EDPS-Civil Society Summit 2018.
summary
GDPR now creates an collective redress route (Article 80) but implementation varies: Poland limits NGOs to DPA intervention and no court standing, Netherlands lets foundations sue, UK punts optional powers to review, and research shows 1 in 5 UK consumers can’t even start a complaint. Courts typically award injunctions or declaratory relief, not punitive damages, and Denmark treats non‑pecuniary harm narrowly. On content, EU push for notice-and-action and trusted-flagger systems meets opaque Facebook algorithm changes, two academic studies (Stanford, Dartmouth) finding minimal electoral effect from “fake news,” and no secure reporting channels for criminal evidence.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (10)
- 0:00Start
- 7:48Collective Redress
- 14:55Protect Vulnerable People
- 19:24Civil Procedure
- 31:32Shrinking Space for Ngos
- 41:27Quantification of Damages
- 54:32Problem Definition
- 58:16Facebook
- 1:03:43Options for a Newspaper To Identify the User
- 1:09:35Airport Regulation
related talks
01h 20mEnforcing EU's Digital Regulations in Court - How Can Civil Society Step in?
01h 14mSEE YOU IN COURT!
01h 14mLessons from the GDPR Red Lines or Red Tape
01h 21mBalancing Data Protection and Workplace Justice GDPR’s Role in Employee Rights ..
01h 16mThe role and power of DPAS - Between CJEU and GDPR.
01h 13mComplaints handling and litigation by DPAs.
01h 12mEmerging Patterns in EU Digital Regulation
39mSilent Spring: What if the GDPR Was Real?
