I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

148

sspeckx about 5 hours ago 50 commentsRead Article on thatprivacyguy.com

HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260618212028/https://www.thatp...

https://archive.ph/I4zjA

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

72% Positive

Analyzed from 1329 words in the discussion.

Discussion (50 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

buzer•23 minutes ago

Actual decision (Norwegian): https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/c8d0551d2a64403285...

Machine translation of overview & 5.1 which is what the blog post is about (covers some other things as well): https://chatgpt.com/share/6a34732c-0fa4-83e8-aae1-95c25dd117...

[EDIT] Oh, there was actually official English decision available as well: https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...

engeljohnb•about 1 hour ago

I'm glad it all worked out for this individual. I hope more people live their lives like this as the dystopia progresses.

Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason, but also puts you at a significant disadvantage compared to the people that never push back in the interest of not making waves, or even because "whatever it's fine."

uproarchat•6 minutes ago

I am that person that reads every line of the contracts I sign, including ToS and PP. I appreciate that I can tell who it rubs the wrong way, because it tells me who will shake my hand without intending to honor their word. It changed the way I write these documents as well, the last ToS and PP I wrote can each be read in a single breath.

deepsun•about 1 hour ago

Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own purposes including commercial. I objected, but their position was that no one is going to involve legal department for me, and I am free to go away.

smcleod•43 minutes ago

Pretty sure that's a violation of fundamental human rights as it's your place of living. Surely that can't be legal, even in the US can it?

monkpit•40 minutes ago

It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.

bsder•about 1 hour ago

> and I am free to go away.

This is the crux of the problem when landlords are allowed to form or join an "association" that gets too pervasive.

This was at the heart of the RealPage lawsuits.

m0llusk•34 minutes ago

This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.

collingreen•30 minutes ago

There is no version of basic security that extends to commercial use of your likeness in their marketing.

Be reasonable.

solid_fuel•about 1 hour ago

> Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason

Yup. It's particularly sad seeing other people in this very thread talking about how they would "ban this customer for life" just for knowing their rights.

I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.

arjie•6 minutes ago

It's an interesting story, but I could not help but have my mind skip over it because of the LLMisms. Acts like one of those taboola reels to me. If even just there was a tutorial to get people to write in such a way that it's not obviously LLM text it would be nice because the story is interesting.

I know, it's like complaining about JS etc. but it's like walking into an elevator and smelling very strong perfume. It's hard not to go "whew!"

0xfffafaCrash•about 1 hour ago

> The reply I received a few days later did me the favour of putting the violation on the record. Their position, in their own words, was that "in order to receive marketing / offers, it is a condition to be a member of the customer club." That one sentence is the whole case. They had taken a right I am entitled to exercise for free and turned it into the price of admission.

I don’t understand… it would be one thing if it said “receiving marketing/offers is a condition of being a member of the customer club” but that’s not what is being stated above… rather that being a member of the club is required to receive marketing — perhaps something has been misworded or lost in translation?

ajb•29 minutes ago

Yeah sounds like it's backwards , and should be "in order to be a member of the customer club, it is a condition to receive marketing / offers ."

drnick1•13 minutes ago

Yes this is the logical sentence order, at least in English.

mixdup•33 minutes ago

I think the "marketing/offers" means discounts? To be eligible for the discounts or special offers, you have to be a member of the club, and if you are a member of the club you have to be willing to receive the email messages, and somehow under EU law you're entitled to all discounts I guess?

drdaeman•about 1 hour ago

Yea, I don't get it either. Receiving being a condition on membership means (in my understanding) only that non-members can't (shouldn't) receive anything, not that members will or must receive something. Which sounds perfectly normal and sane to me.

LearnYouALisp•about 1 hour ago

sounded exactly like translation error from a German-related lang.

e.g. "to receive offers...is a condition to be in..."

alexhans•6 minutes ago

It's always satisfying when customer rights stories have a known positive outcome. The timeline is unfortunately quite slow and bureocractic but I'm glad OP managed to find out about it.

Telaneo•about 1 hour ago

Datatilsynet, the Norwegian DPA, from my experience, consistently has the user in mind. It (sadly) takes a long time for things to pass through the system, but they consistently come to good decisions.

pavel_lishin•about 2 hours ago

The image isn't loading for me, all I see is the prompt used to generate it - which is genuinely preferable.

QuantumNomad_•about 1 hour ago

For me it was showing the image and the prompt, but the whole page was unstyled. But when I reloaded the page now, the css loaded also and the prompt is not shown.

I guess the web server was temporarily overwhelmed by traffic resulting in images (like for you) and css files (like for me) not being consistently served to all visitors.

tomtom1337•about 2 hours ago

This is extremely cool reading! I'm impressed that they actually fined Elkjøp (as they should!) but very surprised that they didn't keep you informed!

Thank you for sharing!

pixelpoet•about 2 hours ago

Love to see this, and love our privacy and data handling laws!

sscaryterry•26 minutes ago

This fills my heart with joy. If only ICO in the UK would do the same.

echoangle•about 1 hour ago

Good to know that this is illegal. One of my email providers also does this, maybe I’ll also have to try reporting them and see what happens.

peaseagee•about 2 hours ago

And how much did it make them over those 5 years?

Retric•about 2 hours ago

The fine is only part of the story. They likely spent more money than the fine fighting it over 5 years as fines increase next time if you don’t stop.

coldtea•about 1 hour ago

And how much did it make them over those 5 years?

aucisson_masque•about 1 hour ago

You don't know how much it did cost them. Why would you care about how much they gained ? You can't compare something when you have neither value.

ryandrake•about 2 hours ago

Excellent outcome. I wish we had these rights in the USA! Too bad justice took 5 years though.

QuantumNomad_•about 1 hour ago

> the only way to stop the marketing was to cancel my membership of the club altogether

I have experienced this same thing with at least one other big company in Norway.

I could opt out of either SMS or e-mail, but not both, or I would not be able to keep the membership.

Unfortunately, I never made a note of which one that was exactly so I can’t name them and shame them on the spot.

Despite half-hearted attempts at stopping marketing emails now and then by individually logging in and opting out, or clicking unsubscribe links embedded in the email, my email continues to be flooded with marketing both from domestic and foreign companies that I’ve done business with. There is so many companies that even going through a handful of them at a time and unsubscribing there is a seemingly endless amount of companies that remain to unsubscribe from.

It is great to see that someone fights back, and that it is resulting in fines.

kristianrs•31 minutes ago

komplett.no

RobRivera•about 1 hour ago

Lol. Brookfield Place wifi had an OPT IN for their wifi to receive marketing.

If you unclicked it, the 'connect to wifi' button greyed out and a notification appears saying that Opt In is required for wifi.

kklisura•27 minutes ago

GDPR is a godsend.

pixelneon•about 1 hour ago

Hahaha, the sticker looks really funny, but I like it.

jazz9k•17 minutes ago

I'm so glad the GDPR never took hold in the US. Little Karens getting companies fined millions of dollars over what amounts to nothing.

You can always not use their service. Plenty of alternatives out there.

throw9394494•about 1 hour ago

I wonder if anyone who are cheering this fine, actually read and tried to implement GDPR. It is a nightmare to be fully compliant for small companies.

It is mostly just a theater (like endless cookie consent dialogs in anonymous browsing), to employ more experts and bureaucrats.

EU is now pushing privacy laws that severely undermine privacy.

tverbeure•15 minutes ago

> EU is now pushing privacy laws that severely undermine privacy.

Even if it’s most just theater, you don’t make the case at all how it undermines privacy.

londons_explore•about 1 hour ago

If I did business in the EU, I would be banning this chap from my services on the basis that the risk he poses to the business is too great...

onli•about 1 hour ago

You would do no such thing, because if you tried, you wouldn't have a business in the EU anymore.

Broken_Hippo•about 1 hour ago

In other words, you'd ban someone because they might notice that you are doing illegal stuff and you might get caught.

Follow the laws and it isn't an issue. I'm pretty sure banning someone for that stuff is probably illegal, too.

dataflow•36 minutes ago

The risk of getting caught doing business illegally? You really don't give a damn about the illegal part, just getting caught?

solid_fuel•about 1 hour ago

Frankly, this attitude is pathetic. Absolute loser behaviour.

I don't think you should be doing business anywhere if customers being familiar with the law and knowing their rights scares you. Frankly if you are running a business, you should be familiar with the laws and regulations, doing otherwise - especially when someone points out that your behaviour is illegal - is negligence and punishment with a fine is completely appropriate. Welcome to living in a society.

throw9394494•about 1 hour ago

Just awoid some jurisdictions. Bulgaria is in EU, has all the same access, and has no time for this BS.

Symbiote•about 1 hour ago

You can see the fines the Bulgarian regulator has handed out here:

https://www.enforcementtracker.com/