German court rules Meta tracking technology violates European privacy laws

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of Meta / Ad-Tech Tracking

  • Commenters stress that Meta’s tracking pixels are just one part of a pervasive cross-industry system (Meta, Amazon, TikTok, etc.).
  • Modern setups push server-side tracking and customer data uploads (hashed personal data, custom audiences), which are harder or impossible for users to block.
  • Some note Meta’s push for first-party relay/GTMS setups to evade traditional third‑party blocking, though still partly targetable by client-side privacy tools.

User Pushback and Practical Resistance

  • One detailed anecdote describes a customer refusing a bank’s invasive privacy policy (pixels, behavioral profiling, ad sharing), redlining clauses and threatening to leave.
  • Debate follows on whether this offers real protection if tracking persists; advocates argue it at least undermines a “you consented” defense and creates friction for the bank.
  • Others suggest the only truly effective pressure is moving money to less invasive providers, though it’s unclear such banks exist in practice.

GDPR, ePrivacy, and Cookie Banners

  • Strong criticism of how GDPR/ePrivacy are implemented: endless consent forms, cookie banners, and forced “take it or leave it” consents, especially from banks and telcos.
  • Clarifications: the “cookie law” is the older ePrivacy Directive; consent is only needed for non-essential storage, but legal paranoia and “malicious compliance” lead to banners for everything.
  • Some argue GDPR explicitly forbids conditioning services on tracking, making such practices illegal but under-enforced.
  • Mention of DNT/GPC headers: one German court recognized DNT as a valid “do not track” signal; advertisers mostly ignore it, and browsers have retreated from strong signals.

Legality, Enforcement, and Damages

  • This ruling is notable for:
    • Treating identifiability without login as personal-data processing.
    • Awarding €5,000 without individualized proof of harm.
  • Lawyers in the thread expect appeals and possible ECJ involvement; legal uncertainty is anticipated.
  • Discussion of limited EU “class action” equivalents: Germany’s newer collective mechanisms, representative actions, and commercialized claim-handling (as seen with airline compensation).
  • Some are optimistic about large-scale suits; others doubt many individuals will litigate small claims under loser‑pays rules.

Responsibility and Fairness Debates

  • Unclear division of liability between Meta and site/app operators; both are likely exposed under the ruling.
  • Skeptics question:
    • The €5k damage figure for “just ads”.
    • Impact on ad-funded free services.
    • Whether enforcement is partly a protectionist “shakedown” of US big tech.
  • Counterarguments emphasize that EU rules apply equally to EU companies (with many fined), and that foreign firms often ignore non-US privacy norms until fined.

Broader Attitudes and Future Direction

  • Several see growing European fatigue with social media and tracking, with more use of IM and some institutional migration to EU-based services.
  • Others observe heavy ongoing Instagram/doomscroll use, but often more as a media feed than true “social”.
  • Multiple commenters argue for simply banning third‑party tracking altogether, citing high non-compliance rates (e.g., majority of scanned Danish sites loading trackers before consent).