1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed
A GDPR complaint against translation site dict.cc highlights how websites are asking users to “consent” to sharing data with hundreds or even thousands of advertising and tracking partners, raising doubts that such consent can ever be informed or freely given. Commenters argue that current cookie and consent banners often rely on dark patterns, exploit the “legitimate interest” loophole, and are weakly enforced, while offering little real control over invasive profiling. Many call for stricter limits or outright bans on tracking-based advertising, stronger default protections, and better enforcement to align practice with the spirit of EU privacy law.
Core issue: informed consent with 1,741 partners
- Many argue it is impossible to be “informed” when consent covers 1,700+ partners; reading and understanding all policies would take days or weeks.
- Therefore, even a single “Accept” click can’t be treated as valid consent under GDPR.
- Some extend this logic and question whether meaningful informed consent is possible even for a few third parties; others think a small number (1–6) could be viable with clear, standardized summaries.
GDPR scope, consent mechanics, and “legitimate interest”
- Multiple comments stress GDPR applies to all data processing, including apps and non-web contexts.
- “Legitimate interest” is seen by some as an abused loophole (especially for advertising), by others as a necessary basis for things like security and fraud detection.
- Confusion and disagreement about whether bulk “refuse all” clicks also override “legitimate interest” defaults.
Enforcement and regulatory design
- Some see EU enforcement as weak, citing pervasive illegal banners and Ireland’s regulator as “toothless.”
- Others point to billions in cumulative fines as evidence of at least partial enforcement.
- A view emerges that EU law expects “adult” behavior from companies; instead, firms push corner cases like thousands of partners.
Dark patterns, cookie banners, and user experience
- Recurrent complaints about lack of a simple “Reject all,” partner lists that must be toggled individually, and banners that reappear on every visit.
- Some banners allegedly do nothing but set a flag; consent is not actually wired to disable tracking.
- There is support for banning dark patterns and for stronger requirements: deny-by-default, easy global refusal, and honoring browser signals like Do Not Track.
Business models, “pay or okay,” and ads vs tracking
- Debate over “pay or be tracked” models:
- One side: paying to avoid tracking should be allowed; users can choose between money and data.
- Other side: this makes privacy a luxury good and normalizes mass surveillance, despite the claim that effective advertising doesn’t require invasive profiling.
- Several participants advocate banning tracking-based ads entirely and returning to contextual ads.
- Others counter that users clearly accept ad-supported services and can “vote with their wallet” or by not using such services; critics respond that this is unrealistic when tracking is ubiquitous and alternatives scarce.
Technical and implementation aspects
- Explanation from web devs: trackers accrete over time—analytics, ad networks, social pixels, funnel tools—then get centralized into tag managers and huge consent lists.
- ads.txt files and ad exchanges can multiply the number of downstream “partners,” including resellers and data brokers.
Smart TVs, apps, and real-world examples
- Reports of smart TVs (Samsung, others) newly demanding consent for hundreds of partners, often framed as “protecting your privacy,” with only per-partner opt-outs.
- Some notice faster startup or better behavior once tracking is disabled, but the UI makes refusal onerous.
- Advice trends: never connect TVs to the internet, use external boxes, or block tracking via DNS sinkholes like Pi-hole.