(AGENPARL) - Roma, 26 Febbraio 2026 - (AGENPARL) – Thu 26 February 2026 PRESS RELEASE No 24/26
Luxembourg, 26 February 2026
Opinion of the Advocate General in Cases C-496/23 P | Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Facebook
Marketplace) and C-497/23 P | Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Facebook Data)
Advocate General Rantos proposes the dismissal of the appeals by Meta
Platforms Ireland relating to an investigation into abuse of a dominant
position concerning the use of Facebook Data and the Facebook
Marketplace service
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd brought two appeals against the judgments of the General Court of the European Union
which upheld the lawfulness of European Commission decisions requesting it to provide internal documents
identified by means of combinations of electronic search terms. Those requests for information were made in the
context of an investigation into abuse of a dominant position, relating in particular to the use of data (Facebook
Data) and to the Facebook Marketplace service.
The disputes stemmed from two Commission decisions adopted in 2020, 1 by which the Commission, on the basis of
the procedural Regulation for competition matters, 2 had requested that internal documents held by certain senior
company staff covering a number of years be provided. Following interlocutory proceedings, 3 the Commission
adopted amending decisions incorporating a virtual data room procedure intended to regulate access to certain
documents containing sensitive personal data. By two judgments dated 24 May 2023, 4 the General Court dismissed
the appeals by Meta Platforms Ireland, ruling in particular that the requests for information were sufficiently
reasoned, necessary and proportionate, and that they complied with the right to privacy and the principle of good
administration.
In his Opinion, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos proposes that the Court of Justice dismiss both appeals
and uphold the judgments of the General Court. He considers that the General Court did not err in law in
assessing the necessity of the information requested or in examining the safeguards for its provision.
The Advocate General points out that, under the procedural Regulation for competition matters, the Commission
has broad powers of investigation which enable it to request all necessary information in order to carry out its tasks.
The obligation to state reasons requires the Commission to indicate the subject matter of its investigation and the
suspected infringement it intends to investigate, without having to make an exhaustive legal assessment or
demonstrate, at that stage, the individual relevance of each document requested.
The Advocate General considers that the General Court correctly upheld the Commission’s decisions as lawful,
finding that the search terms used complied with the principle of necessity laid down in the procedural Regulation
on competition matters. He states that the General Court found, with no distortion having occurred, that the
Commission could reasonably conclude that the documents thereby identified might enable it to investigate the
suspected infringements, despite the presence of many irrelevant documents.
He also notes that the examination of necessity and proportionality cannot be based on purely quantitative criteria,
that the Commission has a margin of discretion in its choice of investigation techniques and that the procedural
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
safeguards surrounding requests for information, which are distinct from those applicable to inspections, were
sufficient, with the result that the General Court did not err in law in rejecting the pleas raised.
The Advocate General considers that the General Court did not err in law in acknowledging that the Commission
may request mixed documents, that is to say documents containing both personal data and other information,
without applying the virtual data room procedure, as that processing is inherent to its public interest tasks in
competition matters. He notes that the proportionality test was applied correctly, as the documents referred to by
the applicant did not contain sensitive data and the Commission’s access was subject to strict limits and safeguards,