs is connected to the port. But what happens in the port doesn’t stay here.
The shipments reach every part of the country and already, a shortage of certain items imported from China and price hikes are taking hold.
A short drive away is downtown LA’s toy district, a multicultural area consisting of a dozen streets of pastel-coloured buildings, home to importers and wholesalers of toys, much of which is imported from China.
Image: Colourful balloons line windows in LA’s toy district
He was the boy from the small town with big dreams of becoming pope.
Robert Prevost, or “Bob” as they knew him in Dolton, south Chicago, was the youngest son of Louis, a teacher, and Mildred, a librarian.
Devoted in their faith, they were prominent figures in St Mary’s Church.
Scott Kuzminski remembers “Millie”, the chorister, with the “voice of an angel”, and her son with a calling on his life.
“Some children dream to be the top soccer player, or rich or something, and he dreamed he was going to be the Pope,” he said.
The railroad runs through this sleepy suburb, now destined to become a place of pilgrimage.
That’s an answer to prayer for Kathleen Steenson, who believed from childhood that her church would give the world a pope.
She said: “Our faith in this little parish is so strong… and in my little mind, I thought, the next pope has got to come from here because we’re such a great little community.”
Image: ‘The next pope has got to come from here,’ Kathleen Steenson said
St Mary’s Church, where the Pope served as an altar boy before entering the priesthood, is derelict now, symbolic of the challenges.
But to many, this is holy ground, illuminated by the colours cast by the sun shining through the stained glass.
And at the Cathedral of the High Name in the heart of Chicago, there’s a renewed sense of optimism.
“It’s a miracle and a great blessing,” a man leaving a celebratory mass for the new pontiff told me.
A woman, who had also been in the congregation, added: “I hope that he can help people to see beyond the divisions of the country and remember the poor.”
“It’s not just the virtues that he extols,” said another man, “I’m hoping he’ll bring inspiration to all of us to preach love and that the people in Washington will listen.”
Earlier this year, Cardinal Prevost, as he was then, questioned President Trump’s stance on immigration and vice president JD Vance’s interpretation of Christianity.
Leo XIV is the first Pope from North America, but spent years as a missionary in Peru, South America.
And it’s his pastoral heart that’s giving cause for hope in a deeply divided America.
A lawyer representing Sean “Diddy” Combs has told a court there was “mutual” domestic violence between him and his ex-girlfriend Casandra ‘Cassie’ Ventura.
Marc Agnifilo made the claim as he outlined some of the music star’s defence case ahead of the full opening of his trial next week.
Combs has pleaded not guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking and two counts of transportation for prostitution. If convicted, he faces up to life in prison.
Ms Ventura is expected to testify as a star witness for the prosecution during the trial in New York. The final stage of jury selection is due to be held on Monday morning.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:51
Why is Sean Combs on trial?
Mr Agnifilo told the court on Friday that the defence would “take the position that there was mutual violence” during the pair’s relationship and called on the judge to allow evidence related to this.
The lawyer said Combs‘s legal team intended to argue that “there was hitting on both sides, behaviour on both sides” that constituted violence.
He added: “It is relevant in terms of the coercive aspects, we are admitting domestic violence.”
Image: A court sketch showing Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs (right) as he listens to his lawyer Marc Agnifilo addressing the court. Pic: Reuters
Ms Ventura’s lawyers declined to comment on the allegations.
US District Judge Arun Subramanian said he would rule on whether to allow the evidence on Monday.
Combs, 55, was present in the court on Friday.
He has been held in custody in Brooklyn since his arrest last September.
Prosecutors allege that Combs used his business empire for two decades to lure women with promises of romantic relationships or financial support, then violently coerced them to take part in days-long, drug-fuelled sexual performances known as “Freak Offs”.
Combs’s lawyers say prosecutors are improperly seeking to criminalise his “swinger lifestyle”. They have suggested they will attack the credibility of alleged victims in the case by claiming their allegations are financially motivated.