> So some Safari users got more targeted ads than they would otherwise have seen.

So, some users had their browsing habits illegally harvested, stored, analyzed, and sold to an unknown number of parties for an unknown number of purposes, many of them adverserial in nature to the well-being of the individual. So what?

It will be interesting to see how many of the items on that list the plaintiffs can prove in a court of law, as such proof would be necessary to claim of damages... Well, in US law at least, as I understand it. I'm a lot less familiar with the UK.

But even under a civil-court "preponderance of evidence" standard, wouldn't you have to prove some material harm to be eligible for damages (not just the potential of the data perhaps maybe being misused possibly)?

prove it. and when i say prove it - you actually need to show damage and harm done, that's what the law requires. If you can't prove a single occurrence of the "adverserial in nature to the well-being of the individual", then there is no real grounds to sue on. legally speaking.

First of all, screw this attitude of "prove it in court". If you or your company is so sociopathic that you can't see the wrong here, well, just screw.

Second the problem statement I made above itself shows harm.

The fact that consumers have to worry about who got their private information, what was done with it, what harms happened that they aren't aware of, such as not getting a job, housing discrimination, loan discrimination, etc. is itself a harm.

That these things happen, in general, is eminently provable and that fact causes worry, anxiety, and changes in behavior which is itself a harm.

Buying things that are not needed harms the persons economy. And gambling practically always a bad deal. Taking medicine that is not needed can be bad for the individual.

Before you get a response about personal responsibility and all that, everyone should have the psychological side of marketing and advertising firmly in mind. People are not in complete control of their responses to advertisements.

... but from a legal standpoint, personal responsibility is basically a cornerstone. We throw out a lot of legal fundamentals if we re-frame the decision to purchase a product voluntarily as "the ads mind-controlled you."

There might be some precedent in the space (cigarette ad campaigns were severely curtailed during the "Big Tobacco" crackdown in the US), but ads in general? Good luck.

I've always thought this needs to be much more prevalent in any conversation about how ads should be used.

I assume ads targeted towards children would be a good case study.

> So some Safari users got more targeted ads than they would otherwise have seen. Does that merit financial compensation?

Given that the way it occurs is by allowing Google to more accurately profile the users, I'd say yes.

It's more about being tracked and profiled through third party cookies than just seeing targeted ads. In my view, it merits compensation for the users and stiff penalties and punishments for the perpetrator (Google, in this case).

On the other hand, does violating human rights (such as the right to privacy) deserve punitive litigation ? Yes, certainly.

Compensation?

Probably not. But how about a fine? Something in the 5 - 10 Billion € range?

That may help to cool a few hot heads who think pulling off shit like that is a good idea.

> Does that merit financial compensation?

to me, this seems like the wrong question.

in a broad sense, it makes more sense to ask how harsh the penalty should be. generally, for actions like this, the penalty is expressed as a monetary forfeiture.

whatever the penalty is, the relinquished funds have to go somewhere, and those who can demonstrate being harmed seems like a sensible destination.

"Does that merit financial compensation?"

It merits Google being punished. And really, the only way to punish a large company is by fining them.

Yes.