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.
Absolutely, we need a Reject All button!
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.
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.
It’s basicallly just a label they beed to slap to suddenly be avle to circumvent some forms of non-consent. There’s also overriding legitimate interest (just as vague btw so it covers everything).
In other words, legitimate interest is a form of rape (what with the circumcenting consent and all)
I’m sure “functionally necessary” already means we share your data with everyone because we setup a system where the local page state is managed by third parties that we are selling your data to.
the “functionally necessary” cookies, which are served by the site itself (e.g. not a third party), do not require a banner at all. if you have no third party cookies, you can do entirely without it.
Rejecting cookies without asking every time requires a cookie and that is clearly legitimate interest. The problem with legitimate interest is that it’s not well defined enough and then you have companies claiming that Adsense personalization is an absolute necessity for their website.
But that would be cookie for the website I am visiting, not for a dozen of ‘partners’. And these are the ‘legitimate interest’ on-by-default switches I am talking about.
Okay, so I’m going to copy-paste an answer I got from someone I know who works in a legal department:
That is what I always suspected and why I take my time to uncheck all these.
I have also seen on some websites that you have to pay them through subscription if you want to reject all cookies
Pretty sure that’s illegal AF. Report them?
Will do when I encounter any more
We need a reject all browser flag. With obscene penalties for ignoring it.
Literally saw one with 1300+ the other day, thought I was going insane 😳
Have to individually reject each and every fucking “partner.”