14th Aug 2022


Google, Fitbit, and a big decision for EU Commission

  • Google's acquisition of Fitbit would give the company access to a vast new dataset containing the intimate, biometric data of almost 30 million people (Photo: Carlos Luna)

In the coming days the European Commission seems poised to green-light the acquisition of Fitbit by Google.

The deal is a major threat to human rights and must be stopped in its tracks until a full and proper investigation into the human rights impact of the merger takes place.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Anything less will send a clear green-light to Silicon Valley - and to billions of Internet users - that, for all its tough talk, the EU is happy with 'business-as usual' - no matter what the costs are to people's rights.

The EU's own auditor recently criticised the commission for being too slow to rein in Big Tech. With the imminent decision on the Fitbit takeover, the commission has an opportunity to show that this time it is prepared to act before it's too late.

Google's acquisition of Fitbit would give the company access to a vast new dataset containing the intimate, biometric data of almost 30 million people.

It raises alarm bells that this data could be cross-matched with the gargantuan amount of data that Google already has about its users from its dominance across a whole range of services (Search, Ads, Android, Gmail, YouTube, Pay and Maps to name a few).

The scale of the data Google holds means that you don't have to be a Fitbit user to feel concerned about what the deal will mean for you.

It's enough for Google to obtain biometric data from someone statistically similar to you for the company to be able to infer things about your health and lifestyle that you would never otherwise permit them to know.

Google already creates highly-personalised 'superprofiles' in order to predict behaviour and target advertisements at users. Adding biometric data to the mix would allow it to make even more invasive predictions about people – based on insights about their very biology. This kind of data is a gold mine to a company that has its sights set on the health sector.

"Health Tech" is already a $100bn [€82.4bn] business and one that is projected to rise substantially in the coming years.

Big Pharma, life insurance companies and a broad range of start-ups providing personalised healthcare are all jostling for health-data insights to make predictions about people and infer risk.

Fitbit's CEO knew this was his company's value when he said, "ultimately Fitbit is going to be about the data."

Surveillance capitalism

These are the mechanics of surveillance capitalism at work – the fact that Google's business model was designed from the get-go to mine, profile and influence people at scale by capturing their data – and attention – and selling it to others.

Last year, Amnesty International warned that this "surveillance-based business model" poses an unprecedented threat to human rights by forcing people to make a Faustian bargain: give up their intimate data – and their rights – in order to participate in today's digital world.

This is simply not a legitimate choice and invalidates the so-called 'consent' that Google relies on to justify its invasive data practices.

The Google-Fitbit merger is set to compound this problem.

We have already seen that AI-driven insights can be used to target people based on sensitive personal information, including inferences about their health status. Such data is also being used to inform sensitive decisions about who can access health insurance or financial services, and at what cost.

Sleep patterns and heartbeat

Fitbit would give Google access to granular detail about millions of people's sleeping patterns, heart rate, fitness levels and movements, allowing them to make even more intrusive inferences about people's health.

While this is undoubtedly a data-protection issue, it is also squarely a competition problem.

When a single company provides near-ubiquitous digital services to two billion people, meaningful choice to the consumer no longer exists.

Google's sheer size and power mean that people have no control in how their data is used or how they are targeted by Google's advertising apparatus (whether or not they use Google services themselves).

At the same time, the fact that the company has a monopoly on so much data, means that it is uniquely positioned to leverage the insights it can glean from existing parts of its business to further entrench its reach and dominance in other areas (such as health tech).

Google has told the EU commission that it could undertake not to use any Fitbit data for advertising purposes for a period of five years, something which the commission is considering as a possible remedy.

Yet, green-lighting the merger on this basis - with the looming risk that this data will be combined down the line - would be irresponsible and naive.

Google pledged to do the same when it acquired DoubleClick in 2008 but has since backtracked.

Facebook made similar public assurances when it acquired WhatsApp in 2014, only to change its privacy policy two years later to allow data sharing between the services, including for ad-targeting.

While companies are happy to make such commitments upfront, they bank on the fact not much can be done when they later change course.

In the past few years, people worldwide have woken up to the perils of Big Tech and the havoc that the surveillance-based business model has wrought not just on individual rights but on society writ-large.

A poll by Amnesty International of people in nine countries showed that nearly 8 in 10 people (77 percent) believe the central business model underpinning the internet today is a major problem with a clear majority wanting governments to do more to rein in Big Tech.

With the EU's new Digital Service Act still some way off being agreed, let alone implemented, the commission's competition authority is even more critical as a safeguard to protect people's rights.

If it permits Google/Fitbit to go ahead now, without proper attention to the possible human rights impacts, we will be living with the consequences for decades to come.

Author bio

Tanya O’Carroll is director of technology for Amnesty International.


The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

EU sides with Google in data protection case

The European Commission suggests the French data protection watchdog overstretched its remit to make Google delist names on a global scale from search query results, as part of the 'right to be forgotten' rule in the EU's data protection regulation.

US firms ignoring EU court ruling on data, Schrems warns

Facebook and other big US firms have no intention of respecting the landmark ruling by the EU's highest court on data transfers to the US. The court in July dramatically scrapped Privacy Shield, citing US surveillance concerns.

EU top court bins 'Privacy Shield' in Schrems privacy case

The EU's top court ruled that the EU-US data-transfer pact fails to protect EU citizens' rights to privacy - following a legal challenge from Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems against Facebook. Washington said it was "deeply disappointed" with the ruling.

Online giants could face 10% fines under new EU law

The European Commission unveiled on Tuesday a package of proposals that set out legal obligations for digital platforms aimed at tackling illegal content and unfair practices in today's digital environment.


Podcast: 'Big Tech' and the threat to democracy

Do tech giants like Google, Apple or Facebook have too much power? Is their growing power a threat to democracy? These topics are highlighted in the latest Nordic Talks podcast, featuring three specialists - among them EU commissioner Margrethe Vestager.


Global hunger crisis requires more than just the Odessa deal

International donors are playing hide and seek. Instead of stepping up their assistance programmes, richer nations are cutting overseas aid, or reallocating funds from other parts of the world towards the Ukraine crisis.

Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business

From food policy to climate change, corporate lobbyists are exploiting the Ukraine crisis to try to slash legislation that gets in the way of profit. But this is only making things worse.

News in Brief

  1. Germany to help nationals cope with energy price spike
  2. Germany wants pipeline from Portugal
  3. Ukraine urges US to sanction all Russian banks
  4. Spain evacuates 294 Afghans
  5. EU sanctions have 'limited' effect of Russian oil production
  6. Donors pledge €1.5bn to Ukraine's war effort
  7. Sweden overtakes France as EU's top power exporter
  8. Italy's far-right star in European charm offensive

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  3. European Centre for Press and Media FreedomEuropean Anti-SLAPP Conference 2022
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers write to EU about new food labelling
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersEmerging journalists from the Nordics and Canada report the facts of the climate crisis
  6. Council of the EUEU: new rules on corporate sustainability reporting

Latest News

  1. Defying Russian bombs, Ukraine football starts 2022 season
  2. Sweden to extradite man wanted by Turkey
  3. EU must beware Beijing's new charm offensive
  4. Forest fire near Bordeaux forces over 10,000 to flee
  5. Estonia and Latvia sever China club ties
  6. Russian coal embargo kicks in, as EU energy bills surge
  7. Only Western unity can stop Iran hostage-diplomacy
  8. Kosovo PM warns of renewed conflict with Serbia

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us