ΟΚ or pay? – Τα προσωπικά δεδομένα ως αντάλλαγμα

View/ Open
Keywords
Προσωπικά δεδομένα ; Consent or payAbstract
‘If you want peace, prepare for war,’ they say. This is the undeclared war on the commercial interests of the gatekeepers of technology that is now faced been the EU legislator, who was slow to realize the scale of the clash that behavioral advertising could cause. The peace the legislator sought, through a moderate stance was not achieved, as economic interests predictably prevailed over good intentions. Now, in addition to these interests, the legislator must also deal with the potential resistance of society, which has been trained for years in the culture of sharing. About 20 years ago, when social media had not yet appeared, the “audience” of the average person consisted of a few friends, colleagues, and family members, whereas now anyone can address thousands of followers on a daily basis.
The EU legislator's attempt to interrupt the voracious systems of monitoring internet users and collecting data culminated in a direct battle with Facebook. However, Meta Platforms did not appear concerned and, thumbing its nose at the legislator, changed its operating model without actually changing anything. What did change—and now urgently requires answers—is that Meta’s new “pay or okay” model highlighted, in the most indisputable way, the extent of data commercialization. Overnight, personal data officially became a trade-off for access to digital content or services, on a global scale. This caught EU legislator off guard, particularly given the clear divergence of the CJEU, which arguably opened the back door for the rise of the “pay or consent” model on Facebook and Instagram.
The first battle may be considered lost, but not the war.
The principles forged over time and enshrined as fundamental rights will guide the continued resistance to the unbridled commercialization of data and of the individual. However, in order for there to be any chance of victory, or at least reconciliation between conflicting interests, the means need to be rationalised and the goals redefined with an eye to the future, without prejudice, even if this means re-evaluating the basic priorities of the law and hard decision making.


