NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

286 NEWSLETTER 2019 well. As per the FCO, monitoring the data processing activities of dominant companies cannot be fulfilled solely by data protection of- ficers and, therefore, need the support of the competition authorities 37 . The FCO examined whether the data policy is in line with the data protection assessments of the GDPR yet found that Facebook’s extensive processing of personal data from other corporate services, as well as Facebook Business Tools, violates European data protec- tion requirements, and is subject to the affected users’ consent pur- suant to data protection requirements 38 . It is deduced that in view of Facebook’s dominant position in the market, users give consent to Facebook’s terms and conditions only for the purpose of concluding the contract, which cannot be assessed as their free consent under the GDPR. Therefore, Facebook must no longer combine data in any com- prehensive manner unless users give their express consent. Conclusion Pursuant to the FCO’s Decision, Facebook is required to adapt and change its terms of service imposed on its users who are based in Germany and data processing conditions. Although Facebook dis- agrees with the FCO’s Decision and intends to appeal the same in order for its users in Germany to continue to benefit from Facebook services 39 , the Decision has created a significant impact in both the competition and data protection law environments. This Decision is remarkable in many aspects. On the one hand, the market definition analysis of, and the criteria used for, determining Facebook’s market power by the FCO is noteworthy in the Decision. On the other hand, and most importantly, the FCO, as a competition authority, finds itself competent to act against violations of data protection requirements where a dominant company is involved. 37 Background information, p. 7. 38 Decision, p. 10. 39 Please see. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/02/bundeskartellamt-order/ (Ac- cess date: 04.03.2019).