Gormsen was given a six-month window to devise a new blueprint for the claim, emphasizing the complexity of determining the value of data in the digital age.
Meta’s Grievances: Counterfactual Scenario and Fair Price Dispute
Meta’s legal team took issue with the claimant’s counterfactual scenario for assessing loss, setting the stage for a trial to decide a proper fair price. If Meta’s requirement — that Facebook can collect, share, and process personal data in exchange for user access to the site — is found to be an unfair condition and price, a legal battle over fair compensation will ensue.
Robert O’Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, representing Gormsen, argued that Facebook users had been denied payments for their valuable personal information used by advertisers.
Meta £2.3B Antitrust Claim : A Hypothetical Negotiation Unveiled
O’Donoghue painted a vivid picture of a hypothetical negotiation over users’ data, emphasizing its extreme value. “In essentially a hypothetical negotiation over this data, Meta would see the value and would be strongly incentivized to pay a positive monetary price for access to this data,” O’Donoghue stated, injecting an element of burstiness into the legal discourse.
Meta Counters: Collective Bargain “Completely Divorced from Reality”
Singla, countering the narrative, argued that Lovdahl Gormsen’s proposed amendments lacked a proper articulation of how a fair bargain between Facebook and users would have materialized. He dismissed the idea of a collective bargain, asserting it was “completely divorced from reality.” According to Singla, the claimant’s expert report failed to provide a realistic foundation for the notion that Facebook would pay users.
