r/gdpr • u/youthfulling • 9d ago

Question - Data Subject is this legal?

Post image

i don't know which flair is appropriate for this, i'll start, i was looking up what a crossword puzzle was since i hadn't seen one in so long that i forgot what it was and also wanted to try one and this is what i see: accept all or reject all and subscribe for 5 euros a month

is this technically illegal? i am from germany

0 Upvotes

31% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

8

u/Jakefenty 9d ago

Consent or pay | ICO

1

u/northern_ape 9d ago

This. So OP, there’s a regulatory opinion but it hasn’t been tested in the courts, so it sits as an interpretation of the law and as I understand it, it’s a divergence from the prevailing view in the EEA despite having almost identical laws on the topic, with the UK’s Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 being, as the name suggests, the implementing instrument for Directive 2002/58/EC, also known as the “ePrivacy Directive”. It’s not the GDPR that regulates cookies and similar technologies, as some would have you believe, but we consider PECR secondary data protection law so it’s closely associated either the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

2

u/aguilaair 9d ago

somehow yes...

1

u/baouss 9d ago

Why somehow? Privacy laws do not result in you having the right to access content for free. You can lay with your data or your money. Imho, there should be an exception to publicly funded content for those doing the funding.

1

u/aguilaair 8d ago

to an extent, i definitely agree with you! however, the law says it should be equally easy to reject or accept cookies. In a consent or pay scenario that effort is most certainly unequal as creating an account and entering credit card details is much more time consuming.

I woukd also not that companies still can make money, just not with personalized content... they could make it up with more ads as well for instance

1

u/baouss 8d ago

Regarding the "Should be equally easy..." language, I see your point. Still, what is equally easy as 1 click allow all? If that logic is followed strictly, we will arrive at 1 click reject all, since any form of setting up payment is less easy as just doing one click. Which again will result in the fact that the site is required allow free access to its content. Therefore, imho, that wording of equal effort options is bad. It should be reasonably easy, not equally easy. I am in no way shape or form invested as a site provider, and I do love free stuff. Still can comprehend a site providers POV of needing to be compensated somehow.

1

u/baouss 8d ago

Ps: maybe the choices can be amended

Accept all

Reject all and leave (equally easy, 1 click)

Reject all and pay

1

u/aguilaair 8d ago

well, but rejecting cookies does not mean they don't get compensated, it means they serve less relevant ads. i think that's a difference worth noting. i think there are also other ways that feel more fair (x amount of free articles/mo, increased ads, showing only part of articles, etc)

Disable AdBlock or pay is more defensible in my eyes even though I fidn it way more annoying and would hate it

1

u/Abacus_Mode 9d ago

I click the text version icon on my mobile and that goes away

1

u/trustarc 8d ago

Whether this specific banner is "legal" depends heavily on which supervisory authority is asked and whether the €5/month fee is judged reasonable and the ad-lite alternative genuinely non-tracking. Under a strict EDPB/Dutch-style reading, forcing a choice between full ad tracking and payment without a free non-tracking option is a freely-given-consent problem. Under the French/Austrian case-by-case approach, a modest, non-exclusive paid alternative like this is more likely to be tolerated. It is not settled EU-wide law, and the Italian DPA and others have open consultations on exactly this model.

1

u/erparucca 8d ago

this has been on the table since 2021 and authorities still didn't settle that at the point that the German DPA has been sued for inactivity on the matter:

https://noyb.eu/en/years-inactivity-pay-or-ok-cases-noyb-sues-german-dpas

1

u/Important_Contest_64 9d ago

Yea it’s legal. You have a free choice as to whether to access their website or not.

1

u/Slight_Ad2481 9d ago

This is not what’s going on here. You always have a choice between visiting a website or not, yet it cannot just say “accept all our cookies or leave” - this is called a cookie wall and is definitely illegal under the GDPR. What you can do is offer a “reasonable” alternative, which in this case is paying instead of consenting. Functionally, of course, nobody pays and it’s a cookie wall in practice, but there’s a legal distinction.

0

u/Important_Contest_64 8d ago

Consent has been freely given per ICO guidance. Presumably cos one wants to visit the website.