Euro watchdog will try to extract $900m from Amazon for breaking data privacy laws Amazon says a European Union privacy watchdog has mustered the temerity to demand a $885m fine for failing to comply with data privacy rules. "On July 16, 2021, the Luxembourg National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) issued a decision against Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. claiming that Amazon’s processing of personal data …
"There has been no data breach, and no customer data has been exposed to any third party. "
I would increase the fine with that response, it simply states "privacy is for everyone else, we are entitled to know everything as long as we tell no one else"
Amazon clearly sees itself as above privacy, and simply by being Amazon it is entitled to know everything about everyone.
It's about time someone increased a fine on appeal to these corps.
These fines are really just a way of getting the companies to pay tax.
The politicians/voters like it because the tax cheats got taken down
The companies prefer it because they write it off against tax anyway and accounting tricks make it look like a one-off extraordinary payment, rather than a recurring tax bill - so the balance sheet looks better
Not clear that Luxembourg sees this fine as being in lieu of tax: some years ago, Luxembourg cut a tax deal for Amazon. The EU objected, telling the country it had to collect the perceived shortfall, but this decision was recently overturned, following challenges from both Luxembourg and Amazon. (Not covered in El Reg, afaict.)
So why did Luxembourg's CNPD make the eye-watering assessment? Just civil servants diligently doing what their job descriptions said was their job, I suspect.
Every fine, if it is paid along with legal costs is passed on to the customers.
Only in a non-competitive market.
In fact, many regulators and many other companies would be very happy if Amazon's prices went up a small amount. The customers may not be so pleased, of course,.
One thing I don't get : how is it that a French privacy group made a complaint to a non-european-institution in Luxembourg ?
The CNPD is a purely Luxembourgish institution, it has no teeth at the European level as far as I can tell. It's home page makes no mention of Europe at all (neither does its Missions page), and the European flag is conspicuously absent from it, contrary to every other European Institution web site.
I'm giddy at the idea that somebody is finally levelling a fine that represents a meaningful amount against an Internet goliath, but how does this work ?
The fact is is "a purely Luxembougish institution" is irrelevant. Luxembourg is a member of the EU and as such is included within the GDPR framework. It can investigate companies under the GDPR legislation the same as the Irish ICO. It has found Amazon guilty and has issued a fine. Actions like this under under EU laws are EU wide irrespective of whether the institution has an EU flag emblem. The organisation is an EU organisation due to being an official organisation from an EU country.
Amazon showing profits of $7.7bn could pay this without really affecting them, but at last its an amount that makes them notice.It could have been many times worse.
Except that Ireland has a ready stack of wet noodles for misbehaving companies rather than fining them properly and so lose the employment and little tax income they get from them (at least, that's what I imagine the arguments to be over an expensive lunch).
The only reason to become Information Commissioner in Ireland appears to be as a first step to be later employed by the mass offenders you are supposed to keep in line.
The European HQ of Amazon is in Luxembourg so it is up to the privacy authority of Luxembourg to investigate (and fine) GDPR complaints. It is the same reason the Austrian Max Schremm complained about Google in Dublin. Unfortunately, the Irish privacy authority still has to grow its teeth.
Hint. Luxembourg is in the EU.
2nd. hint. France is in the EU.
3rd. hint. Not all companies in the EU fly the EU flag.
This is one of the reasons certain UK businesses wanted out if the EU- they didn't like social responsibilities and labour laws.
We left because an unfortunately large number of voters here are racist. Don't believe me? Then just look at the comments here on Conservative Home, talking about English Language schools:
Remember the Tory party of today is a totally different beast. So many of my work colleagues, open minded, supportive of the capitalist means to run an economy would not now be welcome, if they show any support for immigration.
Sad. Very sad.
did you just pull the the apologist centrist looking to mythologize racism card? “Too many people voted for Brexit because they are racist, and they are mostly Tories” isn’t that much of a stretch, and does not imply any and all. But hey, totally call out anyone observing this reality.
no, it appears GDPR wasn't being followed. And it also seems that following GDPR would have been pretty simple.
They *kind of* say that they target-ad you by showing products "related to your search" or "related to your purchase history". But it should be a bit more up front and blatant.
@bombastic bob
"no, it appears GDPR wasn't being followed."
"The decision relating to how we show customers relevant advertising relies on subjective and untested interpretations of European privacy law, and the proposed fine is entirely out of proportion with even that interpretation."
I would be inclined to believe Amazon based on how 'interesting' EU attacks against companies have been. Amazon could be in the wrong, I can see that happening too. But for now I will wait for more information before assuming them to be in the wrong.
Remember they are American. So "subjective and untested interpretations of European privacy law" is a really weird thing to say over this side of the ocean. If the law says "this" then "this" applies. It doesn't need to be "tested" or have a judge "interpret" it. It's the rule, it's quite clear, it's what is supposed to be done; period, full stop, end of sentence.
"and the proposed fine is entirely out of proportion with even that interpretation" - the maximum possible fine is 4% of annual global turnover, so if Amazon reported sales of $113.1bn and they're only asking for around €750M, they aren't going for the full whack. Again, it's quite clearly stated in the rules (and they use turnover not profits because of the creative accountancy that minimises the tax burden).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
