Why activist complaints are not authoritative legal decisions

A complaint is just that – a complaint. It is not a decision, it is not authoritative. Yet complaints by well-known campaigners and NGOs are spread widely here and on other platforms, while decisions of lower courts (you know, with judges and their decisions that are actually part of the legal order) are claimed by many here to be irrelevant (case in point: see recent decision on button colours).

Let’s recognise that there can be value in both – a complaint can sometimes be a catalyst for a broader discussion, change or regulatory action, while a lower court decision can highlight a perception that may be forgotten or absent from folks who spend their entire professional time in the realm of data protection / privacy. (And sometimes regulators are wrong in their approach too)

Just because you disagree with a decision doesn’t mean it’s bad and should be ignored altogether – just like the fact that I disagree with the grounds for many of the complaints by NOYB and others doesn’t mean that they are bad and should be ignored altogether. (I know a few complainants and their lawyers dislike what I write but still have *some* respect for the fact that I give arguments in support of the position I put forward)

And so on topic: I think that NOYB makes a few incorrect legal and factual assumptions in its latest complaint, notably on the notion of personal data in the realm of online advertising / real-time bidding / profiles /… It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If you think any of the reasoning set out by NOYB might be relevant for the way you do business, don’t just “wait and see” – get in touch so we can see whether there is any reason for an analogy and whether your positioning just needs to be strengthened or has to change.

adtech onlineadvertising GDPR