It looks like Austrian court didn't do their homework. An interesting quote from GDPR authors: (This is quote from official document. It wasn't written by me a

It looks like Austrian court didn't do their homework. An interesting quote from GDPR authors: (This is quote from official document. It wasn't written by me and no down-voting will change it (but it will potentially hurt people business for those who should see it and comply but didn't as they weren't aware of). It is as it is, regardless if you like it or not, if you agree with it or not,... it doesn't matter. https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/17-03-14_opinion_digital_content_en_0.pdf https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/17-03-14_...) EDPS Opinion 4/2017 on the Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content, 14 March 2017, p. 7. "There might well be a market for personal data, just like there is, tragically, a market for live human organs, but that does not mean that we can or should give the market the blessing of legislation. One cannot monetize and subject a fundamental right to a simple commercial transaction, even if it is the individual concerned by the data who is a party to the transaction." According to that, the "contract" (or as they want to shovel it under consent - not even owner of personal data is allowed to give data in exchange for anything - it can give it as an option, surely you can demand the data like address if you are having online shop, once the buyer ordered something, but that is different case) was obtained using illegal means as the access to the Facebook was granted based on agreement where user should sell its "organs" (personal data) as a commercial transaction - allowing them to register to Facebook. Max Schrems has shown that he will go to the highest courts before and probably will do the same here. GDPR is not something that business is used to. It doesn't explicitly say "you can do this (and this,...) while you cant do this (and this,...)" allowing you to be able to tweak your business and circumvent it. It is conceptual and if you are breaking the concept you are breaking the law. Or (I cant remember where I read this, but it illustrates it very well): As an owner of chemical plant you are not told by the law how may toxic fumes (mg/m3) you can exhaust into the air. It tells you, "think of the children playing down the wind and you wont go far wrong". But if we will figure out your were intoxicating the children, you will be punished. I just don't understand why Austrian court is hurting Facebook business and Max Schrems (in wasted hours) as at the end EU court will drop the decision (hopefully not charging Austria) and Facebook will have to comply to GDPR regardless. This is a lost game for Facebook, I don't understand why are they hurting their own business for something they cant win. Buying more time?