Very clever, everyone else who didn't want to comply with the rules had the same thought.
However:
Guidelines 2/2019 on the processing of personal data under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of the provision of online services to data subjects [1]
Section 3.3, Paragraphs 51-53:
> 51. Online behavioural advertising, and associated tracking and profiling of data subjects, is often used to finance online services. WP29 has previously stated its view on such processing, stating
> > [contractual necessity] is not a suitable legal ground for building a profile of the user’s tastes and lifestyle choices based on his clickstream on a website and the items purchased. This is because the data controller has not been contracted to carry out profiling, but rather to deliver particular goods and services, for example
> 52. As a general rule, processing of personal data for behavioural advertising is not necessary for the performance of a contract for online services. Normally, it would be hard to argue that the contract had not been performed because there were no behavioural ads.This is all the more supported by the fact that data subjects have the absolute right under Article 21 to object to processing of their data for direct marketing purposes
> 53. Further to this, Article 6(1)(b) cannot provide a lawful basis for online behavioural advertising simply because such advertising indirectly funds the provision of the service. Although such processing may support the delivery of a service, this in itself is not sufficient to establish that it is necessary for the performance of the contract at issue.
However:
Guidelines 2/2019 on the processing of personal data under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of the provision of online services to data subjects [1]
Section 3.3, Paragraphs 51-53:
> 51. Online behavioural advertising, and associated tracking and profiling of data subjects, is often used to finance online services. WP29 has previously stated its view on such processing, stating
> > [contractual necessity] is not a suitable legal ground for building a profile of the user’s tastes and lifestyle choices based on his clickstream on a website and the items purchased. This is because the data controller has not been contracted to carry out profiling, but rather to deliver particular goods and services, for example
> 52. As a general rule, processing of personal data for behavioural advertising is not necessary for the performance of a contract for online services. Normally, it would be hard to argue that the contract had not been performed because there were no behavioural ads.This is all the more supported by the fact that data subjects have the absolute right under Article 21 to object to processing of their data for direct marketing purposes
> 53. Further to this, Article 6(1)(b) cannot provide a lawful basis for online behavioural advertising simply because such advertising indirectly funds the provision of the service. Although such processing may support the delivery of a service, this in itself is not sufficient to establish that it is necessary for the performance of the contract at issue.
[1]: https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelin...