Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjcon | Hacker News Reader

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...

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com