Table of Contents
Is it worth suing Big Tech for GDPR violations given the high legal costs?
The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) has issued a binding decision requiring Meta to provide European Union users with full access to their personal data within a strict 14-day window. This ruling concludes a legal battle initiated by privacy activist Max Schrems and his organization, noyb. The verdict clarifies that vague summaries of user data are no longer sufficient. Meta must now disclose the specific sources of the data, the recipients who received it, and the precise purposes for processing it.
This decision represents a significant shift in GDPR enforcement. The court rejected Meta’s previous strategy of citing “trade secrets” to withhold information. Consequently, the company must provide transparent insights into its internal operations, including how it collects data from third-party websites and applications.
Key Legal Precedents Established
The OGH ruling dismantles several defenses previously utilized by major technology corporations. The court established three critical standards for data handling:
Mandatory Transparency
Meta cannot hide data processing methods behind intellectual property claims. Users have an absolute right to know how their information is monetized.
Explicit Consent for Advertising
Personalized advertising requires clear, affirmative consent. The court confirmed that Meta unlawfully collected data from external sources without proper user authorization.
Protection of Sensitive Data
The processing of special categories of data—such as political opinions, sexual orientation, or health status—is strictly regulated under Article 9 of the GDPR. Meta cannot bypass these protections by claiming it does not “intentionally” collect such data or lacks the technical capacity to separate it. If the data exists in their system, Article 9 applies.
The High Cost of Enforcing Privacy Rights
While this ruling is a victory for consumer rights, it highlights the immense barriers facing individual plaintiffs. Max Schrems began this litigation in 2014, four years before the GDPR officially came into force. The case traversed the legal system for 11 years, requiring three hearings before the Austrian Supreme Court and two referrals to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The financial disparity is stark. Although Mr. Schrems was awarded €500 in compensation, the total litigation costs reached approximately €200,000. This outcome underscores a critical flaw in current privacy regulations: enforcement is often financially devastating for average citizens. Large corporations can exploit jurisdictional complexities—often routing cases through Ireland—to delay proceedings and exhaust the resources of plaintiffs.
Strategic Implications for Users
This judgment arrives as the European Commission reviews proposals for a “digital omnibus,” which critics fear may weaken existing data protections. For EU residents, the OGH ruling provides an immediate, actionable tool. You now have legal backing to demand comprehensive data records from Meta within two weeks. However, the procedural history suggests that while the law is on your side, the enforcement mechanism remains slow and costly without the support of specialized privacy organizations.