Run a free scan

Focus Online: a reject option in faint type behind 140 screens

On focus.de, accepting tracking took one click. Refusing meant opening settings for more than 100 vendors and finding a faint link in a corner. A Munich court held the consent invalid.

Landgericht München I · TTDSG §25 · Judgment 29 November 2022

Not final: appeal reported pending

Regulator or court
Landgericht München I (consumer federation claim)
Jurisdiction
Germany
Framework
TTDSG §25 (now TDDDG); GDPR Article 4(11)
Judgment

Unequal choices or identity checks · Notice, consent scope and assent

The problem

The first layer offered only "Akzeptieren" (accept) or "Einstellungen" (settings). Settings opened privacy settings spanning more than 140 screens for more than 100 third parties. "Alle akzeptieren" (accept all) and "Auswahl speichern" (save selection) stood out, while "alle ablehnen" (reject all) sat in faint type in the top right corner.

Case record

Court
Landgericht München I, 33rd civil chamber
Case number
vzbv gives 33 O 14766/19; the Bavarian court database lists 33 O 14776/19. Inth could not resolve which is correct
Parties
Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) v BurdaForward GmbH, operator of focus.de
Decision
Judgment of 29 November 2022
Law
TTDSG §25, now renamed TDDDG; GDPR Article 4(11) consent definition
Stage
Not final, per vzbv. ra-plutte reports an appeal at OLG München, 29 U 7103/22. Inth found no appeal ruling

What the court found

These are first-instance findings, as summarised by vzbv, the claimant. They are not final. Inth translated the German.

  • The consents collected through the banner were invalid because, given the banner design, they were not freely given.
  • Refusing took more effort than accepting, and the many options on the second layer made it harder still.
  • There was no objective reason to treat "give consent" and "refuse consent" differently.
  • The court dismissed the claims about missing information on data use and third-party agreements. Those duties come from the GDPR, and vzbv had relied only on the TTDSG.

Technical issue

The banner asked for consent to store cookies and read data from visitors' devices for advertising and analytics by many third parties. vzbv said the same banner was still used on many websites when it reported the case in January 2023.

<!-- Risky: one prominent button, refusal hidden -->
<button class="primary">Accept</button>
<button class="link">Settings</button>

<!-- Safer: equal options on the first layer -->
<button class="primary">Accept all</button>
<button class="primary">Reject all</button>
<button class="secondary">Settings</button>

Illustrative pattern, not the defendant’s code.

Timeline

  1. 2019vzbv files the claim (case number year)
  2. 29 November 2022LG München I partly grants the claim
  3. 2 January 2023vzbv publishes the judgment as not final
  4. After thatAppeal reported at OLG München; outcome not found

Outcome

BurdaForward must not use tracking cookies to analyse user behaviour for advertising and analytics without valid consent. The information-duty claims failed. The judgment is not final.

What it cost

No fine. A civil injunction, not yet final.

Why it matters

Having a reject option somewhere is not enough if it takes more effort than accepting. It also shows that how a claim is pleaded matters: the information claims failed on the choice of law, not on the facts.

How Inth catches this

  • Consent banner: Accept and Reject get the same weight by default. Under the EU opt-in policy, optional tags wait until the visitor chooses.
  • Website audit records what loaded before a choice and after Reject, with page, time, region and consent state.
  • Evidence: consent records show each visitor’s choice, country and policy.

Changing the default button styles can undo equal weight. Inth cannot decide whether a given design is lawful.

Checks for your own systems

In the repository

  • Check that Reject all has the same style, size and position level as Accept all.

In the browser and network

  • Count the clicks needed to refuse and to accept. They should match.

With the people responsible

  • Ask whether the vendor list is as short as it can be.

Sources and limits

Source review: 20 October 2026. This page describes the cited records and procedural stage. The appeal status comes from secondary commentary. It does not audit focus.de today. Inth translated the German quotes and wrote the technical checks; they cannot decide which laws apply or prove compliance.