Court case 10 A 5385/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)
A publishing house in Germany was ordered to fix its consent process for cookies. This is significant because it shows that users must easily refuse tracking if they want to. Website operators should make sure their consent options are clear and straightforward.
What happened
The publishing house's consent banner made it difficult for users to reject cookies, leading to a ruling from the DPA.
Who was affected
Visitors to the publishing house's website who were subjected to cookie tracking without proper consent options.
What the authority found
The DPA ruled that the publishing house's consent process did not comply with GDPR requirements for effective consent.
Why this matters
This case highlights the need for transparent and user-friendly consent mechanisms. Website operators should review their cookie practices to ensure compliance.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 12 April 2026.
Processing notes: national law identified.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
The controller is a publishing house that publishes newspapers and content on the Internet at www.noz.de. The controller uses a consent banner (so-called cookie wall) on its website. The defendant is the DPA of Lower Saxony (LfDI). In 15 November 2022, the DPA carried out a technical test on the controller’s website and found that when it was first accessed, without prior consent, the US service Google Tag Manager was contacted meaning that user data were transmitted to Google’s US server and data were stored on the user's device. Also, a consent banner titled "optimal user experience" appeared with the options to "Accept all", in the middle of the banner, or "Accept & close x", at the top right (the x referring to the symbol used to close a window). In order to refuse consent users had to scroll down, select the "Settings" button and at the window opened on a second level, the user must check whether the opt-in controls are switched off in order to then select the "Save selection" button. On 23 November 2022, the DPA issued a decision ordering the controller; a. To implement the requirements for effective consent in accordance with Article 4(11) and Article 7 GDPR, insofar as this is necessary for the lawfulness of the use of local storage objects, tracking technologies and third-party services; b. To obtain effective consent for the Google Tag Manager service integrated in the website in accordance with Section 25 (1) of the german Telecommunications-Digital Services Data Protection Act (TTDSG) and Art. 6(1) (a) GDPR or to remove the service; and c. To comply with the orders within 1 month. The DPA argued that the consent was not fully informed and voluntary in accordance with Article 4(11) GDPR. At the first level of the banner there was no literal mention that the buttons "Accept all" and "Accept & close x" provide two options for granting consent and also there was no option to refuse consent. On December 2022, the controller filed a case before Adm
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Violations (4)
Cookie banner does not provide a clear reject/refuse all button at the same level as the accept button.
Art. 7 GDPR
Refusing cookies requires more clicks or steps than accepting them, or the reject option is less visually prominent.
Art. 7 GDPR
Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Third-party tracking cookies or scripts are loaded without obtaining prior user consent.
Art. 13, 14 GDPR
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 10 A 5385/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Similar Cases
Enforcement actions with similar violations
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 10 A 5385/22 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: