Heads up, people who don’t follow GDPR news: This case is a big deal. It’s basically asking the CJEU to rule that FB’s whole ads system violates the GDPR.
https://twitter.com/fborgesius/status/1417380262124662805
My (very speculative) crystal ball says: Expect a ruling that messes up the ads business model at the margins in ways that sort of track real world privacy values and sort of track how the tech works, but that fall short on both fronts in confusing ways.
No disrespect to the CJEU intended here, BTW. The materials they review often lack any well-developed factual record or amicus/intervenor briefs from independent experts or NGOs to explain key legal issues. And then they have to reach a consensus position. That’s a rough set-up.
It’s especially rough in intermediary liability cases, which almost always involve three competing interests (speaker, platform, and injured person) and almost always are litigated between just two parties (platform and injured person).
Internet users' data protection rights often get sacrificed the most in intermediary liability cases. Platforms will argue against e.g. pervasive filtering based on users' expression rights. But arguing based on users' DP/privacy rights isn't in their interest.
In the CJEU's Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland case, for example, not a single party or intervenor explained the data protection issues, even though data protection is discussed in every relevant CJEU case. I talk about this huge advocacy gap here academic.oup.com/grurint/articl…
Search for "Litigation Process Problems" to go straight to the section talking about lack of advocacy for data protection rights in these intermediary liability cases.
academic.oup.com/grurint/articl…
academic.oup.com/grurint/articl…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
