There's no such thing as "consenting to legitimate interest" in the GDPR. Those are two different mechanisms. Legitimate interest does not require consent. If i

There's no such thing as "consenting to legitimate interest" in the GDPR. Those are two different mechanisms. Legitimate interest does not require consent. If it requires consent or can simply be opted out to, it's not legitimate interest and therefore requires consent. Those two-stage "legitimate interest" opt-out toggles are pseudo-legal nonsense dreamt up by (mostly non-EU?) companies trying to shoehorn their business model into the new legislation, just like the "consent pop-ups" that don't provide a single-click "disagree with all". Those are actually explicitly forbidden by the ePrivacy directive btw: there must be a first-level "disagree with all" button and it must be as visible as the "accept all" button if there is one. I actually see nothing in this ruling about DNT that makes DNT do anything that isn't already the default under the GDPR. As far as I can tell, the ruling just supported the claim that LinkedIn was demonstrating deliberate intent in its violation of the GDPR by saying it does not consider DNT to be relevant. It was likely already violating the GDPR based on what the article describes, this just establishes a justification to issue a serious fine rather than just a warning.