Meta Fights FTC's Attempt to Modify Privacy Settlement Amid Ongoing Legal Battles

Meta Platforms has resisted the Federal Trade Commission's intentions to alter a privacy settlement established in 2020, asserting that any changes would require the consent of a federal court. During a hearing, an attorney representing Meta informed the FTC's five commissioners that the agency lacks the authority to amend the agreement unilaterally.

In previous instances, modifications were generally regarded as minor adjustments, according to Meta's counsel, but extensive changes would exceed the commission's jurisdiction. Last year, the FTC charged Meta with breaching the terms of the 2020 settlement and initiated a proceeding to prohibit the company's use of facial recognition and the monetization of data concerning minors. Meta has been under a privacy consent decree with the FTC since 2012, having agreed to a $5 billion payment and more stringent privacy regulations as a result of the 2020 agreement.

The timeline for the agency's decision remains unclear. With the forthcoming election of Donald Trump as the US president, his administration may choose to abandon attempts to modify Meta's settlement once a Republican majority is established at the FTC next year.

The company has enacted various legal challenges regarding the proceeding, both at the federal court level and within the FTC itself. The hearing focused on determining if the agency possesses the authority to adjust its orders.

Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, representing one of the agency's Republican members who may assume the chair position under the next administration, posed several inquiries regarding the basis for initiating an internal process to revise the order rather than pursuing contempt charges in federal court. He expressed concern over the notion of altering the order following a violation, suggesting that such an approach could result in perpetual liability for companies.

Reenah Kim, representing the FTC, contended that Congress entrusted the agency with the capability to modify orders under specific circumstances, and that this authority has been exercised with caution.