In the age of AI, data is gold—but it’s also a deeply personal resource. The debate over how that data is gathered and used has reached a boiling point with Meta’s latest move.
In a controversial shift, Meta has announced plans to use public content from Facebook and Instagram users across Europe to train its generative AI models. But there’s one glaring issue: they’re not asking for prior user consent.
This decision has sparked significant backlash, especially from noyb (None of Your Business), a European privacy advocacy group founded by renowned lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems. The group has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Meta and is threatening a class-action lawsuit if the tech giant doesn’t stop its data collection practices.
At the core of this firestorm lies a crucial question:
Can AI development thrive without compromising fundamental privacy rights?
What Meta Is Doing—and Why It’s a Problem
Meta claims it’s using the “legitimate interest” clause under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to justify processing publicly available user content for AI training. In simple terms, Meta believes it can bypass direct user consent because it has a “legitimate interest” in improving its AI tools.
But GDPR experts, privacy watchdogs, and digital rights organizations say this is a misuse of the regulation.
According to Article 6 of the GDPR, processing data for purposes beyond its original intent—especially when it involves high-risk applications like AI training—requires explicit, informed, and affirmative consent from users.
“Opt-out isn’t enough when dealing with personal data for AI models,” says Max Schrems. “We’ve been down this road before with behavioral advertising—courts ruled against Meta then, and we expect the same outcome now.”
Users Want Transparency—and They Deserve It
It’s not just privacy experts ringing alarm bells. Users around the world are demanding accountability when it comes to their data.
- 85% of global consumers say they want full transparency on how their data is being used (Cisco’s 2024 Data Privacy Benchmark Study).
- 74% of users would stop using platforms found to misuse their personal data (Pew Research Center, 2024).
- And yet, tech companies continue to operate in grey areas, often hiding behind legal jargon and ambiguous privacy updates.
What’s more telling is that noyb argues Meta doesn’t need to harvest data from everyone. According to the group, even if just 10% of users voluntarily opted in, it would be enough to train effective AI language models. That fact alone undermines Meta’s “need” to collect massive datasets without consent.
Meta’s Ongoing GDPR Issues: A Pattern of Noncompliance
This isn’t Meta’s first GDPR violation. It’s just the latest in a long list.
Here’s a brief look at their troubled track record:
- In early 2023, Meta was forced to overhaul its ad-targeting model after the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) ruled that the company could no longer rely on “legitimate
- interest” to serve personalized ads.
- Since 2021, Meta has racked up over €1.5 billion in GDPR fines, including a €1.2 billion fine in 2023 for illegal data transfers to the U.S.
- In 2022, Meta faced a €405 million penalty for mishandling children's data on Instagram.
According to DLA Piper’s 2024 GDPR report, 67% of all GDPR fines relate to illegal data processing—the exact type of violation Meta is being accused of once again.
It seems Meta is constantly testing the limits of data protection laws, adjusting only when it’s forced to. But with public sentiment and legal scrutiny both intensifying, that approach is becoming less viable—and more dangerous.
A Deafening Silence from Regulators
While Meta has temporarily paused its AI data rollout in Europe following a request for clarification from Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC), there have been no formal sanctions or enforcement actions—yet.
This lack of swift regulatory action has been a recurring concern among privacy advocates. noyb argues that delayed enforcement effectively allows tech giants to act without consequence, undermining the very purpose of the GDPR.
According to the European Data Protection Supervisor’s 2024 report, over 60% of GDPR-related complaints remain unresolved after a year. This regulatory bottleneck creates a dangerous vacuum where innovation moves faster than the laws designed to protect people from its risks.
The Cybersecurity Implications: More Than Just Legal Trouble
While this is often framed as a privacy issue, it’s also a major cybersecurity concern.
At digialert, we’ve seen firsthand how the misuse of personal data can lead to broader vulnerabilities in the digital ecosystem. Here’s why cybersecurity professionals must pay close attention to this case:
1. Larger Attack Surfaces
By collecting massive amounts of user data—without clear controls or user awareness—Meta increases its threat surface. These data pools can become targets for hackers, especially if stored without strong encryption or access controls.
2. Erosion of Trust
According to IBM’s 2024 Data Security report, 83% of companies experiencing a data misuse incident saw a spike in customer churn within three months. In an age where trust is digital currency, losing it is a business killer.
3. Risk of Regulatory Fallout
GDPR allows fines of up to 4% of a company’s global revenue. For Meta, that means billions in potential penalties—again. But for other companies watching this unfold, it’s a warning to get their privacy practices in order.
4. Dangerous Precedents
If Meta succeeds in setting a precedent that public data can be scraped for AI training without consent, smaller companies, startups, and even governments may follow suit, accelerating the erosion of privacy norms globally.
How Companies Can Strike the Right Balance
Responsible AI doesn’t require irresponsible data practices. At digialert, we advocate for a future where privacy and innovation coexist.
Here are four practical steps your organization can take today:
Use Consent Management Platforms (CMPs)
Implement user-friendly, opt-in mechanisms that let users control how their data is collected, processed, and used for AI training.
Apply Privacy-by-Design Principles
Embed privacy into the architecture of your data pipelines. Use pseudonymization, data minimization, and access control policies as default settings.
Invest in Real-Time Monitoring
Deploy systems that detect unauthorized data flows, alert on retention violations, and automatically log suspicious data access events.
Conduct Regular Third-Party Audits
Independent assessments can identify compliance gaps, reduce ethical blind spots, and demonstrate good faith to regulators and users alike.
A Global Issue with Global Lessons
Although this controversy is focused on Europe and the GDPR, the implications are global.
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) in the U.S., and Brazil’s Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD) are just a few of the laws inspired by GDPR principles. All prioritize user consent and data transparency.
Meanwhile, the upcoming EU AI Act is poised to bring new compliance requirements for AI developers, including obligations around data governance and ethical use.
In short: This isn’t just about Meta. It’s about every organization building AI solutions with real-world user data.
Final Thoughts: Trust Is the True Competitive Advantage
The AI race is accelerating—but it must be a responsible race. Companies that cut corners on privacy may find themselves outpaced not by competitors, but by regulators, courts, and public backlash.
Meta’s decision to use public content without consent may offer short-term training data gains—but the long-term costs could be immense.
At digialert, we believe organizations don’t have to choose between innovation and compliance. The smartest companies know that trust is a feature, not a bug.
Ready to Build Responsible AI?
Follow digialert and VinodSenthil for insights on:
- AI compliance strategies
- Data governance frameworks
- Cybersecurity and privacy convergence
- GDPR and global data law readiness
