LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company v DPC - 20 April 2026

• Judgment Date: 20 April 2026
• Year: 2026
• Issuer: High Court

1

THE HIGH COURT

[2026] IEHC 235

Record Number 2024/580 MCA

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 142 AND SECTION 150

OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018

Between

LINKEDIN IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY

Appellant

and

DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION

Respondent

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Nessa Cahill delivered on 20 April 2026

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 4

ISSUE 1: SCOPE OF SECTION 142 ..................................................................................................... 8

(a) Summary of the Parties’ Arguments ............................................................................................. 8

(b) Relevant Provisions of the 2018 Act ............................................................................................. 9

(c) GDPR .......................................................................................................................................... 23

(d) Conclusions on the interpretation of the statutory language ....................................................... 26

(e) Absurdity Arguments .................................................................................................................. 26

(i) Overlap between infringement and fine ................................................................................... 27

2

(ii) Orders under Section 143(3) ................................................................................................... 29

(iii) Consequences of separate appeals ......................................................................................... 31

(iv) Content of the LinkedIn Decision .......................................................................................... 33

ISSUE 2: INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 142 ............................................................................. 35

(a) Preliminary .................................................................................................................................. 35

(b) Inconsistency in statutory appeals ............................................................................................... 36

(c) Categorising appeals .................................................................................................................... 40

(d) Understanding the categories ...................................................................................................... 42

(e) Interpretation of section 142 ........................................................................................................ 49

(i) Language of section 142 .......................................................................................................... 49

(ii) Positions of the parties ............................................................................................................ 51

(iii) Comparison with other legislation ......................................................................................... 52

(iv) Conclusions on the interpretation of the statutory language .................................................. 68

(f) GDPR, Charter and ECHR........................................................................................................... 73

(c) Curial Deference .......................................................................................................................... 93

(i) Parties’ positions ..................................................................................................................... 93

(ii) Interaction between standard of review and curial deference ................................................. 94

(iii) Relevant authorities................................................................................................................ 94

(iv) Article 60 ................................................................................................................................ 96

ISSUE 4: ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ......................................... 100

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................. 106

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment arises in the context of an appeal by the Appellant (“LinkedIn”) from a decision of the

Respondent (“the DPC”) made on 22 October 2024 (“the LinkedIn Decision”), which was made

pursuant to section 113(2)(a) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the 2018 Act”) and Article 60 of

Regulation 2016/679/EU (“the GDPR”). By that Decision, the DPC found that LinkedIn had infringed

Articles 5(1)a, 6(1), 13(1)(c) and 14(1)c of the GDPR and that corrective powers should be exercised

in the form of a reprimand, an order to bring processing into compliance and the imposition of three

administrative fines, totalling €310 million.

2. This judgment addresses the rules governing an appeal to this Court under the Data Protection Act 2018

(“the 2018 Act”). Four issues were identified and agreed by the parties to be suitable and appropriate

for preliminary trial. They each concern the interpretation of provisions of that Act.

3

3. While the questions raised are complex, they do arise and have been presented, largely independently

of the facts of these proceedings and in the absence of any relevant factual conflict. For that reason, the

background is briefly summarised to contextualise the issues raised but is not further examined.

4. The only truly salient facts are that the Data Protection Commission (“the DPC”) conducted a six-year

long investigation between 2018 and 2024, which culminated in a decision that LinkedIn had committed

infringements of provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (“the GDPR”) and a decision to

exercise corrective powers, including the imposition of a fine in the amount of €310 million.

5. In addition to this statutory appeal, LinkedIn also issued judicial review proceedings challenging the

decision of the DPC and certain provisions of the 2018 Act, invoking provisions of the Constitution,

the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”), and the European

Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). There is a clear overlap between the two sets of proceedings.

6. The four preliminary issues are:

1. Is the Appellant entitled to appeal the decision of the Respondent dated 22 October

2024 (the "Decision") under section 142 of the Data Protection Act 2018 or are there

aspects of the within appeal which can only proceed as an appeal under section 150 of

the 2018 Act?

2. What type of appeal does section 142 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provide for and

what is the standard of review/assessment to be applied by the Court in an appeal under

section 142?

3. If there are aspects of the Appellant's appeal which can only proceed as an appeal under

section 150 of the Data Protection Act 2018, is the standard of review/assessment to be

applied by the Court the same under sections 142 and 150 of the 2018 Act or does a

different standard of review/assessment apply in an appeal under section 150 of the

2018 Act?

4. Having regard to the answers to the foregoing questions, is the Appellant entitled to

rely on evidence adduced and/or arguments made in the Appeal which were not already

adduced or made to the Respondent during the inquiry process?

7. Each of the parties adopted the position that the same type of appeal and standard of review are

applicable to an appeal under section 142 and section 150 of the Act. Accordingly, the answers under

Issue 2 will also answer the questions raised in Issue 3 and no submissions were made regarding Issue

3. Consequently, the nature and the standard of review are addressed in this judgment by reference to

section 142 only and Issue 3 is not addressed as a discrete topic. Issue 4, by contrast, is focussed on

section 150.