Support Centre

You have out of 5 free articles left for the month

Signup for a trial to access unlimited content.

Start Trial

Continue reading on DataGuidance with:

Free Member

Limited Articles

Create an account to continue accessing select articles, resources, and guidance notes.

Free Trial

Unlimited Access

Start your free trial to access unlimited articles, resources, guidance notes, and workspaces.

EU: CJEU publishes opinion on the use of manifestly public data for personalized marketing purposes

On April 25, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published the Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-446/21 regarding the use of public statements for personalized advertising purposes.

Background

The Advocate General noted that after Maximillian Schrems accepted the 2018 Facebook terms of service, Schrems claimed to have regularly received advertisements and invitations to events directed at homosexuals. Schrems claimed that the advertisements were not based on his sexual orientation but were based on an analysis of his particular interests and as a result, brought an action before the Austrian courts.

The Advocate General further outlined that the Austrian Supreme Court asked for an interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), namely whether Facebook may analyze and process all personal data available to it without restriction as to time for the purposes of targeted advertising. Furthermore, the Austrian Supreme Court asked whether a statement made by a person about their sexual orientation as part of a panel discussion permits the processing of data for the purposes of offering targeted advertising.

Opinion of the Advocate General

Regarding the first question, the Advocate General proposed that the CJEU rule that the GDPR precludes the processing of personal data for the purposes of targeted advertising without restriction as to time. In this regard, national courts must assess, based on the principle of proportionality, the extent to which the data retention period and the amount of data processed are justified having regard to the legitimate aim of processing for the purposes of personalized advertising.

On the second question, the Advocate General noted that the fact that Schrems made a statement concerning his sexual orientation during a public panel discussion may constitute making that data manifestly public but this does not permit the processing of such data for the purposes of personalized advertising.

You can read the press release here and the opinion here

Feedback