The data watchdog of France declared a fine of 50 million euros for US search giant Google, using the strict General Data Protection Regulation for the first time. Google has passed the record fine from the CNIL regulator for defecting to provide vivid and easily obtainable information on its data consent policies, according to a statement.

The CNIL told Google made it too difficult for the users for understanding and managing inclinations on how their personal information is used, particularly with the regards to target the advertising.

The representative of Google told in a statement, “People expect high standards of transparency and control from us. We’re deeply committed to meeting those expectations and the consent requirements of the GDPR”.

He added, “ We’re studying the decision to determine our next steps.” The governing body pursues complaints registered by two advocacy groups in the last May, briefly after the signal GDPR director came into effect.

One was registered on behalf of some 10,000 signatures by Quadrature Du Net group of France, while the other was by None Of Your Business, generated by the Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems.

Schrems had charged Google of protecting “forced consent” through the use of pop-up boxes online or on its apps which hint that its services will not be available unless people receive its condition of utility.

The CNIL said, “Also, the information provided is not sufficiently clear for the user to understand the legal basis for targeted advertising is consent, and not Google’s legitimate business interests ”.


Related Articles
Next Story
Going Viral
16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on  Border Wall Issue

16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on Border Wall Issue

by Haimantee Ghosh February 19, 2019
Sixteen United States indicted the US President Donald Trump’s administration over his decision to announce a national emergency to sponsor a wall on the Southern border with Mexico, claiming the move breached the constitution. The litigation, filed in a federal court in California, explained the order by the US President was contradictory to the Presentment Clause which figures out the legal proceedings and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as...