EU Court Orders Meta to Offer Non-Personalized Feed Options
Key Points
- Bits of Freedom secured a court order requiring Meta to offer a non‑personalized, chronological feed to EU users.
- The ruling is based on the EU Digital Services Act, which mandates greater user control over displayed content.
- Meta declined to comment, while the advocacy group warned that algorithmic feeds threaten democratic engagement.
- Spokesperson Maartje Knaap highlighted the concentration of power in a few tech giants as a risk to democracy.
- Similar concerns are rising in the United States regarding AI‑driven content and political influence.
A Dutch advocacy group, Bits of Freedom, secured a court ruling that forces Meta to give EU users the choice of a chronological, non‑profiling feed. The decision, grounded in the EU Digital Services Act, requires Meta to update its apps within weeks. Meta declined to comment, while Bits of Freedom warned that unchecked algorithmic feeds threaten democratic participation. The case underscores growing concerns about the power of tech platforms to shape public discourse, echoing similar worries in the United States about AI‑driven content and political influence.
Legal Victory for User Choice
A Dutch privacy advocacy group, Bits of Freedom, announced that a judge has ruled Meta must respect users' desire to avoid invasive, personalized feeds. The court ordered the company to modify its apps within a short timeframe so that EU users can select a chronological feed that does not rely on profiling.
Basis in the Digital Services Act
Bits of Freedom brought the case under the EU Digital Services Act, emphasizing that the legislation requires platforms to give users greater influence over the information they see. The judge agreed, stating that Meta’s design practices steer users toward feeds optimized for interest‑based advertising, which the DSA seeks to limit.
Meta’s Response and Advocacy Concerns
Meta declined to comment on the ruling. Bits of Freedom warned that without such safeguards, platforms could undermine democratic debate, especially for younger audiences who rely heavily on social media for news. Spokesperson Maartje Knaap described the need for court intervention as regrettable and highlighted the risk of a few tech billionaires controlling public perception.
Broader Implications Beyond Europe
The ruling resonates with concerns in the United States, where privacy regulations are less stringent. Advocacy groups have pointed to statements from former President Donald Trump about wanting TikTok altered to reflect a specific political stance, and to prior criticism of Meta for amplifying AI‑generated posts linked to misinformation. Recent incidents, such as an AI‑generated video posted on Trump’s Truth Social platform containing inflammatory content, illustrate the potential for AI to distort public discourse.
Future Outlook
The decision signals a growing enforcement of user‑control provisions under the Digital Services Act and reflects heightened scrutiny of algorithmic curation worldwide. As platforms grapple with the balance between personalization and public interest, the ruling may prompt further legal challenges and policy debates about the role of technology in shaping democratic participation.