Meta Accused Of Still Flouting Privacy Rules With AI Training Data

Forbes - May 15th, 2025

Meta's attempt to resume AI training in Europe using public user data has sparked a backlash, with privacy group noyb launching another legal challenge. Meta had paused its AI training activities last June amid concerns from the Irish Data Protection Commission and other European authorities. Despite claiming compliance with the law following an opinion from the European Data Protection Board, noyb's chair Max Schrems argues that Meta is bypassing EU Data Protection Authorities and threatens a European class action. The dispute centers on Meta's claim of 'legitimate interest' in using data without explicit opt-in consent, which noyb contests, citing previous European Court of Justice rulings against Meta's similar claims in advertising.

The implications of this conflict are significant, as it highlights the ongoing struggle between US tech giants and European regulators over data privacy and user consent. Noyb's challenge emphasizes the potential inadequacies in Meta's compliance with GDPR rights, such as the right to be forgotten and data access. Additionally, the open-source nature of Meta's AI models raises concerns about the inability to update or recall published models. This legal battle underscores the broader debate over privacy rights and the ethical use of personal data in AI development, which could set a precedent for how tech companies operate within the EU's stringent data protection framework.

Meta Class Action Data Privacy Gdpr Ai Training Noyb Max Schrems European Data Protection Board Legitimate Interest

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively covers a complex and timely issue involving Meta's data practices and the legal challenges posed by privacy advocacy group noyb. It provides a balanced view by presenting perspectives from both parties involved, though it slightly favors noyb's viewpoint. The use of credible sources enhances the article's reliability, though additional input from regulatory authorities could further strengthen source quality. While the article is generally clear and well-structured, some legal jargon may challenge readability for a general audience. The topic's relevance and potential impact on public opinion and policy make it a significant piece, though its immediate influence may be limited without further developments. Overall, the article is a solid and informative piece on a critical issue in data privacy and AI ethics.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on Meta's pause and subsequent resumption of AI training in the EU, citing concerns from the Irish Data Protection Commission and the European Data Protection Board's opinion. It correctly notes noyb's legal challenge and Meta's use of 'legitimate interest' as a legal basis for data collection. However, the interpretation of the EDPB opinion is contested, and the story could have provided more clarity on this aspect. Overall, the factual claims are well-supported, but some legal interpretations remain disputed.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both Meta and the privacy advocacy group noyb, offering a balanced view of the ongoing legal dispute. However, it leans slightly towards noyb's perspective by emphasizing their legal challenge and criticisms of Meta's practices. Including more detailed responses from Meta or other regulatory bodies could have provided a more balanced representation of viewpoints.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively communicates the main points of the legal dispute and the positions of the involved parties. However, some legal terms and concepts might be challenging for a general audience to understand without further explanation. Simplifying these aspects or providing additional context could enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, including statements from noyb and Meta, and mentions the involvement of the European Data Protection Board. These sources are authoritative and relevant to the topic, lending credibility to the reporting. However, the article would benefit from direct quotes or statements from the EDPB or other regulatory authorities to enhance source quality further.

Transparency

The article provides a clear context for the legal dispute between Meta and noyb, explaining the basis for the challenge and Meta's response. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the legal interpretations and implications of the EDPB opinion, which are central to the story. Greater transparency regarding the legal nuances and potential conflicts of interest would improve the article's transparency.