Also probably having two different codebases to handle data compliance is probably not too easy to support.

That certainly has been how I've seen it play out. Which makes sense as easier to have one rule to fit all and if that rule is based upon the worst case of every countries data laws then you are somewhat more future proofed. After all, not many countries do laws than are demanding their citizens have less privacy - at least in the public sector remit of laws.

Which two, and do you have a source?

If I'd have to guess, the two that do less or no advertising and thus benefit less from your data...

(EDIT: That would indeed be Apple and Netflix, as hinted by another comment).

Pardon my cynicism if I think it's likely Apple and Netflix.

And they probably do that for everyone only because it doesn't eat into the main profit generators in their business models. Not many marketers paying Netflix to advertise their new natural soap line to targeted prospects I'd imagine.

One is Apple or Netflix and the other isn’t. I don’t feel comfortable sharing more specificity than that.

Linkedin for sure, I used to work there so I can vouch for it.

Linkedin isn't faang.

That's not a FAANG though.

FAANG is just a buzzword acronym, a hook to pull in investors.

LinkedIn is Microsoft, which should also be included given it's scale. It should be FAMANG.

I agree about the buzzword part, but the parent did specify two FAANGs. I'd think it would be interesting to hear which two since it's obviously not Google (as the article hints that they want to move data out of the EU).

Also, the FAANG expression didn't start around scale, if that was the case netflix wouldn't have been included as early as the expression was coined. The expression was about developer compensation. That seems to have changed recently(-ish) though and now the expression is more like "unicorn" instead of just the specific companies that make up the acronym.

But then does Microsoft implement GDPR globally, not just its LinkedIn subsidiary?