I remember myself criticising new EDPB Guidelines 07/2020 for obvious mistakes in choosing an approach for giving explanations:
Today I came across an article from Herbert Smith Freehills (see the link below) and, ironically, found the same thought I had a month ago: “the guidelines do not appear to add much clarity with respect to the concept of joint controllers and when such a relationship will arise” and “tests will only serve to complicate matters further by requiring additional layers of analysis”.
Exactly! So obvious! Why there hasn’t been any talks on this before?! EDPB often does great things, but sometimes (like all humans, I believe) it may produce shit.
Authors of the article tried to outline 7 practical takeaways from the guidelines. An attempt to squeeze (at least) something useful out? You decide. My point here is that the guidelines partly add little new to the landscape we saw and learnt before, partly – create misunderstanding and ambiguity and, indeed, “complicate matters further”, thus making a step backward from ‘old’ WP29 Opinion 1/2010.