No such thing as a free lunch.
No such thing as a free lunch.
(b) isn't applicable because it only applies when it's directly necessary to provide for that particular user (like processing a CC number when paying for a product). That you business model generally needs it is not enough (see the ICO FAQ on the issue[1]).
(a) Consent is valid, but it must be freely given, that is, the provision on the service can't be conditional on the consent (article 7 (4)).
[1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
> just that not every avenue of funding is allowed
Funding by targeted ads isn't illegal last time I checked.
"The processing must be necessary to deliver your side of the contract with this particular person. If the processing is only necessary to maintain your business model more generally, this lawful basis will not apply and you should consider another lawful basis, such as legitimate interests."
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
> Funding by targeted ads isn't illegal last time I checked.
It is if you don't get consent. And you can't make that consent required to provide a service, since then it won't be "freely given", as per Article 7.
If this is correct, this is a major blow for US industries.
I hope the US follows suit with Europe rather than attempting to start another trade war.
"Avoid making consent to processing a precondition of a service (...) If you make consent a precondition of a service, it is unlikely to be the most appropriate lawful basis."
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
What about someone who uploads a lot of pictures but doesn't have many friends? That person might be using more resources than the ad revenue they generated...
Are you saying they should be forced by law to block you?
> What about someone who uploads a lot of pictures but doesn't have many friends? That person might be using more resources than the ad revenue they generated...
That is a flat-fee/pricing issue, just like someone binge watching Netflix might be using more resources than they generate in revenue. It isn't relevant to the discussion.
Also illegal.
> No such thing as a free lunch.
Please square that with the fact (which I already pointed out) that they already provide their free service without targeting, based on user settings.
They can't using tracking to "pay the costs of providing this free service" without ad targeting (unless they're selling the tracking data, which they publicly deny).
I'm making an educated guess that mere declarations of necessity tracking are not sufficient legal justification for it in the EU.