Warsaw Administrative Court: Meta Must Comply with the Ban on Displaying Fake Ads Using the Data of Omenaa Mensah and Rafał Brzoska.
The Provincial Administrative Court (WSA) in Warsaw has refused to suspend the decision of the President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO), which bans the display of fake advertisements in Poland that misuse the personal data and likenesses of renowned journalist Omenaa Mensah and entrepreneur Rafał Brzoska. This decision represents a significant step in protecting personal data and combating online disinformation.
UODO’s Decision
On August 5, 2024, the President of the UODO issued orders prohibiting Meta Platforms Ireland Limited from displaying advertisements containing the personal data of Omenaa Mensah and Rafał Brzoska for a period of three months. These bans were a response to complaints filed by both individuals, who pointed out that misleading ads using their likenesses were being published on Facebook and Instagram, deceiving viewers.
The advertisements falsely suggested that Mensah and Brzoska were involved in investment projects and other activities with which they had no connection. Their images were used to lend credibility to fake offers and manipulate public opinion.
Meta Challenged the Decision
Meta Platforms Ireland Limited appealed the UODO’s decision to the Provincial Administrative Court. In its appeal, the company requested a suspension of the decision, arguing that enforcing the ban would cause significant financial damage. Meta claimed that complying with the requirements would obligate it to proactively monitor content on Facebook and Instagram, which would require considerable resources and lead to potential financial losses.
WSA’s Ruling
On December 10, 2024, the WSA in Warsaw dismissed Meta’s request to suspend the UODO’s decision. In its reasoning, the court noted that Meta failed to demonstrate the conditions specified in Article 61 § 3 of the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, i.e., it did not prove that enforcing the decision would cause significant harm or irreversible consequences.
The court observed that Meta’s arguments were general and unsupported by specific evidence. The lack of detailed information about the actual financial impact made it impossible to assess the risks associated with enforcing the ban.
Protecting Public Figures’ Rights
The WSA’s decision provides critical support for protecting the personal data of public figures and combating fake content on social media. It emphasizes the responsibility of internet platforms for advertisements that use users’ personal data. This ruling could set a precedent for future disputes concerning disinformation and the unauthorized use of celebrities’ likenesses.
Consequences for Social Media Platforms
The court’s ruling confirms that social media platforms have a duty to address cases where third-party rights are violated. This obligation requires them to implement more effective mechanisms for monitoring and preventing the publication of illegal content. Although Meta argued that such actions are costly and resource-intensive, the court ruled that protecting individuals’ rights must take precedence over the company’s economic interests.
This decision is a significant step toward ensuring that personal data and likenesses are not unlawfully used for commercial and manipulative purposes and that public figures have the right to protection from disinformation.
Source: Manager Plus
