[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.