Lawsuit Accuses Meta of Profiting From Widespread Fraud On Its Platforms Ben Lennett summarizes lawsuit from CFA that alleges Meta enabled scam ads and profited as consumers lost $2.7B.

A new lawsuit from the Consumer Federation of America alleges Meta violated DC’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act by misleading users about platform safety while scam ads proliferated, as consumers lost billions to fraud on social media. Ben Lennett highlights key points from the complaint.

Did I just argue with a joke? Part of a Bluesky educational series

I never want to work anywhere that does any of this creepy stuff. It should be illegal.

Agreed. One would hope that the contents of the Council's sanctions are justiciable, otherwise it could easily be pointed to by Solange-happy national courts as a reason to deny/weaken primacy.

Yet Lenaerts claims the CJEU doesn't have a political questions doctrine!

(Which case are you referring to here? T-715/19?)

That's what I meant by "where the Court is barred from weighing on the substance".

The answer to the latter is nuclear retaliation (or, at the very best, non-recognition) by national courts. But it would be fun to have an EU-level Bosnia and Hercegovina style 'High Representative'!

authoritatively tell it that it got it wrong. I think I recall one of the articles on the topic making a similar point but I can't find it now. 😕

Perhaps. It lets the Council interpret it on its own in Article 7 proceedings where the Court is barred from weighing on the substance. So the Council, in principle, cannot just engage in arbitrary moral or political judgement but must ground its actions in Article 2 TEU. But there's also no one to

That's also my takeaway, that and it seems like the CJEU was bothered that this was an artificial case/controversy. But I'm not in a good position to judge how relevant this case law is many decades later, with all the various treaty changes and increased power of the court.

Oh, I agree completely. Under the court's formulation of the threshold, it does not make much sense. That's why I much prefer the cleaner 'negation' approach proposed by the AG. Shame they didn't follow her on this.

No apparent competence was conferred to the EU to prevent values regression (I'm not aware of Republikka being limited to the scope of Union law) or to put limits on acquisition of national citizenship, yet that has not stopped the court.

But competences are about the ability of the EU to act in a certain policy area and are separate from the scope of Union law (other obligations arising from treaty provisions). Or am I misunderstanding this/you?

I think by setting this threshold high, the court was placating the Member States but it kinda ignores that Article 7 adds the "serious and persistent" on top of Article 2 TEU's threshold for application. If Article 2 TEU effectively already contains it, why bother repeating that?

I think the limitation is significant, especially since the AG proposed a (to my mind, lower) threshold of negation: bsky.app/profile/gate...

There are some tiny differences with Article 7: doesn't have to be persistent but somehow also has to be "particularly serious" (as opposed to just serious?)

Imagine this being your legacy LOL

Difference btw the 2 options seem to be:
(i) the scope of application with Art 7(2) TEU also available for situations/breaches falling outside the scope of EU law and
(ii) non-persistent (but manifest/particularly serious) breaches may be caught by the new Art 2 TEU (infringement) avenue.

SORKIN: There's a whole number of very large companies, including Apple and Amazon, that have not sought reimbursements yet for the tariffs. From what I understand, part of the reason is they're worried about offending you.


TRUMP: I think it's brilliant. They got to know me very well. I'm honored.

I'll never get over how easy it was for Scott Galloway to just go out and purchase a role as a tech and masculinity expert

now he's everywhere, constantly, and you couldn't avoid him if you wanted to

The Court of Appeal rules on standard of consent required for profiling and direct marketing under the UK GDPR. www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u...

Oh, my bad, I thought "the court disagrees" was its own meme

Genuinely chuckled when reading this but what is that meme? I've tried Googling for it and haven't come across anything.

i know there’s that meme that law people are always like “omg mic drop” and the actual text is just “the court disagrees” this would be the equivalent of SCOTUS severely limiting the entire concept of states rights by saying pride parades are a national shared value

It's not a full bsky experience until your post has been liked or commented on by at least one "🔞 minors DNI" furry artist account with a stream full of posts marked as "adult content" that may be anything from a mildly suggestive portrait to full-on depictions of sexual intercourse.

Glancingly, this looks like the most legally interesting part of this judgment - can you, in light of this judgment, invoke Art 2 TEU in a self-standing manner only after you assigned almost all the present breaches to other bits of EU law and found yourself out of options to deal with a breach?

bsky.app/profile/gate...

Or if Commission has the power to bring infringement cases when the Article 2 TEU infringement (also) deals with provisions otherwise out of scope of Union law.

C-647/18 was a referral from a 🇧🇬 court re Article 2 TEU but the CJEU dismissed the case as manifestly inadmissible for other reasons.

Moreover, could the systemic breaches of values that are otherwise (at least for the most part) not in scope of EU law be used to establish a systemic breach triggering the application of Article 2? I don't see why not.

Even in this case, it does not seem the infringement deals with the remnants of Rule 7: bsky.app/profile/gate...

(Magyar will likely have them repealed just the same of course.)

in Article 51(1) of the Charter being rendered meaningless.

Should probably wait for the official English translation but I don't see this as closing the door on reverse Solange.