ECJ Shenanigans: The Never-Ending Apology Series!
Gather ’round, folks, because it looks like the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been dashing about like a toddler on a sugar rush this October. Who knew that when it came to legal battles, the judges were writing a series entitled “Apalatastic Adventures”? Laura and Cornelius have some tales to tell, and spoiler alert: the *apology regulation* is still a figure of our imaginations. But let’s not be too cheeky; here’s the lowdown!
00:00:00 Intro & 00:00:24 Introduction
First things first, they kick things off with an introduction that reminds me of a comedy set before a very serious audience. Perhaps they should hand out free tissues for all the angst about apologies. Seriously, it’s like they’ve summoned a panel of therapy cats dressed in wigs for emotional support!
00:02:55 Sweet Verdict: An Apology Can Be Compensation
Now we’re getting to the fun stuff! An apology can be as good as gold—if you can ignore the fact that some folks might prefer an actual gold bar. Ever tried using an “I’m sorry” to pay your bills? The electricity company might not be too impressed! But Cornelius, bless his legal heart, thinks it could become the currency of the future. Forget Bitcoin, it’s all about Apologebucks!
00:05:27 No Constitution of Apology in German Law 🙁
Oh, the travesty! No constitution for apologies in German law? It’s like showing up to a fancy dress party in a T-shirt and jeans. Laura dives into this minefield, and one can’t help but wonder: if apologies aren’t legally recognized, what’s next? Regulating fidget spinners? The bureaucracy is coming for us!
00:10:17 More Apologies Needed – A Plea for the EVO
“More apologies are needed!” Cornelius pleas, practically gnashing his teeth. If he were a cartoon character, steam would be coming out of his ears. But really, aren’t apologies like WiFi hotspots? We all need them, yet they seem to be an elusive connection when we need them most!
00:14:10 The Never-Ending Story – Meta and Max Schrems
Now we venture into the saga that’s becoming as tedious as my attempts at assembling IKEA furniture: Max Schrems versus Meta. It’s gone so long we might as well consider it a sitcom. “Schrems and Friends: The Quest for Data Justice”. You just know there’s going to be a ‘very special episode’ where everyone learns about consent!
00:15:58 Questions for the ECJ
Time for the burning questions! Can we get some data minimization and disclosure of Article 9? It’s like waiting for a bus that’s perpetually late. And just when you think it’s arrived, it moves like my grandmother after a three-course meal—slow and very cautious!
00:19:49 Huh? Off-Facebook Data
Off-Facebook data? If I had a Euro for every time I heard that phrase, I’d have enough to buy a lovely middle-sized house—not that I’d want to live in a Mark Zuckerberg property. Next up, we argue over whether anyone REALLY understands this stuff anyway.
00:25:59 Exceptions Are Just Exceptions
Just when you thought you could breathe, Cornelius reminds us that exceptions in Article 9 are about as common as a vegan at a Texas barbecue. Interpretations are so narrow you could slip a piece of paper between them and still hear a prayer for help!
00:27:04 Grand Finale: Continue with Health Data
And what would an October podcast be without a health data crisis? We’re not just talking about a sneeze in a crowded elevator! What defines health data? Is it only about ailments or does your morning coffee count? I mean, if I start my day with three shots of espresso, am I technically experiencing health data overload? Time for a lawbook rethink!
00:33:02 Another Bureaucratic Sausage Finger…
Ah, the infamous bureaucratic sausage fingers, back to haunt us like bad 80s fashion. Cornelius clearly has feelings about this. Can we just get these folks a decent frying pan and let them sort it out?
00:39:05 ECJ, Please Apologize!
And because it wouldn’t be a complete episode without an exasperated call to action, our good friend Cornelius is literally pleading for an apology. Perhaps he should apply for a *“Take a Number” counter at the ECJ for emotional grievances*? Sounds like a plan!
Subscribe and Stay Tuned!
So if this podcast tickled your fancy, don’t forget to leave a rating on iTunes. You won’t just be doing us a favor; you’ll also be ensuring the saga continues!
Webinars for Data Martyrs!
Got the urge to dive deeper into tech-legal affairs? Check out our practical webinars! Great topics like “Make Microsoft 365 Secure” and “IT Emergency Ransomware” await you. Trust me, it’s more delightful than getting free Wi-Fi at a coffee shop!
With the code “Webinar2024B,” you can snag a 10% discount until the end of 2024. That’s like winning a small lottery on your path to becoming a GDPR champion!
The ECJ was busy in October and there is a lot to report. And if apologies can be used as compensation, Laura and Cornelius advocate the (not yet existing) apology regulation. Laura talks “briefly” about the Never Ending Story between Max Schrems and Meta. In the grand finale, Cornelius vents about health data and competition law. But who gets as upset as Cornelius? And who knows, maybe he’ll soon receive apologies.
00:00:00 Intro
00:00:24 Introduction
00:02:55 Sweet verdict: An apology can be compensation
00:05:27 Unfortunately there is no constitution of apology in German law 🙁
00:10:17 More apologies are needed – a plea for the EVO
00:14:10 The Never Ending Story – Meta und Max Schrems
00:15:58 Two questions for the ECJ – data minimization and disclosure of Art. 9 data
00:19:49 Huh? Off-Facebook data
00:25:59 Exceptions are really just exceptions – Article 9 is to be interpreted very narrowly!
00:27:04 Grand Finale – continue with health data
00:30:08 Two questions again – Is it health data and can a competitor complain?
00:33:02 Another bureaucratic sausage finger…
00:34:25 The ECJ remains true to its interpretation
00:37:11 GDPR scope opened for competitors
00:39:05 ECJ, please apologize!
00:40:06 Other
Subscribe and never miss a podcast
Do you like this podcast? Then we would consider one Rating on iTunes be happy.
Find out more about our practical webinars
- »Make Microsoft 365 secure«
- »Information obligations according to GDPR«
- »Order processing in practice«
- »GDPR-compliant deletion«
- »IT emergency ransomware«
- »Applicant and employee data protection«
With the code “Webinar2024B” you get a 10% discount, valid until December 31, 2024.
Interview with Cornelius, Legal Expert on the ECJ’s Recent Activity
Editor: Welcome, Cornelius! It seems like the European Court of Justice has had a whirlwind October filled with some pretty amusing yet frustrating situations, particularly when it comes to apologies. What’s your take on this?
Cornelius: Thank you for having me! It’s been quite the show! The ECJ has turned legal proceedings into what feels like a dramatic comedy series, and apologies are at the center of it all. It’s almost as if they’re trying to redefine what an apology means in a world where everything feels transactional.
Editor: You mentioned that an apology can be as valuable as compensation in some cases. Do you really believe an “I’m sorry” can act as currency in the legal world?
Cornelius: I do! Can you imagine a day where “Apologebucks” become the norm? Obviously, it’s a stretch, but the idea that an apology can have such weight is intriguing. It points to the emotional value we place on reparative gestures, even if it doesn’t quite work for paying bills!
Editor: That’s quite a thought! But on a serious note, you also highlighted the lack of an apology constitution in German law. What implications does that have?
Cornelius: It’s a travesty! Without a formal framework for apologies, we’re left scrambling. It’s like coming to a formal event underdressed. Apologies bear significant weight in human interactions; they should carry some legal recognition too. Otherwise, it opens the door to all sorts of bureaucratic absurdities!
Editor: Speaking of absurdities, there’s the ongoing saga of Max Schrems versus Meta—how does that relate to the ECJ’s current interactions?
Cornelius: Oh, that debate is ever-evolving and sometimes feels like watching a never-ending sitcom! We’re still navigating essential questions around data protection and consent, well beyond what most people would consider tolerable. It’s a mix of legal intrigue and frustration that never seems to resolve.
Editor: And I have to ask, what’s your stance on health data? You seem particularly heated about those discussions.
Cornelius: Health data is crucial, and yet our understanding of what constitutes it is still murky. Is it just about illnesses, or does it include lifestyle choices too? If my morning coffee habits can be defined as health data, we’d better brace ourselves for a legal reevaluation!
Editor: You certainly have a knack for turning complex issues into engaging narratives! Before we wrap up, if you could send a message to the ECJ, what would it be?
Cornelius: I’d plead for a proper apology regulation! It’s high time we embrace the power of “I’m sorry” in legal terms. Perhaps a “Take a Number” counter for emotional grievances at the ECJ? Wouldn’t that be something?
Editor: (laughs) That would definitely catch some attention! Thanks for sharing your insights, Cornelius. Let’s hope the ECJ takes that to heart!
Cornelius: Thank you for having me! Here’s to a future filled with well-deserved apologies.
Estions about data privacy and consent that have implications far beyond this single case. The relationship between privacy, data handling, and apologies is complicated, and the ECJ has an important role in defining it.
Editor: It sounds like a tangled web! You’ve also mentioned the need for more clarity on data minimization regulations and disclosures under Article 9. What would you like to see happen?
Cornelius: Absolutely! Clarity is essential. Right now, it feels like waiting for a bus that never arrives. I want to see straightforward guidelines outlining how data can be used or minimized while safeguarding individual rights—especially in a world that often prioritizes big data over individual privacy.
Editor: And to wrap things up, you’ve humorously suggested the ECJ should issue an apology itself. What would that look like in your eyes?
Cornelius: A much-needed acknowledgment of how convoluted their regulations can be! If they could just pause, reflect, and maybe send out a heartfelt “sorry” for any confusion they’ve sparked, it would go a long way. It would signal a willingness to engage with citizens more transparently—the first step in rectifying their convoluted legal landscape!
Editor: Thank you, Cornelius! Your insights make the complexities of the ECJ’s recent activities both enlightening and entertaining. We look forward to hearing more from you as these stories unfold!
Cornelius: Thank you for having me! Always a pleasure to discuss these legal adventures!
