The denial to market by vetoing is working, but its not a long term strategy. To push that back, the eu would have to push its own social network alternative, that undermines Metas growth in those fields.
I can not see that yet-
You guys remember how 5+ years ago, an headline like this on HN would invariably prompt cries from the Americans that this was just the Europeans finding excuses to take advantage and steal from poor innocent American companies. How the mood has changed on this huh. I'm glad to see the European approach vindicated, even if at times not strong enough.
No no, you misunderstand. Over here in America we have given up on fighting it and prefer to let mega-corps like Google and Meta own the advertising space. Smaller companies quickly moved to a subscription model, at least until the EU finds a way to make money illegal.
>You guys remember how 5+ years ago, an headline like this on HN would invariably prompt cries from the Americans
I remember it. I'm pretty sure it's always just been the sellouts that work for anti-consumer tech companies (and the wannabes). Sometimes they're rationalizing their career to themselves and us, othertimes they're aware and just saying whatever they think will keep the con running for as long as possible.
One of the things HN serves as is a no-risk place for scrupleless software businesspeople to practice how to swindle nerds with specious arguments.
Can't some shady legal firm now just dig out who is in the exact same situation as this user, and sue on behalf of them, keeping (say) 10%? I'd be happy to let them.
But in the end this kind of thing shouldn't be regulated by lawsuits from individuals. The fines as I remember it can be up to 4% global annual revenue and it's about time someone actually handed a fine of 4% global annual revenue to a company the size of Meta, so companies finally realize that the law isn't just a recommendation.
This Leipzig ruling is notable, but the practical impact may be more limited than the €5,000 figure suggests. While the court explicitly said users don't need to prove individual damages to sue, European class action mechanisms are still quite different from US-style litigation.
Germany doesn't have the same litigation incentive structures as the US - no contingency fees, loser-pays costs, and relatively limited collective redress options. Most German consumers aren't going to file individual €5,000 lawsuits over tracking pixels, especially given the legal costs and time involved.
Personally, I hope this gets picked up by a consumer protection organization or a well-funded litigation group. Germany has been gradually expanding its collective action framework, but it's still primarily driven by qualified entities rather than individual plaintiffs.
Interesting that the court emphasized identifiability even without logging in. That cuts right through the usual "anonymous tracking" defense a lot of companies hide behind
It should be noted that this may not stand on appeal. The full decision is not yet available. All we know is from the press statement.
For example, the court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to these damages without even hearing them personally on what kind of injury they sustained. This is an interesting direction, and we will see how it is argued in the decision itself. I would assume this could be something that Meta challenges on appeal.
Another way to go would be to argue that this lawsuit involves unresolved questions of EU law that need to be addressed by the ECJ.
In either case, this verdict will create some legal uncertainty in the short term, and I assume many people will sue---but we shall see what happens on appeal and perhaps at the ECJ, which will perhaps be a couple of years out.
Very interesting. Could become a geopolitical and trade football between Europe and US. Tariffs anyone? Ultimately it’s a question of power: will Europe allow its citizens to be predated upon? My guess is probably.
1. The sum. You are tracked and you get shown some ads. How does that causes you 5k EUR in damages?
2. Responsibility. If a site decides to add tracking or ads from a company, is only the ads company responsible for the tracking and damages?
3. Many of the services on the internet are free or cheaper because of ads. Because of that I find the attitude of the judges making these rulings disingenuous.
4. How much of this is outrage against American companies caused by the rift between US and Europe?
You can scan any website or ecommerce solution and see which 3rd parties they load before consent using this free privacy scanner -> https://privacyscanner.aesirx.io/
Just because a profile can be valuable, that doesn't mean that someone creating that profile damages you by that amount. If I document a celebrity's hobbies I'm not damaging the celebrity.
73% of Danish Business Websites Found in Violation of GDPR Consent Rules.
After scanning 36,496 company domains in Denmark, we found that over 73% load trackers before consent - including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook, and even third-party CMPs.
24 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 52.9 ms ] threadI remember it. I'm pretty sure it's always just been the sellouts that work for anti-consumer tech companies (and the wannabes). Sometimes they're rationalizing their career to themselves and us, othertimes they're aware and just saying whatever they think will keep the con running for as long as possible.
One of the things HN serves as is a no-risk place for scrupleless software businesspeople to practice how to swindle nerds with specious arguments.
But in the end this kind of thing shouldn't be regulated by lawsuits from individuals. The fines as I remember it can be up to 4% global annual revenue and it's about time someone actually handed a fine of 4% global annual revenue to a company the size of Meta, so companies finally realize that the law isn't just a recommendation.
Germany doesn't have the same litigation incentive structures as the US - no contingency fees, loser-pays costs, and relatively limited collective redress options. Most German consumers aren't going to file individual €5,000 lawsuits over tracking pixels, especially given the legal costs and time involved.
Personally, I hope this gets picked up by a consumer protection organization or a well-funded litigation group. Germany has been gradually expanding its collective action framework, but it's still primarily driven by qualified entities rather than individual plaintiffs.
This is also why there currently are class action lawsuits against X and Tiktok based in Germany with claims of damages of EUR 500 and EUR 2000.
For example, the court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to these damages without even hearing them personally on what kind of injury they sustained. This is an interesting direction, and we will see how it is argued in the decision itself. I would assume this could be something that Meta challenges on appeal.
Another way to go would be to argue that this lawsuit involves unresolved questions of EU law that need to be addressed by the ECJ.
In either case, this verdict will create some legal uncertainty in the short term, and I assume many people will sue---but we shall see what happens on appeal and perhaps at the ECJ, which will perhaps be a couple of years out.
1. The sum. You are tracked and you get shown some ads. How does that causes you 5k EUR in damages?
2. Responsibility. If a site decides to add tracking or ads from a company, is only the ads company responsible for the tracking and damages?
3. Many of the services on the internet are free or cheaper because of ads. Because of that I find the attitude of the judges making these rulings disingenuous.
4. How much of this is outrage against American companies caused by the rift between US and Europe?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/5000-pixel-tracker-why-latest...
In Germany consumers does not need to file a lawsuit, they are included by default, which is very different than all other European countries.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44533592