I think the author, an American, is confusing common law and civil law. The ruling's language may be overly broad but in civil law countries like all of Europe, while it may be cited in other legal cases _as a supporting argument by one side or the other_, it will not fundamentally change law and it's not the catastrophy the post author makes it sound like.
> There’s nothing inherently in the law or the ruling that limits its conclusions to “advertisements.” The same underlying factors would apply to any third party content on any website that is subject to the GDPR.
False. A European court's conclusions are specifically around the case it is ruling about, so it is inherently limited to the exact circumstances of that case, without the need for it to specify that. They do not set precedent.
> There’s nothing inherently in the law or the ruling that limits its conclusions to “advertisements.” The same underlying factors would apply to any third party content on any website that is subject to the GDPR.
False. A European court's conclusions are specifically around the case it is ruling about, so it is inherently limited to the exact circumstances of that case, without the need for it to specify that. They do not set precedent.