5 ms·

Remember that Meta actually followed GDPR law in terms of getting constent for personalised ads, and the irish courts even said that Meta was doing things legal

by zpeti 3y ago

Remember that Meta actually followed GDPR law in terms of getting constent for personalised ads, and the irish courts even said that Meta was doing things legally, and then the EU courts decided Meta was actually doing illegal things, and fined Meta. So there can be multiple layers to this, and ultimately I don't think the EU really works as a robust legal system any more, there are so many politically driven cases where the courts follow the politics not the law.

impossiblefork 3y ago
The Irish DPA is well-known for it laxity. There is a reason why it is regularly overruled.
hnbad 3y ago
Ireland is trying to attract overseas businesses by being as "business friendly" as possible even if it means shafting local businesses and workers. This includes half-assing any EU regulations to the fullest extent possible and having very low taxes. The Irish DPA is a prime example of this.
- MoonlitKnight 3y ago
  There is some irony in half-assing something to the fullest extent.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  That wouldn’t explain the Irish courts affirming the DPA’s decisions on this. Unless you also want to argue that the Irish courts are compromised of course.
- zpeti 3y ago
  From Ben Thompson (stratechery): "The first thing to note is that no one — including Apple — knows if this plan abides by the DMA. This is, unfortunately, par for the course for the European Union. Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, with various carve-outs and definitions, and it is up to the companies impacted to figure out how to meet them; only then do the powers-that-be decide whether or not said company is in compliance. This is, needless to say, an insane way to write regulations, but when you consider the E.U.’s insistence on contradictory end goals — increasing competition while insisting on an absolutist approach to user privacy, for example — you can understand how the burden ends up falling on companies to come up with their own solutions. This also, needless to say, opens up the door to massive loopholes (like the fact that Apple believes it can still enforce App Tracking Transparency restrictions on apps not in the App Store)."

by zpeti 3y ago

impossiblefork 3y ago

The Irish DPA is well-known for it laxity. There is a reason why it is regularly overruled.

hnbad 3y ago

Ireland is trying to attract overseas businesses by being as "business friendly" as possible even if it means shafting local businesses and workers. This includes half-assing any EU regulations to the fullest extent possible and having very low taxes. The Irish DPA is a prime example of this.

MoonlitKnight 3y ago
There is some irony in half-assing something to the fullest extent.
turquoisevar 3y ago
That wouldn’t explain the Irish courts affirming the DPA’s decisions on this. Unless you also want to argue that the Irish courts are compromised of course.
zpeti 3y ago
From Ben Thompson (stratechery): "The first thing to note is that no one — including Apple — knows if this plan abides by the DMA. This is, unfortunately, par for the course for the European Union. Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, with various carve-outs and definitions, and it is up to the companies impacted to figure out how to meet them; only then do the powers-that-be decide whether or not said company is in compliance. This is, needless to say, an insane way to write regulations, but when you consider the E.U.’s insistence on contradictory end goals — increasing competition while insisting on an absolutist approach to user privacy, for example — you can understand how the burden ends up falling on companies to come up with their own solutions. This also, needless to say, opens up the door to massive loopholes (like the fact that Apple believes it can still enforce App Tracking Transparency restrictions on apps not in the App Store)."