information GDPR is taking a bite out of European ecommerce

[equity78]

GDPR is taking a hit out of European website traffic and e-commerce. A recent study shows that since GDPR went into effect, page views are down by 9.7% and revenue decreased by 8.3% due to GDPR. European ecommerce is taking a hit at a time when it’s already hard competing with the likes of Amazon. […]

Continue Reading

 

[ksusha64]

GDRP was clearly a bad idea, I hope they change it. Great article congrats!!!!!

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I'm getting absolutely pig sick of having to 'accept cookies' on every website I go on. Only a load of EU bureaucrat morons could think that was a good idea. Every website has implemented it in a different way and made it as difficult as possible to 'opt out' so what's the point?

 

[Kingslayer]

GDRP was clearly a bad idea, I hope they change it. Great article congrats!!!!!

I don't like the way the 'EU' is heading and as a Brit, I'm glad we are getting out of it but I'm all for GDRP.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I don't like the way the 'EU' is heading and as a Brit, I'm glad we are getting out of it but I'm all for GDRP.

Me too. So do most from what I see.

 

[DomainRecap]

Not openly displaying your email, business/home address or phone number to every 3rd-world scammer alive was a great move, but in other ways GDRP does go a bit too far.

Personally speaking, every Registrar should be required to offer free Privacy Protection, as many freely do. It's insane that you register a new domain, and forget to enable privacy, and you immediately get 100's of SPAM emails, then get whatever phone number you used added to a few thousand scammer registries.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Hiding people's details when they want it hidden = good

Pointless cookie notification that no one cares about on every website = bad

Inability to contact a domain name registrant and being refused the details from privacy companies when you have registered rights = bad (and a way to make more money for ICANN)

 

[DomainRecap]

Inability to contact a domain name registrant and being refused the details from privacy companies when you have registered rights = bad

Could you elaborate on what "Registered Rights" mean this case?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Could you elaborate on what "Registered Rights" mean this case?

A trademark

 

[DomainRecap]

A trademark

So they outright refused a legal request for information? Why?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

So they outright refused a legal request for information? Why?

Indeed, I have experienced this from Namecheap. They refused to provide the information of a registrant for a trademark that I own. Then I contacted their WHOIS privacy service/company and they were able to give information. Then GDPR came in and they said they couldn't provide the information. I suspect that this is their default position now that GDPR is in place.

 

[DomainRecap]

They refused to provide the information of a registrant for a trademark that I own. Then I contacted their WHOIS privacy service/company and they were able to give information. Then GDPR came in and they said they couldn't provide the information.

They need to be careful, as giving out info to any Tom, Dick or Harry saying "I own a TM, gimme info!" would be problematic and open them to legal action, while a verifiable legal request (with proof of TM) from an actual law office (i.e someone they can point the finger at if the crap hits the fan) should be a bit different.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

They need to be careful, as giving out info to any Tom, Dick or Harry saying "I own a TM, gimme info!" would be problematic and open them to legal action, while a verifiable legal request (with proof of TM) from an actual law office (i.e someone they can point the finger at if the crap hits the fan) should be a bit different.

I agree. They shouldn't give out information without proof of trademark ownership and when it is provable, they shouldn't be too cautious. If they are, it forces everyone to spend money just to find out who owns the domains which I think is wrong. As a small business it's a nightmare.

But then all of the EU bs bureaucracy is bad. It just serves big corporations that have the resources to meet all of their regulations.

 

[Kingslayer]

Hiding people's details when they want it hidden = good

Pointless cookie notification that no one cares about on every website = bad

Inability to contact a domain name registrant and being refused the details from privacy companies when you have registered rights = bad (and a way to make more money for ICANN)

I’ve always used privacy so GDPR doesn’t bother anyway as far as domains is concerned.

As for the ‘cookie’ notification, that’s the best thing about GDPR. Obviously the internet is changing and for the worse in my opinion as far freedoms and regulation is concerned, but GDPR is a freedom in a positive way.

I want to know what sites do with any data they collect on me, who they share/sell my personal data to; i want the right to refuse. With GDPR you have the right to request what information a website stores on you/how long they are storing it for and you have the right for your information to be removed from any records.

That is a positive, especially when you look at what sites like Facebook have done with people’s personal information in the past.

 

[DomainRecap]

That is a positive, especially when you look at what sites like Facebook have done with people’s personal information in the past.

Agreed, but a lot of what FB did was already illegal or at the very least, contravened existing gov't privacy laws/FTC regulations (and FB was hit with a $5 billion fine), so it's not like GDPR is going to scare the really bad seeds.

 

[branding]

Indeed, I have experienced this from Namecheap. They refused to provide the information of a registrant for a trademark that I own. Then I contacted their WHOIS privacy service/company and they were able to give information. Then GDPR came in and they said they couldn't provide the information. I suspect that this is their default position now that GDPR is in place.

In case of a trademark infringement I think it's better to contact the abuse department. They should reach out to the owner on your behalf forwarding the complaint.

On a side note, RDAP should be solving a lot of whois issues as there would be levels of accessibility of info. Even if a domain is under GDPR privacy law enforcement etc can still pull the data if needed.

On topic, I'm all for the cookie acceptance measure but I do find it very annoying. I can see how this would kill traffic.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

As for the ‘cookie’ notification, that’s the best thing about GDPR. Obviously the internet is changing and for the worse in my opinion as far freedoms and regulation is concerned, but GDPR is a freedom in a positive way.

GDPR does indeed dictate that you should know how long your data is being stored and what it's being used for. The implementation of the cookie thing, as far as I can see, doesn't address this problem because everyone has implemented it in their own way and made it as clunky and difficult as possible to work out what the hell is being collected, by whom and why and whether you are able to stop them storing the cookies or not... that's just my experience though. A lot of websites just implicitly store cookies and say if you keep browsing we're using cookies. To be honest that was a given anyway.

I doubt that many would agree with you that the 'cookie' notification is the best thing about GDPR. It simply doesn't stop bad people (websites) doing bad things with cookies.

It would be made a lot better if there was a standard that you just set up on your browser and then each website listened to those preferences. If I could check a checkbox on my browser and say no to analytics cookies and other categories and the websites were legally obliged to listen to these preferences and act in accordance with them then that would be a real solution.

In case of a trademark infringement I think it's better to contact the abuse department. They should reach out to the owner on your behalf forwarding the complaint.

Unfortunately that's not a solution. They can just ignore the messages. In most cases you need to know WHO owns the domain to know whether they're an average joe or someone who has registered your name to be malicious.

The solution that you are proposing means that you have to raise a UDRP or get some lawyers involved so that you can have a court order to get the details. Mediating outside of court is often preferable and shouldn't be prevented because some dumb ass company doesn't want to hand over someone's name and contact details.

 

[branding]

Unfortunately that's not a solution. They can just ignore the messages. In most cases you need to know WHO owns the domain to know whether they're an average joe or someone who has registered your name to be malicious.

The solution that you are proposing means that you have to raise a UDRP or get some lawyers involved so that you can have a court order to get the details. Mediating outside of court is often preferable and shouldn't be prevented because some dumb ass company doesn't want to hand over someone's name and contact details.

You're right but what would you do if you could track the owner personally? Request them to cease and desist yourself? In my experience they simply ignore this and move on with their day, as would I actually. But you raise a fair point. Abuse complaints do work actually as has been discussed in another thread recently where someone's domain was put on hold after (untrue) spam allegations.

I don't think it's dumb for a company not wanting to give out any info about their clients. I welcome this wholeheartedly. I get this can be annoying and I always look for solutions without getting a court order involved but in the end of the day online privacy is a hot issue and will become even more important in the next decade.

Don't you think if someone is really infringing on a TM and it's costing you money it's well worth it to get a court or lawyers involved? There are always borderline cases but it comes with the territory.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Don't you think if someone is really infringing on a TM and it's costing you money it's well worth it to get a court or lawyers involved? There are always borderline cases but it comes with the territory.

Always avoid lawyers. Plus, I can't afford lawyers. One thing that I will say that UDRP is pretty cheap, which is great because it's a low barrier to entry for those that need mediation. People that infringe on other people's rights maliciously don't have a right to privacy. Even in Namecheap's registrant agreement it says that if there is a request for information then they will dish it out to those that request it, as they should in my opinion. But, they don't follow their own Ts & Cs which is what bothers me the most about them, but that's a story for another day.

The thing about privacy is that it is something that it is awarded online but not in real life. There's privacy to get on with your day to day business and then there's privacy that goes too far and protects purposely bad people. I would draw the line where people start acting badly. GDPR privacy shouldn't protect people that act badly or where they are infringing rights or being abusive from those that they affect.

 

[branding]

Always avoid lawyers. Plus, I can't afford lawyers. One thing that I will say that UDRP is pretty cheap, which is great because it's a low barrier to entry for those that need mediation. People that infringe on other people's rights maliciously don't have a right to privacy. Even in Namecheap's registrant agreement it says that if there is a request for information then they will dish it out to those that request it, as they should in my opinion. But, they don't follow their own Ts & Cs which is what bothers me the most about them, but that's a story for another day.

The thing about privacy is that it is something that it is awarded online but not in real life. There's privacy to get on with your day to day business and then there's privacy that goes too far and protects purposely bad people. I would draw the line where people start acting badly. GDPR privacy shouldn't protect people that act badly or where they are infringing rights or being abusive from those that they affect.

Although I do share the sentiment it's just not right. It's social justice at it's finest. Just because someone is 'breaking the law' doesn't mean he's not entitled to his privacy. I fully respect your opinion though.

As for T&C, they mean nothing. People should focus more on laws and stop worrying about T&C's. They can claim whatever they like but as soon as they're not abiding the law they're meaningless.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Although I do share the sentiment it's just not right. It's social justice at it's finest. Just because someone is 'breaking the law' doesn't mean he's not entitled to his privacy. I fully respect your opinion though.

As for T&C, they mean nothing. People should focus more on laws and stop worrying about T&C's. They can claim whatever they like but as soon as they're not abiding the law they're meaningless.

It's really not social justice. If someone is infringing on someone else's trademark or being abusive to someone it is by definition against the law.

 

[branding]

It's really not social justice. If someone is infringing on someone else's trademark or being abusive to someone it is by definition against the law.

Sure. They are innocent until proven guilty though. Making a complaint against them doesn't make them guilty.

Claiming someone is infringing or being abusive is one thing, proving it is a whole different story. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's a gray area, sometimes people are trying to rob others from excercising free spreach.

Once we stop following the law and go by what we think is fact we enter a slippery slope and that would be social justice imo.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

But by this logic no one would be open to litigation because we wouldn't be allowed to find out who anyone is and random companies would be the gate keepers of everyone's personal information.

If you have a justifiable need for such information then it should be granted.

 

[eurorealtor]

I'm getting absolutely pig sick of having to 'accept cookies' on every website I go on. Only a load of EU bureaucrat morons could think that was a good idea. Every website has implemented it in a different way and made it as difficult as possible to 'opt out' so what's the point?

It is annoying but still small price to pay for better privacy in the real life. Now my insurance company, phone or utility providers can not sell my personal information to any scammer who was willing to buy it before.

 

[BrandEntrance.com]

GDPR is taking a hit out of European website traffic and e-commerce. A recent study shows that since GDPR went into effect, page views are down by 9.7% and revenue decreased by 8.3% due to GDPR. European ecommerce is taking a hit at a time when it’s already hard competing with the likes of Amazon. […]

Continue Reading

Maybe the page views that are down are Whois lookups.