The Belgian Market Court handed down a decisive ruling on January 7, annulling the Belgian Data Protection Authority's validation of IAB Europe's action plan for the Transparency and Consent Framework. The judgment marks a significant vindication for IAB Europe following years of legal battles over the scope of its responsibilities within the TCF ecosystem.

The court found the APD's January 2023 decision validating the action plan to be legally flawed. IAB Europe can now reset its relationship with Belgian regulators following sustained pressure to implement sweeping changes to the digital advertising industry's primary consent management infrastructure. The ruling orders the APD to reassess the action plan with a more limited scope, reflecting the Market Court's May 2025 determination that IAB Europe acts as joint controller only for TC String processing, not for subsequent advertising activities.

"We welcome this ruling by the Market Court and its clear confirmation of IAB Europe's limited role in the TCF," stated Townsend Feehan, IAB Europe's CEO, in the organization's announcement. The judgment vindicates IAB Europe's position that the Belgian DPA's February 2022 decision went beyond appropriate boundaries for the organization's regulatory responsibilities.

The court specifically found that the APD violated IAB Europe's right to be heard. Belgian regulators adopted the validation decision without permitting IAB Europe to take position on it, according to the ruling. This procedural violation compounded substantive legal flaws in the APD's assessment of which corrective measures IAB Europe needed to implement.

IAB Europe submitted its action plan on April 1, 2022, following the APD's original finding that the organization violated GDPR Article 6 by failing to provide a legal basis for processing user preferences in TC Strings. The APD validated all points of the action plan on January 11, 2023, despite knowing that fundamental questions about TC String classification and IAB Europe's controllership role remained pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The validation decision triggered a six-month implementation deadline. IAB Europe immediately appealed and requested interim measures before the Belgian Market Court. The APD subsequently agreed to voluntarily suspend the implementation period until final resolution of the appeal, preventing forced adoption of potentially unnecessary framework modifications.

The Belgian regulator's premature validation created substantial operational uncertainty for the thousands of publishers, vendors, and Consent Management Platforms participating in the TCF. IAB Europe argued the APD was preempting CJEU responses on core questions that directly determined which corrective measures were legally required.

The CJEU delivered its preliminary ruling on March 7, 2024. The European court established that TC Strings constitute personal data when they can be linked to identifiers such as IP addresses and IAB Europe has access to such data. The CJEU also determined IAB Europe could be viewed as joint controller with TCF participants for TC String creation and use if IAB Europe actually influences processing for its own reasons.

The CJEU's most consequential finding addressed subsequent processing. IAB Europe should not necessarily be viewed as joint controller for data processing performed in pursuit of TCF purposes such as digital advertising, audience measurement, or content personalization since IAB Europe has no influence on such processing. This conclusion directly contradicted the APD's broader controllership assessment that had served as the foundation for extensive corrective orders.

The Belgian Market Court's May 2025 judgment on the original February 2022 decision formally limited IAB Europe's joint controllership responsibilities. The court annulled the APD's decision primarily due to insufficient investigation into whether TC Strings constitute personal data. On substantive grounds, the Market Court determined IAB Europe acts as joint controller regarding TC String processing but not regarding processing of personal data other than TC Strings.

These judicial determinations rendered substantial portions of the validated action plan legally unnecessary. Many proposed measures stemmed from the APD's assumption that IAB Europe exercised joint controllership over advertising and measurement activities performed by TCF participants. The January 7 ruling now requires the APD to align any new validation with the narrower controllership scope established through multiple court decisions.

The case exposed tensions inherent in the APD's enforcement approach. Belgian regulators insisted on validating the action plan before obtaining definitive legal clarity on foundational issues. This sequencing forced potential implementation of framework modifications that subsequent judicial review determined exceeded IAB Europe's actual responsibilities.

IAB Europe proceeded voluntarily with certain TCF iterations included in the action plan despite obtaining the implementation suspension. The organization launched TCF v2.2 with several significant modifications. Vendors can now only select consent as the legal basis for advertising and content personalization purposes within the TCF. The framework introduced user-friendly descriptions supplemented by real-use case illustrations to replace previous legal text. Publishers and CMPs gained specific requirements to facilitate users' withdrawal of consent.

IAB Europe also deprecated the controversial "Global scope" functionality by revoking delegation of consensu.org subdomains to CMP servers. The organization released updated compliance programs introducing differentiated enforcement procedures with enhanced auditing mechanisms. These voluntary improvements addressed technical and transparency concerns while maintaining IAB Europe's position that the broader controllership allegations were legally unfounded.

The action plan validation also involved coordination with other European data protection authorities. Article 60(10) of the GDPR requires lead authorities to inform concerned authorities about measures taken for complying with decisions. The APD consulted with data protection authorities across the European Economic Area during its assessment of the action plan, according to IAB Europe's understanding. This cross-border cooperation reflects the GDPR's mechanisms for ensuring consistent application across jurisdictions.

The Belgian DPA must now pay legal costs totaling €1,883.72 plus a €26 contribution to the Budgetary Fund, according to the ruling. This relatively modest financial consequence pales compared to the regulatory implications of requiring the APD to conduct a fresh assessment of necessary corrective measures.

The case returns to the APD with explicit instructions to limit validation scope to IAB Europe's actual joint controllership regarding TC Strings. The regulator must also provide IAB Europe with opportunity to take position before adopting any new decision, correcting the procedural violation identified by the Market Court.

Complainants who initiated proceedings against the TCF had also appealed the APD's validation decision, arguing they should have been involved in the procedure. The Market Court rejected these claims as unfounded, determining the validation procedure did not require complainant participation beyond their initial role triggering the investigation.

The Digital Services Act and GDPR now operate in parallel across European digital markets. The Belgian case illustrates persistent challenges in applying general data protection principles to specific technical frameworks that enable compliant data processing at scale. IAB Europe's position as framework manager rather than data processor created novel controllership questions that required extensive judicial interpretation.

Belgian authorities target advertising technology as a strategic enforcement priority for 2026-2028. The APD's strategic framework published in December 2025 identifies large-scale data processing operations presenting high risks to citizen rights and freedoms. Advertising technology processing, cross-border data sharing among data brokers, and large-scale profiling systems fall within this enforcement scope.

The regulatory environment continues evolving as TCF v2.3 implementation proceeds across the European advertising ecosystem. Google mandated all publishers and CMPs complete migration to TCF v2.3 by February 28, 2026. The framework addresses vendor disclosure ambiguity that created uncertainty in scenarios where it remained unclear whether vendors were properly disclosed to users.

IAB Tech Lab opened device disclosure specifications for public comment in late 2025, introducing requirements for vendors to declare cookies used outside the TCF framework. These transparency enhancements demonstrate ongoing efforts to adapt the framework as regulators and participating organizations maintain pressure for comprehensive visibility into data processing activities.

The ruling arrives as European advertising professionals grapple with agentic AI implementation alongside unresolved foundational challenges. IAB Tech Lab CEO Anthony Katsur emphasized in late December 2025 that privacy guard rails including TCF must be integrated into agentic systems before they scale. The organization works to ensure the Transparency and Consent Framework supports emerging technologies while maintaining core compliance functionality.

Marketing professionals operating in European markets must navigate this complex regulatory landscape where frameworks designed to enable compliant processing face sustained scrutiny from multiple authorities. The Belgian case establishes important precedent regarding appropriate boundaries for holding standard-setting organizations accountable for participant behavior.

Digital advertising infrastructure depends on shared technical standards that enable interoperability while respecting user privacy preferences. The TCF represents the industry's primary mechanism for capturing and transmitting consent signals across the programmatic ecosystem. Regulatory clarity about framework managers' responsibilities versus actual data processors' obligations helps maintain trust in these essential technical standards.

The January 7 ruling provides that clarity by confirming IAB Europe's role should be assessed based on its actual influence over data processing rather than expansive theories of joint controllership that encompass all participant activities. Framework specifications create conditions for compliant processing but do not themselves constitute processing of individual user data for advertising purposes.

IAB Europe faces ongoing dialogue with Belgian regulators about appropriate action plan scope following the court's instructions. The organization expressed readiness for constructive exchange on both the action plan and future TCF evolution. This reset opportunity could establish more sustainable relationships between the APD and IAB Europe after years of adversarial proceedings.

The case resolution removes substantial regulatory uncertainty that had hung over the TCF ecosystem since the APD's original February 2022 decision. Publishers, vendors, and CMPs can now operate with greater confidence that IAB Europe's limited joint controllership role is legally established through multiple judicial determinations including the CJEU's authoritative interpretation of GDPR provisions.

European advertising technology continues adapting to stringent privacy requirements while maintaining operational viability. The Belgian proceedings demonstrate both the challenges of applying broad regulatory frameworks to complex technical systems and the importance of judicial review in establishing appropriate boundaries for enforcement actions.

The ruling's practical implications extend beyond IAB Europe's specific circumstances. Other standard-setting organizations and industry groups managing technical frameworks can reference the Belgian jurisprudence when evaluating their own potential controllership exposure. Courts have now established that framework management alone does not automatically create joint controllership for all participant processing activities.

Timeline

Summary

Who: The Belgian Market Court ruled on an appeal by IAB Europe against the Belgian Data Protection Authority's validation of a corrective action plan for the Transparency and Consent Framework. IAB Europe manages the TCF, which thousands of publishers, vendors, and Consent Management Platforms use for GDPR compliance.

What: The court annulled the APD's January 2023 decision that had validated IAB Europe's action plan and triggered a six-month implementation deadline. The ruling found the validation decision legally flawed and determined the APD violated IAB Europe's right to be heard by adopting the decision without permitting the organization to take position. The court ordered the APD to reassess the action plan with narrower scope reflecting IAB Europe's limited joint controllership role.

When: The Belgian Market Court delivered its judgment on January 7, 2026, resolving an appeal filed in January 2023 against the APD's validation decision. The case traces back to the APD's original February 2, 2022 finding that IAB Europe violated GDPR Article 6.

Where: The ruling applies to IAB Europe's operations across the European Economic Area, where the TCF serves as the primary consent management framework for digital advertising. The decision comes from the Belgian Market Court, part of the Brussels Court of Appeal, reviewing decisions by the Belgian Data Protection Authority.

Why: The action plan validation required IAB Europe to implement modifications to the TCF based on assumptions about joint controllership that subsequent court rulings determined were too broad. The Court of Justice of the European Union and Belgian Market Court established that IAB Europe acts as joint controller only for TC String processing, not for subsequent advertising and measurement activities performed by TCF participants. The APD must now align its validation with this narrower controllership scope while respecting IAB Europe's procedural rights.

Share this article
The link has been copied!