Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Wednesday February 21, @06:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-ain't-over-until-there's-a-Zuckerberg-apology dept.

Facebook £3bn legal action given go-ahead in London:

A judge has given the go-ahead to a mass legal action against Facebook owner Meta, potentially worth £3bn.

The case is being brought by legal academic Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, on behalf of 45 million Facebook users.

Her original claim was refused, in 2023, but a revised version has now been accepted, with early 2026 said to be the latest it could be heard.

Meta said the claims "remain entirely without merit and we will vigorously defend against them".

The new claim says: "Facebook has struck an unfair bargain with its users," according to legal documents.

Facebook abused its dominance by making users give it their data from non-Facebook products, including Meta-owned Instagram and other third-party sites.

And sharing data with third parties had become "a condition of accessing the Facebook platform, pursuant to a 'take-it-or-leave-it' offer".

[...] Meta said the "fundamental concerns identified by the tribunal in its February 2023 judgement have not been resolved".

It was "committed to giving people meaningful control" of the information they shared on its platforms and to "invest heavily to create tools that allow them to do so."

The legal action is being funded by Innsworth, a company backed by an investment management fund, which has also funded mass legal actions against Mastercard, Ericsson and Volkswagen.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday February 21, @09:46PM (1 child)

    by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday February 21, @09:46PM (#1345541)

    One caveat. While I have never opened a Facebook account, I do have to have WhatsApp for a number of community activities that I am involved in (e.g. volunteering in Scouts). I really hate having to keep that App and would much prefer everyone switch to Signal, but my choice of not being on WhatsApp also equals a choice to no longer be a part of those communities either.

    No, I don't share my phone's contact list with WhatsApp, and it doesn't have access to my phone's files (photos etc).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday February 22, @02:53AM

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday February 22, @02:53AM (#1345592)

    I do have to have WhatsApp for a number of community activities that I am involved in (e.g. volunteering in Scouts).

    No you don't. That's my point.

    You use WhatsApp because it's convenient. If it truly didn't sit right with you, you'd choose not to partake: either you'd convince your fellow scouts to email you instead, or you'd leave the scouts altogether. Of course I understand you don't want to do that. But ultimately it's your choice: you choose to prioritize conforming to the scouts' requirements over your unease of using WhatsApp.

    It's very different from Google, which is essentially unavoidable for things like interacting with state services or getting health care in most countries, Microsoft if you need to work in many companies, or any cloud provider that your country probably chooses to give your most personal information to without your consent.

    Here, you're talking about a fully voluntary activity you take part in that you could do without or differently without major legal or financial imparct on your life.