Judge denies Meta's bid to push US FTC into court on privacy settlement

US District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington ruled Monday that the federal court didn't have jurisdiction over the FTC settlement with the parent company of Facebook and Instagram

Meta, facebook, instagram
Meta shares fell as much as 1.2% to $334.35 on the news. The company said it was considering legal options and opposes the FTC’s efforts to amend the deal (Photo: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Nov 28 2023 | 7:16 AM IST
By Leah Nylen


The US Federal Trade Commission can move forward with revisions to Meta Platforms Inc.’s 2020 privacy settlement after a judge denied the social network’s bid to force the agency into court.
 
US District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington ruled Monday that the federal court didn’t have jurisdiction over the FTC settlement with the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. 

Meta shares fell as much as 1.2% to $334.35 on the news. The company said it was considering legal options and opposes the FTC’s efforts to amend the deal.

“Today’s decision does not address the substance of the FTC’s allegations, which are without merit,” Meta spokesperson Christopher Sgro said. “We will continue to invest in our privacy program and remain focused on protecting people’s privacy.”

The FTC declined to comment. 

Under the 2020 deal, Meta agreed to pay a $5 billion fine — the largest ever imposed for a privacy violation — and make changes to its internal privacy checks, including increased responsibility for the company’s board and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to protect user data. 

In May, the FTC said Meta has repeatedly violated its privacy promises and opened an internal proceeding to modify the 2020 settlement. The agency said it would seek to change the earlier settlement to ban Meta’s use of facial recognition tools or monetizing children’s data. 

Weeks later, Meta petitioned Kelly — who had approved part of the settlement before it was finalized — to bar the agency from moving forward in-house and to instead file a case in federal court. 

“The parties here are sophisticated ones that, at least in theory, could have proceeded differently,” Kelly wrote. “They didn’t. And the court may not rewrite the parties’ agreement to make it so.”
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :FacebookInstagramUnited StatesSocial Media

First Published: Nov 28 2023 | 7:16 AM IST

Next Story