Your twisty logic here is how marketing stunts like this happen in the first place, and why we're likely to see more of it in the future.
"Take a selfie with our cam for a free burger!" (* May be used in marketing materials. All shots copyright McDonald's.)
"Give a blood sample for a free burger!" (* Samples may be sold for medical research purposes. Interesting genes found may be patented. Blood sample becomes exclusive property of McDonald's.)
Where do you draw the line? What's too invasive?
This is marketing, it shouldn't demand things from people other than their attention.
> Where do you draw the line? What's too invasive?
The line is draw by consumers, marketers, consumer protection agencies and the legal system. If marketers are being deceptive, that's a legal and moral issue. Marketers have stepped over the legal line and they've been sued for deceptive marketing practices. Setting aand enforcing a moral line is a whole other discussion :)
In the case of the article, I haven't seen any indication anything deceptive is taking place. The price to receive a big mac seems clear: allow McDonald's to send a tweet. People can either choose to pay that price or not. If that price isn't clear (eg. McDonald's asks for Twitter permission, but doesn't tell you they'll send out a tweet) and McDonald's is being deceptive, then they should be punished by the legal system.
Apple could have done the same thing with an automated vending machine which dispenses new Macbooks to evaluate consumer reactions to the touchbar. You get a new Macbook if you allow Apple to send a tweet out from your account. I'm willing to pay that price. You might not be. You are free to make that choice.
If you think Apple's actions are stepping over the line, then you are free to campaign against them to change laws or get them to change their practices so they reflect your definition of the line.
I personally don't agree with your definition of the line, so I don't feel motivated to change the laws to prohibit this behavior.
"Take a selfie with our cam for a free burger!" (* May be used in marketing materials. All shots copyright McDonald's.)
"Give a blood sample for a free burger!" (* Samples may be sold for medical research purposes. Interesting genes found may be patented. Blood sample becomes exclusive property of McDonald's.)
Where do you draw the line? What's too invasive?
This is marketing, it shouldn't demand things from people other than their attention.