Facts
Meta Platforms Ireland offers Facebook and its advertising service in Europe; an algorithm decides which ad is shown to which user. Research by Global Witness in 2022 and 2023 found that job ads for stereotypically female occupations were shown mainly to women and vice versa. A receptionist vacancy reached 96% (2022) and 97% (2023) female users, and a mechanic vacancy 96% male users in both years. In June 2023 Global Witness and the Dutch foundation Stichting Bureau Clara Wichmann asked the Institute to assess whether Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Ireland and Facebook Netherlands made prohibited distinctions on grounds of sex and age when showing job ads to users in the Netherlands.
Question
The Institute first had to decide whether it was competent, given Meta Ireland's argument that only Irish law applied, and whether the applicants could bring the request. On the merits, the questions were whether showing job ads on Facebook falls within Dutch equal treatment legislation, whether the Global Witness data raised a presumption that the ad algorithm discriminated, and whether Meta Ireland could rebut that presumption or justify any indirect distinction by a legitimate aim pursued through appropriate and necessary means.
Decision
Treating only Meta Ireland as respondent, the Institute held itself competent because non-discrimination binds all EU member states. Global Witness, an English foundation, lacked standing, and Clara Wichmann could raise only sex. Providing a platform that delivers job ads for payment is a service under equal treatment law. The research raised a presumption that Meta did not rebut: the algorithm learns from users' clicks, Meta acknowledged that sex can be a data point, and unmonitored the system can reinforce stereotypes. Serving advertisers and users was a legitimate aim and the algorithm an appropriate means, but not a necessary one, since Meta could be expected to monitor and counter stereotyping and had not shown that it did.
Why it matters
The Institute applied indirect discrimination rules to an ad delivery system with no explicit gender targeting, using outcome data from external testing to shift the burden of proof to the platform. It placed the duty to monitor and correct the effects of a learning algorithm on the company that runs it. The Institute describes its decisions on individual discrimination complaints as non-binding, and no court ruling on the same complaint was found.
Related stages
Dossiers 2023-0425, 2023-0426 and 2023-0270; the hearing took place on 30 May 2024. The request also covered age, which was not examined because Clara Wichmann could raise only sex. For algorithmic discrimination in work allocation and hiring, see deliveroo-rider-ranking-bologna and mobley-v-workday.
Related articles on this site
- Automated Discrimination: The Hidden Risks of AI in Human Resources
- Algorithmic Discrimination in HR: The Ethical and Legal Minefield in Türkiye and the Middle East
- Which EU AI Act risk tier are you in?
- No Firing by Algorithm Alone: California's New Workplace AI Laws and What They Mean for Employers Abroad