Which is an absolute joke because everyone using amazon to actually purchase anything signs their terms and data collection is clearly part of those terms (as one would expect for an online retailer).
In addition, they run Amazon Marketplace and a well known recommendation engine and clearly allow sellers to advertise.
This always seems to be more about posturing than anything else. Or rely on weird logic loops.
Consent is only valid if it's informed and specific. More than that the data minimization applies - you can't require using personal data if it's not necessary.
If the statement "collecting this data without consent so we can more effectively sell ads helps us make money, so it's a legitimate business interest" was considered a valid argument, would that make much of GDPR toothless?
Is it reasonable to assume I can agree (as a non-lawyer) to terms and conditions that are 50 pages (wild guess) long? Especially since they are written in legalese?
TC have always been long and legalese and it wasn't because of GPDR. I can't find your examples in the T&C, it seems to be about 'privacy notice'.
Am i supposed to read that too and keep up to date? I signed up in 2003, do you mind showing me what i agreed to?
And out of genuine curiosity, 'any information' seems to be a superset of 'personal information', isn't it? what is "any information"? and are you saying amazon is only using personal information (which is what, exactly?) to display ads?
Amazon is much better than most. You can read historic t&c's. That said, you have a big misunderstanding. If you have continued to use the site, all T&C's updated based on continued use.
The ruling states their EULA doesn't actually say that they are using the data they're collecting in order to advertise. Collecting data doesn't mean you're allowed to use that data for advertising without explicit, revocable consent.
In many jurisdictions, even if consent is informed and specific, a contract which is not the result of actual negotiations but is standard - e.g. between a client and a large company - can often have clauses nullified by the courts, either for being unfair/detrimental to the client, or for their presence being detrimental to public interest.
The interesting bit is section 2.3 page 17 and is very short.