WSA refused to suspend the enforcement of the decisions issued by the Polish SA that were challenged
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw refused to suspend the enforcement of the decisions issued by the President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO), which prohibited the display in Poland of fake advertisements using the data and images of journalist and presenter Omenaa Mensah, as well as entrepreneur Rafał Brzoska.
On August 5, 2024, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office issued such decisions for a period of three months, following complaints from Omenaa Mensah and Rafał Brzoska. They reported that advertisements displayed on social media platforms owned by Meta Platforms Ireland Limited contained their personal data and false information about them, exploiting the fact that both are public figures.
More information on this topic can be found in the press releases from August 2024:
- President of the Polish SA bans Meta company from publishing ads using Omena Mensah's data in Poland.
- Meta is not allowed to publish advertisements in Poland using data of the President of InPost.
Meta challenged both decisions before the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA). In its complaints, Meta requested the suspension of the enforcement of the contested decisions of the UODO and explained that their implementation would cause significant harm, as it would require the company to allocate substantial resources for proactively monitoring Facebook and Instagram to prevent the processing of the personal data of the aforementioned individuals in advertisements. This, according to Meta, would result in a substantial financial loss.
In its decisions of December 10, 2024, the Voivodeship Administrative Court refused to suspend the enforcement of the contested decisions of the President of the Personal Data Protection Office. The court indicated that the complainant's legal representative had failed to substantiate the conditions specified in Article 61 § 3 of the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, regarding the risk of significant harm or irreversible consequences. According to the court, the complainant's argumentation was limited to general statements and assertions. The complainant did not provide any evidence or arguments illustrating specific relationships between the failure to suspend the enforcement of the contested decisions and the risks mentioned in Article 61 § 3 of the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts. This made it impossible for the court to assess the likelihood of the events covered by the provision. As a result, the court concluded that there were no grounds to apply temporary protection to the complainant in this regard.
Sygn. akt II SA/Wa 1700/24
Sygn. akt II SA/Wa 1701/24