Max Schrems wins privacy case against Meta over data on sexual orientation
An EU court ruling against Meta for inferring a user’s sexual orientation and using it for targeted advertising under GDPR has reignited debate over how far platforms may go in profiling people from their online behavior and third‑party tracking. Commenters argue over whether such legal challenges are principled activism or overreach that stifles innovation, and whether inferring sensitive traits like sexuality, health status, or pregnancy is inherently unethical or sometimes beneficial. The exchange highlights broader tensions between privacy rights, opaque ad-targeting algorithms, corporate PR claims about “taking privacy seriously,” and the EU’s increasingly aggressive regulatory posture toward big tech.
Reactions to the ruling and Meta’s “privacy” claims
- Many see the decision as a major win for privacy and praise strategic litigation against big tech.
- Meta’s statement that it “takes privacy very seriously” is widely mocked as hollow PR given its business model.
- Some argue Meta is serious about privacy only as an existential threat to its profits, not as a value.
- A minority view calls the case opportunistic and framed as a way for the EU to extract fines and stifle consumer tech.
How Meta might infer sexual orientation
- Commenters speculate Meta inferred orientation from:
- On‑platform behavior (likes, groups, content interaction).
- Off‑platform tracking via pixels, “like” buttons, analytics and cookies.
- Lookalike audiences and recommendation models that cluster similar users.
- Several note the article is thin on technical detail; the exact mechanism remains unclear.
- Some stress that even if an algorithm only discovers unlabeled “latent groups,” it can still effectively target protected traits.
Targeted advertising vs privacy harms
- One camp: targeted ads are useful; seeing gay‑focused ads when you’re gay is a feature, not a bug.
- Others counter with thought experiments: replacing “gay” with “cancer,” “pregnancy,” or being gay in a hostile country highlights real risks.
- Debate over whether inferring sensitive traits from legally obtained data is inherently unethical or acceptable “spray and pray” guessing.
GDPR and legal interpretation
- Article 9 GDPR is cited: processing data revealing sexual orientation is generally prohibited, with narrow exceptions.
- Some note the court focused on using such information for ad targeting, not on collection or aggregation in general.
- This leads to concern that platforms might still infer and store sensitive traits but avoid exposing them via ads, making surveillance less visible to users.
Activism and enforcement of rights
- Disagreement over whether bringing such cases is “activism” or just exercising basic rights.
- Several argue that using courts to enforce privacy laws is precisely a legitimate and necessary form of activism.