[maratc]

You could both be right: Shrems III could be in the works, and TLA could be presenting their legal analysis as an established fact.

In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)

[eesmith]

I think "noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks", from the person/group who brought us Shrems I and Shrems II, counts enough as "Shrems III could be in the works". Don't you?

The linked article does not present their legal analysis and call for action as established fact.

[maratc]

It's ok to disagree. If the SCOTUS decision in question had any wording to the tune of "the EU-US data transfers need to stop," it would be fitting to say that the "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers." However it did not, so it wouldn't.

[eesmith]

I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.

I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there.

It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."

[maratc]

> I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.

I meant that it's ok for you and me to disagree.

> I don't know what your point is

My point is this: Shrems III may or may not be filed, if and when it's filed the relevant court may or may not decide to review it, if they decide to proceed they may reach many different conclusions, one of the possible outcomes being a blow-up in the EU-US data transfers. Then we will we be able, with the benefit of the hindsight, conclude that the SCOTUS decision in question indeed blew up the transfers.

But we're not there yet. At this point in time "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers" is a prediction about the future. It is however written in past perfect tense as if it's already happened. But what's happened is the SCOTUS decision only. Whether it will, or will not, blow up the data transfers — still remains to be seen.

I'm not saying that this will not happen; all I'm saying is that "blowing up of the data transfers" will happen when an actual court will decide that it's the consequence, not when some advocacy group will decide that it's the consequence.

[eesmith]

When someone says "China blew up its own future" as at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47850045 and presents an argument based on decreasing birth rates as a consequence of previous policies, of course that's a prediction about the future written in past perfect tense.

When The Atlantic has an article with subtitle "How X blew up its own platform with a new location feature", linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46042350 , that's again a prediction about the future written in past perfect tense.

Same for "OpenAI is highly overvalued and DeepSeek just blew up their business model, says NYU's Gary Marcus", from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42856656

When The Verge writes "A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store", linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672, that's yet another prediction about the future written in the past perfect tense -- and it's specifically a prediction about the consequences of a court decision!

Another court one, also from The Verge, "A court just blew up internet law because it thinks YouTube isn’t a website", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31368999

Nor, clearly, does making the "blew up" claim necessarily mean those stated claims are inevitable.

You are of course free to object that such claims are inappropriate unless proven in a court of law or by the fullness of time, but I find that sort of highly non-standard interpretation both contrary to easily found existing practice, and tiresome quibbling.

[maratc]

Yes, other sensationalised headlines exist and some of them get posted here, this is not the only one trying make a point which is not proven yet.

[tremon]

Alternatively, you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article and see that the actual analysis goes as follows:

a) According to EU treaty law, the oversight on EU-US Data Transfers must be independent

b) In the current EU-US deal, the European Commission relies on the independent FTC 259 times

c) the US Supreme Court decided in Trump v. Slaughter that the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be independent anymore

It is completely immaterial that the Supreme Grift ruling was not about the data transfers itself -- this is just some fallout from an activist court creatively reinterpreting established legal structures.

> (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.

Given that the closing paragraph contains the sentence "given that the US still exercises massive pressure on the EU to keep personal data flowing, noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks, aiming to allow the CJEU to annul the current deal" I think it's pretty clear that it will.

[maratc]

> you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article

I did.

> “FTC” may not be independent anymore

It may, or it may not; we don't know. We don't know what EU Courts hold as a criterion for "independence," and we don't know what they will decide regarding that "independence" in light of the new fact that POTUS can fire its chief. People simply aren't good in reading the judges' minds, as evidenced by their going to courts -- if both sides could read minds, there wouldn't be any purpose in going to courts, after all. And don't underestimate the creativity of the courts -- they can align with one side, or the other, or produce an opinion completely different from both sides'.

I understand that the advocacy group in question considers this new fact as evidence that FTC is not independent anymore, but that doesn't matter; we need the courts' opinion, not my opinion or your opinion or the advocacy group's opinion. As stated, what we have in the article are predictions about future; I'm not saying these predictions are wrong and I'm not saying these predictions are right, I'm saying these are simply predictions and not facts.