Why are manufacturers allowed to make false claims about memory capacity of thumbdrives? I have a number of thumb drives and hard drives. One hard drive I bought was said to be 2TB but its actual capacity is about 1.8 TB. A couple of thumb drives I got say they are 16 GB but on the back say: 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes / 1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes This definition is the reason why I've accepted the false advertising on hard drive space, even though conventionally: 1KB = 1024 bytes 1MB = 1024x1024 bytes 1GB = 1024x1024x1024 bytes and not 1KB = 1000 bytes 1MB = 1000x1000 bytes 1GB = 1000x1000x1000 bytes As we get to higher levels the amount of space that is lost by this rounding down increases. But isn't this still false advertising? E.g., in Australia could I get a refund as I was misled in the believe that a thumb/hard drive had the higher capacity?
It's not the manufacturers who are wrong. Your definitions of KB, MB, and GB are incorrect. See, for example, NIST. The numbers they are using are not "rounded down," they are the proper standardized definitions of those terms. 1024 bytes is properly termed a kibibyte (or KiB), not a kilobyte. 1024 kibibytes is a mebibyte, MiB. 1024 mebibytes is a gibibyte, GiB. These are defined in an international standard, IEC 80000-13 (part of the ISO series of standards defining units); "kilobyte" refers to 1000 bytes, "megabyte" to 1000000, and "gigabyte" to 1000000000. It's not lying to use units correctly, and that's what the manufacturers are doing.
The section you quote as clearly saying a thing is not clearly saying the thing. However: you cannot pass on or resell any license keys seems to say a thing clearly. However, one could argue that it's the sharer of the account who is in the wrong, and not the person receiving and passing on the account. I'd say that that piece of the agreement, combined with this: must not... let other people get access to anything we've made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable says that, yes, they are out of bounds.
Generating a list of all possible numbers doesn't sound like it would constitute personal data any more than listing all dates for the last hundred years as a "possible date of birth" would. However, the moment anyone linked even one of the numbers with any other personal data - for example a name - they would be bound by GDPR and would need to show a Lawful Basis for processing the data. [If you linked your own name you could presumably argue Consent, but anyone else's would need to have an associated Lawful Basis.]
GDPR is not a blanket ban on the handling of personal data. It is a set of guidelines when and how data may be processed and stored. Documenting the compliance with a deletion request is one of many purposes for which some data may be retained after a deletion request. Others would be past contractual obligations, legal documentation requirements, and even a balance of 'legitimate interests' of the processors and the data subjects. The processor might be able to argue that fraud/abuse prevention is such a legitimate interest. What if I want to create a service that does let users enter their friends' email addresses, and send those friends an email invitation to the service? Get a specialist lawyer on staff who can check your exact business processes. A web site like this cannot possibly give you a full explanation of the pitfalls.
what would be the threshold for a lie to be actionable where you could claim a damage? There is no award for &quot;lies&quot; which clearly are inconsequential. A customer will never make decisions based on whether &quot;menu options have changed&quot; or whether the business is honest on the statement &quot;your call is important to us&quot;. The impact that the duration of these statements have on the customer is negligible at best, since omitting these statements does not improve the company's response time anyway. The statement &quot;your call is important to us&quot; might not even be a lie. Many companies know that it is in their best interest to gather information from their customers on what to improve, lest customers switch to a competitor or file suit. The lack of objective standards renders statements such as &quot;best pizza in town&quot; unascertainable. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable for a customer to rely on criteria that are subjective, undefined, unclear, and/or palpably fictitious. Only statements like &quot;scientifically proven&quot; and &quot;lose x pounds in y hours&quot; might be within scope of consumer protection laws (see also unfair and misleading practices). The assessment of those scenarios requires more detail, including disclaimers and other &quot;small letters&quot; that are --or ought to be-- disclosed no later than the formation of the contract.
You might follow the Wikipedia links to the full holding. They did recognize that Google caches images, particularly thumbnails of images. Do a Find on &quot;cache&quot;. From the 9th Circuit Holding - That local browser caching is fair use is supported by a recent decision holding that Google's own cache constitutes fair use.
I spent a few years working in and around the Energy industry - including a stint working at a supplier, I'm no longer there so unfortunately I no longer have access to the email chains I had discussing this with legal. The consensus at the time was that a "traditional" i.e. non-half-hourly (NHH), non-smart meter reading itself was not considered personal data - they are conceptually tied to a metering point (which may or may not be a physical meter), not to an individual and don't represent an individual's energy consumption (the granularity of the reading is insufficient to tell anything about the usage profile) But this information, while all around the implementation of GDPR it was a couple of years back and to be honest it was bugging me that I might be out-of-date on the current practices so I reached out to a former colleague who was the Data Protection Officer at the supplier I worked at to try and get a more up-to-date take. He's since moved on but was there until recently so has more experience with the topic since GDPR actually went into effect. I asked him whether a) estimated opening reads were considered "personal data" and b) what would happen with a request to change one under article 16 and he had this to say, I've translated industry-speak in square brackets: a) for NHH ["Non Half Hourly" - meters that are read ad-hoc, essentially all non-smart domestic meters will be this] an estimated reading wasn't personal data automatically until the billing flag was set in CRM and those would be the only ones we'd include on an SAR [Subject Access Request], any others are internal data not personal. HH ["Half Hourly" - meters for higher consumption users, typically larger business premises are billed on increments for each half hour so have readings for each] and remote [smart meter] readings are always personal for domestic and microb [micro-businesses are a certain class of non-domestic energy customer see condition 7A] b) erm no! we'd only change it if the value in CRM didn't match the value in the D10 [industry Data Flow used to transmit meter reads] for some reason. if they match it's an accurate representation of what we estimate the reading to be so it's just a vanilla billing dispute not a data protection issue so i'd have punted it to [name of person who was head of metering] From that it would sound as though the estimated read would count as personal data - so long as it's being used for billing purposes, but that doesn't mean they have to accept your read in it's stead. It all comes down to accuracy - GDPR requires that personal data be "accurate" but provides no definition as to what "accurate" means (which makes sense since you can't give a one-size-fits-all answer that isn't an encyclopedia) and while The Electricity Directive 2019 confirms the need for accuracy in billing again it doesn't tell us what that means. The implementation is left to member state regulators. In the UK this is OFGEM and all opening meter readings are validated through third parties (so you don't end up with the foxes guarding the hen house!) and are calculated using the following formula: Last validated reading for the meter point &lt;= supplied reading &lt;= (expected daily usage x number of days since last validated reading x 2.5) where "expected daily usage" is obtained from a database maintained by the regulator - it's calculated off meter type, property type, property use, previous validated reads etc. So if the customer provides a reading that falls outside the above the supplier can (and in practice invariably will) reject it as being inaccurate. Now this is why the when a meter reading is provided matters - reads you provide are always assumed to be the read on the day you give them. With opening reads there's some leeway, I can't remember the official rule on how much but usually they give you up to the next estimated read is generated but more on that later. Now if the reading you're trying to submit is a "now" reading and it's failed the validation criteria and you aren't happy with the rejection you can force the issue by demanding the supplier come read the meter. You don't say how long has passed since the opening read - more than the week from what you've said so presumably at least a month (guessing you've had at least your first bill). Now if they are saying the opening read was X (based on the estimated usage) and you're it should have been X + Y and the current reading is X + Y + Z you want to pay your actual usage Z not Y + Z. What you need to do is dispute the opening read, which you're entitled to do, arguably GDPR of Article 16 gives you this right, but on it's own it's a weak argument. There's established means by which an estimated read's "accuracy" is determined and assuming they followed that they're going to just tell you that as far as they are concerned it is accurate. Any challenge to that accuracy is going to have to be done within the legal/regulatory frameworks for assessing accuracy, that's what they're there for, if they won't accept your reading escalate that to the regulator - and as soon as you can. OFGEM for example allow disputing of opening reads for 12 months - it doesn't have to be resolved within that 12 months it just has to be lodged with them within that time. If you try and use the GDPR angle to pursue this IMHO it's going to muddy the waters and not help you get what you need - pursue this on billing accuracy.
Sania is entitled to a reward of 7,50€. germany In Germany, to reward honest finders, the finder of an item is entitled to 5% of a lost item's value of up to 500€ under § 971 BGB. Airpods cost about 150 €, so Sania is entitled to a Fider's reward of 7,50 €. Anything more would be at the discretion of Tam, accepting less is at Sania's discretion. Do note, that denial of the finder's reward at the moment that Sania hands over the item means, that they also deny their entitlement to the reward. In fact, it is upon Sania to demand the reward, and unless they do so, it is presumed that they do not want a finder's reward. However in making her entitlement to the reward known, Sania may not cross the line into coercion or blackmail (§§ 240, 253 StGB). Should Sania say, without explanation &quot;I demand a payment of 100 € for the airpods&quot;, that could be coercion, as she is not entitled to that. If she however says &quot;I am entitled to finder's reward of 7,50 €, and had expenses of 2.50 € to get the phone to you, therefore you owe me 10 €&quot; the picture is different - that is exactly the amount that the law says she would be owed. This is because atop the actual reward Sania can reclaim reasonable fees, such as the bus fare to get the phone to Tam under § 970 BGB. Under § 972 BGB, Sania does not have to relinquish the item till the reward and expenses have been paid but also does not become the owner of the item. The Fundbüro To evade a possible claim for &quot;Unterschlagung von Fundsachen&quot; (~conversion by not reporting a found item), the Fundbüro (Found item's office) exists when the owner can't be made out rapidly. Not only does it calculate the required finder's reward, but also handing it over to the office fulfills the requirement to report a found item that is worth more than 10 € under § 965 BGB. It is customary to store the lost items at the Fundbüro, but that is not required. To gain the item from the Fundbüro, Tam will have to pay any required handling fees to the office but also gets notice of how much he should pay to Sania as well as her contact details. Sania will get contact details of Tam in return, together with a notice that she has a claim to a reward of such value. Should Sania not have given her details, it is presumed that she did not want the finder's reward. If Sania retained the item, the Fundbüro will inform Tam of the estimated finder's reward and contact details for Sania, so Tam can reclaim the item.