-
Meta faces 11 complaints in the EU over its plan to use personal data for AI models without user consent.
-
The complaints argue that Meta’s updated privacy policy violates the EU’s GDPR by lacking transparency and consent.
-
Meta defends its actions, citing a legitimate interest in using user data for AI development, but critics disagree.
Meta has come under fire in the European Union because of the company’s plans to use its users’ personal data to train its AI models starting June 26.
None of Your Business (NYOB), an Austrian privacy group, filed this complaint on Tuesday. They accused Meta of violating the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by processing user data without clear consent.
NOYB has filed complaints in 11 EU countries, including France, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, Italy, Spain and Poland.
Following their complaint, the NYOB called the attention of national privacy regulators. They implored them to act quickly because Meta’s updated policy would give them access to decades-old user data, including private pictures, personal posts, and other data.
However, Meta has defended its actions, stating that it uses user-shared information and publicly accessible data for developing and enhancing its generative AI models and other AI tools. In a message to Facebook users, Meta also noted that it may process data about anyone who appears in user-shared posts, even if they don’t use its services.
NYOB criticized Meta’s claim, saying that the company is using the same justification that the European Court of Justice (CJEU) previously rejected for advertising. Max Schrems, the founder of this organization, pointed this out in his statement, saying
“The CJEU has clarified that Meta has no ‘legitimate interest’ to overrule users’ right to data protection when it comes to advertising.”
He further stated that
“The organization is attempting to use the same arguments for the training of undefined ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.’ It seems that Meta is blatantly ignoring the judgments of the CJEU once again.”
