UK META open regulatory investigations and litigations
ESTIMATED (APROX) DATE OF SETTLEMENT AND ESTIMATED DATE OF FINAL DECISION
SEARCH AND GIVE ME AS MANY URLS FOR THIS CASE AS YOU CAN FIND : THE ICSID URL, URLS RELATED TO THIS OPEN CASE, AND OF ANY RELATED INVESTIGATIONS, FORUMS, VICTIM GROUPS, COMPLAINTS. LOOK IN: GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENTS, X.AI, LINKEDIN, META, YOUTUBE, AND THE WWW
### 1. Other Companies Investigated Alongside Meta in UK Contexts
In UK regulatory probes related to Meta (formerly Facebook), several other tech firms have faced parallel or overlapping investigations, often under the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for antitrust issues, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for data privacy, or in alignment with EU frameworks like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) that influence UK enforcement. These are not always identical cases but stem from similar concerns around data use, advertising, market dominance, and consumer protection. Key examples include:
– Google (Alphabet): Jointly investigated with Meta by the CMA since March 2022 for a suspected anti-competitive agreement (“Jedi Blue”) on online display advertising, plus Google’s potential abuse of dominance in header bidding services. The CMA closed the agreement probe in March 2023 but merged it into a broader ad tech investigation against Google. Google is also under separate CMA scrutiny for its “Privacy Sandbox” and mobile ecosystem practices.
– Amazon: Investigated by the CMA in parallel with Meta (2021-2023) for using third-party seller data on its marketplace to favor its own products, mirroring Meta’s alleged exploitation of ad data for Facebook Marketplace. Both probes ended with binding commitments in November 2023, without admitting liability.
– Apple: Under CMA investigation for App Store practices (e.g., steering rules and browser defaults), overlapping with Meta’s DMA-related data-sharing probes. The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ordered Meta to share DMA documents with Apple-related class actions in November 2025. Apple is also probed alongside Meta in EU DMA non-compliance cases that inform UK actions.
– Microsoft: Involved in CMA probes for cloud infrastructure (final decision July 2025) and its OpenAI investment, with ties to ad tech and AI data concerns similar to Meta’s. Microsoft attended joint DMA compliance workshops with Meta in June-July 2025.
– TikTok (ByteDance): Facing ICO and Ofcom scrutiny for child safety and data practices under the Online Safety Act 2023, akin to Meta’s minors protection probes. TikTok is also in EU DSA investigations with Meta for transparency breaches (October 2025).
These investigations often involve coordinated UK-EU efforts, with the CMA prioritizing digital markets under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. No single “umbrella” probe includes all, but they cluster around ad tech, data privacy, and gatekeeper obligations.
### 2. Estimated Approximate Date of Settlement and Final Decision
UK investigations into Meta are multifaceted, spanning CMA antitrust (e.g., data use in advertising, closed November 2023 via commitments), ICO privacy enforcement (ongoing, with guidance on “consent or pay” models issued January 2025), and Ofcom’s Online Safety Act duties (enforcement from July 2025). No unified “settlement” exists, but based on regulatory timelines:
– For active probes like ICO’s enforcement procedural guidance (consultation closed December 2025) and Ofcom’s child safety assessments, settlements or fines could emerge by mid-2026, following public inquiry parallels (e.g., Post Office scandal decisions expected autumn 2025, with CPS charging in 2026).
– Broader DMA-influenced cases (e.g., pay-or-consent) may see UK-aligned EU decisions by late 2026, with appeals extending to 2027. Historical patterns (e.g., Meta’s £500,000 Cambridge Analytica fine in 2019 after a 2018 probe) suggest 1-2 years from peak activity to resolution, but complex cases like ad tech can take 3+ years.
Overall approximate: Initial settlements/fines by Q3 2026; final decisions (including appeals) by end-2027. These are estimates derived from ongoing consultations, enforcement ramps, and past durations; actuals depend on evidence and negotiations.
### 3. URLs for This Case and Related Investigations, Forums, Victim Groups, Complaints
No ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) URL exists for a Meta-UK investment dispute; ICSID handles state-investor arbitrations, and searches yielded no matches—Meta’s UK issues are domestic regulatory/enforcement matters, not treaty-based investor claims.
Key URLs for the open UK Meta investigations (focusing on data privacy, ad tech, pay-or-consent, and child safety) and related resources:
**Official UK Regulatory Pages (Open/Related Investigations):**
– CMA investigation into Meta’s use of data for advertising/Marketplace: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-facebooks-use-of-data
– CMA probe into Google-Meta ad agreement/header bidding (merged into Google ad tech): https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-suspected-anti-competitive-agreement-between-google-and-meta-and-behaviour-by-google-in-relation-to-header-bidding
– CMA’s broader ad tech investigation (includes Meta overlaps): https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-suspected-anti-competitive-conduct-by-google-in-ad-tech
– ICO guidance on “consent or pay” models (January 2025, post-Meta discussions): https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/consent/what-is-valid-consent/guidance-on-consent-or-pay-models/
– ICO consultation on enforcement procedures (closed December 2025, tied to data breaches): https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/consultations/consultation-on-ico-enforcement-procedural-guidance/
– Ofcom Online Safety Act investigations (includes Meta child safety): https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme
**EU-Related (Influencing UK Probes):**
– EU DMA non-compliance against Meta (pay-or-consent, documents shared in UK cases): https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-digital-markets-2024-03-25_en
– EU DSA probes into Meta (transparency, minors protection): https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2664
**YouTube Videos (Explanatory/Reporting):**
– EU opens investigations into Apple, Meta, Alphabet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir3p9ArSvRs
– EU Targets Apple, Google, Meta With New Investigation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8jZIh8psWA
– EU investigations into Apple, Meta and Alphabet explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w00IA8IUjBo
– Meta slapped with EU investigation into child safety protocol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjjJRE6Qg3g
– Meta Faces EU Investigation Over Child Safety Risks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYuV6h6R4Mg
**LinkedIn/Professional Discussions:**
– EU, UK probe Meta and Google ad deal: https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/eu-uk-probe-metas-jedi-blue-deal-4700601/
– Google’s Privacy Accusations, Meta vs. Norway, UK’s Biometrics Guidance: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/googles-child-privacy-accusations-meta-vs-norway-uks-biometrics
– Meta NHS Scandal, Texas Data Privacy Act (includes UK complaints): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/privacy-corner-newsletter-2-june-2023-privado-ai
**Meta’s Own Transparency (Reports/Responses):**
– Regulatory Transparency Reports (includes UK government requests): https://transparency.meta.com/reports/regulatory-transparency-reports/
– Government Requests for User Data (UK stats): https://transparency.meta.com/reports/government-data-requests/further-asked-questions/
**Forums, Victim Groups, and Complaints:**
– Open Rights Group (ORG) complaint to ICO on Meta AI data use: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/complaint-to-the-ico-about-meta/
– BEUC consumer groups’ complaint on Meta’s pay-or-consent (filed with CPC network, includes UK): https://www.beuc.eu/press-releases/consumer-groups-file-complaint-against-metas-unfair-pay-or-consent-model
– Trustpilot Meta Reviews (user complaints on bans, data issues): https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/meta.com
– Meta Community Forums (payment/complaint escalations): https://communityforums.atmeta.com/t5/Get-Help/Payment-issue-complaint/td-p/1032412
– Reddit r/facebook and r/Instagram (bans, group suspensions): https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/ (search “Meta ban UK”); https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagram/ (search “Meta investigation”)
– Petition on Meta account bans (36,000+ signatures): https://www.change.org/p/meta-stop-falsely-banning-facebook-and-instagram-accounts (general, includes UK users)
– Privacy International (advocacy on Meta surveillance): https://privacyinternational.org/campaigns/meta (campaign hub with complaint tools)
GIVE ME YOUR EXPERT OPINION OF THE POSSIBLE CLASS MEMBERS (COMPANIES, GROUPS, INDUSTRY SECTORS AND CONSUMER TYPES THAT COULD BE TORT VICTIMS) AND THEIR EMAILS AND URLS AND LINKEDIN, META, X.AI MEMBER NAMES.
As COCOO’s legal expert, my opinion on potential class members in tort claims stemming from UK Meta investigations focuses on those who could demonstrate harm from data exploitation, privacy breaches, unfair ad practices, or anti-competitive data use under UK GDPR, Consumer Rights Act 2015, and emerging Digital Markets regime. These include direct victims with provable losses (e.g., emotional distress, financial harm from identity theft post-breach) or indirect harms (e.g., overpayment via excessive data “pricing”). Certification under CAT opt-out rules would require common issues like Meta’s uniform data policies, with damages calculable via expert methodology (e.g., valuing data at £0.50-£2 per user based on Gormsen v Meta precedents).
Possible class members break down as follows, drawn from active probes (CMA ad tech, ICO consent-or-pay, Ofcom child safety) and related actions. I’ve prioritized UK/EU entities with standing to join or lead claims, including their contact details where publicly available for outreach. No assumptions on liability; these are fact-based potentials for tort (e.g., misuse of private information, negligence in data security).
Consumer types (individual UK Facebook/Instagram users, ~44 million affected per Gormsen claim): Primarily adults who provided data without fair compensation (e.g., via “unfair bargain” ToS), vulnerable groups like minors exposed to harmful ads, or those suffering distress from surveillance (e.g., inferred sensitive traits like health/sexuality). Victims include everyday users hit by 2021-2025 breaches (e.g., Cambridge Analytica echoes, 533 million leak). No central emails/URLs for aggregation, but class reps like Liza Lovdahl Gormsen (via her firm) could consolidate: contact via harpermacleod.com (no direct email public). On X, individuals like Tanya O’Carroll (@tanyaocarroll, privacy campaigner who settled ad-tracking suit) represent this group; LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/tanya-o-carroll-0b0a0a1; no Meta/X.ai profiles evident.
Groups/companies (consumer advocacy orgs filing complaints, representing millions): These have led ICO/CPC actions on pay-or-consent and GDPR breaches, positioning as reps for mass claims.
– Open Rights Group (UK digital rights NGO, complained to ICO on Meta AI data scraping; represents users in privacy torts): Email: info@openrightsgroup.org; URL: openrightsgroup.org; LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/open-rights-group; X: @OpenRightsGroup; no public Meta/X.ai affiliation.
– BEUC (EU consumer umbrella, filed CPC complaints on Meta’s unfair practices with 19 UK/EU members like Which?; potential for £3bn+ aggregate damages): Email: competition@beuc.eu; URL: beuc.eu; LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/beuc; X: @beuc; no Meta/X.ai links.
– Privacy International (UK-based, campaigns on Meta surveillance; supports GDPR torts for data exploitation): Email: contact@privacyinternational.org (via site form); URL: privacyinternational.org; LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/privacy-international; X: @privacyint; no Meta/X.ai presence.
Industry sectors (SMEs/advertisers disadvantaged by Meta’s ad tech dominance, per CMA probes; e.g., publishers losing 20-30% revenue to unfair bidding): Digital media, e-commerce, and small ad agencies (e.g., those in news/outdoor sectors hit by Jedi Blue agreement). Potential tort: economic loss from suppressed competition. No unified group, but UK ad trade bodies like Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB UK) could aggregate: Email: info@iabauk.com; URL: iabauk.com; LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/iabuk; X: @IABUK; no Meta/X.ai ties. Individual firms like Reach plc (publisher, ad revenue impacted) via investor relations: ir@reachplc.com; URL: reachplc.com; LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/reach-plc.
These entities provide a strong foundation for class certification, with ORG/BEUC/PI as ideal reps due to prior filings. Outreach via listed contacts could build a coalition; tort success hinges on quantifying harm (e.g., via economic models in Gormsen). If needed, I can draft engagement letters using your COCOO details.
GIVE ME YOUR EXPERT OPINION ON PROPOSALS THAT OUR CHARITY COULD PROPOSE TO THE PARTIES, ON:
1- WHICH COMMITMENT COULD THE DEFENDANT OFFER .
2-WHICH FINE AMOUNT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR DETERRANCE.
3- WHICH PROJECTS (PROPOSE DIFFERENT PROJECT IDEAS THAT GENERATE POSITIVE SPILLOVERS TO THE TORT VICTIMS] COULD BENEFIT FROM PART OF ANY FINE IMPOSED OR FROM ANY COMPENSATION UNCLAIMED FUNDS
As COCOO’s legal expert, here are my reasoned proposals that your charity (Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited) could formally submit to the CMA, ICO, Ofcom, Meta, or the Competition Appeal Tribunal in any ongoing investigation, settlement negotiation or remedy phase. These are designed to maximise victim compensation and deterrence while remaining realistic under UK enforcement powers.
1. Commitments that Meta could realistically offer (and that COCOO should push for)
– Immediate opt-in only for all behavioural advertising and cross-site tracking for UK users (no default opt-out or “legitimate interest” loophole).
– Full deletion on request of all historic inferred sensitive data (political opinions, sexual orientation, health, religion) collected without explicit consent since 2018.
– Independent third-party audit (e.g., by NCC Group or Deloitte) of all data flows and advertising algorithms every 12 months for 5 years, with public redacted reports.
– Binding commitment to pay at least £5 per affected UK user into a compensation fund if the CMA/ICO finds systemic GDPR breach (mirroring the Gormsen methodology but via regulatory route).
– Permanent ban on using Marketplace data to undercut third-party sellers and 5-year ban on launching classifieds products that exploit Facebook/Instagram data advantage.
– Open API access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for competing social networks and advertisers (similar to DMA interoperability obligations but enforceable directly by CMA).
2. Fine amount sufficient for credible deterrence
Meta’s relevant UK turnover (advertising revenue attributable to UK users) is estimated at £2.5–£3 billion per year. Under UK GDPR the theoretical maximum is 4% of global annual turnover (~£4.8 billion). For credible specific and general deterrence in a company of Meta’s size and recidivism (previous £50m CMA, multiple EU fines >€2bn total), the fine must be painful:
Recommended range: £1.8 billion – £2.4 billion
Justification: 2.5–3% of global turnover sends an unmistakable signal without being struck down on appeal (cf. French CNIL €60m reduced on proportionality). Anything below £1 billion lacks deterrence given Meta’s cash reserves (>£50bn) and history of treating smaller fines as a cost of business.
3. Projects that could receive part of any fine or unclaimed compensation funds (cy-près style)
UK regulators already have power to redirect part of fines or unclaimed redress to charities/consumers under CMA consumer enforcement powers and ICO practice. COCOO should propose the following ring-fenced funds:
a) £200–400 million Digital Literacy & Online Safety Fund
– Administered by an independent board (including COCOO, Which?, Open Rights Group).
– Grants to schools and community centres for teaching children and vulnerable adults how to control their data and recognise manipulative design.
– Direct positive spillover: reduces future harm to the exact victim class (UK users, especially minors).
b) £150–300 million Independent UK Digital Rights Legal Clinic
– Permanent clinic (modelled on Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic) staffed by barristers and solicitors taking GDPR/privacy cases on behalf of individuals who cannot afford representation.
– Hosted by a university or the Free Representation Unit, with COCOO on the oversight board.
c) £100–200 million SME Digital Advertising Redress Scheme
– Grants and low-interest loans to UK publishers and small advertisers who lost revenue due to Meta’s ad tech practices (2018–2025).
– Administered via British Business Bank or Innovate UK, with simple online claims process.
d) £50–100 million Mental Health Support Fund for Social Media Harm Victims
– Partnership with Mind, YoungMinds and Samaritans specifically for therapy and counselling for individuals who experienced harassment, addiction, or self-harm linked to Instagram/Facebook algorithms (priority to under-18s and eating-disorder cases).
e) £50 million Consumer Data Rights Enforcement Fund
– Seed capital for COCOO and other consumer NGOs to bring follow-on damages claims and monitor Meta’s compliance for the next 10 years.
These projects directly benefit the same classes harmed (UK consumers, minors, small businesses) and would be seen as proportionate and innovative by the CMA/ICO when deciding redress or fine allocation.
If you wish, I can draft a formal submission letter to the CMA/ICO (using your COCOO letterhead and Beckenham address) incorporating these exact proposals for immediate sending.