Could be an interesting 2 weeks.
So their solution to selling personal data was to offer a subscription so they could show you targeted ads. That feels like paying triple; the subscription, ads and personal data.
I believe it’s either
a) consent to personalized ads and “enjoy” their service for free or b) pay to not have them collect data
So you’re only paying once or twice.
The article is quite hard to read. I think it comes down to this: Meta has been arguing that its Terms of Service are enough consent for data collection. European courts disagree: consent has to be explicitly given. Meta has been ignoring this ruling for 5 years now, without much consequence. Now, the EU is starting to clamp down harder - coincidentally just a few weeks before Meta will introduce a new system. In this new system users will get a choice to either consent (explicitly), or pay to use the service without data collection consent. Data privacy advocates believe this would still be illegal. However - personal opinion, not mentioned in the article - this will likely take many more years before it goes to court, let alone before it is enforced. In other words: they keep getting away with it.
I’n just wondering how they can just get away with breaking the law for 5 years…
Because companies are not considered people (unless it’s in the “peoples” (read companies) favour).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Meta has argued that its Terms & Conditions contract, which users of its services accept, represents a valid legal basis to process personal data and deliver behaviorally targeted ads.
The Register understands that within a week or two, Meta is likely to add a popup notification in its Facebook and Instagram apps in the EEA that asks for consent to process personal data in a legally acceptable way.
While Noyb says it intends to fight this approach, the group also acknowledges that news organizations like Der Standard have gotten away with using the subscription-or-ads model as an indicator of consent for personal data collection.
Alexander Hanff, a privacy advocate who recently asked the DPC to disallow YouTube’s use of scripts to detect the presence of ad blocking extensions, echoed Datatilsynet’s sentiment about the dubious legality of Meta’s subscription option as a measure of consent.
Other enforcement options, depending on the DPC’s legal authority, could include bank account seizures, orders to Apple and Google to remove Facebook and Instagram from European App Stores, or directing ISPs to undertake network-level intervention.
Hanff said he expects Meta will try to obtain an injunction to block DPC from carrying out the EDPB ban, and failing that will either comply or withdraw its services from Europe until the company can find a valid legal basis or business model that’s acceptable to European authorities.
The original article contains 1,078 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!