> The requirement based on the article 7 above-mentioned isn’t fulfilled with a contractual clause that guarantees validly collected initial consent. The company VECTAURY should be able to show, for all data that it is processing, the validity of the expressed consent.
Google hasn't first-party consented through each of the publishing contracts. They may be able to turn it around.
However, the industry would now favour someone who had no need to collect consent, if we're just talking about the base ability. The ad-world's dependency on personalised data is a problem, and may continue having issues with the GDPR.
Furthermore I personally don't use Facebook and only rarely Google so I don't really care about that, everybody is free to decide the first parties they use or don't use. If people find value in these services and use them over the competition is it really unfair that they benefit from it?
Meanwhile third party trackers are on most websites these days so I actually benefit from regulation in that sector because otherwise I simply cannot opt-out of that tracking (unless I manage to block them all with extensions but it's virtually impossible to catch them all).
So IMO this regulation puts the power back into the hands of the users, they decide who gets access to their personal data. That's valuable.
Blocking a few big players is easier than blocking many small ones, so from the point of view of blocking ads until the advertisers stop being shady this might no tbe a bad thing.
If the ad/tracking industry wants me to play the game their way instead of not at all, they need to start playing by decent rules which includes following GDPR's various stipulations.