logo
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China

TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China

Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to mount a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530m fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China.
The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China.
In addition to the €530m fine, the April 30 censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months.
At the High Court on Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review.
The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General.
TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK.
Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30, 2025.
Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made its decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but adds TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision".
Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings.
TikTok submits the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485m and €45m 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'.
TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'.
Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters.
TikTok claims the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'.
TikTok submits the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'.
The applicants further claim the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution".
'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims.
Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ex-footballer Joey Barton to pay £203k of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after libel case
Ex-footballer Joey Barton to pay £203k of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after libel case

The 42

time2 hours ago

  • The 42

Ex-footballer Joey Barton to pay £203k of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after libel case

FORMER FOOTBALLER JOEY Barton will pay more than £200,000 (€230,000) of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after their UK High Court libel battle, a court has heard. Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several online posts, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a 'big bike nonce' and a 'pedo defender' on X. The pair settled the claim last year after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and paid a total of £110,000 (€126,000) in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs. In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October last year, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster 'was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset' by Barton's actions, which included a 'persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information'. Today, a specialist costs court heard that Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 (€184,000) of Vine's costs from the main legal action. Advertisement Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 (€49,000) arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 (€234,000) of Vine's costs following the legal action. Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May last year that Barton's posts amounted to a 'calculated and sustained attack'. Barton, who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career, also began using '#bikenonce' on X, which led to it trending on the platform. After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were 'untrue'. He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a 'separate settlement' for claims published after legal action began. De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so. Vine said following that hearing that Barton 'needs to find himself a different hobby'. The hearing today was told that Barton agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine's legal costs earlier this month, and that Vine was claiming around £60,000 in costs for negotiating that figure. Suzanne Holmes, for Barton, said this was 'excessive' and 'disproportionate', and should be reduced. Kevin Latham, representing Vine, said Barton had 'repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation' throughout proceedings and 'has to bear the consequences of that approach'. Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London. Written by Press Association and posted on

A Uniqlo store in Dublin may be "on the agenda"
A Uniqlo store in Dublin may be "on the agenda"

The Journal

time3 hours ago

  • The Journal

A Uniqlo store in Dublin may be "on the agenda"

POPULAR JAPANESE STORE Uniqlo has announced it will be opening eight new stores in Europe, and Irish shoppers are hoping the Dublin will be included. The store, which is known for selling high quality but affordable basics, already has stores in ten European countries, including England and Scotland, but has not yet revealed the location of the new stores. Shoppers have repeatedly expressed their desire for the shop to come to Dublin, something which a commercial real estate expert said is 'on the agenda'. Earnings from Uniqlo's parent company, Fast Retailing, make them world's third biggest clothing manufacturer and retailer after Zara owner Inditex and Sweden's H&M. Irish fans of the brand can currently only order clothes from Uniqlo online, but for delivery under €70, shipping costs €9.95. Advertisement The specialist, who works for a large commercial estate agent, told The Journal Uniqlo has 'looked' at opening a Irish branch of the store, but has not yet found a building large enough. Uniqlo shops stock men's, women's and children clothing, and are generally housed in a two story commercial building. 'I know they've looked, the difficulty is the size of building, I don't know if anything has been agreed on', the expert said. The brand has over 2,500 location, including flagship stores in London, Amsterdam and Milan. The commercial estate agent said that Ireland is on the agenda as a capital European city, but it is in a competitive environment with other cities across Europe, many of which have larger populations. They highlighted that trading out of listed buildings is difficult for retailers as the structural integrity of the building must be maintained. For this reason they said Uniqlo may not find a suitable space in the General Post Office, if plans to make the GPO a cultural, retail and office hub went ahead. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal

Ex-footballer Joey Barton to pay £203k of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after libel case
Ex-footballer Joey Barton to pay £203k of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after libel case

The Journal

time3 hours ago

  • The Journal

Ex-footballer Joey Barton to pay £203k of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after libel case

FORMER FOOTBALLER JOEY Barton will pay more than £200,000 (€230,000) of Jeremy Vine's legal costs after their UK High Court libel battle, a court has heard. Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several online posts, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a 'big bike nonce' and a 'pedo defender' on X. The pair settled the claim last year after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and paid a total of £110,000 (€126,000) in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs. In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October last year, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster 'was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset' by Barton's actions, which included a 'persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information'. Today, a specialist costs court heard that Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 (€184,000) of Vine's costs from the main legal action. Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 (€49,000) arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 (€234,000) of Vine's costs following the legal action. Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May last year that Barton's posts amounted to a 'calculated and sustained attack'. Advertisement Barton, who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career, also began using '#bikenonce' on X, which led to it trending on the platform. After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were 'untrue'. He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a 'separate settlement' for claims published after legal action began. De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so. Vine said following that hearing that Barton 'needs to find himself a different hobby'. The hearing today was told that Barton agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine's legal costs earlier this month, and that Vine was claiming around £60,000 in costs for negotiating that figure. Suzanne Holmes, for Barton, said this was 'excessive' and 'disproportionate', and should be reduced. Kevin Latham, representing Vine, said Barton had 'repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation' throughout proceedings and 'has to bear the consequences of that approach'. Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store