The “Accept all” button is often the standard for cookie banners. An administrative court has ruled that the opposite offer is also necessary.

Lower Saxony’s data protection officer Denis Lehmkemper can report a legal victory in his long-standing battle against manipulatively designed cookie banners. The Hanover Administrative Court has confirmed his legal opinion in a judgment of March 19 that has only just been made public: Accordingly, website operators must offer a clearly visible “reject all” button on the first level of the corresponding banner for cookie consent requests if there is also the frequently found “accept all” option. Accordingly, cookie banners must not be specifically designed to encourage users to click on consent and must not prevent them from rejecting the controversial browser files.

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    We and our 908 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device.

    Absolutely, we need a Reject All button!

    • Jajcus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      And it should include this mysterious ‘legitimate interest’, or whatever it is called - always on by default in ‘my choices’, even though no one seems to be able to explain what this means. How can I make an informed consent on something that vague?

      On the other hand, not ‘Reject All’, but ‘Reject All except functionally necessary’ (which should be precisely regulated by the law), otherwise there will be no cookie to remember our ‘reject all’ choice, which I am sure the corpos would happily use do discourage us from clicking that.

      • sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That shit makes me so mad. What the fuck is legitimate interest if not the cookies which are set anyway to make the site function It’s just purposefully misleading.