3 ms·

The issue is not advertising, but "to aggregate user interests and track people on the internet". While advertising is not illegal under the GDPR, collecting a

The issue is not advertising, but "to aggregate user interests and track people on the internet". While advertising is not illegal under the GDPR, collecting an individual's data for marketing or advertising purposes without a "basis" (as defined in the GDPR) is. The plaintiff is arguing about data privacy, whereas Facebook's lawyer is playing the advertising card as a counter. The plaintiff is unhappy about the way Facebook uses personal data, while Facebook is arguing they have a legal basis for processing data for personalised advertising purposes in order to fulfil a contract which it entered into the users. (which is a basis in the GDPR).

kevlawrence 7y ago
If they lose this case, do you think it would it leave Facebook a liability for no longer being able to fulfill that contract? I.e. you can’t share my data, now where are my personalized ads that you promised?
- sigwinch28 7y ago
  IANAL, but I think that clause would become null and void. User: "hey Facebook where's the personalised ads you promised me?" Facebook: "that clause was found to be illegal, and we have notified you that it is unenforceable by either party."
- Hamuko 7y ago
  The issue here isn't just the fact that there are personalised ads, it's that Facebook wants to serve personalised ads without consent.
  - kevlawrence 7y ago
    Right, and Facebook is arguing that it’s because they have to fulfill a contract. However, GDPR may block them from collecting the data they need to serve personalized ads. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to fulfill the contract. To phrase my question in another way, would that contract still need to be fulfilled, if they are blocked by GDPR from collecting the data they would need to fulfill it?
PeterStuer 7y ago
The lobbies have been trying to reverse the controller/processor relation from the very start. They have been told time and time again this was not an acceptable interpretation of the GDPR. It's time one of them is made an example in court, with fines stiff enough to discourage any corp from trying this strategy again.

kevlawrence 7y ago

If they lose this case, do you think it would it leave Facebook a liability for no longer being able to fulfill that contract? I.e. you can’t share my data, now where are my personalized ads that you promised?

sigwinch28 7y ago
IANAL, but I think that clause would become null and void. User: "hey Facebook where's the personalised ads you promised me?" Facebook: "that clause was found to be illegal, and we have notified you that it is unenforceable by either party."
Hamuko 7y ago
The issue here isn't just the fact that there are personalised ads, it's that Facebook wants to serve personalised ads without consent.
- kevlawrence 7y ago
  Right, and Facebook is arguing that it’s because they have to fulfill a contract. However, GDPR may block them from collecting the data they need to serve personalized ads. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to fulfill the contract. To phrase my question in another way, would that contract still need to be fulfilled, if they are blocked by GDPR from collecting the data they would need to fulfill it?

PeterStuer 7y ago

The lobbies have been trying to reverse the controller/processor relation from the very start. They have been told time and time again this was not an acceptable interpretation of the GDPR. It's time one of them is made an example in court, with fines stiff enough to discourage any corp from trying this strategy again.