With the euro websites - it's gotten to the point where you could put anything in those terms, and folks would accept them - they are so used to just clicking through to read things.
For example, a court ruled that "employee had the apparent authority to bind his employer to a clickwrap agreement simply because the company had provided him with a computer and the Internet access."
Are you following this? Arbitration agreement, prohibitions on patent litigation, sharing your data widely as a condition of accessing a website all have been upheld based on "I Agree" clicks.
Point being is that you can't just do what you want in the ToS. You have to include some form of boilerplate, ie, no surprising / only standard terms of usage.
I'd blame those websites for that, since they're the ones who made the decision to track you regardless of how bad it made their UX.
Remember: all they need to do to get rid of those buttons and popups is to respect your privacy by default.
Can you point to which article of the 99 [0] that you are referring to because I have heard this claim multiple times and yet I cannot seem to find it on my own.
> Art. 7, paragraph 3: "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent."
Although it sounds like this is about withdrawing previously given consent, not rejecting the request for consent at all.
> Recital 32: "If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided."
Perhaps it could be argued that having to click through multiple menus to reject the request is not concise and is disruptive to the use of the service?
> Recital 42: "In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC a declaration of consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and it should not contain unfair terms."
Again, I'd argue that having to click through multiple menus isn't exactly "easily accessible form".
Could you cite that - this seems to be a false claim that comes up a lot.