TikTok Technology Limited v DPC – 30 June 2026

• Judgment Date: 30 June 2026
• Year: 2026
• Date: 30 June 2026
• Issuer: High Court

1

APPROVED [2026] IEHC 419

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL

Record No.: 2025/248 MCA

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 142 AND SECTION 150

OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018

Between:

TIKTOK TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and TIKTOK INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES UK LIMITED

Applicants

And

DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION

Respondent

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy delivered on 30 June 2026

CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3

The GDPR ............................................................................................................................................... 4

The Inquiry.............................................................................................................................................. 6

The Decision ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Applicable case law .............................................................................................................................. 17

The WhatsApp proceedings ................................................................................................................... 23

The GDPR Fining Guidelines ............................................................................................................... 28

Scope of the appeal ............................................................................................................................... 29

Ground 7 – Errors in having regard to the turnover of ByteDance ....................................................... 31

Error in determining fining caps ....................................................................................................... 31

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 31

2

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Error in determining the preceding financial year ............................................................................ 41

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 42

Error in determining that ByteDance exercised decisive influence over TikTok.............................. 45

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Error in having regard to turnover of ByteDance in calculating the amount of the fines ................. 47

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 51

Error in having regard to worldwide turnover .................................................................................. 53

Ground 9 – Errors in interpretation of Article 83 .................................................................................. 53

Error in treatment of Article 83(2) criteria ........................................................................................ 55

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 55

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 56

Failure to determine whether compliance with Article 83(1) ........................................................... 61

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 61

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 62

Misinterpretation of Article 83(3) ..................................................................................................... 63

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 64

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 64

Ground 8 – Failure to give reasons for the fining decision ................................................................... 65

Arguments ..................................................................................................................................... 66

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 68

Summary of conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 69

Proposed questions to be referred to the CJEU for determination pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU

.............................................................................................................................................................. 71

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 72

3

Introduction

1. On 3 June 2026, I delivered judgment on the majority of the grounds of appeal advanced

by TikTok in this appeal, [2026] IEHC 347 (“the main judgment”). As set out at §17 and

§18 of that judgment, I left over certain issues concerning the manner in which the DPC had

calculated the administrative fines which it had imposed on TikTok for this further judgment

in circumstances where it appeared that certain questions of law might arise which required

to be referred to the CJEU for determination in accordance with Article 267 of the TFEU.

This judgment should be read together with the main judgment. The terminology in this

judgment mirrors that used in that judgment.

2. To recap, in the main judgment, I concluded that the DPC had not erred in law in its

assessment of whether TikTok had infringed the provisions of Article 46 and 13(1)(f) of the

GDPR. I concluded further that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the DPC’s

findings that TikTok had infringed the GDPR during the temporal scope of the Inquiry, 29

July 2020 to 17 May 2023. Finally, I concluded that the DPC was correct to conclude that

the infringements were negligent in character and that, accordingly, it was entitled to impose

administrative fines pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) of the GDPR in accordance with the

provisions of Article 83 thereof.

3. TikTok’s remaining grounds of appeal, Grounds 7, 8 and 9, all concern the

interpretation and application of Article 83 of the GDPR and how the fines were calculated

by the DPC. They are summarised at §527 of the main judgment as follows:

• The DPC impermissibly had regard to the turnover of ByteDance in determining the

fining caps and the amount of the actual fines (Ground 7);

• The DPC failed to provide adequate reasons for the fining decision (Ground 8); and

• The DPC made errors of fact in its interpretation and application of Article 83

(Ground 9).

4. As noted in the main judgment, the parties have either agreed the terms of questions

which should be referred to the CJEU in respect of these grounds, or, in the absence of

agreement, each proposes questions which might usefully be referred.