At this point, the experienced reader can probably already guess who or what might be behind the complaint. You read that right: In this case, the complainant is once again the now well-known data protection activist Max Schrems and his non-governmental organization (NGO) “none of your business” (noyb). Shortly after the General Data Protection. Regulation (GDPR) came into force, Schrems raised legal concerns about. The business practice of personalized advertising on the platforms and filed a complaint with the relevant data protection authority in Dublin consent are illegal.
The shady business model with personalized advertising consent are illegal
The allegation in question is directed against the advertising business and . Thus against possibly the most important source of income for the Meta Group. As can be seen from a recently published by noyb ,dubai business fax list the European. Meta company has allegedly delivered personaliz advertising to users since the GDPR came into force. Even though they had not previously expressly consented to the data processing. Overall, this concerns the lack of legality and transparency of data processing for behavior-based advertising measures by Meta. The group itself considers personalized advertisements to be part of its services and therefore. Bases data processing on the user agreement concluded with the respective user. According to advertisements are contractually owed to the users.
Role of the Irish Data Protection Authority in the ongoing proceedings
According to noyb, the DPC responsible for the complaints submitted has cooperat Extensively with Meta in the ongoing proceedings . Which have now been pending for 4.5 years – but has not yet issued a final judgment in the ongoing proceedings. Among other things, several confidential discussions are said to have taken place. Between the authority and Meta, the task of creating a long in which the DPC is said to have signaled to. Meta that the underlying data processing was lawful and in compliance .In view of the investigations now initiat by the EDPB. It can be assumed at this point that the DPC’s efforts to influence the guidelines in. Meta’s favor were largely fruitless. Rather, the EDPB has us the proceedings as an opportunity to once again. Emphasize the matter and, in particular, to urge the responsible DPC to make an appropriate decision.
What happens next?
The EDPB’s binding decision is first sent to the lead supervisory authority in. Dublin for information. The DPC has one month to review the botswana business directory EDPB’s decision and fully consider it in its own draft decision. The decision is then served on the respondent and the complainant. Both parties then have the opportunity to appeal the decision. If both parties are more or less satisfied with the final decision and do not file an appeal. It is legally binding. Otherwise, the matter will be re-examined and reviewed in court.
Legal classification and conclusion
The present case once again highlights the importance of the enforceability of legal. Norms for the protection of fundamental rights. Europe and throughout the world, even against the big “tech giants,” who have essentially based. Their business models on collecting as much data as possible and then processing it profitably.