Meta has warned it could shut down Facebook and Instagram in Europe – but will it actually happen?

As with all similar announcements from big companies, it appears mostly about leverage and lobbying, says Andrew Griffin

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Getty Images)

There was an important sentence hidden inside of Meta’s annual disclosures to the US Security and Exchange Commission. Like every other public company, the entity once called Facebook is required to list possible threats to its business, which can range from the likely and mild to the impossible but drastic.

Arriving in the dry, legalistic language that marks out such reports the suggestion was there: that Facebook and Instagram could not be around for much longer, if only in Europe.

“We are also subject to evolving laws and regulations that dictate whether, how, and under what circumstances we can transfer, process and/or receive certain data that is critical to our operations, including data shared between countries or regions in which we operate and data shared among our products and services,” the paragraph began, before going on to lay out the fact that the Privacy Shield framework that had been used to transfer data between Europe and the US has since been declared invalid.

“If a new transatlantic data transfer framework is not adopted and we are unable to continue to rely on SCCs or rely upon other alternative means of data transfers from Europe to the United States, we will likely be unable to offer a number of our most significant products and services, including Facebook and Instagram, in Europe, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”

Perhaps it was meant it as something between a warning and a threat. But many people have read it more as an exciting promise, and therein lies Mark Zuckerberg’s problem.

Companies have to give such warnings for legal reasons. But they also serve a key lobbying process, and the veiled threat is clear: if no new system is put in place, then Ireland – and the EU more generally – won’t benefit from the tax payments and other benefits that having Meta around bring.

It is akin to the kinds of statements made by all kinds of businesses when they want to ensure they keep a favourable regulatory setup. Bankers, for instance – perhaps one of the few parts of society to receive less opprobrium than Facebook – are fond of telling anyone who listens that increased taxes will lead them to have to set up elsewhere.

Both groups might be a little upset to see quite how much people want them to go. The comment section on The Independent’s story about the warning was clear: few people would admit to worrying about the idea they might be gone.

News site Mashable pulled even fewer punches. “Americans, get jealous,” its headline began, before beginning its story with the statement: “Man do Europeans have it good”.

As with all such threats, they are mostly about leverage, lobbying and liability – ensuring both investors and politicians are warned about what might happen. They are less statements of fact and more about ensuring that everyone has imagined the consequences of their actions.

The shutdown almost certainly won’t happen. But Meta might want to wonder why so many people seem overjoyed, not worried, that it might.