London, November 24
The Competition Appeal Tribunal returned on Monday for another intensive case management conference in Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta Platforms Inc., with the panel presided over by Hodge Malek KC once again taking a hands-on role in steering the sprawling disclosure process in the £3bn data-abuse collective action against Meta.
This collective action accuses Meta of abusing its dominance by imposing an “unfair bargain” on UK Facebook users: access to Facebook required consenting to Meta obtaining and exploiting vast quantities of off-Facebook personal data—data gathered from Instagram, WhatsApp, and millions of third-party websites and apps. Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen claims this amounted to an unfair price in data, extracted on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no payment or value returned to users.
Within minutes of the hearing opening, Justice Malek signalled his intention to keep the advocacy broad-based, telling the bar that the Tribunal “would like to hear from Junior Counsel” on specific disclosure issues – junior members will take the lead on search terms and custodians.
Tribunal orders ‘halfway house’ RFI answer
The claimant seeks clarity on when Meta first began collecting off-Facebook data—a core factual plank in both the abuse theory and the framing of disclosure. Meta’s position shifted in a 20 November letter, indicating off-Facebook collection may date back to 2010, not 2013 as previously asserted.
The Judge described this as “actually quite an important point”, noting its impact on temporal scope, custodians, and expert evidence.
He ultimately ordered Meta to provide a provisional answer within 28 days, verified by a statement of truth, but expressly non-binding and open to revision after disclosure.
“There should be an answer… but not one cast in stone. A rough and ready answer in 28 days.”
The final deadline was adjusted to 12 January 2026 to accommodate the holiday period.
Actively managed disclosure: the Judge keeps a tight grip
Throughout both morning sessions, Justice Malek emphasised proportionality, duplication avoidance, and the need to prevent disclosure from spiralling. He indicated firmly that the Tribunal expected technology-assisted review to be deployed sensibly and cost-effectively:
“Technology is a curse and a blessing… it can be extremely helpful if done properly.”
This collective action accuses Meta of abusing its dominance by imposing an “unfair bargain” on UK Facebook users: access to Facebook required consenting to Meta obtaining and exploiting vast quantities of off-Facebook personal data—data gathered from Instagram, WhatsApp, and millions of third-party websites and apps. Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen claims this amounted to an unfair price in data, extracted on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no payment or value returned to users.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal initially refused certification in 2023, calling for a “root-and-branch” reworking of the damages methodology. A substantially revised claim was then certified in 2024, and Meta’s appeal failed before the Court of Appeal. The case has since moved through complex disclosure management and procedural disputes, with the Tribunal most recently allowing an additional ‘user damages’ theory based on loss of control over personal data. Trial is listed for late 2027, making this one of the most significant UK competition and data-rights cases against a major tech platform.
Major clash: documents from other proceedings – especially DMA cases
The second half of the hearing turned to the most contentious issue of the day: whether Meta must disclose materials from other regulatory or litigation proceedings, including several under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Meta argued that the DMA—being a forward-looking regulatory instrument rather than a competition law framework—should not be used opportunistically as a source of disclosure in a competition damages claim.
Singla KC told the Tribunal the DMA is “a fundamentally different regime” and that requiring DMA documents would effectively saddle Meta with an unprecedented double disclosure burden.
He called the claimant’s original request (which sought documents from 15 different proceedings) “completely mad” before acknowledging that the claimant had since narrowed the list.
Justice Malek made clear he sees at least some DMA material as relevant, particularly where it touches on off-Facebook data collection, the combination of cross-platform personal data, and the emerging industry practice around consent-or-pay models.
He said that, in principle, he was “satisfied the DMA is relevant”, but emphasised proportionality and reserved final judgment until hearing full submissions.
Meta warns disclosure could ‘spiral out of control’
Meta disclosed that even before any DMA or external-proceedings documents are added, it faces 1.3 million initial email/work-chat hits, extensive non-custodial repositories and 20 years of requested temporal scope.
Mr Singla said the claimant’s additional requests risked making the process “extraordinary and unprecedented” and that the de novo exercise itself would cost “millions”.
By late morning, it was clear the proceedings were running behind schedule. Justice Malek emphasised that these are important, high-consequence decisions and must be taken carefully, not rushed.
The CMC continues this afternoon and on Wednesday.
The Class Representative was represented by Sarah Ford KC (Brick Court), instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.
Meta was represented by Tony Singla KC (Brick Court), instruced by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP.
The case is 1433/7/7/22 Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen v Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others in the CAT.
