Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2020–2023

Meta kept moving EU data to the US after the law changed — a record €1.2B GDPR fine

The EU court killed the transfer mechanism; Meta kept transferring. Five years of litigation later came the largest fine in GDPR history.

Meta Platforms · 2023-05-22

What happened

On 22 May 2023 Ireland's Data Protection Commission fined Meta €1.2 billion — the largest fine ever issued under the GDPR. Meta Ireland had kept transferring EU users' personal data to the United States after the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU–US Privacy Shield in its 2020 Schrems II judgment.

Meta relied on updated Standard Contractual Clauses and supplementary measures, but the DPC ruled they did not address the risks to fundamental rights the court had identified — a breach of Article 46(1) of the GDPR. The inquiry opened in August 2020; in April 2023 the European Data Protection Board imposed the fine through a binding dispute resolution after four national authorities objected to the DPC's draft decision, which had proposed none.

Meta was ordered to suspend future EU-to-US transfers within five months and to stop unlawfully processing already-transferred data within six. It said it would appeal, calling the decision flawed and unnecessary; Facebook president Nick Clegg argued that thousands of companies use the same clauses. The fight began with a complaint first pursued by privacy campaigner Max Schrems in 2013.

Why it happened

  • When a court strikes down a transfer mechanism, contract clauses written on top of it do not revive it — the SCCs were the vehicle, and Schrems II removed the road.
  • A company that keeps transferring while it litigates is betting on the gap between ruling and enforcement; the eventual fine is priced by the length of the gap.
  • The lead regulator itself had proposed no fine — the European Data Protection Board imposed it from above. Once a case becomes symbolic, national leniency stops mattering.
What it cost€1.2B fine + transfer suspension ordercostly

The lesson

A court ruling that kills a data-transfer mechanism changes compliance — clauses do not resurrect it. Running on an invalidated basis is borrowing time, and the interest is billed retroactively.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →