Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ckastner 2398 days ago
Under article 7 GDPR [1], consent has to be given freely. Unless Facebook offered an option to opt-out of this contract, use of the Facebook service was tied to the agreement, which means it probably won't hold up.

It's great that this is happening in front of an Austrian court, because the Austrian Data Protection Agency already has ruled on consent issues, and in those rulings was (IMO) extremely strict on when consent was given freely. In one ToS challenge, the mere potential for confusion was enough to render it invalid.

Edit: Here's one such ruling [2]. Co-mingling checkboxes for processing of data for marketing purposes with actual contractual clauses was ruled as a violation of the GDPR, even though by default, the checkboxes were unchecked. The Agency ruled that the confusing nature of the form could lead subjects to believe that they had to check a checkbox to receive the service.

Also, another relevant local case would be with a popular national newspaper, DerStandard.at. That newspaper offers access in two ways: either (a) you pay for a subscription and receive the service ad-free, or (b) you access the service for free, but consent to receiving ads. This was deemed in compliance with the GDPR, but it was stated that only offering (b) -- ie, exactly what Facebook does -- would not hold up.

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

[2] https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Dsk/DSBT_20180731_DSB_D2...

1 comments

The trick is that the legal ground is not based on consent but on performance of a contract, in which case consent, freely given or not, is not required at all.
I understand the trick, I just don't believe that it can play out.

A contract also needs consent. This contract is clearly entered only because Facebook is making it a condition of using the service, and this type of coupling is prohibited.

> This contract is clearly entered only because Facebook is making it a condition of using the service

The contract is entered when a user registers at Facebook. However Facebook seems disagree about what the contract involves. Any sane person (well, 96% of them, as the article claims) would say that the contract is for delivery of means to communicate with other people; Facebook seems to argue that the contract is for delivery of personalized ads.