Criteo – Court Ruling (France, 2026)
Criteo, an advertising company, faced scrutiny for not allowing users to withdraw their cookie consent easily. A French court upheld a decision that found Criteo violated privacy laws by making it harder to reject cookies than to accept them. This case serves as a reminder for businesses to create straightforward consent options for users.
What happened
Criteo was found to have made it difficult for users to withdraw their cookie consent.
Who was affected
Users who interacted with Criteo's advertising services and had their data processed through cookies.
What the authority found
The court ruled that Criteo's practices violated GDPR by not providing clear options for users to manage their cookie preferences.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the necessity for clear and accessible consent mechanisms, urging companies to prioritize user control over their data.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Review needed — 9 April 2026.
Processing notes: amount discrepancy, authority corrected, date discrepancy.
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
In 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) fined Criteo, an advertising company (the controller), €40,000,000 for breaches of the GDPR related to the processing of browsing data through cookies for the purpose of placing personalised advertisements. The decision followed complaints lodged by Privacy International and noyb. The DPA found violations of Article 26(1) GDPR and Article 26(2) GDPR based on the lack of a joint controllers' agreement with its partners, Article 7(1) GDPR by processing user data without consent, Article 7(3) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR by failing to erase data subjects’ personal data based on their requests, and Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 15 GDPR by failing to inform data subjects of the processing of their personal data. The controller appealed the decision asking for its annulment or, alternatively, the reduction of the fine. First, the Council of State (the court) held that the controller processed personal data since the identification of individuals would not be technically impossible based on the very large amount of information, sometimes very precise, collected and cross-referenced for a given identifier assigned to each data subject. Secondly, the court noted that the controller did not contest the DPA’s findings regarding the lack of a joint controllers' agreement. Thirdly, it found that the DPA’s conclusion regarding the violation of Article 7(1) GDPR did not disregard the principles of legality of offenses, presumption of innocence and exclusion of liability for others in criminal matters. Fourthly, it dismissed the argument that the contested decision was based on error of fact and assessment regarding the information provided to data subjects on the purposes for which their data were processed. Finally, the court noted that the controller could not rely on legitimate interest for continuing to process the data of data subjects who requested their erasure. Therefore, the court dismissed the cont
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Violations (6)
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
The cookie banner or cookie policy provides vague, incomplete, or unclear information about what cookies are used and why.
Art. 12, 13 GDPR
No accessible mechanism exists for users to withdraw previously given cookie consent.
Art. 7(3) GDPR
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Criteo in FR
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Similar Cases
Enforcement actions with similar violations
Details
Ruling Date
4 March 2026
Authority
Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-court-9867About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Criteo - France (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: