I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/elkjop-forced-consent-fine/

by speckx • 1 month ago

484 299 1 month ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20260618212028/https://www.thatp...

tomtom13372• 1 month ago

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!

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

It was not their responsibility to keep me informed, it was the responsibility of IMY (the Swedish Regulator) to keep me informed.

tomtom13372• 1 month ago

Sorry, I guess. There were no comments here after a couple of hours and I literally felt bad, so I commented without being very exact in my writing. Regardless, great job, and thank you.

ryandrake• 1 month ago

Excellent outcome. I wish we had these rights in the USA! Too bad justice took 5 years though.

Mathnerd314• 1 month ago

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...

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

There are currently 22 US States with comprehensive privacy laws with Louisiana being the latest (their Governor signed just last week iirc) and the 23rd is literally a Governor's signature away (just passed the state senate).

peaseagee• 1 month ago

And how much did it make them over those 5 years?

Retric6• 1 month ago

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.

coldtea3• 1 month ago

And how much did it make them over those 5 years?

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

The fine is largely irrelevant, now they have faced enforcement we have a decision to file a Representative Actions Directive (equivalent of a US class action) claim with - the cost of that will be 100-1000x more than the fine and will likely lead to shareholder revolt as well (institutional shareholders will likely sue the parent Currys PLC for breach of fiduciary duty and not disclosing these issues during earnings calls and annual reports.)

So the fine is the first step to a much wider legal action.

The fine also puts other loyalty clubs on notice that if they do this, they are going to face consequences - so it has a much wider impact than simply monetary.

Hikikomori• 1 month ago

Did Elgiganten change how it works yet?

Just for fun I signed up. During the signup they say that by becoming a member you accept that they will send things via email etc, but its optional to accept this, you can still click the signup button but then you don't get membership status, you just get an account. Then on the kundklubb page it says that you are not a member, if you click join it will automatically enable email, sms and phone communication, but you can disable them.

pavel_lishin• 1 month ago

The image isn't loading for me, all I see is the prompt used to generate it - which is genuinely preferable.

QuantumNomad_2• 1 month ago

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.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

If you click the image, it flips to reveal the prompt and other metadata.

The blog is running on a Mac Mini on a 1Gb/s uplink so when it gets hit with a front page HN post, it does creak a little but I try to be environmentally responsible with my technology (as much as possible) so I am not in a hurry to move it into a datacentre when currently it only pulls 15-25W from the wall during peak traffic.

kuboble• 1 month ago

Is it a prompt or accessibility description for screen readers?

cmeacham98• 1 month ago

The website labels it as a prompt, so probably a prompt

voidUpdate• 1 month ago

mildly amusing that the model was instructed to generate it in the style of a "wide angle film still" but it seems to have gone for a painting instead

pixelpoet• 1 month ago

Love to see this, and love our privacy and data handling laws!

pixelneon• 1 month ago

Hahaha, the sticker looks really funny, but I like it.

echoangle• 1 month ago

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.

VorpalWay• 1 month ago

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.

TurdF3rguson2• 1 month ago

EU only though. You can get away with pretty much anything outside of EU.

Symbiote3• 1 month ago

Or the UK, which is still in alignment for privacy regulation as far as I know.

Telaneo8• 1 month ago

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.

QuantumNomad_2• 1 month ago

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.

kristianrs• 1 month ago

komplett.no

londons_explore• 1 month ago

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...

onli• 1 month ago

You would do no such thing, because if you tried, you wouldn't have a business in the EU anymore.

solid_fuel4• 1 month ago

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.

Broken_Hippo• 1 month ago

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.

throw93944942• 1 month ago

Just awoid some jurisdictions. Bulgaria is in EU, has all the same access, and has no time for this BS.

Symbiote3• 1 month ago

You can see the fines the Bulgarian regulator has handed out here:

https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

dataflow2• 1 month ago

The risk of getting caught doing business illegally? You really don't give a damn about the illegal part, just getting caught?

Telaneo8• 1 month ago

We don't want your business in the EU if this is your attitude to things like this.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

Processing my personal data in such a way (to ban me from your services pre-emptively) would be a breach of the GDPR and in some member states could involve criminal sanctions.

For example, in the UK we have a very famous case (The Consulting Association (TCA)) where building contractors joined together to build a list of construction workers they didn't want to hire - this was determined as a criminal breach of UK data protection law.

So have at it, I love a challenge...

engeljohnb4• 1 month ago

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."

solid_fuel4• 1 month ago

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.

trhway• 1 month ago

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"

treis• 1 month ago

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.

deepsun4• 1 month ago

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.

bsder• 1 month ago

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.

smcleod2• 1 month ago

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?

m0llusk• 1 month ago

This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.

plagiarist2• 1 month ago

I found some shit like that in a gym contract, which I then declined.

abawany• 1 month ago

I've also read reviews of Greystar properties where the reviewers expressed shock at being forced to consent to such abuse.

engeljohnb4• 1 month ago

Rentals are exactly what I was talking about. Supposedly you can always go to someone else, but we all know in practice we can't just go without housing and if everyone decides you're "difficult," you're SOL.

Earlier this week a potential landlord offered me a lease saying I had already inspected the property and found no issues with it.

I asked for a chance to actually inspect before signing, and even said I would settle for a good quality video walkthrough. They told me the unit was "not available for viewing" because it wasn't finished yet, and by the time it was finished it would likely be taken.

So why did you ask me to sign a contract saying I inspected a property that it's conceptually impossible to inspect??

I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property."

Of course, still not as insane as your story.

uproarchat2• 1 month ago

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.

anitil• 1 month ago

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?

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

That simply isn't possible - you might like to think you read everything but research has shown that simply reading the terms and conditions of the top 100 websites amounts to a colossal amount of time (if you look at Prof. Lorie Cranor's research on this from around 2008, even back then the cost to the US in lost time was to the tune of trillions of dollars - now, they are much much worse than they were 18 years ago.

The terms and conditions for Tetris on Android were longer than the entire works of Tolkien when combined.

So yes, it would be nice to read all of these things, but we simply do not have the time available to do so.

cheese_van• 1 month ago

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.

socalgal2• 1 month ago

I'm sure someone smarter than me has a solution. Those papers you're required to sign are generally the result of regulation. Some law got passed that say "you can't share info unless you get signed permission". The person dreaming up the law thought that would be enough to stop getting them to share info. But, even if they cared about privacy, they don't want to increase all their expenses and run their own IT department so they contract out for 3rd party billing, 3rd party document infra, etc etc. Like if they wanted to store your appointment in MS Word 365 or Google Docs, suddenly the regulation kicks in. They're not going build a document sharing platform to get their job done just so they can meet the regs. They're just going to get you to sign that they can do what they need.

As one example, I went to a doctor, he ordered an x-ray. I went over to the x-ray company then back to my doctor. He pulled up the x-ray immediately. He's only able to do that because I signed that he can share my info with the x-ray company and visa-versa.

Again, I don't have a solution. No regulation = he'd probably share my data. But regulation = he gets me to sign so he can legit provide the service, and still shared my data (Because I signed). So all the regs did is make visiting the doctor more annoying, and add $$$$ to push all the paperwork around.

madaxe_again• 1 month ago

Usually, signing things like this won’t particularly hurt you - largely because your inalienable rights are… inalienable. You can’t sign them away, even if some contract says you have.

The flip side of this however is that it’s a very worthwhile pursuit to know consumer protections and what your rights are in the jurisdiction in which you live - and how to enforce them.

Where I live, I unfortunately quite frequently find myself having to go “ok so you want to do the formal process with the regulator then?”, which usually gets them to reconsider - but not always. Three times in the last month I have threatened regulatory action - and of those three, only one chose that path. I have just reported a government agency here to the domestic and EU regulators for failing to fulfil EU FoM treaty rights - and they were even kind enough to put it in writing that they’re ignoring their own domestic laws.

I have yet to lose a case I have brought before a regulator or justice of the peace, and businesses usually only need to do this once, if at all, as it can quite quickly turn a €1,000 dispute into tens or hundreds of thousands of euro of damages and fines. By doing this, following these processes through, I help not just myself but society as a whole.

So - sign away, but have teeth, and know where to bite.

Terretta• 1 month ago

In general, in the US of A, that consent you sign waives your legislated-to-be-guaranteed HIPAA rights.

Specifically, you're typically giving the office's providers and their marketing "affiliates" and your insurance company and its marketing "affiliates" the right to forward around (through any length chains of agreements) your entire medical history associated with enough (research proven as de-anonymizing) details to retarget you personally. And you're typically doing this by accepting a company insurance (in the US) or the provider's reception counter while you're in need of care.

This effectively forced consent is arguably illegal, but as far as I know, untested, so it's standard across the medical system and across omnibus insurance (e.g. company-provided healthcare "plan").

Of course, every touch point is another place your personal history will get stolen and rolled into modern digitally scripted exploitation of your identity and or targeted forms of phish-mongering (a term I made up meaning marketing so personalized you believe it's necessary to sign up for and pay for).

If you have any relationship with the team at your company that procures employee insurance packages, see if you can persuade them to start with the firm's insurance consultant (high end) or broker (low end) and systematically remove every step in the "we can pass along all your info to our affiliates for our own pinky-swear good reasons like making more money off your private info" chain.

In our experience, this added 3+ months to the procurement process as every single provider balked until interacted with by counsel -- and then instantly capitulated.

Our goal was always to give our employees a top tier benefits package, and we consider it a top tier hard-to-match employee benefit to not have random firms and government agencies pawing through your doctors notes, prescription histories, lab results, and enough biographical data to fake your digital twin.

Sadly, most employees -- though none of them are sheeple -- shrug at that for reasons in this thread: no time to fight such pervasive exploitation, especially when it hits them while needing a service as it hit you, or just plain weary of trying. So much easier, and psychically healthier, to just avoid thinking about it. Everyone is resigned.

If a company you consider working for claims "we take your privacy seriously" ask if they got privacy waivers removed on your behalf from all vendor contracts including payroll (does your salary go to 'work number'?) and insurance providers (can your data leave your doctor's EMR?). Odds are, they do not, in fact, take your privacy as seriously as they could.

trinsic2• 1 month ago

What's interesting about those documents you asked to sign, at least at hospitals, it's not a requirement even though it may appear that way by the interaction. I suspect it's the same for other medical professions as well.

comfysocks• 1 month ago

I had a similar experience at a bank some time ago. To sign up, you had to sign a digital pad without seeing what you were signing first. You could get a copy mailed to you later. At that future time, I was told, you could you cancel the agreement if you found it objectionable.

Being a bank, this has nothing to do with HIPAA. Just a dark pattern.

goosejuice3• 1 month ago

My wife recently gave birth. When we arrived at the hospital her contractions were close enough together for her to be admitted. They proceeded to give my wife a 10 page or so consent form to sign. I can't imagine anyone reading that. I also can't imagine them not admitting someone over it.

drstewart• 1 month ago

Can you cite the especially in the US part? Maybe use Bolivia, Kosovo, and Indonesia as some random global comparisons.

engeljohnb4• 1 month ago

You're right, it would've been better to say "at least far as my experience in the US."

gblargg2• 1 month ago

Doesn't the right to free association solve this? Don't patronize companies that do this.

engeljohnb4• 1 month ago

I'm a traveling healthcare worker, which means every 3 months is both a new contract for work and a new lease for a rental to stay at.

So if I'm not willing to complete several hours of training modules uncompensated and before the start date of my contract, I'm within my rights to refuse. But this violation of most states' codes is common practice, and when I inform a new workplace that I'm not going to do it, they tell me it's "required," and the part they're careful not to put in writing is that my contract will be canceled if I make a fuss (there is almost always a clause in these contracts saying they can cancel any time for any reason).

So just move onto the next job, right? But the market is very feast-or-famine. It's just not smart to assert my rights during one of the famine periods.

Similarly, if I'm not willing to sign a lease for a rental saying my landlord is entitled to seize and sell all of my property for being even a minute late on rent, I've now considerably limited my housing options, which is not good when I have a new job that starts in two weeks. If that landlord then goes and tells all their landlord friends that I'm "difficult," I could be completely fucked.

Sure, it's "solved." It sucks anyway.

21asdffdsa12• 1 month ago

This, honestly is what i expected AI to challenge heads-on- because that is what its ideal for- little agents arguing for the consumer, the customer, the citizen. In the government offices, these constant advocates could undo all that damage faster then the companies can pile up anti-service moats.

0xfffafaCrash• 1 month ago

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?

LearnYouALisp• 1 month ago

sounded exactly like translation error from a German-related lang.

e.g. "to receive offers...is a condition to be in..."

drdaeman• 1 month ago

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.

mixdup• 1 month ago

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?

gruelsandwich2• 1 month ago

Even if you opt out of marketing emails, they can still collect information about you, which is useful

subscribed3• 1 month ago

That's pretty disingenuous thing to say.

The company was also processing, transferring and selling private data without doing as much as informing their customers.

It's perfectly possible to offer discounts to customers without egregious violations of law and privacy.

ajb• 1 month ago

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 ."

drnick1• 1 month ago

Yes this is the logical sentence order, at least in English.

cm2012• 1 month ago

He was an Elkjøp/Elgiganten customer club member. He wanted to keep the club membership and discounts/offers, but stop the marketing emails. Elkjøp’s setup told him the only way to stop the marketing was to cancel the club membership altogether.

To me, Elkjop seems perfectly reasonable here. But EU policy disagrees.

thaumasiotes3• 1 month ago

According to the article, that is not what Elkjøp told him. You're making the assumption that what the article says must make sense, which is unfounded.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

You might well think it is reasonable, but the law doesn't permit this, it is explicit that the person has an absolute right not to be subjected to direct marketing activities (Article 21 of the GDPR) and Article 5 of the GDPR requires that any processing of personal data must comply with all other relevant laws in order to be lawful under the GDPR - ePrivacy Directive (Article 13) governs Direct Marketing in the EU and requires consent - but that consent must meet the requirements of Article 7 under the GDPR in order to be valid (freely given) and any consent which is bundled and is a condition of access to a service where such processing is not necessary to provide that service - is not considered as freely given.

This is not new, we have a lot of case law and regulatory guidance on this.

subscribed3• 1 month ago

I think you might gloss over the fact that marketing content implies extensive data collection, sale and sharing of personal data with third parties.

The company was selling the data without checking if buyers would offer similar levels of protection (LOL, in that case). It was found the members weren't properly informed SO the consent was not freely given, they basically extorted and lied to their customers. I'm very happy they were fined.

I'm very happy you're not in charge of privacy laws, but seriously, I don't see how would a consumer ever want more surveillance? Unless you're not a consumer.

contubernio• 1 month ago

Alternative approximate translation: while I urinate on you tell me it's raining.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

It is a translation thing - what they said in Norwegian was that it is required to accept marketing activities if you want to be part of the loyalty club - but the machine translation did it literally instead of changing the structure to match common English.

em-bee2• 1 month ago

can you fix it?

rpdillon• 1 month ago

I actually stopped reading right there and came to the comments because I was really confused.

throw93944942• 1 month ago

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.

tverbeure• 1 month ago

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.

iliveinberlin2• 1 month ago

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.

dgellow3• 1 month ago

You can even spy if you want to, just ask for consent

kentm• 1 month ago

Yes. It’s very easy actually. People think it’s hard only because they’ve built revenue streams on unethical behavior.

Telaneo8• 1 month ago

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.

DarkUranium• 1 month ago

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.

veltas2• 1 month ago

When the official EU websites use the same kinds of annoying dialogs, how is this true?

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

I wrote this 5 years ago, hopefully it will clear up some of the misconceptions around cookie banners:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-a...

matheusmoreira2• 1 month ago

Stop spying on people.

mrweasel2• 1 month ago

The companies made this worse for themselves by continuously trying to skirt around the rules and regulations.

When the cookie-law was first instituted I worked for an e-commerce site and was tasked with ensuring that we'd be compliant. It would have been crazy simple to implement, but no, because management, encouraged by the companies selling the tracking and re-targeting solutions kept insisting that I was reading the rules incorrectly. By incorrectly they meant: We want to be able to track and target customers all the time, regardless of the rules. The result was scraping my solution that truly allowed users to opt in, in favour of a commercial solution that just blocked then entire site until you clicked "Okay" and which wouldn't actually stop tracking if you dismissed it somehow.

Yeah, the rules are getting increasingly complicate and to some extend requires experts. That is because of businesses that have failed so miserably in regulating itself.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

Absolute nonsense. Any company that was complying with the old Data Protection Directive should have had zero issues upgrading their processes and policies to comply with GDPR there are very few material differences between the two and the previous law existed since 1995 - most of the changes are around accountability (record keeping).

Also cookies literally have nothing to do with GDPR other than the definition of consent - Cookies are governed under and entirely different law which has existed since 2002 (Directive 2002/58/EC).

It bugs me when I see people criticising the law when they actually havent even bothered to research and understand it or even look at the correct law.

lII1lIlI11ll• 1 month ago

That is likely by design. From the article footer:

"Work with Alexander

Thirty years in privacy. Helped shape the GDPR. Advisor to the EDPB, the European Parliament and the European Commission. If you need this kind of analysis applied to your own systems:

    Website and App Compliance (£500/mo+)
    GDPR Compliance Audits (£3,500+)
    DPO-as-a-Service (£1,500/mo+)
    Privacy by Design Implementation

Book a free consultation See all services"

RobRivera2• 1 month ago

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.

iliveinberlin2• 1 month ago

Type the email address of somebody you dislike

Telaneo8• 1 month ago

There's always a@a.com

josephg• 1 month ago

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).

RobRivera2• 1 month ago

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I DID mwahahaha

gorbachev• 1 month ago

yomomma@example.com works for me, most of the time. Some of the places that like to spam their users no matter what filter example.com out.

internet_points• 1 month ago

Put their own email in there, ceo@that-dumb-company.com

ninjin• 1 month ago

Hmm, probably beats my default: abuse@$COMPANY.com

kklisura• 1 month ago

GDPR is a godsend.

sscaryterry2• 1 month ago

This fills my heart with joy. If only ICO in the UK would do the same.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

Well John Edwards just resigned yesterday so maybe you will get a real Commissioner this time - although that said, John was hired specifically as someone who would do nothing, so I guess he did what he was paid to do.

He has largely been ostracised by the privacy and data protection community (even at regulatory events) I have seen him wandering around alone and aimlessly at a number of regulatory events, he didn't seem very comfortable and didn't really have a lot of interaction with his peers.

SomeUserName432• 1 month ago

Someone sent me https://e24.no/norsk-oekonomi/i/OkEMRb/433-millioner-i-miste... and I immediate thought of this post.

On e24, opting out of cookies is a paid service.

subscribed3• 1 month ago

ICO bothers to whine and plead sometimes!

But usually even the extensive evidence is indeed met with "eh, mate, can't you just ask them again?"

sscaryterry2• 1 month ago

Yep, pretty much the definition of a toothless regulator.

buzer9• 1 month ago

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...

jazz9k• 1 month ago

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.

wredcoll• 1 month ago

How depressingly unamerican.

solid_fuel4• 1 month ago

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.

wafflemaker• 1 month ago

I for one was signed up for Elkjøp kundeklubb membership unbeknownst to me. It happened when I was picking up a water cooker. Seller asked if I would like an electronic receipt and asked me for my email. That was in Elkjøp at Solsiden in Trondheim.

The more annoying is that I gave him my regular email address and not a generated alias that I always give to companies.

Was super pissed when spam started landing on my main address.

So no, not plenty alternatives here.

Symbiote3• 1 month ago

If I need to buy something at El Giganten (Danish version) I speak English when paying, and tell them I'm a tourist and don't want to give them a phone number or email. They can print a paper receipt.

But I only buy from there if it's the only option. (Other than Amazon, which I refuse to use at all.)

gruelsandwich2• 1 month ago

Norway has in practice only two big box electronics chains. Not always "pleny of alternatives out there"

veltas2• 1 month ago

All this regulatory overhead won't help competition.

arjie3• 1 month ago

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!"

cwillu3• 1 month ago

LLMisms

The word is “cliches”, and they existed long before LLMs.

arjie3• 1 month ago

Haha they are cliches, yes. But a specific type of cliche that is unique to current language models.

That one sentence is the whole case

This example, for instance, is more uniquely LLM than mere common cliche.

berege3• 1 month ago

Cliches in general did, llms created new ones even though you may not be adept at recognising them

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

They are not written by an LLM lol, I have severe ADHD, this is how I write and there is plenty of my material out there spanning the last 20+ years (long before LLMs existed) to illustrate that.

em-bee2• 1 month ago

i sent the article to an AI detection tool and it said that 22% are AI generated. (that tool distinguishes between AI generated, AI assisted, and human) it marks the first few paragraphs as such. i have no idea how accurate that tool generally is. it is clearly failing here. (part of the reason for checking articles is to learn how reliable those tools are, not to gather evidence against a writer)

what could help though is if you could find a way to have your articles proof read by someone else to at least weed out some of the more difficult to read constructs, like this one:

any Consent Management Platform (CMP) which sets a cookie for anything other than cookies which are not strictly necessary that the user has consented to

i would write that as:

any Consent Management Platform (CMP) which sets a cookie that is not strictly necessary but that the user has not consented to

i had to read your version three times to make sure i understood it correctly.

arjie3• 1 month ago

Nah this is 100% AI written.

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 bet pangram would flag it. Humans don’t write like this. ADHD doesn’t cause this style of phrasing.

EDIT: Pangram predictably did in fact find it so: https://www.pangram.com/history/2e549b09-072d-4fe8-a000-e165...

Pretty unsurprising for a modern text like this to be honest. Or as one should say “Those two sections are the whole case. We took a free technology and made it the price of a blog post”.

alexhans• 1 month ago

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.

yieldcrv• 1 month ago

I’m imagining an agentic solution in everyone’s inbox that automates GDPR fines and updates

angry_octet• 1 month ago

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.

Insimwytim2• 1 month ago

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.

buzer9• 1 month ago

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).

Insimwytim2• 1 month ago

Wouldn't you have to "consent" first?

What if you didn't and did not proceed with the process? Can you complain still?

As in - if you didn't give your consent there's no violation has occurred and they don't have your data, so nothing to ask for?

deaux• 1 month ago

Our local DPA, who will then proceed to ignore it for years or tell us to take them to court ourselves. [0] As European privacy law including GDPR is a symbolic tool meant to placate and selectively enforce when politically expedient, not to seriously enforce. Understandable, given that near all EU politicians work for corporate interests, as in the US.

[0] https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland - 80% of complaints pending a reply for more than 1.5 years

CalRobert3• 1 month ago

I grated a bit at an EU company's use of https://www.crosschq.com/ recently.

josefritzishere• 1 month ago

I wish America had real privacy laws like Norway.

ambicapter3• 1 month ago

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.

buzer9• 1 month ago

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.

LtdJorge• 1 month ago

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.

intended• 1 month ago

Seeing that he influenced the creation of the GDPR, the general sense of hopelessness in the rest of the populace, and the failure of the governing body to do it’s jobs - I suppose he is the only person who would be taking people to account.

TonyStr• 1 month ago

Looking at the report from datatilsynet (Norwegian Data Protection Agency), they cite "multiple reports and tips" as the background. I suspect what happened here is that IMY concluded that this laid outside of their authority, submitted the complaint to datatilsynet and either closed the case and forgot to inform Hanff, or they may have never gotten any response from datatilsynet.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

I have had several direct discussion with the Norwegian DPA throughout the case, the inspection and investigation were triggered by the IMY cross border case and I have not "sued" the regulator (neither do I say I have) I have filed a complaint against IMY (the Swedish Regulator) for failure to meet their legal obligations under Article 77(2) but then I have already had to file multiple legal complaints against IMY because they are an absolutely terrible supervisory authority that do literally nothing (they send out postcards to Data Controllers for violations saying "Hey do you know what GDPR is?").

So no, I have not sued the Norwegian DPA and actually have a very good relationship with them along with most of the other EU DPAs (I am an advisor to them, I sit in the pool of experts for law and new technologies at the EDPB which includes ALL EU data protection authorities).

NooneAtAll32• 1 month ago

how was 1.8M calculated?

has any calculations been made on how much actual profit was made by these unlawful actions?

u1hcw9nx• 1 month ago

Page 33. Fine is calculated from annual worldwide revenue from previous year for the company.

https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...

NooneAtAll32• 1 month ago

"guidelines say we should apply fine of 0.4% yearly revenue (400M NOK) at the least, but for whatever reason we decided punishment to be 20x less than that"

okay then...

matheusmoreira2• 1 month ago

Badass. Hope this keeps happening to all of those abusive "take it or leave it" corporations.

setgree2• 1 month ago

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."

XelNika• 1 month ago

As I understand it, this second complaint is not against the original company, but against the government authority that handled his case.

gpm• 1 month ago

There's two government authorities here, the one he reported it to (Swedish), and the one that the first one forwarded it to (Norwegian).

The former is the one he seems to be currently taking to task for failing to follow the law, the latter is the one that meaningfully handled the case.

setgree2• 1 month ago

Ah, I got confused by the name and acronyms.

N_Lens• 1 month ago

This article reads like “jurisprudence fetishist gets off on technicality!”

How refreshingly European.

Terr_2• 1 month ago

How is "you must let customers opt-out of marketing spam" a technicality?

actionfromafar2• 1 month ago

Tell me it’s raining, huh? America is used to yellow rain.

spl757• 1 month ago

The term "forced consent" is an oxymoron. It shouldn't take much more critical thinking than reading that term to know it makes no sense.

ozozozd• 1 month ago

Agreed. It’s an idiotic euphemism.

patates• 1 month ago

It's one of those situations that the words lose their meanings but the expression makes you understand a situation better. This is like a manufactured consent that comes with a threat. A similar example would be "coerced confession" or maybe even "forced smile".

gib4442• 1 month ago

Eveyone getting very excited but on what date did the company actually pay the fine to the EU?

This decision can nevertheless be challenged before Norwegian courts in accordance with Article 78(1) of the GDPR. [0]

Time will tell I guess?

[0] https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

It can be appealed but because it is cross border it has to be appealed directly at the Oslo Court (rather than the privacy claims board) and also the fact they had the fine reduced for co-operation usually includes a clause that they will not appeal (otherwise they lose the discount which is normally around 30%).

vinni2• 1 month ago

I am glad this was resolved. It’s annoying when companies take things for granted. It’s not just Elkjøp doing it. There are other e commerce companies and some online pharmacies doing it too.

petterroea• 1 month ago

I personally know other people who have filed similar complaints, and the Norwegian Datatilsynet explicitly stated they acted based on many complaints. I don't think they care about a single person's voice in this, even if they "helped create the law".

It's a shame, but it probably says more about Datatilsynet's capacity. Frankly it would be great if you could simply say "this company did something dodgy", provide proof, and immediately get results. But that's not the world we live in.

whilenot-dev• 1 month ago

That's where I put a lot of hope into LLMs, as this is all about natural language that is difficult to parse. It'd be great if LLMs could accelerate enforcements in the digital world, so single individuals with valid claims can finally be heard.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

You are making assumptions, I have a very good relationship with the Norwegian DPA and discussed the case with them several times over the past 4 years.

d--b• 1 month ago

Idk about that particular company but the benefit of cheating may be much higher than the 1.8m fine they got.

I personally never specifically consent to anything, yet get a ton of marketing emails. To most companies that send me those emails 1.8m would be a slap on the wrist.

AlexanderHanff19• 1 month ago

It is not just the fine - they are no longer permitted to conduct the processing activities - so no they don't continue to profit from it, one of the reasons the fine was reduced was specifically because they made changes to bring themselves into compliance during the investigation. This is stated in the Regulator's press release directly.

HeartStrings• 1 month ago

"Integritetsskyddsmyndighetensffsf"

Bro, you alright?

PeterStuer• 1 month ago

I'm sure I am wrong somewhere. But can someone explain to me how this same reasoning would not apply to every advertizing 'supported' business? You can't opt-out off ads on many websites or streaming services and still hsve access.

jjbinx007• 1 month ago

It's my understanding that those websites are in violation of the gdpr for doing so.

anygivnthursday• 1 month ago

On most platforms you can usually opt out of targeted/personalized ads that require tracking or collecting personal data, if you do you still get general ads, but that isnt subject to GDPR if they dont use your data for it, I guess.

buzer9• 1 month ago

It's called "pay-or-okay" and there hasn't been many decisions on it yet which has led noyb to sue German DPAs: https://noyb.eu/en/years-inactivity-pay-or-ok-cases-noyb-sue...

There is one case where DPA ruled in favor of the company, but it's currently being appealed: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-ok-der-spiegel-noyb-sues-hamburg-d...

Another one ruled against company and court agreed: https://noyb.eu/en/court-decides-pay-or-okay-derstandardat-i...

mrweasel2• 1 month ago

It's not the ads that are the problem, it's the tracking. If you install something like Privacy Badger it will block all tracking, but not necessarily ads. However, because so many of the ads come bundled with a shit ton of tracking, they are effectively blocked.

There's nothing problematic about having Stihl advertise chainsaws on a page for lumberjack. There is a problem when you collect data from across the internet, conclude that a person might be a lumberjack and serve the chainsaw ads based on that information on a news site.

Sadly the advertising industry is mostly dead, at least online. We're left with online marketing experts that are basically just clicking around in Google and Meta ad-management interfaces. They know nothing about the sites or content, nor do they care. The magical box will find the customers... and if it gets it wrong, no worries, it wasn't their money anyway and you can always just go "Well, advertising isn't an exact science, some of your spending was always going to be wasted, you just don't know which part".

Now we're left with an online advertising industry that can't tell advertising and tracking apart, and it doesn't have the skills or the network to go directly to sites and buy ad-space.

fifilura2• 1 month ago

I am a EU citizen, I bought a (Chinese) robotic lawn mower.

One day, end of April when the grass is growing very rapidly, they presented me with a dialog in the app that basically said.

"We updated the EULA with the explanation "optimized wordings". Please accept."

There was no reference to the new or old EULA, and if I didn't accept I could not start the app and use my new mower. It was bricked.

I am now checking their compliance with GDPR. It is a tedious process because they keep stalling, but I still feel I have all the rights.

And I get a lot of help from chatgpt who works as a patient secretary that translates my "f-fck sake give me my stuff" into formal/friendly legalese with counter questions designed to be difficult to duck.

As of now, 2 months later, they have finally pointed me to "download personal data" in the application which gives me back a PDF with mower model, my email address and some push notification history.

But I know they store much more than that. And I think they know that I know. If nothing else my customer support history. But also for example a map of my garden.

actionfromafar2• 1 month ago

Sounds like a clear case.

fifilura2• 1 month ago

Yeah, doesn't always help of course.

But EU countries have authorities for this that helps filing issues they find legitimate. e.g. https://www.imy.se/en/news/administrative-fee-against-spotif...

But also the Norwegian twin mentioned in TFA.

As of now I am mostly collecting data to probe their compliance.

VBprogrammer2• 1 month ago

I've often wondered what basis companies are using for the "opt-in to tracking or pay to opt out model". It has spread now to even fairly reputable organisations.

This, at least to my understanding, runs contrary to the spirit of the GDPR regulations. Permission has to be freely given which, when the alternative is paying a subscription, it quite obviously isn't.

roelschroeven• 1 month ago

The only basis they have is the low chance of enforcement. It is absolutely contrary not only to the spirit but also the letter of the law.

VBprogrammer2• 1 month ago

I have a vague memory of there being some case law or interpretation here. But certainly doesn't bare much resemblance to what the original law makers had in mind.

infinite_spin• 1 month ago

I would like to see these regulations in place here. I have always felt very uncomfortable with companies like TurnItIn.com getting to train their models off of my work, without compensation, where my consent is assumed and there is no opt-out. I've brought this up before, and the general consensus was that my college enrollment is optional, and therefore my consent is freely given. I should have a right to attend a school I pay for and qualified for, without requiring me to give up other rights.

lixtra• 1 month ago

Hand in your paper when you’re on vacation or even better on a conference in Europe. GDPR will apply. Of course it will take so long that you won’t benefit from a decision for your studies. And one possible outcome is that your college won’t allow submitting from EU and won’t admit EU citizens (similar to US citizens having difficulties opening accounts in EU banks).

pembrook• 1 month ago

Thankfully inbox providers are now mandating unsubscribe headers (so the unsubscribe button now sits at email client level, not within the body of the email, as it always should have). Making this entire thing irrelevant.

Going through the hassle of policing individual company behavior is beyond silly and a giant waste of resources when you can literally just force the behavior at client level.

This is also basically the story of why GDPR popups are stupid. Set it at the client (browser) level, not on 100,000,000 individual websites done slightly differently every time and try to setup an enforcement dragnet to have expensive fights over misplaced commas.

This should have always been a browser setting and not a multi-billion dollar Kafka-esque nightmare of lawyers and regulators policing every company on earth, wasting Europe's productivity and resources.

It's like how the US makes you file your own taxes when for 99% of people they already know the amount you owe, and then randomly will decide to fine you if your calculated number doesn't line up with their number. It's giant waste of everyones time.

abc123abc123• 1 month ago

5 years?! That's a f*cking joke. Democracy and rule of law does not exist any longer. The politicians get richer, no one challenges them, they pass their offices down within their family, taxes get higher and higher, and services worse and worse.

On the other hand, it is fascinating to be able to watch the destruction of europe and western democracy while it is happening! I imagine that this painful slide is what must have happened during the end of the roman empire. Now we're seeing the end of the european/US empire.

Someone• 1 month ago

FTA: 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."

I don’t see how that implies “if you’re a member of the club, you must receive marketing / offers”. It only says “only members receive marketing / offers”

crest• 1 month ago

Fuck them with a rusty chainsaw dipped in manure.

I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

Related Stories