EU Court Adviser Backs Regulators in Meta Antitrust Data Dispute

 

A senior legal adviser to the Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered a setback to Meta Platforms in its fight against wide ranging information requests from European Union antitrust regulators. The opinion recommends rejecting Meta’s appeal and upholding earlier rulings that required the company to comply with the European Commission’s demands for internal data.

While the adviser’s view is not legally binding, it often carries considerable weight. In many cases, judges at the EU’s top court follow such recommendations when issuing their final judgment. That makes this development a meaningful moment in an ongoing clash between one of the world’s largest technology companies and European competition authorities.

Why Regulators Want Facebook’s Data

The dispute stems from antitrust investigations launched by the European Commission into Meta’s business practices. One probe examined how the company handles data within its core social network Facebook. Another focused on whether Meta unfairly linked its online classified service Facebook Marketplace to the main platform in a way that could disadvantage competitors.

To assess potential anti competitive behavior, the Commission requested a large volume of internal documents, including communications and other materials that might reveal how decisions were made inside the company. According to regulators, such access is essential when investigating whether a dominant platform may be using its position to crowd out rivals.

Meta challenged the scope of these demands, arguing that some of the requested material went beyond what was necessary. The company raised concerns about sensitive and personal information contained in certain documents, questioning whether regulators had struck the right balance between investigative needs and privacy protections.

The Adviser’s Legal Reasoning

Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, who serves as an independent legal adviser to the Court of Justice of the European Union, concluded that the Commission acted within its powers. In his view, the requests were proportionate and accompanied by safeguards designed to protect confidential and personal data.

He found no legal error in earlier rulings by the General Court, which had already sided with the Commission. Importantly, the opinion emphasizes that competition authorities must have access to relevant internal information if they are to carry out meaningful oversight of complex digital markets.

Although the judges are free to depart from this recommendation, history suggests that the final ruling could well align with the adviser’s analysis.

A Broader Pattern of Scrutiny

This case is not happening in isolation. The European Union has taken an assertive stance toward major technology firms in recent years, pursuing investigations and imposing penalties where it believes competition rules have been breached.

In a related matter, the Commission previously fined Meta hundreds of millions of euros over concerns that tying Marketplace to the main Facebook platform distorted competition in online classified advertising. That decision signaled Brussels’ willingness to challenge practices that may seem routine within large tech ecosystems but can have serious implications for smaller rivals.

For regulators, the ability to request extensive documentation is central to these efforts. Digital platforms operate through complex algorithms, internal data flows, and strategic planning that are rarely visible from the outside. Without internal records, proving anti competitive conduct can be extremely difficult.

What This Means for Meta and the Tech Sector

If the Court of Justice ultimately follows the adviser’s recommendation, it would reinforce the investigative authority of EU competition officials. Companies under scrutiny would face a clear message that broad information requests are a legitimate part of antitrust enforcement, provided appropriate privacy safeguards are in place.

For Meta, the outcome could shape how it manages regulatory risk in Europe going forward. The company must navigate a landscape where compliance obligations are expanding, particularly in areas that touch on both competition and data protection.

For the wider technology sector, the case highlights an important tension. On one hand, firms are expected to protect user data and maintain confidentiality. On the other, they must cooperate fully with authorities seeking to determine whether market power is being misused. The final judgment may clarify how these obligations intersect.

The Road Ahead

A final ruling from the Court of Justice is expected in the coming months. Legal experts, corporate leaders, and policymakers will be watching closely. The decision could influence not only Meta’s ongoing battles with European regulators but also the future conduct of antitrust investigations across the bloc.

At its core, the dispute reflects a larger shift in the digital economy. As platforms grow ever more powerful, regulators are increasingly determined to ensure that innovation and competition remain alive. How courts define the limits of investigative powers will play a crucial role in shaping that balance for years to come.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main issue between Meta and EU regulators?

The core issue is whether Meta must comply with broad data and document requests made by the European Commission during antitrust investigations. Meta argues that some requests are excessive, while regulators say they are necessary to examine potential anti competitive practices.

Is the adviser’s opinion the final decision?

No. The opinion was issued by an Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is influential but not binding. The court’s judges will deliver the final ruling at a later date.

Why does the Commission need internal documents?

Antitrust investigations often depend on internal emails, reports, and strategy documents. These materials can reveal whether a company intentionally used its market power to limit competition or disadvantage rivals. Without such evidence, enforcement becomes much harder.

Does this case relate to Facebook Marketplace?

Yes. One of the investigations concerns whether Facebook Marketplace was unfairly tied to the main Facebook service, potentially harming competitors in online classified advertising.

What could this mean for other tech companies?

If the court confirms the adviser’s view, it would strengthen the European Commission’s authority to demand extensive information in future cases. Other large technology firms operating in the European Union could face similar obligations during competition investigations.