Hacker News Reader

Comment by rlpb | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that extends to "forgetting" that you purchased a game so now you have to buy it again. That would be absurd.

View on HN

They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret

Here is one of the provisions of interest:

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/

Ubisoft also cites GDPR provisions for deletion of inactive accounts:

https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/ubisoft-removes-player...

This is nonsense. While you cannot keep personal data lying around forever with GDPR, deleting accounts after 6 months or a year or inactivity is a choice being made by the company.

They could equally well have said that an account which was inactive for 2 years, or 3 years would be deleted and still be legally compliant.

The requirement is “no longer than necessary” - meta started migrating people away from oculus accounts with the release of the quest 2 over 2 years ago in 2020.

If you have regulators breathing down your neck being conservative on time isn’t a terrible idea.

> They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret

Malicious compliance. They deliberately misinterpret and continue to get pulled up on it. For example, just recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63784393

This completely contradicts any argument that their interpretation of privacy regulation is remotely compliant. They cross the line in their favour relentlessly.

Malicious compliance maybe but compliance nonetheless - I’m not necessarily defending them here for the record but GDPR has been cited for a lot of inactive account removals recently - meta is already feeling heat from EU regulators - they may not want to take chances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com