Good & bad in judgment on Meta AI training & personal data (legitimate interests, sensitive data) + new French & German guidance

Does training of AI systems involve the processing of personal data, and is it permitted under the GDPR? These were the two fundamental questions that I have already looked into in two previous articles: On the date of that second article, the Cologne Higher Regional Court (the Oberlandesgericht Köln – the Cologne HRC) delivered a […]

Read Analysis →

ePrivacy precedent: critiquing the CJEU’s interpretation of spam

One to watch. Based on the summary of the hearing, this looks like a continuation of the CNIL’s Orange decision and of the CJEU’s SwTL v eprimo case – if so, I fear we are going down a path of bad legal precedent after bad legal precedent. As I have previously commented, the eprimo judgment […]

Read Analysis →

Belgian DPA: limiting complaint standing to protect mandate integrity

Mass rejection of NOYB complaints by Belgian DPA: repeating the cases I have commented before (see notably https://lnkd.in/eMGbdWPh), the Belgian DPA just rejected 16 complaints of NOYB in 5 different cases based on the fact that there was no actual (non-fictional) mandate by data subjects. In its press release (to explain the multiple rejections), the […]

Read Analysis →

GDPR Procedural Regulation: risks to the rights of defence

Lots of potential for violations of the rights of defence. My critical analysis: https://lnkd.in/e3xDp82T GDPR data protection privacy

Read Analysis →

Analyzing the GPR: concerns on admissibility and scope of complaints

The GDPR Procedural Regulation (GPR) raises practical concerns, based on the text of the provisional agreement of the EU Council & Parliament, notably re the scope of complaints. I was discussing it with Sara Brandstätter @ MLex (who obtained the text) – here are some key concerns of mine: 1) This GPR will likely have […]

Read Analysis →

Meta and the DMA: a critical review of consent interpretations

Part 2 of critical review of the Commission’s PayorOK decision on Meta & the DMA: now for the more GDPR-related part, on consent. As mentioned in part 1 ( https://lnkd.in/dvNKkjWk ), the European Commission (EC) draws lots from the EDPB’s Consent or Pay Opinion. [I was *very* critical of that Opinion – see https://lnkd.in/eddQ4yW8 ] […]

Read Analysis →

DMA compliance: the Commission’s flawed “equivalence” logic

Not impressed. PayorOK, Meta & DMA: EU Commission says paid service is not “equivalent” to ad-funded service. The reason? You need “access to an online payment service” [§91] + the user experience (UX) is different due to other access conditions. Basically, per the decision of the Commission (EC), a choice between “pay with your wallet, […]

Read Analysis →

WhatsApp advertising updates: dispelling myths and ePrivacy realities

Many myths and exaggerations in reactions to WhatsApp’s announcement re ads. From “everything I mention in chats is used for ads” (that’s not how digital advertising works, and Meta had even made it clear message content is never used) to “all your Instagram and Facebook data is used” (while the WhatsApp announcement suggests this only […]

Read Analysis →

The unworkability of consent for anti-fraud measures

*facepalm* Anti-fraud measures require consent in the context of e-mail tracking? “Thanks a lot”, regulated industries will say, as there are many sectors where anti-fraud measures are *required by law*. Even in industries where this isn’t the case, requiring consent for anti-fraud defeats their very purpose. Really, which fraudster will consent to the use of […]

Read Analysis →

Six critical points on adtech metrics and publisher compliance strategies

Some food for thought re adtech & metrics, whether you are publisher, CMP or vendor – six points based on recent discussions with a range of clients (and based on the things they need assistance with): 1. Are you sure you are involved in the processing of personal data? The notion of “personal data” has […]

Read Analysis →