European Commission Fines Meta for Serving Consumers
If advertisers don’t want to give data to Facebook Marketplace, they shouldn’t advertise on Facebook.

The European Commission recently fined Meta 798 million euros—about $841 million—for "tying" classified ads on Facebook Marketplace to social accounts on Facebook. The commission defines tying as requiring consumers who want to purchase one product to buy another as well. The commission has acknowledged that tying often gives consumers better products at lower cost, but it accuses Meta of "imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers."
Meta's punishment is yet another "huge antitrust fine against a leading American technology company," says Joseph Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
The commission opened its investigation of Meta in June 2021, inquiring into the company's collection of Facebook user data, which allows it to target consumers on Marketplace. (Such data collection was responsible for more than 99 percent of Meta's $133 billion revenue in 2023, according to the company's investor report.) The commission frets that these data afford Facebook an "undue competitive advantage" in "the online classified ads sector."
The commission hypothesizes that Facebook may receive information on users' preferences from its competitors' advertisements. It is unclear what would be wrong with that, given that competitors pay Facebook to target advertisements to users based on data the platform already possesses. These competitors have also willingly signed on to Facebook's terms and conditions, which authorize the company "to use ads-related data derived from competitors for the benefit of Facebook Marketplace"—a fact the commission itself acknowledges.
Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, notes that tying has allowed users to have a more personalized experience on Facebook Marketplace based on their interests and interactions on Facebook. To the extent that competitors lose market share to Facebook Marketplace, they do so because the latter better serves consumers.
In any event, those competitors are generally doing fine. Dirk Auer, director of competition policy at the International Center of Law and Economics, points out that each classified ad service provider has different product segments and different means of accessing users. Thanks to this differentiation, Auer says, "rivals have thrived…while Facebook's marketplace remains a secondary player."
Auer wonders why the commission has prosecuted "this shaky case of limited policy importance." One possible answer: The commission's antitrust fines are paid into the general European Union (E.U.) budget. As the commission notes, "Member States' contributions to the E.U. budget for the following year are reduced accordingly."
Here's a better idea: Rather than attacking American firms that benefit consumers, the commission should be friendlier to innovation and competition. If Europe would embrace pro-growth policies instead of expropriating the wealth of American firms, maybe the E.U. could close the $20,000 gap in gross domestic product per capita between itself and the United States.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The European Commission recently fined Meta 798 million euros—about $841 million
. . . because the EU needs the money.
I think one of two things is likely here.
A) The EU wants their own version of Facebook to start up for the EU that they have total regulatory control over and can use to spy even more on their own populace. US law enforcement does this, and I'm sure they do too, but I imagine they aren't happy with the hoops they need to jump through to get that information from a US based company.
B) The EU just wants Facebook to better serve the EU government in providing this data and this is their way to extorting companies like Facebook to do exactly that.
I'm sure there are other options too, and I'd readily admit this is kind of a tinfoil hat opinion, but it's really not that far out there either since we already know this is the kind of thing the US government leans on them for too.
It certainly has nothing to do with protecting customers or anyone else.
Yep, which is why I'm forced to wonder what the real reasons are since it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with their stated reasons. The stated reasons are just a fluff and nonsense story they are feeding the people to justify themselves, and it's thin gruel indeed but I suppose they don't think the peasants will notice (and they probably won't, if we're honest).
Meta, Facebook, et.al. Must be making quite a load of money in Europe if they can just write off nearly a billion bucks as the cost of doing business.
Easy payment plans are available!
Yes, when you're as big as Meta, it's just a line item in the costs of doing business.
Yeah, I don't know of any other company where a billion dollars is something you can ignore. In fact, Facebook probably can't ignore that either but that's how you browbeat a company into doing what the government demands you do, I suppose.
Facebook will probably do whatever they demand to avoid further punishments since they are little more than a tool of law enforcement these days anyway and they know which side of their bread is buttered.
My wife was watching some show where people try to evade faux law enforcement in Britain as some kind of reality show, and social media is their #1 tool for tracking down and capturing people. I believe it was called Hunted if anyone wants to see just how fucked Britain is.
Meta can always not do business in Europe. It really is that easy. And no, I'm not being glib. This is the world. Other countries have different regulatory frameworks on speech, privacy, marketing etc. When you make the conscious decision to do business in all of those different countries-- some of which are almost culturally alien compared to the United States-- including but not limited to Saudi Arabia or mainland China etc., you're going to run into all kinds of potential social and cultural landmines. Tread carefully.
And by the by, if more American tech companies would just pull out of places like Europe when these kinds of rulings come down, Europe might find itself increasingly in the internet darkness, which might have a downstream effect of them chilling out on the overburdensome regulations.
Europe might find itself increasingly in the internet darkness, which might have a downstream effect of
them chilling out on the overburdensome regulationspeople realizing they are better off without Facebook..I’m wondering if we’re going to be in a de facto economic Cold War with the EU during my lifetime, or if the US is just going to join the technocratic block.
$20 decillion is what Google owes the Russian government in fines and penalties...
EU regs why do you want to be like Russia all of a sudden? Maybe America should be funding the liberation from Brussels.
The EU: Mussolini's, Stalin's and Hitler's wet dream come to life.
^+1.
I don't think they were expecting a Muslim empire.