The Austrian Supreme Court’s (OGH) ruling against Meta Platforms Ireland marks one of the most consequential judicial interpretations of the GDPR since its entry into force.

When “Free” Platforms Are Put on Trial – The Austrian Supreme Court vs. Meta

by ChatGPT-5.2

The Austrian Supreme Court’s (OGH) ruling against Meta Platforms Ireland marks one of the most consequential judicial interpretations of the GDPR since its entry into force. After more than eleven years of litigation initiated by Max Schrems, the Court delivered a judgment that does not merely fine Meta or adjust marginal compliance practices, but fundamentally challenges the legal architecture underpinning the company’s European data-extraction and advertising model.

At its core, the decision affirms an expansive and literal interpretation of Article 15 GDPR: users are entitled to all personal data processed about them—“each and every bit”—together with detailed information about sources, recipients, and processing purposes. Meta’s long-standing practice of funneling users toward a curated “download tool” and generic privacy policies was deemed insufficient. The Court rejected arguments that trade secrets, technical complexity, or internal system architecture could justify partial disclosure, ordering full compliance within a strict 14-day deadline.

Equally significant is the Court’s treatment of Meta’s advertising model. Relying heavily on CJEU jurisprudence (notably Bundeskartellamt), the OGH held that personalized advertising is not “necessary for the performance of a contract” under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. Advertising personalization was characterized as a revenue mechanism benefiting Meta and its advertisers, not as an essential service element for users. Consequently, Meta may not rely on contractual necessity or legitimate interest to justify this processing; only explicit, freely given, informed, and unambiguous opt-in consent suffices.

The ruling goes further by addressing sensitive data under Article 9 GDPR. The Court dismissed Meta’s argument that it does not intentionally collect or cannot technically isolate sensitive data (such as political views, sexual orientation, or health indicators). If such data is generated or inferred—particularly via third-party websites, apps, and social plugins—Meta remains fully responsible for complying with heightened legal protections. Technical incapacity or business design choices do not absolve legal obligations.

Finally, while the damages awarded (€500) may appear modest, the Court implicitly framed this sum as a realistic baseline for non-material harm experienced by ordinary users. Given that many of the violations identified are systemic, the judgment quietly opens the door to mass individual or collective claims across the EU.

Most Surprising Aspects

1. Absolute scope of access rights
   The Court did not allow any meaningful carve-outs to Article 15 GDPR—not even for alleged trade secrets or internal processing logic. This elevates transparency above corporate confidentiality in a way few large platforms anticipated.

2. Fourteen-day compliance deadline
   Despite the GDPR’s usual one-month response window, the Court imposed a far shorter deadline, explicitly noting that Meta’s delay had already spanned years. This signals judicial impatience with procedural stalling by large technology firms.

3. Damages framed as “realistic” for most users
   The judgment suggests €500 as a defensible lower bound for GDPR non-material damages in similar cases—an implicit invitation for replication.

Most Controversial Aspects

1. Rejection of the “free service” logic
   The Court explicitly rejected the idea that users “pay” for social media through data in a way that legitimizes advertising personalization. This strikes at the ideological core of ad-funded platform economics in Europe.

2. Strict liability for sensitive data inference
   Meta’s claim that it neither intends nor can technically segregate sensitive data was dismissed. Critics will argue that this sets an unrealistically high compliance bar for complex machine-learning systems.

3. Litigation cost asymmetry
   The case reportedly exceeded €200,000 in legal costs to vindicate a €500 claim, raising uncomfortable questions about whether GDPR enforcement is structurally accessible without well-funded activists or NGOs.

Most Valuable Aspects

1. Operational clarity on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR
   The judgment provides unusually concrete guidance: revenue generation and advertiser services do not qualify as contractual necessity for users. This clarification will matter far beyond Meta.

2. Strengthening Article 9 GDPR protections
   By rejecting intent-based defenses, the Court ensures that sensitive-data safeguards remain meaningful in an era of inference-driven profiling.

3. EU-wide enforceability
   As a final Supreme Court ruling aligned with CJEU case law, the decision is directly enforceable across the EU, offering regulators and courts a ready-made template.

Potential Consequences

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond Meta or Austria. For large platforms, it significantly raises the operational cost of GDPR compliance: full data-mapping, explainability of data flows, and granular consent management are no longer optional or deferrable. Business models built on opaque profiling and inferred attributes will face sustained legal risk unless fundamentally redesigned.

For regulators and courts, the decision legitimizes a more assertive enforcement posture. It demonstrates that national supreme courts can operationalize GDPR rights without waiting for administrative authorities or protracted EU-level action. This may rebalance power away from overburdened data protection authorities and toward civil litigation.

For users and civil society, the ruling lowers the conceptual—but not yet the practical—barrier to asserting data rights. While enforcement remains costly and slow, the legal substance is now clearer and more favorable to individuals than ever before.

More broadly, the judgment accelerates a structural confrontation between European fundamental-rights law and surveillance-based platform capitalism. If replicated at scale, its logic could force a shift toward paid, contextual, or genuinely privacy-preserving service models. Whether platforms adapt—or retreat from certain markets—will shape the future of Europe’s digital public sphere.

In that sense, the Austrian Supreme Court has not merely ruled on a data-access dispute. It has issued a quiet but profound challenge to how “free” online services are financed, governed, and justified under European law.