> If a consent dialogue that required one more click for refusing than accepting is not legal, how can this be?
In the derstandard.at model, the site is inaccessible (and also does not set any cookies, or perform any other tracking options) until you choose either A or B, so the amount of clicks are the same.
> That doesn't explain it. If the only options on accessing one of the "big sites" were to see ads and be tracked, or to pay €200 / year and not be, it is pretty obvious that fewer users would opt out of the tracking than now (when it is free).
It's too soon to say as the option only appeared recently, but taken to the extreme, if every single user of Google services opted out of tracking, Google would probably end up with a revenue problem and re-assess the situation.
> In the derstandard.at model, the site is inaccessible (and also does not set any cookies, or perform any other tracking options) until you choose either A or B, so the amount of clicks are the same.
The amount of clicks is definitely not the same; choosing to subscribe will certainly require filling in a dozen fields of personal information, provide credit card details, etc. The friction difference between 1 vs. 2 clicks is trivial compared to the friction added by a full subscription flow.
In the derstandard.at model, the site is inaccessible (and also does not set any cookies, or perform any other tracking options) until you choose either A or B, so the amount of clicks are the same.
> That doesn't explain it. If the only options on accessing one of the "big sites" were to see ads and be tracked, or to pay €200 / year and not be, it is pretty obvious that fewer users would opt out of the tracking than now (when it is free).
It's too soon to say as the option only appeared recently, but taken to the extreme, if every single user of Google services opted out of tracking, Google would probably end up with a revenue problem and re-assess the situation.