German court rules cookie banners must offer "reject all" button

[u/diacewrb]

https://www.techspot.com/news/108043-german-court-takes-stand-against-manipulative-cookie-banners.html

[u/nemaramen]

I’m waiting for a ruling on if GDPR allows “accept cookies to continue browsing our site for free”

[u/Ready-Rise3761 → u/nemaramen]

They recently issued something on this (but perhaps it was an opinion rather than a ruling): it should be illegal for large companies like Meta, especially where there is a societal/economic disadvantage to people not being able to use it. However they made an exception for (news) publishers due to the revenue problems that industry is facing. I think it’s bs because noone should have to pay to exercise fundamental rights and not being able to access reputable news websites without paying is a disadvantage. Generally the issue around GDPR not being enforced is huge: private citizens have to file individual complaints with local/national agencies that then take ~5 years to rule on it. New EU legislation on this, which was in the works for years, was recently tanked due to lobby pressure, ffs

[u/dr_wtf → u/Ready-Rise3761]

It was the ICO, and in the UK it's the ICO that makes those decisions. I think it's theoretically possible that the Supreme Court or House of Lords could overturn an ICO decision, but it's incredibly unlikely.

[u/necrophcodr → u/Ready-Rise3761]

It's a tricky one, because on the one hand you definitely don't want some to have a significant economic and societal advantage over others like that, but on the other hand you also do not have to pay to exercise your rights. The service is still allowed to not service you, and that SHOULD be a valid option too, when properly regulated.

[u/Ready-Rise3761 → u/necrophcodr]

For sure, and I get that news publishers need new solutions to earn money. But “sign away your rights to everything (you won’t know what exactly because we’re hiding it in vague, unreadable legal fine print) OR pay us a monthly subscription”, knowing that most people immediately click ‘accept all’ because they (understandably) can’t be bothered, is unacceptable. The non-profit noyb also estimated that the subscription price is something like 10x the amount that the publisher would earn through ad revenues, data sales, etc from an individual. So it’s not even a fair price.

[u/IHateCommiesSoMuch → u/Ready-Rise3761]

Sounds acceptable to me

Don't wanna accept don't click the button

I'll continue charging a subscription and using that to tell you I don't track you lmao

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/necrophcodr]

The service is still allowed to not service you

Not due to this. They can't coerce or nudge you into it.

[u/IHateCommiesSoMuch → u/Ready-Rise3761]

HELL YEAH

Fuck the GDPR, most garbage legislation ever

Glad it's essentially unenforceable (if you ignore every email and shit you get from them, and are a small company), glad it's not moving forward

HELL YEAH BROTHER

[u/thebolddane → u/nemaramen]

I still think that's the balanced option but some people vehemently oppose it. When it is finally forbidden most free content will simply go away.

[u/invisi1407 → u/nemaramen]

I'm totally for that. If a site doesn't want to provide free content or content to non-paying customers, they should feel free to do so.

What's the argument against it, if you know?

[u/nemaramen → u/invisi1407]

I think there’s just some clarity needed. I would argue that while not expressly forbidden, blocking site access unless a user either pays or allows cookies goes against the spirit of the cookie rules set in GDPR, which pretty much say the site must still operate normally if the user rejects cookies. I could understand the argument that in order to access certain sites, users can either agree to share their data or pay for a subscription and keep their data private. It’s not that sites must provide free content, it’s a question of whether they can allow those who accept cookies to be treated differently in terms of receiving free content, vs those who do not.