Is there a human way for a rich variety of advertising solutions to escape the ePrivacy trap and be subject to a case-by-case GDPR compliance assessment?
Peter Craddock is a lawyer as well as a software developer, and he uses this dual background to help clients find legal solutions to technical problems and technical solutions to legal problems. He is based in Brussels and helps international companies with their global data strategy and with EU data litigation. He notably has strong expertise in the legal aspects of digital advertising and adtech, and has been one of the most prominent commentators of recent legal developments in that area.
We will today try to answer an important question:
Could we re-interpret article 5.3 of the ePrivacy Directive so that the “strictly necessary” (to provide a service) consent exemption gives shelter to the core technical building blocks of advertising solutions making journalism possible? Can we not deal with personal data (should it be involved at all) or behavioral targeting (should it be the case) separately under the GDPR?
- Peter Craddock on LinkedIn
- Maybe no consent needed for advertising under ePrivacy “cookie” rule? (Peter Craddock)
- EDPB seeks to redefine ePrivacy – Part II: Overbroad notions and regulator activism?
- IAB Europe Responds to the EDPB Public Consultation on their Draft Guidelines 2/2023
- EDPB ePrivacy Guidelines: Comments Highlighting Risks to Businesses with Digital Activities (Keller and Heckman)
- Romain Robert: Pay or OK in AdTech – How it started and where it’s going (Masters of Privacy)
- Renzo Marchini: Unintended consequences of the EDPB Guidelines on storage and access under article 5.3 of the ePrivacy Directive (Masters of Privacy)
- Cristiana Santos and Victor Morel: The problem with CMPs and TCF-based cookie paywalls (Masters of Privacy)
- Robert Bateman: Consent or Pay (Masters of Privacy)
- Peter Hense: How first party data will kill CMPs (Masters of Privacy)