> If the NPR is not doing tracking, it's dead easy to respond to anyone's inquiries. You think it's dead easy to respond to inquiries. What matters is what th

> If the NPR is not doing tracking, it's dead easy to respond to anyone's inquiries. You think it's dead easy to respond to inquiries. What matters is what the regulators will believe. Also, there's a lot of potential personal data involved in a web page hit that does not require any sort of tracker to obtain. > Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money. That has absolutely nothing to do with the law. That is just your assumption that if you pay for something you won't be tracked. That's a bad assumption. > WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking. Please point out where in the GDPR it refers to the cost of a service as having any relevance to a user's privacy rights. As with the above, you are making a whole lot of assumptions that aren't related to the law.