Why "Reject" belongs on the first layer
No point in consent law is decided so uniformly across borders as this one – and none is ignored so stubbornly. The reasoning is shorter than any defence of the contrary.
The reasoning of the supervisory authorities fits into three sentences. Consent has to be freely given. A decision is free only where both answers are equally reachable. If one answer costs more than the other, the decision is steered and the consent invalid.
How uniformly this is now settled
- 2020The European Data Protection Board clarifies that scrolling on is not consent.
- 2021The French authority imposes fines in the hundreds of millions – the reason: no equivalent reject button.
- 2022The Board's cookie banner taskforce sets out the common line of all supervisory authorities.
- 2023German supervisory authorities publish coordinated requirements with the same core point.
- 2024Inspections shift from design to the technical implementation of withdrawal.
What "equally easy" concretely means
- Same layer. Both answers on the first view, with no intermediate step and no expanding.
- Same number of clicks. One action here, one action there.
- Comparable prominence. Similar size, similar contrast, same typeface. Not a button against a faded link.
- Neutral wording. "Reject" instead of "No thanks, I'll pass on the benefits".
- Same durability. The refusal is stored for as long as the agreement – not until the next visit.
The objection and the answer to it
What is raised against symmetry
The last point deserves attention because it often dissolves the dispute. Knowing which pages are read and where visitors come from does not require recognising individuals. Methods that work without accessing the device and yield only aggregated figures need neither consent nor a banner – and they answer most of the questions actually asked in practice.