You’re right that “technical difficulties” are not a good defense when they break the law, and neither is “we didn’t do it on purpose.” I don’t think it would be a case where they’d have to pay for the use of the content, though, it would be a case under privacy law. And that would be a lose-lose situation, since if they won the privacy case, they would open a different, potentially nastier area of liability. I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, this is dangerous territory. Their safest move here would be to quietly re-delete everything, and try to convince users that the rollbacks never happened. (Aka “gaslighting.”)
You’re right that “technical difficulties” are not a good defense when they break the law, and neither is “we didn’t do it on purpose.” I don’t think it would be a case where they’d have to pay for the use of the content, though, it would be a case under privacy law. And that would be a lose-lose situation, since if they won the privacy case, they would open a different, potentially nastier area of liability. I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, this is dangerous territory. Their safest move here would be to quietly re-delete everything, and try to convince users that the rollbacks never happened. (Aka “gaslighting.”)