We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AS THE GOVERNMENT claims the court decision today in favour of Ireland and Apple as a win, opposition politicians and business groups have questioned what it means for transparency and fairness in the country’s tax system.
The General Court of the European Union ruled in favour of Ireland and Apple in their appeal against the European Commission’s finding that the country breached state aid rules in its dealings with the multinational.
The European Commission previously ordered the US company to hand back €13 billion in unpaid tax and over €1 billion in interest payments to the Irish government.
The Department of Finance today said the decision showed there had been “no special treatment” for the tech giant. Speaking to RTÉ’s Today with Sarah McInerney, junior minister and Fine Gael TD Colm Brophy also welcomed the decision which he said was a vindication of the Irish government’s position.
“I think that is a very very welcome decision in terms of the clarity it should give right across the board for all businesses in our country paying taxes and also the vindication that the government was correct in the position that it took.”
Charlie Flanagan / Twitter
Charlie Flanagan / Twitter / Twitter
However Sinn Féin’s finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty said today is “a bad day for the taxpayer”.
“The Department of Finance may be thinking that this is a good day for themselves. Morally, this is a terrible day, the fact that the richest company in the world was able to generate over €100 billion of profits and not pay tax anywhere in the world on those profits despite the fact that the way the companies are incorporated here in Ireland.”
He rejected the suggestion that if the government had lost the case today it would have struck a blow to the sovereignty of Irish states and discourage foreign direct investment in Ireland.
“The 12.5% [corporation tax] rate isn’t at question here and it’s not about the sovereignty of the Irish tax code that’s at question here. This is about State aid that was before the courts, and indeed the European Commission in the past has ruled against Ireland as a result of State aid and we just sucked it up and dealt with it we didn’t appeal it.
“Every year when we deal with the Finance Bill we need approval in terms of State aid for a number of our tax codes, for example when we bring in taxes that support farmers, it needs State aid approval. So this is a common thing that’s going back for many, many years.”
Doherty said it is “unacceptable” that small and medium companies are being asked to pay 12.5% tax on their profits when the wealthiest country in the world was not.
“Remember what’s at the core here and what Colm Brophy and others are now suggesting that the law is that Apple’s taxation rate was 0.005%,” he said.
“That means that for every €1 million of profits that they made, the law in Ireland allowed them to pay €50 of tax. I’m sure that for many corner shops, many hairdressers, many other businesses who are paying tax at the appropriate rate that will be a red rag to them that it was allowed.”
People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett said the government should “hang their heads in shame for aiding and abetting Apple’s tax dodging”. He accused the government of having “thrown away” €13 billion which is needed to help the economy to bounce back.
“That money, which is so desperately needed, could have been put to use in mitigating the Covid-19 crisis which is having such a massive impact on our economy and society,” he said.
“The question should be put to the Green Party TDs if they are happy to stand over a regime that looks to prop up the tax avoidance strategies of some of the wealthiest companies in the world, thus denying our public services like hospitals, schools and infrastructure from desperately needed revenue.”
Ibec, the group that represents Irish business has noted the outcome of today’s proceedings. Its CEO Danny McCoy said:
We want Ireland to be the best place in the world as a business location. As such, it is crucial for all businesses, multinational and indigenous, that Ireland’s tax system is, and is seen to be, transparent and equitable.
Also speaking to RTÉ, Green Party TD Neasa Hourigan said the decision is a blow to the EU Commission in terms of its development of tax policy and is likely to be appealed to the European Court of Justice. She said this was “quite a technical case” and the Commission had not been able to “deliver the burden of proof”.
Hourigan said that in general the government should be pursuing corporations to ensure they are paying “their fair share”.
She pointed out that the State has already spent millions on legal fees in this case. “I think we do need to start to think about whether the best interests of Apple are fully aligned with the best interests of the State,” she said.
Vice President of the European Commission Margrethe Vestager said the judgement will now be carefully studied as the Commission reflects on possible next steps.
She said the Commission “fully stands behind the objective that all companies should pay their fair share of tax”.
“If member states give certain multinational companies tax advantages not available to their rivals, this harms fair competition in the EU. It also deprives the public purse and citizens of funds for much needed investments – the need for which is even more acute during times of crisis.”
Corporate tax avoidance
Following the ruling, Oxfam called on the Irish government to “urgently address continued and extreme corporate tax avoidance”.
A recent Oxfam review of the EU Tax Haven List showed that royalty payments sent out of Ireland amounted to more than are sent out of the rest of the EU combined.
“These repeated cases of tax avoidance point to the need for more fundamental tax reforms at EU and global level,” said Michael McCarthy Flynn, Oxfam Ireland’s senior policy and research coordinator.
“These include a digital service tax, a minimum effective tax rate, effective measures against tax havens and new rules that require companies to disclose where they generate their profits and where they pay their taxes, for each country they operate in. This would give governments and civil society the ability to hold companies to account.”
“In the wake of COVID-19 and the devastating economic fallout already being felt, governments must not continue to spurn the chance to raise vital revenue in corporate tax income for the benefit of their citizens,” he said.
“Corporate tax avoidance costs governments hundreds of billions of euros every year – money that could be used to deliver essential services, such as health and child care, which are even more critical in the wake of the global pandemic.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What we receive in employment and FDI from these companies is worth far more to our economy than 13 billion. Hard to imagine I know!
@David: They’re not going to up sticks just because they have to pay tax they owe.
@David:
We got 9 billion in Corporate tax last year and were on course for even more in 2020 pre Covid.
Opposition arguing that our own Revenue Commissioners were liars and cheats.
Then pretending that Apple wouldn’t have appealed this themselves.
Never seen so much egg on politicians faces in my life.
@Niall Byrne:
I’ve news for you Niall – they don’t owe it.
You see there was a judgement in this today.
Vesteger massively overstepped back in 2015 and tried to apply modern day interpretations and concepts to 1990s legislation respectively.
Rightly been thrown out.
@Niall Byrne: don’t be sure, blue chips companies will go to jurisdictions where there is least tax. Employment and FDI is worth more to the economy, as the opening contributor asserts.
@Niall Byrne: why is it we all pay a bank debt that wasn’t ours
@Niall Byrne: of course they would.
@Niall Byrne: why wouldn’t they. The day the looney left get anywhere near our government will be the day they start packing the bags.
@David: that is not the point here, they should be liable for some tax, if every company that invests here paid €50 tax on the 1 million profits, what state would things be in then. We do need their jobs and their investment just not at any cost…
@David: imagine if Ireland had sided with EU. There would be a lot of jobs in jeopardy today for not supporting one of our largest employers, who invested in Ireland long before the tech boom.
@Niall Byrne: this is back when 13 billion was considered a lot of money lol..
@Matthew Beattie: But they do pay tax just at a very favourable rate. If it wasn’t so, I’m sure they would have no problem in jumping ship. I’m not saying its right but our low corporation tax rates are the reason they are here. I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it.
@Brendan Walsh: It’s a retroactive payment and would not affect future performance – don’t be so alarmist.
@David: favourable rate? – 50€ for every €1m profit… or 0.001%, our rate is 12.5%
@Seamus McLaughlin: So you are suggesting we drop our corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 0.005% to keep them here?
@David: don’t be trying to talk the truth to the Shinnors
@Niall Byrne: read the judgement: they don’t owe it: that is literally the point of the court case.
@Niall Byrne: You mean they don’t owe? That was the court ruling…
@Niall Byrne: not alarmist. It’s how business works. Facebook were locating elsewhere in Europe until Irish gov showed some love. Apple would have moved in a minute if the Irish gov had wrongly sided with EU and lost the case. Multinationals have choice.
@Brinster: i’d hold fire for the moment,this judgement is going to be appealed to the highest court in the EU
@talksense: what are shinnors?
@Brendan Walsh: Why would Apple leave Ireland because the EU forced them to pay 13bn? Makes no sense. Nowhere else in EU would give them a better deal and it’s a retroactive decision – would not have affected how they do business going forward and would be irrational and un-businesslike for them to leave Ireland in a fit of pique over this.
@Niall Byrne: So is your opinion that Ireland were right to side with Apple, but they should have lost? Because for Ireland to side with the EU would have been “un-buisnesslike”, as you say, and then the rational business decision for Apple would be to look elsewhere to set up. After all Ireland would have essentially stabbed them in the back at the first opportunity, had they sided with the EU, regardless of the result.
@NotMyIreland: Why would Apple spend millions uprooting when they would still have to pay the 13bn anyway? To get “revenge” on Ireland? What is rational about that? Ireland should not have been facilitating these practices in the first place. I get that Ireland had backed itself into a corner to some extent but whether it accepted the EU’s decision or fought it would not have affected Apple’s ongoing business case for staying in Ireland either way. Those decisions were made by a previous administration and a week is a long time in politics and even longer in business. 13bn is small potatoes to Apple anyway. The idea that they would nurse a vendetta against Ireland and punish the country collectively as a result by leaving or that other companies would flood out of the country because of this is alarmist nonsense. 12.5% is still more attractive than most other destinations.
@Niall Byrne: I seem to recall them moving their West of Ireland data center out of Ireland due to the NIMBYS. There’s plenty of countries ready to give a sweetheart deal to one of the most iconic tech brands in the world.
@Brendan Walsh: Different issue entirely.
@Niall Byrne: But they might if we make them pay tax that they don’t owe. This wasn’t our money to tax, it wasnt made generated or sold in Ireland.
@Eoghan Ó Braonáin: “We” would not be making them do anything. It would be the EU. So why would they leave Ireland? They wouldn’t have been getting the 13bn back one way or another. The idea that they and other companies might flee is just government spin deflecting from the fact we shouldn’t have been setting up these unethical scams anyway.
@David: SMEs,many which are now under considerable pressure re coronavirus pandemic,account for 99.8% of all businesses and employ 68% of workers.
MNAs employ 325,623 workers.
Last November Gvernment warned that up to €6Bn of corporate tax may be temporary.
Last December IFAC warned Government re over reliance on corporation taxes.EU Commission has said the same as did Central Bank.
@Niall Byrne: l’m glad you’re not in charge with corporate affairs. The tax is to do with application of correct Irish taxes and no special state aid. Apple pay taxes inline with Irish taxation rules which the GCEU annull the European Commission ruling.
@Seamus McLaughlin: They got away with it on a technicality, many criminals do, so well done to them i guess, but they should never have been facilitating such scams in the first place. Ireland’s reputation has been damaged abroad by accusations we are a tax haven. It’s put us in the crosshairs of international regulators and increased pressure for European tax harmonisation, so in the long run it has been totally counter-productive. If you think it’s so clever why have all these loopholes since been closed?
@Niall Byrne: they probably would. The low tax they pay is the primary reason they’re here in the first place.
@Adrian White: “They probably would.” Why? What other European country are they going to go to that will magically make that 13bn bill disappear? This isn’t about Ireland’s 12.5% corporation tax rate and the fact so many people think it is shows how effective the government propaganda has been. 12.5% is the lowest in the eurozone – the problem was they weren’t even paying that.
@Niall Byrne: no but they will when the ruling means that Irelands tax system must be changed
@thomas patrick: The rules have already been changed to close this loophole.
Ah Pearse, I’m a fan of your work but your wrong here. You call out lads which is great but we wouldn’t see much of that €14b after it was shared around Europe. And then the backlash of American companies heading home if we changed our tax system.
@Peter O Donnell:
Correct.
Vesteger massively overstepped back in 2015 and tried to apply modern day interpretations and concepts to 1990s legislation respectively.
Rightly been thrown out.
@Peter O Donnell: no one said anything about changing the tax system, they just need to pay the 12.5% that is already in place
@Matthew Beattie:
They do.
On all Irish profits.
That’s the law.
@Brinster: They don’t if they say it’s Research and Development only 5%.
@Peter O Donnell: No Apple payment would have been forgone corporate tax, there would have been no allocation to other countries – corporate taxes are ring fenced to the national exchequer under European law.
To be clear, France et al are making noises that they believe that there should in future be a localised allocation of corporate tax based on where the digital service is consumed but such a digital tax doesn’t exist, it’s highly unlikely it will exist in the future and it could not be applied retrospectively.
@Matthew Beattie: tax credits and deductions are also “already in place” and corporations are legally entitled to exploit them.
@Matthew Beattie: is it so hard to understand that the company’s profits were not liable to Irish tax.
In fact they didn’t have any profit to tax in Ireland and profits were reduced to nearly zero in Ireland because of charges imposed by their parent company.
@Peter O Donnell: Wrong Peter. This is corporation tax that was owed. We wouldn’t be sharing that.
@Ruairi Colton: Sorry Ruairi…incorrect, if Ireland and Apple had lost the case, the money in the escrow account would have been shared amongst all the countries that had lost tax revenue on the sales of apple products within their jurisdictions
SF using the morality argument ..just when you think you’ve heard it all…
@Canyon: So you joined twitter in March 2020 and have 0 followers and follow 0 accounts. Bot uncovered…
@Canyon:
Ridiculous argument.
Apple were always going to appeal this themselves.
Utter lie to say that this was Ireland throwing money away.
But then that’s all SF ever have.
@LangerDan: or he set up an account to comment on the Journal.
Just like anyone with half a brain would do!
@LangerDan: sad that you judge an argument by the amount of lack of twitter followers. I could care less how many I have. Doesn’t make my comment any more or less worthy. The Donald has millions of followers…us he so much more correct because of that?
@LangerDan: btw you have a whole 6 followers after being on twitter for 9 years….now that is sad.
@LangerDan: The bot is correct though.
@Brinster: it’s really difficult for SF, especially after the recent memorial to the northern bank robbery planner that SF elite worshipped, but YOU DO NOT TAKE THINGS BELONGING TO OTHER PEOPLE.
Basically the Court has ruled Ireland and Apple acted legally. Vestager and the Commission are political and she made a decision which makes her look good in the eyes of many but it was a political decision. The court has given a legal decision.
@Canyon:
Always found it really interesting that the ruling originally came out at the exact time that Claude Juncker needed political cover for his role in creating a tax haven in Luxembourg…
@Canyon: yep.
also Apple also appealed it, not just Ireland
Doherty as the SFs shadow finance minister should have a lot more sense than this. They are trying to present themselves as a brilliant opposition but not realising the importance of this ruling on Ireland’s Tax code is a terrible look for them.
The problem I have always had with SF was that their finance ideas were not practical and were promises that they knew they wouldn’t have to keep. With them as the leading opposition I hoped they’d take the more practical approach to our finances but evidently not.
Also any company in Ireland would be able to benefit through the various avenues that Apple and other Big firms do, but it’s not financially feasible for the small to medium firms to even attempt it.
@Big Smokey: sounds byte politics as usual. Not a cent of that money would benefit the Irish tax payer regardless of the decision.
Typical political rubbish appealing to the lowest common denominator. Trump would be proud.
The man doesn’t have a clue. He say in the past we accepted judgments against us and uses this as an argument.
Maybe in the other judgments we realised we were wrong and accepted that fact.
In this case the Commission is wrong and it should be fought to the very end!
@Joe: Leave the poor man alone, didn’t himself and Paul sort out Greese’s problems!
It goes to show that Pearse & Richard bad boy Barrett haven’t a clue about business
Populist nonsense. Even if Ireland had accepted this – The money would have been (and may yet be) paid out to our neighbours in Europe.
Despite having high taxes for employees, ridiculous rent, shoddy infrastructure and third world public transport, Ireland has received more foreign investment (80BN USD in 2016 alone) than any other country and this is money that feeds into the entire economy. A significant factor in this is that companies can optimise their tax. Why throw that away.
If we were to take any tax from Apple, multinational corporations would pack up their bags and be gone. 350,000 Jobs GONE!
They are providing substantial employment to this country when we need it
@Are You For Real: All MNC’s need to pay corporation tax @ 12.5% minimum. R&D tax @ 5% should be scrapped and any other tax avoidance loophole!
@Daniel Kelly: The R&D tax stops companies from putting one table in a room with an account and calling it an “office”. As a result, more R&D is happening in Ireland and our best and brightest are staying as opposed to moving to the states, Canada etc. Would you prefer if all of our graduates emigrated again?
@Daniel Kelly: they do. If they have profits. You can’t tax 0.
@Gerard Anthony McBride: On reality it is tax avoidance. I seen a company put the words Research and Development up in the IFSC within 2 weeks of the government advertising the then new tax rate. Did they take on more staff or just pay lower tax?
@Daniel Kelly: It has to be R&D work to avail of this, MNCs are audited annually to ensure that the work they’re claiming as R&D actually falls into that category.
@Are You For Real: What multinationals have left Ireland since certain tax loopholes closed in Ireland, including measures by Paschal Donohue in 2018??
@Nuala Mc Namara: Also new OECD rules on digital taxes coming in this year!
Is Boyd Barrett really that thick or does he just know that PBP supporters won’t understand the ruling. Just so you know Richard the €13bn was never coming our way. Only tax Barrett never complains about is the threshold and rate on gift / inheritance tax. Might be because of of mummy and daddy’s big house in Glenageary!!
‘Morally, this was a terrible day,’ according to Doherty.
Right up there with the La Mon bombing and the killing of children and old people in Mullaghmore , I suppose.
@John Mulligan: and Mr Doherty was involved in those crimes how exactly? Grow up.
@Tony Harris: he attended a show funeral last week on the orders of the gang that carried out those killings.
If Pearse Doherty is ever to see himself as a Finance Minister he has alot of learning still to do. He’s formidable in his work against the Insurance industry. If he has a financial brain working, which I think he does he will know behind it all that this is absolutely a correct decision.
@Paul Potts: you’re assuming that he is allowed to depart from the party line.
IBEC did not question it. IBEC welcomes it as it provides transparency.
Every person employed by Apple , Google, Intel , Yahoo etc etc etc should be grateful at this ruling , cos they could very well be unemployed if it was the opposite and what Pearse claims . The so called opposition are just using the €13billion figure to have the people of our good land think we are out of pocket , and the last government were wrong to fight the ruling . I wonder what the shinners would be saying if we as a country lost this ruling and had to totally change the way we do business with multinational groups and possibly put thousands out of work who all contribute to the country in income tax
@Bossman Ben: the shinners don’t care about that. Putting lots of people out if work suits their agenda; they do much better as a party when unemployment is high.
I am fed up hearing from P Doherty . Every day he is hectoring on some issue. Even at the Funeral in N I he couldn’t help himself to get his photo behind the boys and the hearse . He is gagging to get into power and appears to be in a hurry. The Government have a very tough job ahead and need everyone’s help to succeed. Please give them a chance. You will get yours in a few years
This was a no win. It was probably better to not take the money, for the sake of jobs and setting a precendent.
@Liam Byrne: Apple would have taken the case against the Commission by themselves and the money would still not be ours….at no stage did the State have the opportunity to just “take the money”.
Not as bad as it would be if Sinn Fein we’re running the show.
Pierce.
Its either stupidly or populast propaganda. We never had this money to throw away.
Good news story
It’s legal for apple to pay 0.005% of tax
@chihuahua: Just as legal as it is for Larry —-The farmer’s friend!
@chihuahua: .005% of what exactly?
@chihuahua:
That minuscule % was effective corporation tax rate on Irish Profits generated before a final, final, final charge was levied via Apple HQ instructions, against those Irish Profits for the individual yrs in question.
And that final, final, final charge was for Patent use (aka Intellectual Properties or IP )
So what happened was an invoice was issued from Apple IP Division for a sum to cover IP Charge (ireland you’ve used our IP in generating all those sales, profits in Europe, so we’re going to charge you a fat fee in return)
Pre 2014, this was the practice. Apple IP was based in a Caribbean tax haven and an arbitrary sum was agreed for that IP Invoice across to Ireland (usually represented 90% of Irish profits, leaving 10% as taxable Irish Profits)
Different rules now!
So our taxation system is built on big companies making up their own rules of what tax they will pay. If apple decide tomorrow that they won’t pay any tax our govt would still welcome them with open arms. A few thousand jobs are kept to facilitate this carry on. With apple being one of the biggest companies in the world they should be setting an example for the rest and pay their proper tax. I am amazed at the amount of people on here who are advocating for us to agree with this wrong doing. By the way I am not saying we should get the money either as I don’t really understand the complexity of it all. I am saying wrong doing should not be rewarded.
@Derek Poutch: Actually it’s the complete opposite. Our taxation system is enacted by law, the European commission stated that we contravened the law to provide Apple favourable treatment but the Court of Justice ruling confirms that the Commission ruling was at variance with the law and Apple/Ireland acted correctly in accordance with the law.
@Derek Poutch: Jesus. You couldn’t have misunderstood any more. The whole point of the case was that the Revenue Commissioners told Apple how they (the RC) interpreted the law and how they would apply it.
@Derek Poutch: good grief. The court has pronounced it’s legal, ergo ‘not wrong’. There is not ‘wrong’ to be rewarded.
@John Moylan: Seriously John Joe and Fintan I couldn’t give a fiddler’s about the “law” or the ” revenue” , I am asking is do you think it is morally right what our govt has done yes or no?
Every person employed by Apple , Google, Intel , Yahoo etc etc etc should be grateful at this ruling , cos they could very well be unemployed if it was the opposite and what Pearse claims . The so called opposition are just using the €13billion figure to have the people of our good land think we are out of pocket , and the last government were wrong to fight the ruling . I wonder what the shinners would be saying if we as a country lost this ruling and had to totally change the way we do business with multinational groups and possibly put thousands out of work who all contribute to the country in income tax
It’s a ruling in the court of European Law, not the brinks robery or bank robberys that SF/IRA think is fine.
A couple of years ago Leo Varadkar was in Silicon Valley for a West Coast of America trade tour.
Can people remember his visit to Apple? He was basically left outside main building door while the Apple CEO Tim Cooke finished his lunch. Many commentators said this was a way of putting him back in his place, or should I say the country for our delay in the planning approval of the data centre in Athenry.
It people are naive enough to believe these large Multinationals are here for our good they are very much mistaken. They are here because of our tax laws. Our society would be in great trouble if they were to leave, and believe me they would leave in a heartbeat if they got a better deal elsewhere. And gone with them would be a mass of highly paid employment opportunities.
Sure it’s great if you have a bit of apple stock in your financial portfolio. Quids in. Corporations are people too don’t ya know. 13 billion towards the next individual centred device, I am going to say apple full face mask with built in augmented reality headset. Can’t wait to pay €2 grand for that and €1500 for the filters.
Its still some wish fulfillment to imagine what we could have done with the billions. The COVID crisis would be solved! Idealism instead of realism I know but just imagine!
@Paul Cunningham: we are borrowing as a country at a negative interest rate so this money wouldn’t have changed anything in the slightest.
@Big Smokey: your trying to explain to people who don’t want to understand. Doherty knows well his policies make no sense but the SF mob want to believe that we can have everything and someone else will pay for it.
@Big Smokey: again, idealism not realism. I know there was more to it than just ‘they owe us €13 billion’.
@Paul Cunningham: It wouldn’t even cover the fiasco that is the childrens hospital!!!!
Now that we can see revenue-collecting as a farce, it is wise for anyone paying tax to avoid doing so. It’s just a scam.
The deflection comments on here criticizing Pearse Doherty are childish!
I’m sure Mr. Doherty is aware and knows that we would have only received a fraction of that €13Bn . And would face huge legal Bill’s.
That however wouldn’t play well with Sinn Feigns voter base. Hence the bluster.
@David Harold: I wonder what are the costs Ireland have been ordered to pay re Case T-892/16 in this Judgement re No 4 ?
When a small business is caught out it’s called a tax cheat and there’s no mention of ‘giving employment’ and all the rest of the spin that the defenders of the indefensible are coming out with for Apple.
SF ignorance to the fore yet again. FDI is key to our success and tampering with the tax system would be a disaster. Yet again SF have a another victim class to represent. They must think that we are all pretty stupid to listen to their daily outrage on behalf of various sectors. They really have little joined up thinking and no thought of how (if in power) they might actually lead and govern.
SF are economic hooligans
For the sake of our own prosperity & for tax justice, Ireland now needs to negotiate an EU minimum enforced Corporation Tax Rate. It is a pity to see SF Pearse Doherty still defend ‘sovereignty’ and the 12.5% – the way to get sovereignty over multinational corporations is through EU collective action.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say