Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd v Data Protection Commissioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Nessa Cahill
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 631
• Docket Number: Record Number 2024/533MCA

Meta Platforms Ireland Limited

Appellant

and

The Data Protection Commission

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 631

Record Number 2024/533MCA

Record Number 2025/6 MCA

THE HIGH COURT

Trial of preliminary issues – Interests of justice – Efficient and just conduct – Appellant seeking a trial of preliminary issues – Whether it was consistent with the interests of justice to grant the relief sought

Facts: The appellant, Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Meta), applied to the High Court in one of its nine statutory appeals pending against the respondent, the Data Protection Commission (the DPC) (the Passwords Appeal). The following orders were sought: (1)an order pursuant to O. 25, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 directing a trial of the preliminary issues specified in the Schedule; (2) alternatively, an order pursuant to O. 34, r. 2 directing a trial of the preliminary issues; and (3) a direction that a trial of the preliminary issues take place at the same time as, or immediately after, the hearing of the preliminary issues fixed by the Court for hearing on 2 December 2025 in proceedings bearing the title Linkedln Ireland Unlimited Company v Data Protection Commission; High Court Record No. 2024/580 MCA (the LinkedIn Appeal). Meta confirmed that the purpose of the motion focused on the third relief. The essential conflict between the sides hinged on the question of whether Meta needed to or should be heard, in the context of the determination of the preliminary issues that were listed for hearing on 2 December 2025 in the LinkedIn Appeal. The position of Meta was that this was akin to a “pathfinder” situation, and that there were relevant factual, evidential considerations in Meta’s Passwords Appeal which would assist the Court in determining the preliminary issues. Meta’s position was heavily disputed by the DPC and by the State, with both pointing to the need to conserve costs and time and avoid duplication in legal proceedings.

Held by Cahill J that questions of law had been identified, a court order had been made for their trial as such, and there was no evidence that they could not properly or fairly be determined in the LinkedIn appeal; it had also not been shown why the interests of the efficient conduct of the proceedings or allocation of court time and resources favoured the same issues being listed for determination again in separate proceedings. She was not persuaded that the pathfinder analysis was apt. She held that the same underlying considerations of judicial economy and efficiency are important in determining how to fairly and justly manage litigation in a legal system with finite resources, but pathfinder cases are quite distinct to the issue in this case, which concerned - and must be tightly limited to - the trial of preliminary issues of law. She noted that there was no decision to identify and bring forward LinkedIn as a pathfinder. She held that no sufficient justification had been given to warrant the imposition of the proposed and substantial burden on the Court. She held that it would also be onerous and demanding for the DPC and the State to deal with two different sets of submissions on the same issues in two cases. She noted that the default is that issues of law are determined in the first case in time and are binding in subsequent cases. She held that this must be the default in this case; the Passwords Appeal was second in time to LinkedIn’s appeal and thus, the issues would be decided in the latter.

Cahill J refused the orders sought.

Orders refused.

EX TEMPORE RULING of Ms Justice Nessa Cahill delivered on 31 October 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 This is an application by Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (“ Meta”) in one of its nine statutory appeals that is pending against the Data Protection Commission (“ the DPC”), specifically the appeal bearing record no. 2024/533 MCA (the “ Passwords Appeal”).

The following orders are sought:

• (1) An Order pursuant to Order 25, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended, directing a trial of the preliminary issues specified in the Schedule.

• (2) Alternatively, an Order pursuant to Order 34, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended, directing a trial of the preliminary issues specified in the Schedule hereto.

• (3) Further, a direction that a trial of the preliminary issues specified in the Schedule hereto take place at the same time as, or immediately after, the hearing of the preliminary issues fixed by this Honourable Court for hearing on 2 December 2025 in proceedings bearing the title Linkedln Ireland Unlimited Company v. Data Protection Commission; High Court Record Number 2024/580 MCA (“ the LinkedIn Appeal”).

2 Meta has confirmed that the purpose of the Motion focuses on the third of these reliefs, the application for directions to have the proposed preliminary issues listed for hearing at the same time or immediately after the trial of preliminary issues in the LinkedIn proceedings that is fixed for hearing on 2 December 2025 (and which has been so fixed since 25 June 2025).

3 A Notice of Motion filed was filed on 3 October 2025. The affidavit of Ms Gráinne Varian was sworn on 2 October 2025. The replying affidavit of Mr. Damien Young was affirmed on 21 October 2025. The replying affidavit of Ms. Varian was sworn on 24 October 2025.

4 An identical motion was issued in another appeal, bearing record no. 2025/6 MCA (the “ Token Breach Appeal”) which arises from a decision of the DPC made on 2 December 2024 (the “ Token Breach Decision”) pursuant to section 111 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“ the 2018 Act”) and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“ GDPR”).

5 At the hearing of this Motion on 28 October 2025, counsel for Meta confirmed that the Motion for the trial of preliminary issues and associated reliefs was being progressed in the Passwords Appeal only.

THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES

6 The four preliminary issues to be addressed were the following:

• (1) Is the appellant entitled to appeal the entire Decision under section 142 of the Data Protection Act 2018 or are there aspects of the Appeal which can only proceed as an appeal under section 150 of the 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 having regard to all the circumstances including the DPC's role as a supervisory authority under the GDPR and the fact that the Decision was adopted in accordance with Article 60 of the GDPR?

• (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, does a different standard of review/assessment apply in an appeal under section 150 of the 2018 Act and if so, what is the standard of review/ assessment having regard to the aforesaid matters?

• (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 DPC during the inquiry process and if so in what circumstances and to what extent?

BACKGROUND

7 The background to this motion is set out in the grounding affidavit of Ms Varian. She outlines the background and the various statutory appeals and judicial reviews that are pending, emphasising heavily the importance of the preliminary issues for these proceedings.

8 In summary, the Passwords Appeal is in respect of a decision of the respondent made on 26 September 2024 (the “ Passwords Decision”) pursuant to section 111 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (as amended) and Article 60 of the GDPR.

9 The Passwords Decision was made in an own-volition inquiry commenced on 24 April 2019 under section 110 of the 2018 Act. In the Passwords Decision, the DPC found that Meta had infringed Articles 33(1) and 33(5) GDPR and failed to comply with the requirements of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32(1) GDPR. The DPC issued a reprimand pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR and imposed administrative fines in the total amount of €91 million.

10 In its opposition papers in both the Passwords Appeal and Token Breach Appeal, the DPC has put in issue the type of appeal provided for by section 142 and/or section 150 of the 2018 Act, the scope of appeal provided for by these provisions, and the standard of review which applies.

11 Meta's position is that the interpretation of sections 142 and 150 of the 2018 Act contended for by the DPC in the DPC's Statutory Appeal Statement of Opposition is incorrect, particularly when regard is had to the obligation to interpret these provisions in a manner compatible with Articles 34 and 37 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the “ ECHR”) and Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (the “ Charter”).

12 There are judicial review proceedings mirroring each of the statutory appeals, but also challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 2018 Act, having regard to the Constitution, the ECHR and the Charter, and, as such, are not suitable for determination by way of a statutory appeal.

13 The interpretation of sections 142 and 150 of the 2018 Act is an important aspect of the statutory appeals and the judicial review. Ms Varian states that there are 9 statutory appeals pending to which Meta or its related companies are party.

14 On 25 June 2025, the preliminary issues that are now identified by Meta as suitable for preliminary determination were fixed for hearing on 2 December 2025 in the LinkedIn Appeal.

15 The following agreed directions were put in place in the LinkedIn Appeal:

• (1) The appellant is to deliver submissions by 24 September 2025.

• (2) The respondent is to deliver submissions in response by 29 October 2025.

• (3) The State respondents are to deliver submissions by 14...