Google Fined $57 Million By French Data Privacy Body For Failing To Comply With EU's GDPR Regulations (venturebeat.com) 109
schwit1 shares a report from VentureBeat: Google has been hit by a $57 million fine by French data privacy body CNIL (National Data Protection Commission) for failure to comply with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulations. The CNIL said that it was fining Google for "lack of transparency, inadequate information and lack of valid consent regarding the ads personalization," according to a press release issued by the organization. The news was first reported by the AFP. What the CNIL is effectively referencing here is dark pattern design, which attempts to encourage users into accepting terms by guiding their choices through the design and layout of the interface. This is something that Facebook has often done too, as it has sought to garner user consent for new features or T&Cs.
It's worth noting here that Google has faced considerable pressure from the EU on a number of fronts over the way it carries out business. Back in July, it was hit with a record $5 billion fine in an Android antitrust case, though it is currently appealing that. A few months back, Google overhauled its Android business model in Europe, electing to charge Android device makers a licensing fee to preinstall its apps in Europe. Google hasn't confirmed what its next steps will be, but it will likely appeal the decision as it has done with other fines. "People expect high standards of transparency and control from us," a Google spokesperson told VentureBeat. "We're deeply committed to meeting those expectations and the consent requirements of the GDPR. We're studying the decision to determine our next steps."
It's worth noting here that Google has faced considerable pressure from the EU on a number of fronts over the way it carries out business. Back in July, it was hit with a record $5 billion fine in an Android antitrust case, though it is currently appealing that. A few months back, Google overhauled its Android business model in Europe, electing to charge Android device makers a licensing fee to preinstall its apps in Europe. Google hasn't confirmed what its next steps will be, but it will likely appeal the decision as it has done with other fines. "People expect high standards of transparency and control from us," a Google spokesperson told VentureBeat. "We're deeply committed to meeting those expectations and the consent requirements of the GDPR. We're studying the decision to determine our next steps."
Re: (Score:1)
Speeding fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on that, my next speeding fine should be about $0.27
Corporate fines MUST be based on International turnover (they hide profits too well), or better year a minimum of 12 months in federal prison for all of the Management.
Re: Speeding fine (Score:5, Insightful)
GDPR's sole reason to exist is to give me a legal option to force the likes of Facebook and Google to store and process my private information in a more responsible manner.
It is not difficult to comply with. A Mom and Pop shop does't need "a full time DPO" if they have a visitor from the EU or ship a package occasionally.
I looked at europa.eu, and I don't understand what you mean at all by "cleaning house domestically". The GDPR applies with the same strength everywhere in the EU, and to all companies that operate there. I've had personal data removed by EU companies after a GDPR request.
Take a breather, nobody's buying your sad FUD.
Re: Speeding fine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you so angry? GDPR is clear about exactly nothing, I've read it. If you broadly agree with strong executive power you'll think GDPR is peachy and wonderful and people arguing with it are just stupid or malicious. If you think law should clearly enumerate in exacting detail what it forbids or allows you will think GDPR is incompetent and probably intended for political advantage.
The DPO issue is exactly like every other part of the GDPR - so vague as to be entirely open to interpretation. "Only organ
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's exactly the point of GDPR. Keep Google/Facebook/Amazon in check so that they don't know exactly how far they can go and refrain from playing the odds. If you write the law too precisely, then you can be sure those precisions will create loopholes, playing with words. If you don't, then it's up to the interpretation of a court (some say this is what democracy is about) i.e. have the People determine whether what you are doing is OK or not.
Now, if you don't want to worry about GDPR, stay away
Re: (Score:2)
They DO need a DPO if they are to comply with the "GDPR".
Since you're so sure about that, show us the line saying that every company needs a DPO from the regulation. Otherwise you're just making stupid assumptions based on your own ignorance.
Re: Speeding fine (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU hasn't set a rule on companies. The EU has agreed collectively that its member states must pass rules on company behaviour.
The benefit of the EU is that complying with one country's rules means you're (broadly) automatically complying with all of the other countries' rules. You still have to obey the law in each country in which you operate.
Is that so hard to comprehend?
Re: Speeding fine (Score:4, Insightful)
GDPR is very simple to comply with:
- know how your business uses personal data
- be open about it - inform your customers
- secure the use of personal data by access control & logging
- check your contracts with third parties, and try not to share personal data unless necessary
- educate your employees
That's about it.
The real effect of GDPR is implementing reasonable data management practices across the board.
Say I want to save the hair colour of customers. Shall I create a new database? Or should I put it into an existing one? New database is easier, I don't need to discuss with anyone, I'l just spin up a new mongo instance, done. But I'll lack all security that the old database already has. Now GDPR forces me to implement security, which means it will be easier to put the data into the existing DB, even if this has management overhead for me - I need to get my change into DB team's backlog, etc. However, in the long run I am better off with all data being in one place, not split across multiple platforms.
Or say I need to email / message / call my customers. GDPR incentivizes using service providers that have been already set up, with contracts and security and compliance in place. This is a price to pay, you won't be as flexible as you could, and you will pay extra for the compliance. However, this is a reasonable tradeoff.
Mom & Pop should thus know what personal data they have, know how they handle it, and say it out in a public statement.
Not much to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lifetime + 70 years sounds good.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So, Google was fined the amount of money they make in 8 hours.
That will teach them a lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this predates GDPR so the fine is relatively small. If they don't fix the problem there could be a GDPR fine of 4% of annual world-wide turnover, which is over $5 billion.
Re: (Score:1)
Their expected patterns of spending on their own populations in the 1970-2000's no longer adds up.
Vast amounts of new wealth has to be taxed in new ways to cover changes in population size and to cover demands on gov services.
Re: If it's an EU rule then why... (Score:3, Informative)
Vast amounts of new wealth has to be taxed
A fine for violating a law with a 2-year grace period is not a tax, stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, when a government gets to spend money it is a disbursement from the government budget. A tax is an amount collected from a group of citizens that support the operation of their government. A fine is a measure to discourage criminal behavior, by a person or a corporation.
Get the reasons for the different definitions, just being loud and ignorant doesn't strengthen your argument.
Re: (Score:1)
A law that is designed so literally nobody understands or can comply with. Virtually any collection of data is liable under GDPR -worldwide-, logging IP's on your server anywhere, you're liable, any website reachable from the EU with an online form, liable. Employ anyone from the EU - you're liable; travel through the EU - you're liable, serve an EU citizen in your hotel, liable.
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crock. Logging IPs is not even covered by the GDPR, only collecting personal information is. A website has to comply only if it serves EU residents. If you employ people "from the EU" that are legal residents of a non-EU country, GDPR does not apply to them. If you apply EU residents, you obviously employ them in the EU, so you have to comply with all of the EU legislation, not just GDPR. If you operate a hotel, you're liable only if you sell your offers within the EU.
Re: If it's an EU rule then why... (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously have no idea. IP's are "personal information": https://www.alstonprivacy.com/... [alstonprivacy.com] ; A website by definition serves anyone on the internet ; The rest of your post is likewise red herrings, GDPR is not concerned with whether or not an individual is an EU citizen, anyone located in an EU country is protected by GDPR and can apply for the protections under it. According to one law firm that tries to explain it: "it is likely that EU citizens residing in the US will be given the same protections as those living in an EU country". If you operate a hotel, how would you limit your offers, the goal is to sell yourself to as much visitors as possible, not serving people from the EU would be discrimination in many countries.
Re: If it's an EU rule then why... (Score:5, Informative)
You obviously have no idea. IP's are "personal information": https:
Wrong, it is you who has no idea. And let me quote the relevant part of the decision for you:
However, the ECJ did not state that in all cases, IP addresses in the hands of a website operator should be considered personal data. Instead, it required an evaluation of “whether the possibility to combine a dynamic IP address with the additional data held by the [ISP] constitutes a means likely reasonably to be used to identify the data subject.”
GDPR is not concerned with whether or not an individual is an EU citizen, anyone located in an EU country is protected by GDPR and can apply for the protections under it.
Wrong, only legal residents of the EU are protected by GDPR. Clearly stated in the law, which you have not read.
According to one law firm
Well, find a competent one, or just read the guides that EU has helpfully posted for more than 2 years now.
If you operate a hotel, how would you limit your offers
Well, you just advertise locally, or if you want orders from within the EU, you comply.
Re: (Score:3)
*THIS*. People lose sight of the fact that EU law doesn't apply outside the EU. Outside the EU includes companies that have no presence in the EU.
That hysteria from some random mom and pop shop having their website visited by someone in the EU was just that: dumb hysteria. If you want to do actual business in the EU then comply with EU law. If you don't then you rightly have nothing to fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Theoretically, the EU can ask a foreign court to apply the fines if there are relevant treaties in place (the US does this quite often, sending extradition requests left and right, for example). In practice, yeah, it is irrelevant for practically everyone operating outside of the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
Theoretically, the EU can ask a foreign court to apply the fines
They can ask foreign courts a lot of things. In practice the only time this works is if courts determine if the fine is legitimate. In practice even the GDPR legislation recognises the difference between doing business in the EU and just having some random person visiting your site incidentally. I can directly buy something from someone outside the EU just fine and they still wouldn't necessarily need to comply with the GDPR.
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR states that you are liable even if you are a foreign entity. Kind of like the US laws apply abroad to US citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop lying, GDPR is nothing like that. GDPR states that you have obligations under it if you serve EU residents within the EU. That is, you do business within the EU. If I go to Japan, and pick a hotel there to stay, GDPR does not apply at all and has nothing to say about it.
Re: (Score:3)
It means exactly what is says - that an IP address is not "personally identifiable information" (which, incidentally, is what the law says, too) except in very rare circumstances.
What you describe (linking an IP address and the data that come from it) is nonsense, because even if you have some data that you can connect to a dynamic IP, you cannot be certain that a second connection over that IP will be by the same person based on the IP number only.
Complaining about the GDPR without haven't even read the la
Re: (Score:2)
Like many other GDPR "critics" on /., you don't understand the basic ideas of GDPR because you have not read the law.
So, let me explain it to you in simple terms.
GDPR regulates *personally identifiable information* that someone who is a legal resident of the EU has shared with you. If someone just visits your website and does not leave any personally identifiable information with you, then you cannot identify them, and you have no obligations under GDPR, even if you collect their IP address. This is all the
Re: (Score:2)
How about you read the law text itself for a change?
Here, let me post the relevant parts for you:
"‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, gen
Re: (Score:2)
A law that is designed so literally nobody understands or can comply with.
So like every other law then.
Still, it's amazing how many companies are managing to comply with this one. It's also amazing how much leeway regulators will give you if they feel you're in breach of it, especially inadvertently.
Virtually any collection of data is liable under GDPR -worldwide-
Only if you're operating or interacting with someone in the EU.
serve an EU citizen in your hotel, liable
Oh please. I'm typing this from a hotel in Florida that under EU law I could put out of business in a week, their management practices are so scummy. Luckily for them they're in Florida where consumer protections are fuck
Re: (Score:2)
The GDPR law together with various treaties like the ones on copyright, make sure that those laws in the EU apply to US companies... like Google and Facebook too.
There is a reason so many US companies are worried about GDPR compliance - it applies to anyone interacting with any EU resident or presence, through the Internet, this means worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
those laws in the EU apply to US companies... like Google and Facebook too
Of course they fucking do. Google and Facebook (and other US companies) do business in Europe. It's not fucking unreasonable to expect them to obey the same laws applied to other companies doing business in Europe, including the ones based there.
The alternative is that you only ever hold a company accountable to the laws in the country in which it is registered, in which case watch every fucking company on the planet get registered in some African shithole that eliminates all controls and regulations on cor
Re: (Score:3)
It's always ACs posting bulllshit about GDPR and claiming its protectionism.
This stinks of a disinformation campaign.
GDPR applies to everybody. It does not target foreign countries.
EU based companies are required to comply with data protection.
EU based companies are prosecuted for failing to comply with data protection.
US and other companies are also prosecuted for failing to comply with data protection.
To avoid prosecution under this law stop fucking break it.
To avoid prosecution for misusing consumer data
Re:If it's an EU rule then why... (Score:5, Informative)
If it's an EU rule then why... Is a specific country fining Google?
Because the EU is a confederation, in which the EP and EC draft the rules, and then each member is tasked with enforcing them on their territory, which is an obligation they have accepted by ratifying the EU treaties.
it is really simple and straightforward.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you say the same when it comes to China or North Korea? Oppressive, protectionist laws are equally oppressive regardless of the current regime.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know much about GDPR (proof: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]) so your opinion as to whether it is oppressive or protectionist is completely irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you say the same when it comes to China or North Korea? Oppressive, protectionist laws are equally oppressive regardless of the current regime.
I certainly do, if the regime is Oppressive and you disagree then don't do business there. Businesses do not and should not EVER get to select which laws they will and will not obey.
Re: (Score:3)
As an EU citizen, albeit for another two and bit months, I don't find these laws oppressive in any kind of way and I'm glad that a level government that represents me is doing something to protect my interests and privacy. Somebody's had to reign these corporations in and the US government has shown no leadership in this area. Put it down to a failed experiment with a new business model and expect companies to adapt or fail. I won't cry if Google and Facebook fail and go the way of the likes of Yahoo Sea
Offer them an alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
Like, say, they could pay the taxes for the revenue they make in France instead of squirreling it away with some tax evasion tricks.
Then again, paying the fine is probably cheaper.
Re:Offer them an alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax avoidance is something entirely different from non-compliance with the privacy law. Why would you want to mix the two?
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you're very thirsty and instead of water I give you some nice salted pork and tell you, "since you just swallow it, it's the same thing", will you be happy?
Because nobody's expecting google to pay the fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, kinda sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the punishment for complying with one law the requirement to comply with another? If Google's tax evasion is legal then why is the punishment for complying with one law *not* complying with the letter of the other?
Your post makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an unfortunate fact that international corporations pay nowhere in the EU the actual tax they'd owe. By coincidence, the Süddeutsche Zeitung has an article about it today, with the biggest discrepancy in Luxemburg where the tax rate would be 29% while corporations pay closer to 2% due to tax evasion constructs.
Whether this is actually legal is debatable, so far nobody bothered to drag anyone to court over it. Even if it is legal, it is by no means right, since it makes smaller companies uncompetit
Re: (Score:2)
It's an unfortunate fact that international corporations pay nowhere in the EU the actual tax they'd owe.
So back to my point: Are they acting illegally? Then prosecute them. Are they acting legally? Then close the damn loopholes that allow them to get away with the practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, closing the loophole isn't that easy. For you US people, imagine the loophole was in the constitution and everyone but Alaska would love to plug it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is a US person? Are you writing this to involve others who may want to join in the conversation? You still haven't addressed my comment, in what fucked up world is punishment for disobeying a law simply complying with the intent but not the letter of another?
Also in most cases closing the specific loophole is easy, the loopholes themselves are quite well defined. The problem is doing it without losing an election (corporations have deep pockets) and doing it without affecting the locals as a result (mov
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're European, you should be used to inventing a new law to counterbalance an old one that can't be changed for some reason...
Re: (Score:2)
... that's literally how all laws that change existing ones work.
When will they fine PayPal? (Score:1)
I have never seen any company that is so aggressive in denying customers their rights under the GDPR. When is the ban or fine coming? It's been taking too long already.
It's a fine, not a tax (Score:1)
Except that France is not taxing them, but is applying a fine for non-compliance with french data protection laws. If you do business in a country, you have to be prepared to comply with local laws or else pay the penalties that arise.
Even Google agrees with that premise, at least in their official statement.
Re: How France understands computer use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: How France understands computer use (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's easy then pull out of all EU countries and find out who begs who back first.
Yeah, go back to California to sulk and leave a market of 500 million potential customers to your competitors that you have poured considerable efforts and money into making sure remain 3rd rate players with marginal market share so they won't threaten your monopoly. On what level does that seem like an intelligent plan to you? Google is about as likely to abandon the EU market as a pig is likely to voluntarily move out of a field of clover.
Re: (Score:3)
Pulling out doesn't mean blocking access to all EU IP addresses. It means shutting down EU subsidiaries, at most. ISPs would then have to decide whether to block google.com or not, but, good luck with that, given how many third party websites load things from Google servers.
The idea that the EU market is so large the EU can pull whatever nonsense it likes is probably going to be tested severely in the coming years. It looks increasingly like a lawless place - GDPR is a classic example of a law that says not
Re: (Score:2)
Pulling out doesn't mean blocking access to all EU IP addresses. It means shutting down EU subsidiaries, at most. ISPs would then have to decide whether to block google.com or not, but, good luck with that, given how many third party websites load things from Google servers.
The idea that the EU market is so large the EU can pull whatever nonsense it likes is probably going to be tested severely in the coming years. It looks increasingly like a lawless place - GDPR is a classic example of a law that says nothing and everything simultaneously, in which enforcement is entirely political. But there are many other such laws. The idea that the EU is a fair and predictable place to do business is increasingly stressed, and there are plenty of ways to make money from people in it without needing to follow EU law, no more than everyone in Europe has to follow every aspecft of US law to sell products to it successfully.
If Google is willing to bend over and spread'em to stay in the Chinese market then they are not about to pull out of the EU. Also, Google abandoning a market the size of the EU will basically create a protected reservation, a huge market where competitors can grow that one day might threaten Google. Then there is the fact that the EU much like the US is a very wealthy area and consistently delivers high level of profits for Google. The idea that Google will abandon the EU and go back to California to sulk i
Re: (Score:2)