The Dutch Institute for Human Rights established that Meta’s advertising algorithm discriminated on the basis of gender when displaying job advertisements to users, and also found that the company had failed to meet its duty of care toward Dutch users. The decision, issued in 2025, is based on the Dutch Constitution and the Equal Treatment Act, while noting that data processing under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be fair and must not result in discrimination.
The decision followed research conducted by Global Witness, after which the Dutch women’s rights organization Bureau Clara Wichmann took legal action against Facebook’s former job advertising system. According to Anadolu Agency’s report citing lawyer Berty Bannor, the experiment showed that advertisements neutral in their images and wording, published through Facebook, began after about a week to be displayed differently depending on users’ gender.
How did the bias appear in the advertisements?
Jobs stereotypically associated with men, such as electrician and repair work, were shown more frequently to men, while education and care-related jobs, such as teaching and hairdressing, appeared more frequently to women. Bannor believes this pattern indicates the presence of a gender element within the advertising distribution mechanism, rather than an objective difference in users’ suitability for these jobs.
Similar tests were conducted in the Netherlands and France and reached comparable results. According to the organization, this approach could exclude certain groups from job opportunities that match their interests or goals, thereby reinforcing existing inequality in the labor market and limiting equal opportunities.
What changes in practice?
During the proceedings, Meta acknowledged that its algorithm uses data such as age, interests, location, and gender to determine which advertisements are shown to each user. Targeting people with the advertisements they are most likely to click may appear commercially logical, but it can turn user profiles into stereotypes that predetermine what is presumed to suit them.
The Dutch Institute did not find evidence of age-based discrimination in the case, although the research observed differences in the advertisements’ reach among age groups. Bannor also said that the organization suspects that immigrant background, race, or ethnicity could have an effect, but the available research findings did not establish these factors in the job advertising system at issue in the decision.
Location and indirect discrimination
The use of geographic location can produce discriminatory results indirectly, because certain social and economic groups may be concentrated in specific neighborhoods. In this case, the area where a user lives could be linked to the pattern of advertisements they receive, even without explicitly using race or background in targeting.
The case places advertising algorithms before a legal test that goes beyond targeting accuracy and click-through rates. The Dutch decision found that a major technology company is also subject to equality rules and a duty of care, not only to rules governing platform operation or data protection.
A broader European and American context
In France, the Défenseur des Droits decided at the end of 2025 that Meta’s algorithms had engaged in unlawful discrimination and gave the company three months to address the problem. In the United States, settlements in civil rights lawsuits led to Facebook being barred from using age, gender, and ZIP code to target housing, employment, and credit advertisements, before the changes were expanded to Canada and the European Union. The scope of application of these changes in other regions remains unknown.
The decision is significant because it holds an advertising platform responsible for the practical impact of its algorithm, even when the wording of the advertisement itself does not contain clear discrimination. However, the source does not explain the detailed technical measures that will be required of Meta or how its compliance will be measured in the future, and the scope of the ruling outside the Netherlands remains an open question.