I suppose? The GDPR is very clear: if you serve European residents, you cannot collect their identifiable data without their informed consent, nor can you make

I suppose? The GDPR is very clear: if you serve European residents, you cannot collect their identifiable data without their informed consent, nor can you make consent the price of viewing your content. If you are found to do so, you are liable to huge fines. The language of the law itself is not very far from that clarity. Check it out for yourself: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-eu_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/d... I find it not credible that a company would read that second part, think "My goodness that sounds awful! Out of an abundance of caution, we better include language around arcane technical edge cases!" but then go on to violate the very, very clearly stated core intent of the law regarding consent and actual data retention and brokering. So... it is confusing. Probably intentionally so. Perhaps their legal strategy would be to somehow conflate these edge cases? Try to baffle judges?