[jlouis]

Facebook is one major bait and switch strategy.

In the first step, you get everyone to invest into your platform. You provide some valuable services to people, and they sign an implicit contract as a result.

In the second step, you reap what you sow. You switch the platform entirely and change its core nature and functionality. It's hard to stop using Facebook when everyone else is using Facebook, and this fact means you can do things which would normally have people leave your platform in droves.

This ruling limits the extent to which you can run such a bait and switch campaign. It's somewhat remarkable, because it extends some basic consumer rights to tech companies, even if there's no direct product nor a subscription in place. Personally, I think it's long overdue.

[eru]

How has Facebook changed its core nature?

[jlouis]

I'd say the major switch happened at the point where you lost control over your feed. It's not populated because you opted in to updates from a specific person or organization. It's populated by algorithm. Furthermore, at no point in time were any of these new features opt-in. Instead, they were enabled without your consent. Facebook has a long history of enabling features for people which is not in their interest in the slightest.

I should also say that it's more general than Meta. Google are also notorious for doing stuff like this. About time we start legislating against it.