I'm glad it all worked out for this individual. I hope more people live their lives like this as the dystopia progresses.
Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason, but also puts you at a significant disadvantage compared to the people that never push back in the interest of not making waves, or even because "whatever it's fine."
Went to a new doctor. As part of the check-in process, I was asked to "sign" a little digital pad, so, as I was told, they could properly use my insurance. I asked to see the hard copy of what I was signing and they couldn't find one. Then, for some reason, they were unable to print one. I gave up and scribbled my sig with my finger and then was seen by a doctor. It's maddening.
I am that person that reads every line of the contracts I sign, including ToS and PP. I appreciate that I can tell who it rubs the wrong way, because it tells me who will shake my hand without intending to honor their word. It changed the way I write these documents as well, the last ToS and PP I wrote can each be read in a single breath.
How do you manage the situation socially? I had a very important document with a very expensive professional booked for about 10 minutes. No way I could actually read it in that time - what would you do?
"I appreciate the opportunity to work on this with you, I need to give this the time that it deserves to make sure I can honor the commitments in the contract."
Always maintain your integrity, a big part of that is honoring your word. Integrity is the only thing you're born with in this life, and if you're lucky you take it with you on the way out. Any person worth getting into contracts with will appreciate the value in that.
Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own purposes including commercial. I objected, but their position was that no one is going to involve legal department for me, and I am free to go away.
It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.
That sounds a lot like a rationalization desperately grasping at "surely it's not as insane as it sounds, what it _must_ mean is ... "
I would want to read and perhaps get legal advice before relying on that interpretation - and before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants.
Am pretty sure he's right. I rent out my house, and it is very illegal for the landlord to record video inside the house (or even of the driveway). You are infringing the privacy of your tenants and is a huge no-no.
Yeah, if you accidentally recorded families walking through their homes unclothed, this could land a landlord in jail.
The contract terms could very well have actually had a meaning that included filming inside the apartment. The existence of other laws overriding the contract isn't actually the same thing as the contract not having that invasive meaning.
That is probably why it is in there, and probably how it would be used in practice. But these types of documents are almost written to be as broad and ask you to give up as many rights as possible.
> Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason
Yup. It's particularly sad seeing other people in this very thread talking about how they would "ban this customer for life" just for knowing their rights.
I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.
>I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.
DHS is putting on the domestic terrorists watch list those people who took parts in the protests. Or at minimum threatens to put. And if you google a bit more you'd see that it isn't limited to ICE. Any dissent is perceived by the current government in a similar "terrorism" way. For majority of population that would completely chill any desire to assert rights.
"U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and senior Trump
administration officials have repeatedly suggested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is building a “domestic terrorists” database comprising information on U.S. citizens protesting ICE’s actions in recent weeks.
...
In recent weeks, DHS personnel and senior officials have repeatedly stated that the agency is engaged in efforts to monitor, catalog, and intimidate individuals engaged in peaceful protests"
It’s reprehensible and I am demanding accountability from my elected politicians. The only way we’ll see someone answer for these crimes, though, is if enough Americans give a shit to get off their fucking asses and actually put people into office who will bring change.
I don't know that signing up for a rewards club and then complaining that you're being marketed to is quite the platonic ideal of rebellion you make it out to be.
> The reply I received a few days later did me the favour of putting the violation on the record. Their position, in their own words, was that "in order to receive marketing / offers, it is a condition to be a member of the customer club." That one sentence is the whole case. They had taken a right I am entitled to exercise for free and turned it into the price of admission.
I don’t understand… it would be one thing if it said “receiving marketing/offers is a condition of being a member of the customer club” but that’s not what is being stated above… rather that being a member of the club is required to receive marketing — perhaps something has been misworded or lost in translation?
I think the "marketing/offers" means discounts? To be eligible for the discounts or special offers, you have to be a member of the club, and if you are a member of the club you have to be willing to receive the email messages, and somehow under EU law you're entitled to all discounts I guess?
Yea, I don't get it either. Receiving being a condition on membership means (in my understanding) only that non-members can't (shouldn't) receive anything, not that members will or must receive something. Which sounds perfectly normal and sane to me.
I understand where he's coming from, but it is still hilarious that he sued the legal entity that won the case for him, after they found the case in his favor.
What do you mean? It sounds like he is planning to sue company in question and possibly lodging complaint against Swedish DPA. Norwegian DPA is the one who found case in his favor.
The part about this that's amazing to me is that they still are doing nothing after he noted another GDPR violation [0]. He's obviously both competent and litigious. What does the company expect to happen next??
[0] "Under Article 77(2) of the GDPR a supervisory authority is under a binding legal obligation to keep a complainant informed of the progress and the outcome of their complaint. It is not a courtesy and it is not discretionary - it is written into the law. I filed my complaint with IMY, IMY passed it on, the case ended in a multi-million euro enforcement action, and not one of the authorities involved thought to tell the person who started it."
For me it was showing the image and the prompt, but the whole page was unstyled. But when I reloaded the page now, the css loaded also and the prompt is not shown.
I guess the web server was temporarily overwhelmed by traffic resulting in images (like for you) and css files (like for me) not being consistently served to all visitors.
Datatilsynet, the Norwegian DPA, from my experience, consistently has the user in mind. It (sadly) takes a long time for things to pass through the system, but they consistently come to good decisions.
There's also issue with EU companies forcing candidates to agree to their anti-privacy policies (confusingly named "privacy policies") as a requirement before the job interview.
Those anti-privacy policies will state, that you grant the company and third-parties (so, anyone) permissions to use your data (including voice and image) for any purpose. (Of course, it is stated in a slightly obscure fashion, so a layman may not comprehend it.)
I wonder if there has been any similar action taken against those.
I haven't personally encountered that, but you are free to lodge complaint with your local DPA about it.
That exact language is unlikely to be compliant. If you want to maximize your effect you could make Article 15 request to the company in question, get the list of actual recipients of data (make sure to be ask for this specifically) and then make another request to all of those companies. That will then allow you to possibly make further complaints (e.g. why exactly they didn't send Article 14 information to you, are the legal basis they use actually proper in your case especially if the original one was consent and it was not freely given).
Because if, as the regulator, you fail to benchmark what they gained then your laws can be ignored and your fines paid as simply a cost of doing business.
Its why you find the Australian regulator for consumer affairs handing out $200m+ fines to telecommunications companies, for example.
By that logic regulators should lower fines if the action wasn’t profitable. Which creates an expensive legal fight around the net profits of some action were after guilt is determined.
Instead, it’s much better to scale fines based on the scale of the entity involved, which also results in huge fines, but it’s easier to measure revenue. Thus the fines are more broadly effective, and you can still escalate if they don’t stop.
Like in Finland where speeding ticket fines are based on your income. For instance, in one well known case a businessman was fined €121,000 for going 82 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
And before anyone calls this crazy, note that jail time costs you your time, whatever that's worth. This is the same idea without the physical incarceration.
Rich and retired are very different thing. A CEO can be out hundreds of millions due to a long prison sentence, but most fines don’t scale nearly that far.
That's considerably more than someone near me who was doing 245km/h in a 90 zone (Well 55mph which is 89km/h). I still don't know why that person didn't lose their license (other than the obvious fact that they were rich enough to afford the Lamborghini that they were driving in); it wasn't just any 55 zone, it was one with a reputation for being dangerous.
I don't think that logic works. In your vein, if I say " If it gets hotter, I'll want it to be colder" that would imply that if it gets colder I'll want it to be hotter. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case thought.
If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.
I think the rest of your come t stands though. There is difficulty I proving profit and Hollywood accounting can probably change those numbers.
> If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.
I’m not saying they would get a rebate just that for this to be meaningful a large portion of a given fine would be based on profits. So a company receiving a fine based on their profits would argue they made less money from the behavior, it’s a legal argument without any risk.
Consider a fine for a mid sized company that’s base 100k + 10m based on profits it ‘goes away’ if they win but it also ‘goes away’ if they drop it by 99%. Thus just as much effort would be spent on how much money they made as is put forth to defend the fine in the first place.
It's not about what you want nor is it about exacting revenge. The end goal is simply a marketplace where a given behavior isn't happening. Appropriately structured fines should accomplish that.
This entire issue is sidestepped by having graduated fines (which GDPR has). If they keep doing it the amount keeps going up until eventually they go out of business. It really limits the ability to take advantage of the system which hopefully makes it not worthwhile to bother doing.
Go for it! If nobody reports things they don't get fixed.
I have found this to be true not just when it comes to companies breaking laws, but also to much more benign things. Such as reporting potholes in town or broken microwaves at work. Those can be in need of fixing for an extended period of time, yet when I report them, they usually get fixed within days. I suspect most people can't be bothered or think that surely someone else will report the issue. But that doesn't work if everyone thinks that way.
It's always satisfying when customer rights stories have a known positive outcome. The timeline is unfortunately quite slow and bureocractic but I'm glad OP managed to find out about it.
Yep this. They never make you verify your email address on a captive portals. (Since you can’t check your email without an internet connection in the first place).
> the only way to stop the marketing was to cancel my membership of the club altogether
I have experienced this same thing with at least one other big company in Norway.
I could opt out of either SMS or e-mail, but not both, or I would not be able to keep the membership.
Unfortunately, I never made a note of which one that was exactly so I can’t name them and shame them on the spot.
Despite half-hearted attempts at stopping marketing emails now and then by individually logging in and opting out, or clicking unsubscribe links embedded in the email, my email continues to be flooded with marketing both from domestic and foreign companies that I’ve done business with. There is so many companies that even going through a handful of them at a time and unsubscribing there is a seemingly endless amount of companies that remain to unsubscribe from.
It is great to see that someone fights back, and that it is resulting in fines.
I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
It's really pathetic, isn't it? These guys hate their fellow Americans so much that they think it's better to allow companies to abuse people instead of stepping in to protect them.
I have read it. It's really easy to be compliant if don't start from a position of extracting the maximum amount of data from every user out there. If you start from the opposite end of the scale, only getting the data you need for the goals you need to achieve in the interest of the user, you barely have to do anything beyond what you would have done anyway.
The cookie consent dialogs were never required in this form.
That was literally just malicious compliance in order to get people mad at the law instead of the companies (at least at first, there's also a huge amount of cargo-culting nowadays). Congrats, you've been psy-opped.
I did, it is easy, you just don't spy on people and have a point of contact and you're good. It becomes hard when you want to spy on people and also remain compliant with the no spying law.
It's an interesting story, but I could not help but have my mind skip over it because of the LLMisms. Acts like one of those taboola reels to me. If even just there was a tutorial to get people to write in such a way that it's not obviously LLM text it would be nice because the story is interesting.
I know, it's like complaining about JS etc. but it's like walking into an elevator and smelling very strong perfume. It's hard not to go "whew!"
Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Absolute loser behaviour.
I don't think you should be doing business anywhere if customers being familiar with the law and knowing their rights scares you. Frankly if you are running a business, you should be familiar with the laws and regulations, doing otherwise - especially when someone points out that your behaviour is illegal - is negligence and punishment with a fine is completely appropriate. Welcome to living in a society.
I'm glad it all worked out for this individual. I hope more people live their lives like this as the dystopia progresses.
Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason, but also puts you at a significant disadvantage compared to the people that never push back in the interest of not making waves, or even because "whatever it's fine."
Went to a new doctor. As part of the check-in process, I was asked to "sign" a little digital pad, so, as I was told, they could properly use my insurance. I asked to see the hard copy of what I was signing and they couldn't find one. Then, for some reason, they were unable to print one. I gave up and scribbled my sig with my finger and then was seen by a doctor. It's maddening.
I am that person that reads every line of the contracts I sign, including ToS and PP. I appreciate that I can tell who it rubs the wrong way, because it tells me who will shake my hand without intending to honor their word. It changed the way I write these documents as well, the last ToS and PP I wrote can each be read in a single breath.
How do you manage the situation socially? I had a very important document with a very expensive professional booked for about 10 minutes. No way I could actually read it in that time - what would you do?
"I appreciate the opportunity to work on this with you, I need to give this the time that it deserves to make sure I can honor the commitments in the contract."
Always maintain your integrity, a big part of that is honoring your word. Integrity is the only thing you're born with in this life, and if you're lucky you take it with you on the way out. Any person worth getting into contracts with will appreciate the value in that.
Not GP, but probably ask them to send me the contract ahead of time, and explain that you need time to read it.
Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own purposes including commercial. I objected, but their position was that no one is going to involve legal department for me, and I am free to go away.
Pretty sure that's a violation of fundamental human rights as it's your place of living. Surely that can't be legal, even in the US can it?
It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.
That sounds a lot like a rationalization desperately grasping at "surely it's not as insane as it sounds, what it _must_ mean is ... "
I would want to read and perhaps get legal advice before relying on that interpretation - and before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants.
Am pretty sure he's right. I rent out my house, and it is very illegal for the landlord to record video inside the house (or even of the driveway). You are infringing the privacy of your tenants and is a huge no-no.
Yeah, if you accidentally recorded families walking through their homes unclothed, this could land a landlord in jail.
The contract terms could very well have actually had a meaning that included filming inside the apartment. The existence of other laws overriding the contract isn't actually the same thing as the contract not having that invasive meaning.
That is probably why it is in there, and probably how it would be used in practice. But these types of documents are almost written to be as broad and ask you to give up as many rights as possible.
If it didn’t say it, it doesn’t mean it.
Thank goodness you read the contract they signed and provided competent legal expertise throughout the process.
Oh right, that's not so bad. Isn't that just being part of modern society? It would be nice to opt to never be recorded but also, it's outside.
I've also read reviews of Greystar properties where the reviewers expressed shock at being forced to consent to such abuse.
> and I am free to go away.
This is the crux of the problem when landlords are allowed to form or join an "association" that gets too pervasive.
This was at the heart of the RealPage lawsuits.
I found some shit like that in a gym contract, which I then declined.
This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.
There is no version of basic security that extends to commercial use of your likeness in their marketing.
Be reasonable.
> Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason
Yup. It's particularly sad seeing other people in this very thread talking about how they would "ban this customer for life" just for knowing their rights.
I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.
>I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.
DHS is putting on the domestic terrorists watch list those people who took parts in the protests. Or at minimum threatens to put. And if you google a bit more you'd see that it isn't limited to ICE. Any dissent is perceived by the current government in a similar "terrorism" way. For majority of population that would completely chill any desire to assert rights.
https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_dhs_on...
"U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and senior Trump administration officials have repeatedly suggested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is building a “domestic terrorists” database comprising information on U.S. citizens protesting ICE’s actions in recent weeks.
...
In recent weeks, DHS personnel and senior officials have repeatedly stated that the agency is engaged in efforts to monitor, catalog, and intimidate individuals engaged in peaceful protests"
Oh I’m well aware.
It’s reprehensible and I am demanding accountability from my elected politicians. The only way we’ll see someone answer for these crimes, though, is if enough Americans give a shit to get off their fucking asses and actually put people into office who will bring change.
I don't know that signing up for a rewards club and then complaining that you're being marketed to is quite the platonic ideal of rebellion you make it out to be.
This article reads like “jurisprudence fetishist gets off on technicality!”
How refreshingly European.
Actual decision (Norwegian): https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/c8d0551d2a64403285...
Machine translation of overview & 5.1 which is what the blog post is about (covers some other things as well): https://chatgpt.com/share/6a34732c-0fa4-83e8-aae1-95c25dd117...
[EDIT] Oh, there was actually official English decision available as well: https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...
> The reply I received a few days later did me the favour of putting the violation on the record. Their position, in their own words, was that "in order to receive marketing / offers, it is a condition to be a member of the customer club." That one sentence is the whole case. They had taken a right I am entitled to exercise for free and turned it into the price of admission.
I don’t understand… it would be one thing if it said “receiving marketing/offers is a condition of being a member of the customer club” but that’s not what is being stated above… rather that being a member of the club is required to receive marketing — perhaps something has been misworded or lost in translation?
Yeah sounds like it's backwards , and should be "in order to be a member of the customer club, it is a condition to receive marketing / offers ."
Yes this is the logical sentence order, at least in English.
I think the "marketing/offers" means discounts? To be eligible for the discounts or special offers, you have to be a member of the club, and if you are a member of the club you have to be willing to receive the email messages, and somehow under EU law you're entitled to all discounts I guess?
Yea, I don't get it either. Receiving being a condition on membership means (in my understanding) only that non-members can't (shouldn't) receive anything, not that members will or must receive something. Which sounds perfectly normal and sane to me.
sounded exactly like translation error from a German-related lang.
e.g. "to receive offers...is a condition to be in..."
I understand where he's coming from, but it is still hilarious that he sued the legal entity that won the case for him, after they found the case in his favor.
What do you mean? It sounds like he is planning to sue company in question and possibly lodging complaint against Swedish DPA. Norwegian DPA is the one who found case in his favor.
Yes, he doesn't have a problem with the Norwegian DPA but with the Swedish DPA which are the ones that should be in contact with him.
The part about this that's amazing to me is that they still are doing nothing after he noted another GDPR violation [0]. He's obviously both competent and litigious. What does the company expect to happen next??
[0] "Under Article 77(2) of the GDPR a supervisory authority is under a binding legal obligation to keep a complainant informed of the progress and the outcome of their complaint. It is not a courtesy and it is not discretionary - it is written into the law. I filed my complaint with IMY, IMY passed it on, the case ended in a multi-million euro enforcement action, and not one of the authorities involved thought to tell the person who started it."
The image isn't loading for me, all I see is the prompt used to generate it - which is genuinely preferable.
For me it was showing the image and the prompt, but the whole page was unstyled. But when I reloaded the page now, the css loaded also and the prompt is not shown.
I guess the web server was temporarily overwhelmed by traffic resulting in images (like for you) and css files (like for me) not being consistently served to all visitors.
Datatilsynet, the Norwegian DPA, from my experience, consistently has the user in mind. It (sadly) takes a long time for things to pass through the system, but they consistently come to good decisions.
This is extremely cool reading! I'm impressed that they actually fined Elkjøp (as they should!) but very surprised that they didn't keep you informed!
Thank you for sharing!
There's also issue with EU companies forcing candidates to agree to their anti-privacy policies (confusingly named "privacy policies") as a requirement before the job interview.
Those anti-privacy policies will state, that you grant the company and third-parties (so, anyone) permissions to use your data (including voice and image) for any purpose. (Of course, it is stated in a slightly obscure fashion, so a layman may not comprehend it.)
I wonder if there has been any similar action taken against those.
I haven't personally encountered that, but you are free to lodge complaint with your local DPA about it.
That exact language is unlikely to be compliant. If you want to maximize your effect you could make Article 15 request to the company in question, get the list of actual recipients of data (make sure to be ask for this specifically) and then make another request to all of those companies. That will then allow you to possibly make further complaints (e.g. why exactly they didn't send Article 14 information to you, are the legal basis they use actually proper in your case especially if the original one was consent and it was not freely given).
Wouldn't you have to give your consent first?
What if you didn't and did not proceed with the process? Can you complain still?
This fills my heart with joy. If only ICO in the UK would do the same.
Badass. Hope this keeps happening to all of those abusive "take it or leave it" corporations.
And how much did it make them over those 5 years?
The fine is only part of the story. They likely spent more money than the fine fighting it over 5 years as fines increase next time if you don’t stop.
And how much did it make them over those 5 years?
You don't know how much it did cost them. Why would you care about how much they gained ? You can't compare something when you have neither value.
Because if, as the regulator, you fail to benchmark what they gained then your laws can be ignored and your fines paid as simply a cost of doing business.
Its why you find the Australian regulator for consumer affairs handing out $200m+ fines to telecommunications companies, for example.
By that logic regulators should lower fines if the action wasn’t profitable. Which creates an expensive legal fight around the net profits of some action were after guilt is determined.
Instead, it’s much better to scale fines based on the scale of the entity involved, which also results in huge fines, but it’s easier to measure revenue. Thus the fines are more broadly effective, and you can still escalate if they don’t stop.
Like in Finland where speeding ticket fines are based on your income. For instance, in one well known case a businessman was fined €121,000 for going 82 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
And before anyone calls this crazy, note that jail time costs you your time, whatever that's worth. This is the same idea without the physical incarceration.
Most rich people still make money when they're in jail. Only people who work for a living stop making money.
Rich and retired are very different thing. A CEO can be out hundreds of millions due to a long prison sentence, but most fines don’t scale nearly that far.
That's considerably more than someone near me who was doing 245km/h in a 90 zone (Well 55mph which is 89km/h). I still don't know why that person didn't lose their license (other than the obvious fact that they were rich enough to afford the Lamborghini that they were driving in); it wasn't just any 55 zone, it was one with a reputation for being dangerous.
I don't think that logic works. In your vein, if I say " If it gets hotter, I'll want it to be colder" that would imply that if it gets colder I'll want it to be hotter. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case thought.
If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.
I think the rest of your come t stands though. There is difficulty I proving profit and Hollywood accounting can probably change those numbers.
> If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.
I’m not saying they would get a rebate just that for this to be meaningful a large portion of a given fine would be based on profits. So a company receiving a fine based on their profits would argue they made less money from the behavior, it’s a legal argument without any risk.
Consider a fine for a mid sized company that’s base 100k + 10m based on profits it ‘goes away’ if they win but it also ‘goes away’ if they drop it by 99%. Thus just as much effort would be spent on how much money they made as is put forth to defend the fine in the first place.
It's not about what you want nor is it about exacting revenge. The end goal is simply a marketplace where a given behavior isn't happening. Appropriately structured fines should accomplish that.
This entire issue is sidestepped by having graduated fines (which GDPR has). If they keep doing it the amount keeps going up until eventually they go out of business. It really limits the ability to take advantage of the system which hopefully makes it not worthwhile to bother doing.
Love to see this, and love our privacy and data handling laws!
Excellent outcome. I wish we had these rights in the USA! Too bad justice took 5 years though.
There are some state laws - California, Virginia and Colorado, a bunch of others. And the SECURE Data Act currently in Congress. https://statescoop.com/house-subcommittee-secure-data-act-pr...
Good to know that this is illegal. One of my email providers also does this, maybe I’ll also have to try reporting them and see what happens.
Go for it! If nobody reports things they don't get fixed.
I have found this to be true not just when it comes to companies breaking laws, but also to much more benign things. Such as reporting potholes in town or broken microwaves at work. Those can be in need of fixing for an extended period of time, yet when I report them, they usually get fixed within days. I suspect most people can't be bothered or think that surely someone else will report the issue. But that doesn't work if everyone thinks that way.
EU only though. You can get away with pretty much anything outside of EU.
how was 1.8M calculated?
has any calculations been made on how much actual profit was made by these unlawful actions?
Page 33. Fine is calculated from annual worldwide revenue from previous year for the company.
https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...
It's always satisfying when customer rights stories have a known positive outcome. The timeline is unfortunately quite slow and bureocractic but I'm glad OP managed to find out about it.
Lol. Brookfield Place wifi had an OPT IN for their wifi to receive marketing.
If you unclicked it, the 'connect to wifi' button greyed out and a notification appears saying that Opt In is required for wifi.
Type the email address of somebody you dislike
Yep this. They never make you verify your email address on a captive portals. (Since you can’t check your email without an internet connection in the first place).
Then you could put in anything that looks like a valid email rather than the email of someone you dislike.
There's always a@a.com
My go-to is always their domain, if it works.
THATS EXACTLY WHAT I DID mwahahaha
I wish America had real privacy laws like Norway.
> the only way to stop the marketing was to cancel my membership of the club altogether
I have experienced this same thing with at least one other big company in Norway.
I could opt out of either SMS or e-mail, but not both, or I would not be able to keep the membership.
Unfortunately, I never made a note of which one that was exactly so I can’t name them and shame them on the spot.
Despite half-hearted attempts at stopping marketing emails now and then by individually logging in and opting out, or clicking unsubscribe links embedded in the email, my email continues to be flooded with marketing both from domestic and foreign companies that I’ve done business with. There is so many companies that even going through a handful of them at a time and unsubscribing there is a seemingly endless amount of companies that remain to unsubscribe from.
It is great to see that someone fights back, and that it is resulting in fines.
komplett.no
I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
Hahaha, the sticker looks really funny, but I like it.
GDPR is a godsend.
I’m imagining an agentic solution in everyone’s inbox that automates GDPR fines and updates
I'm so glad the GDPR never took hold in the US. Little Karens getting companies fined millions of dollars over what amounts to nothing.
You can always not use their service. Plenty of alternatives out there.
How depressingly unamerican.
It's really pathetic, isn't it? These guys hate their fellow Americans so much that they think it's better to allow companies to abuse people instead of stepping in to protect them.
I wonder if anyone who are cheering this fine, actually read and tried to implement GDPR. It is a nightmare to be fully compliant for small companies.
It is mostly just a theater (like endless cookie consent dialogs in anonymous browsing), to employ more experts and bureaucrats.
EU is now pushing privacy laws that severely undermine privacy.
I have read it. It's really easy to be compliant if don't start from a position of extracting the maximum amount of data from every user out there. If you start from the opposite end of the scale, only getting the data you need for the goals you need to achieve in the interest of the user, you barely have to do anything beyond what you would have done anyway.
The cookie consent dialogs were never required in this form.
That was literally just malicious compliance in order to get people mad at the law instead of the companies (at least at first, there's also a huge amount of cargo-culting nowadays). Congrats, you've been psy-opped.
I did, it is easy, you just don't spy on people and have a point of contact and you're good. It becomes hard when you want to spy on people and also remain compliant with the no spying law.
Stop spying on people.
Yes. It’s very easy actually. People think it’s hard only because they’ve built revenue streams on unethical behavior.
> EU is now pushing privacy laws that severely undermine privacy.
Even if it’s most just theater, you don’t make the case at all how it undermines privacy.
It's an interesting story, but I could not help but have my mind skip over it because of the LLMisms. Acts like one of those taboola reels to me. If even just there was a tutorial to get people to write in such a way that it's not obviously LLM text it would be nice because the story is interesting.
I know, it's like complaining about JS etc. but it's like walking into an elevator and smelling very strong perfume. It's hard not to go "whew!"
If I did business in the EU, I would be banning this chap from my services on the basis that the risk he poses to the business is too great...
You would do no such thing, because if you tried, you wouldn't have a business in the EU anymore.
In other words, you'd ban someone because they might notice that you are doing illegal stuff and you might get caught.
Follow the laws and it isn't an issue. I'm pretty sure banning someone for that stuff is probably illegal, too.
We don't want your business in the EU if this is your attitude to things like this.
Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Absolute loser behaviour.
I don't think you should be doing business anywhere if customers being familiar with the law and knowing their rights scares you. Frankly if you are running a business, you should be familiar with the laws and regulations, doing otherwise - especially when someone points out that your behaviour is illegal - is negligence and punishment with a fine is completely appropriate. Welcome to living in a society.
The risk of getting caught doing business illegally? You really don't give a damn about the illegal part, just getting caught?
Just awoid some jurisdictions. Bulgaria is in EU, has all the same access, and has no time for this BS.
You can see the fines the Bulgarian regulator has handed out here:
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/