Can smart EU lawyers with data protection chops help me understand the basic legal proposition of this case?
I get the Art 6 bases for processing, and how Meta’s latest maneuvers (moving from consent to contractual basis) were legally sketchy and made EDPB mad. 1/

But I don’t get at a more fundamental level why “take it or leave it” is not an option. I’m probably out of practice.
2/

Why can EDPB say “Meta, you have to offer this service on different and less profitable terms than you do now”? Why was consent not an OK basis, with FB saying “this version, where you consent to targeted ads, is the one we offer”? 3/

I’m not trying to push back (yet). I assume there’s a good answer, or else I’d see more coverage. But I haven’t found it so far. @[email protected]? @[email protected]? @[email protected]? 4/

I get that the GDPR offers a substantive baseline of privacy protection. So the US’s quasi-contractual, Lochnerian shenanigans won’t cut it. Platforms can’t offer terms below that baseline level of protection and say “the user consented, it’s fine!” 5/

But for processing that the GDPR permits with consent, if controllers can’t say “the consent-based service is the only one we offer,” it seems like there’d be endless cases where DPAs can require an alternate version of a commercial service, with different privacy tradeoffs. 6/

Like “Airlines can’t offer frequent flyer perks — tracking flight history requires consent. But passengers must also have an option to get those perks even if the airline can’t see their flight history.”
7/

It just seems like data protection rules would become deeply enmeshed with, and displace, competition or fair trade rules. 8/