edited summary: The 'duty' is owed to shareholders, not to you. That duty is to generate profits and protect shareholders' investment.
That's not how commerce works(anymore). You are technically a consumer...and you are fundamentally the "product". Companies buying advertising are the actual consumer - to which you(ie your data) are for sale.
If you cannot look at it that way, modern corporate America/Elsewhere will never make sense. There is no free lunch, no company anywhere wants to help you out of sheer kindness and goodwill. Free software? (sometimes) free phone? ...really?
You are looking at the effect and not the cause. The cause is "their behavior", and their behavior is generating profits. The effect you state about their brand name has yet to decrease profits. That means they are fulfilling their duty, even if it's dirty/rotten/etc(doesn't matter, the market doesn't care).
edit: I don't mean to come off as "you're wrong! they are awesome!". What I mean is that until share prices stop rising, shareholders will encourage them to do exactly what they have been doing so far. The morality of it is trumped by the increase in share prices. Any feelings of shame or ill-gotten gains are quickly erased as shareholder portfolios increase in value. When in doubt - trust greed to predict behavior.
Fortunately, with the EU GDPR coming into effect mid 2018, companies can be fined up to 4% of their global annual turnover for each breach of a specific provision; and 2% for each breach of other lessor provisions.
That should hopefully make these actions uneconomical.
That's not how commerce works(anymore). You are technically a consumer...and you are fundamentally the "product". Companies buying advertising are the actual consumer - to which you(ie your data) are for sale.
If you cannot look at it that way, modern corporate America/Elsewhere will never make sense. There is no free lunch, no company anywhere wants to help you out of sheer kindness and goodwill. Free software? (sometimes) free phone? ...really?