Skip to main content

Edge's News: WhatsApp Fined $266 Million Over Data Transparency Violations...

Facebook Inc.’s WhatsApp was ordered to pay a 225 million-euro ($266 million) penalty for failing to be transparent about how it handled personal information, its first fine under beefed-up European Union data protection law.


The Irish Data Protection Commission -- Silicon Valley’s main privacy watchdog in Europe -- said it found violations in the way WhatsApp explained how it processed users’ and non-users’ data, as well as how data was shared between WhatsApp and other Facebook companies.


The fine comes weeks after Amazon.com Inc. was hit with a record 746 million-euro penalty in Luxembourg, where it has its European base, for processing personal data in violation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.


Under the three-year-old GDPR law, authorities have powers to fine companies as much as 4% of their annual sales. The rules put watchdogs based in a company’s chosen EU hub in charge of supervising them. But the Irish regulator, which has at least 28 privacy probes open targeting tech giants such as Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, has faced mounting criticism for taking too long to wrap up its cases. 


“We disagree with the decision today regarding the transparency we provided to people in 2018 and the penalties are entirely disproportionate,” a WhatsApp spokesperson said. “We will appeal this decision.”


Europe’s Data Law Is Broken, Departing Privacy Chief Warns.


The Irish authority said that it would also order the messaging service to take remedial action to bring its data processing communication into compliance. This includes making it clearer how users can lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority.


WhatsApp announced in an Irish regulatory filing in November it set aside 77.5 million euros to pay potential fines from at least two probes by Ireland’s data-protection watchdog. 


An initial draft of the fining decision by the Irish watchdog had stumbled amid several objections by EU counterparts, including “the appropriateness of the envisaged corrective measures.”


Thursday’s fine also comes amid added pressure on WhatsApp over policy changes it announced in January. It was forced to delay the overhaul until May after a backlash from users and regulators over what data the messaging service collects and how it shares that information with its parent Facebook.


The European Data Protection Board, a panel of EU authorities, said in July that Facebook’s practices linked to WhatsApp data should be examined “as a matter of priority” by the Irish privacy watchdog. 


The Irish authority in turn said it would consider any regulatory follow-up where needed, but that its most advanced WhatsApp probe had already included “an in-depth inquiry into WhatsApp’s privacy policy.”



Source: Bloomberg

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Disclaimer
Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions, thoughts, ideas and feelings of https://www.edgeofdworld.com or any employee thereof

Popular posts from this blog

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...
4 comments
Continue Reading »

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...
3 comments
Continue Reading »

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...
2 comments
Continue Reading »