I think its technically funny they decided to make that distinction, because like obviously? Although I do see people misinterpreting their rights often times, I guess saying it this way helps steer the discussion
In Finland they are considered public events. The definition is that if you do not need an invitation it is a public event, even if you pay for access.
I guess it's similar thought the EU. The surveillance would violate GDPR as it requires an affirmative action/consent.
Youll have to check the user experience and supporting local legal precedent
I would definitely hire an appropriate lawyer if I wanted to understand the legality of something like this in a given jurisdiction!
Such as overriding default treatment
> Courts tend to look unfavouravly at..
Common practices can successfully shield liability and go unchallenged for a hundred years.
A lot of incorporation strategy and contract law is based around deterrents and cost prohibitiveness of testing them, with a bit of thought into how actual litigation would wind up.
Really the only thing to do if you are curious is to find a good lawyer and get some real advice.
The public event mostly means here that you cannot have alcohol consumption inside except in the super regulated way like in normal restaurants. And regulations that you need X guards per Y visitors and whatnot stuff.
In a true private event you can do whatever. Those are the same as you'd just sit home with your friends.