Here is what the Norwegian Data Protection Authority says:
In the cases of Smaato, OpenX and AdColony, Grindr “only” transmitted a signal conveying the data subject’s “opt-out” preference. We understand that advertising partners could choose to ignore that signal. In any case, Grindr would have to rely on the action of others, either the user, the operating system, Grindr’s partners, or a combination of the aforementioned, to halt its sharing of data where so required. In consequence, Grindr failed to control and take responsibility for their own data sharing, and the “opt-out” mechanism is not necessarily effective.
Furthermore, for a consent to be “freely given”, accepting to the particular processing operation should be as easy as declining, and the choice should be intuitive and fair.
> I, too, will happily pay for my data being not used and seeing no ads.
These are two different things, sharing data and displaying ads. The ad industry has forgotten that you can advertise without collecting hoardes of personal data, and they've convinced the rest of us that it can't be done.
The point here is that sharing data in the way Grindr is sharing it with third parties is not core to its business. That is, no one signs up for Grindr because of that functionality. Folks sign up to Grindr to find and message others. That functionality does not require the type of data sharing being reviewed in this case, and that sharing of data is distinct from merely displaying advertising.
If data sharing was conditioned on not paying for the app use, than this could be against what this forum usually stand for.
I, too, will happily pay for my data being not used and seeing no ads.
Wee need more details about this case.
reply