Meta could face fines of more than $10 billion.
  • TJA!@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    5 months ago

    IANAL, but: Gdpr only says that they cannot require you to sell your data to use a service. It does not say anything about paying with money. So this seems legal to me

    • sudneo@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      5 months ago

      The GDPR says that if you use consent as the legal basis for processing data, such consent must be free. This means that there cannot be consequences if you give or not give the consent. If there are, then the consent is not free anymore. Paying money for a service is absolutely legal, obviously, what probably is not legal is extracting your consent by offering you a discount (which is the flipside of “pay to avoid tracking”).

      I just wanted to specify a bit, not that you said anything incorrect.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      The case is basically that having a non-tracking paid tier makes no difference, the free tier if it exists can’t include mandatory tracking.

      So they can offer a paid tier with no tracking, but they must also offer no tracking on the free tier.

    • NoRodent@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      5 months ago

      But I mean, it’s the same thing as this FB/IG case, no? Only worse because even if you pay, you still have ads.

      • TJA!@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        5 months ago

        No.

        • the Facebook case: DMA/ digital markets act. This case is only regarding the choice between personalisation or paying to access the service. Only for really big patients deemed to be gatekeepers. There are only five at the moment: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
        • showing ads that are personalized, or any other things where they use information about you: Gdpr. You have to allow it.
        • showing you ads that are not personalized: completely legal. Netflix does the same I think. Also Amazon prime.