> Why should Forbes wait for comment, when Spotify didn't wait for their users?

That's like asking "why shouldn't Forbes stab their users in the face when Spotify shits on their users chests?"

In other words, I don't think he's saying Forbes did Spotify dirty, rather Forbes did wrong by their readers by publishing a story without investigating it first.

Spotify does wait for the user's consent. That's the whole point of agreeing to the privacy policy. Apart from that, Spotify doesn't have anything to do with basic principles of journalism, because they are not journalists.

Any other substantive change to the terms and conditions require prior written notice. For example, slipstreaming in an app update that said 'from right now your monthly fee will be €20' would not be considered sufficient notice.

So why should privacy be Any different? In fact in this Cloud Era, privacy terms are probably of more concern to users than another dollar on their subscription.

The only reason Spotify didn't give prior notice was to put users in a bind on the spot.

Even Google manages to do it properly!