Germany’s Federal Cartel Office Prohibits Facebook from Combining User Data from Different Sources
Introduction
In its decision of 06.02.2019 (“Decision”)[1], Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) (“FCO”) has imposed certain restrictions on Facebook[2] in its processing of user data based on its data processing policy and has ordered the termination of its conduct[3] in this respect. Pursuant to the Decision, Facebook is obliged to change the terms of service that is imposed on its users who are based in Germany. This Decision is significant since it examines Facebook’s comprehensive processing of personal data in terms of both data protection and competition law aspects.
FCO’s Suspicions of Facebook: Beginning of the Story
Until now, individuals have been able to use Facebook’s social network if they agreed to the terms of services stipulating that Facebook can collect data outside of the Facebook website on the internet, or on the smartphone apps, and assign this data to the related Facebook user account[4]. In this respect, not only the data collected on the Facebook website, but also those collected on Facebook-owned websites and apps, as well as on third-party websites and smartphones, could be combined and assigned to the user’s Facebook account[5].
Third-party sources collect the data by using the corporate services of WhatsApp, Oculus, Masquerade, and Instagram, which are owned by Facebook, and through the use of third-party websites and apps[6]. If a third-party website has embedded “Facebook Business Tools,” e.g. the “Like” button, “Facebook login,” or analytical services, such as “Facebook Analytics,” data will be transmitted to Facebook via APIs when the user calls up that third-party website for the first time[7]. As per Facebook’s terms and conditions, even if users have blocked web tracking in their browser or device settings, this data can be combined with data from the user"s Facebook account and used by Facebook. In accordance with Facebook’s terms and conditions, this data can be combined with the data from the user"s Facebook account and used by Facebook, even if users have blocked web tracking in their browser or device settings[8]. Pursuant to the FCO, these terms and conditions are neither justified under data protection principles, nor are they appropriate under competition law standards[9].
Such combination of data sources and building a unique database on each individual user[10] by Facebook attracted the FCO’s attention. Then the FCO initiated a proceeding against Facebook Inc., USA, the Irish subsidiary of the company, and Facebook Germany GmbH, Hamburg, in March, 2016[11]. The initial suspicion focused on Facebook"s terms and conditions of use that may possibly violate data protection provisions. However, in the case in question, it found that Facebook’s usage of terms and conditions could represent an abusive imposition of unfair conditions on its users[12]. Therefore, the FCO investigated whether Facebook has abused its possibly dominant position in the market for social networks with its specific terms of service with respect to its handling of user data[13].
Without having conducted further market investigations, Andreas Mundt, President of the FCO, hinted at considering Facebook as a dominant company in a separate market for social networks, and sent a message to dominant companies through Facebook, as follows: “Dominant companies are subject to special obligations. These include the use of adequate terms of service as far as these are relevant to the market. For advertising-financed internet services, such as Facebook, user data is hugely important. For this reason, it is essential to also examine, under the aspect of abuse of market power, whether consumers are sufficiently informed about the type and extent of data collected."[14].
The FCO intervened in Facebook’s data gathering from a competition law perspective since the data protection boundaries set forth in the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) were overstepped, also in view of Facebook’s dominant position[15].
Facebook’s Market Position in Germany
Facebook is the platform that develops and operates various digital products, and online services and applications for smartphones (apps)[16]. In Germany, Facebook.com has been available in Germany since 2008 and, in 2018, the number of daily active users in Germany was approximately 23 million, while approximately 32 million users were classified as monthly active users[17].
In determining the relevant market, the FCO has made a detailed analysis. It has examined Facebook’s business model and its special characteristics as a multi-sided network market with free services[18]. Based on the demand-side substitutability in the market, the FCO defines the product market as a private social network market, with private users as the relevant opposite market side[19]. The relevant geographic market is determined to be Germany. Additionally, pursuant to the FCO’s findings, Facebook has a dominant position in the German market for social networks for private users and is consequently subject to abuse control under German competition law[20].
The FCO examined the user-based market share of Facebook on the relevant market that exceeds 95%[21]. When assessing the market share, the FCO considered the amount of time spent intensively using the network as an important indicator of the competitors’ actual market position[22]. However, in accordance with the last amendment to the German Competition Act, the FCO’s assessment of a company’s market power is not only based on its market share[23]. The factors that determine market power are broadened, such as the access to competitively relevant data, economies of scale based on network effects, the behaviour of users who can use several different services or only one service, and the power of innovation-driven competitive pressure[24]. In addition to Facebook’s high market share, the above-stated criteria reveal the market power of Facebook[25]. Furthermore, the FCO found that Facebook"s position is further strengthened by direct network effects, and users’ switching to another social network is difficult[26].
Facebook’s Abuse of its Dominant Position
By using and implementing the Facebook data policy, Facebook is enabled to collect user and device-related data from sources outside of Facebook, and to combine it with data that is collected through Facebook[27]. This collection and combination of data is found to be an abuse of a dominant position in the social network market, in the form of exploitative business terms by the FCO[28]. The FCO has not imposed a monetary fine on Facebook. In this case, it seems that the FCO has not focused on imposing fines to punish infringements, but to change the future behaviour of Facebook[29]. The FCO may, however, decide to impose a fine in the event of recurrent abusive behaviour, or in cases with a high potential for significant harm[30].
Coexistence of Competition and Data Protection Law
In this case, the FCO closely examined the relation between the German competition law provisions and data protection principles of the GDPR that are mainly enforced by the data protection authorities[31]. Based on the Decision, it appears that the FCO finds indispensable to examine the conduct of dominant companies like Facebook under competition law, also in terms of their data processing procedures[32]. It is the FCO’s view that the European data protection regulations, which are based on constitutional rights can or, considering the case-law of the German Federal Court of Justice (VBL-Gegenwert and Pechstein cases), must be taken into account when assessing whether data processing terms are appropriate under competition law[33]. As interpreted by the FCO, the regulations in the GDPR do not rule out the FCO’s assessment on whether data processing terms infringe upon the GDPR[34]. Also, during the proceeding, the FCO had contact with data protection authorities, none of which considered they had exclusive competence[35].
Should a dominant company like Facebook make the use of its service conditional upon users granting the company extensive permission to process their personal data[36], this can be considered to be "exploitative business terms" and raise data protection concerns, as well. As per the FCO, monitoring the data processing activities of dominant companies cannot be fulfilled solely by data protection officers and, therefore, need the support of the competition authorities[37].
The FCO examined whether the data policy is in line with the data protection assessments of the GDPR yet found that Facebook’s extensive processing of personal data from other corporate services, as well as Facebook Business Tools, violates European data protection requirements, and is subject to the affected users’ consent pursuant to data protection requirements[38]. It is deduced that in view of Facebook"s dominant position in the market, users give consent to Facebook’s terms and conditions only for the purpose of concluding the contract, which cannot be assessed as their free consent under the GDPR. Therefore, Facebook must no longer combine data in any comprehensive manner unless users give their express consent.
Conclusion
Pursuant to the FCO’s Decision, Facebook is required to adapt and change its terms of service imposed on its users who are based in Germany and data processing conditions. Although Facebook disagrees with the FCO’s Decision and intends to appeal the same in order for its users in Germany to continue to benefit from Facebook services[39], the Decision has created a significant impact in both the competition and data protection law environments. This Decision is remarkable in many aspects. On the one hand, the market definition analysis of, and the criteria used for, determining Facebook’s market power by the FCO is noteworthy in the Decision. On the other hand, and most importantly, the FCO, as a competition authority, finds itself competent to act against violations of data protection requirements where a dominant company is involved.
[1] Decision, Case Summary, 15 February 2019. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidung/EN/Fallberichte/Missbrauchsaufsicht/2019/B6-22-16.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (Access date: 04.03.2019).
[2] Facebook Inc., Menlo Park, USA, Facebook Ireland Ltd., Dublin, Ireland, and Facebook Germany GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
[3] Decision, p. 1.
[4] Background information on the Bundeskartellamt’s Facebook proceeding, 7 February 2019, p. 1, https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2019/07_02_2019_Facebook_FAQs.pdf;jsessionid=A938E8B12BF636C287E75EDC2CC1AF3E.2_cid378?__blob=publicationFile&v=6
[5] Please see. fn. 4.
[6] Please see. fn. 4.
[7] Please see fn. 4.
[8] Background information, p. 1.
[9] Please see fn. 8.
[10] Background information, p. 1.
[11] Please see. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2016/02_03_2016_Facebook.html (Access date: 03.03.2019).
[12] Please see fn. 11.
[13] Please see fn. 11.
[14] Please see fn. 11.
[15] Decision, p. 1, 2.
[16] Decision, p. 2.
[17] Decision, p. 4.
[18] Please see fn. 17.
[19] Decision, p. 3.
[20] Background information, p. 3.
[21] Decision, p. 6.
[22] Please see fn. 21.
[23] Background information, p. 4.
[24] Please see fn. 24.
[25] Background information, p.4.
[26] Decision, p. 6.
[27] Decision, p. 7.
[28] Please see fn. 27.
[29] Background information, p. 7.
[30] Please see fn. 30.
[31] Decision, p. 8.
[32] Please see fn. 31.
[33] Please see fn. 31.
[34] Please see fn. 31.
[35] Decision, p. 9.
[36] Background information, p. 6.
[37] Background information, p. 7.
[38] Decision, p. 10.
[39] Please see. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/02/bundeskartellamt-order/ (Access date: 04.03.2019).
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
Jules Verne says, “Everything on earth has a limited lifespan, nothing that will exist forever can be created by human hands”. Perhaps change is the only constant concept in all our lives. Despite two major world wars and countless periods of crisis, humanity has been undergoing a great change and...
It is observed that the Competition Authority (“Authority”) has recently scrutinized various industries such as fast-moving consumer goods, labor market, pharmaceuticals, and cement. When the reasoned decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) published in October are examined, it can be seen that the...
At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated...
In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...
In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...
Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...
Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...
In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...
In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...
Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...
Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...
The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...
“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...
Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...
The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...
While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...
The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...
The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...
Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...
Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...
Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...
During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...
When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...
The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...
Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...