On December 31, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) imposed a €150,000,000 fine on Google and a €60,000,000 fine on Facebook (now Meta) for violations of French rules on the use of cookies.
Background
On October 1, 2020, the CNIL published a revised version of its guidelines on cookies and similar technologies (the “Guidelines”), its final recommendations on acceptable methods for obtaining users’ consent to store or read non-essential cookies and similar technologies on their devices (the “Recommendations”), and a set of FAQs regarding the Recommendations. The CNIL provided a six-month transition period for businesses to comply with the Guidelines (i.e., until March 31, 2021), and has been focused on enforcing its Guidelines and Recommendations.
CNIL’s Decisions and Sanctions
After receiving several complaints from users, the CNIL investigated the cookie practices of facebook.com, google.fr, and youtube.com. The CNIL’s investigations concluded that the websites offered an easy way to consent to the use of cookies immediately after accessing the websites, but did not provide an equally easy way to refuse the use of cookies. Users had to select multiple options to refuse cookies, but only one option to provide consent to the use of all cookies. The CNIL also concluded that Facebook provided unclear and confusing instructions to users on how to refuse cookies.
According to the CNIL, the companies’ cookie notices and consent practices affect the freedom of the website users’ consent, as it influences users’ choice in favor of consent.
CNIL’s Jurisdiction
The CNIL asserted that it drew its authority to investigate the companies’ cookie practices under the e-Privacy Directive, which is transposed into national law by each EU Member State (i.e., in Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act). Accordingly, the CNIL asserted that the cooperation and so-called “one-stop-shop” mechanisms set forth in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) did not apply, and that the CNIL had the power to enforce the French Data Protection Act and its related cookie Guidelines and Recommendations irrespective of the location of the companies’ main establishment under the GDPR.
With respect to Facebook, the CNIL also asserted its authority under Article 3 of the French Data Protection Act, as the use of cookies is carried out by Facebook France, the French establishment of Facebook’s main controller, Facebook Ireland Limited. The CNIL also asserted that it had the authority to investigate Google because the use of cookies is carried out within the context of the activities of Google France (i.e., the French establishment of Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited).
In response, Facebook argued that the allegedly infringed cookie consent rule stems from the CNIL’s Guidelines and Recommendations and is not specifically mentioned in the e-Privacy Directive. Instead, Facebook argued the cookie consent rule relates to the application of the GDPR’s consent requirements, and the GDPR’s one-stop-shop mechanism therefore should apply. In practice, this would have resulted in the CNIL having no authority to sanction Facebook, as Facebook’s main establishment is located in Ireland. As mentioned above, the CNIL rejected Facebook’s argument and responded that its rules on cookies (and its related Guidelines and Recommendations) stem from the e-Privacy Directive, which is implemented at the national level and does not provide for a one-stop-shop mechanism. Additionally, the CNIL highlighted that the rules of the e-Privacy Directive prevail as lex specialis over the GDPR (i.e., where two laws govern the same factual situation, a law governing a specific subject matter overrides a law governing only general matters). According to the CNIL, the fact that the GDPR consent requirements must be applied when collecting consent in the context of the e-Privacy Directive does not result in the application of the GDPR and its one-stop-shop mechanism in these cases.
Sanctions
The CNIL held that the companies’ respective cookie practices infringe Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act governing the use of cookies. As a result of these alleged infringements, the CNIL imposed a total of €150,000,000 in sanctions against Google (€90,000,000 against Google LLC and €60,000,000 against Google Ireland Limited), and €60,000,000 against Facebook.
According to the CNIL, these amounts are justified by the scope of the processing, the number of data subjects concerned, and the profits the respective companies gain from advertising revenues indirectly generated by their use of cookies.
In addition to the fines, the CNIL’s restricted committee ordered Facebook and Google to, within three months of the decision, provide French users with a method to refuse cookies that is as easy as the method to consent to cookies. Failure to do so will result in daily penalties of €100,000.
Read the CNIL’s press release and the decision (in French ) in the Facebook case. Read the Facebook decision in English.
Read the CNIL’s press release and the decision (in French ) in the Google case. Read the Google decision in English.
Read the CNIL’s press release on the two fines in English.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code