4 ms·
> Even worse, this thread is full of armchair lawyers that will confidently tell you there's no need for cookie banners in particular cases. Nevermind that ther
by K0nserv 3y ago
> Even worse, this thread is full of armchair lawyers that will confidently tell you there's no need for cookie banners in particular cases. Nevermind that there's hardly any case law about this and each country seems to interpret it differently. Any actual lawyer would tell you to slap it on there to stay protected.
I bet the number of cases of illegal implementations due to insufficient consent are vastly smaller than the blatantly illegal consent implementations(i.e. those that make it harder to reject consent than accept it). Companies clearly don't care about following the law anyway.
- oneeyedpigeon 3y ago> Any actual lawyer would tell you to slap it on there to stay protected. Presumably, lawyers err on the side of caution? That doesn't mean they're right.
- K0nserv 3y agoI'd think so too, but the number of implementations that use dark patterns that make it more difficult to reject consent than accept it seems to indicate they aren't erring on the side of caution. I'm not talking just de-emphasising the reject option here, but cases where there is no reject option or it's buried beneath 2-3 more clicks.