Run a free scan

WetterOnline: an X that says Accept & close is not consent

A German appeal court barred a cookie banner with no reject option on the first layer and a close link labelled "Akzeptieren & Schließen" (Accept & close). The ruling is final. No fine.

OLG Köln · TTDSG §25 and GDPR · Judgment 19 January 2024

Final; no further appeal allowed

Regulator or court
OLG Köln (consumer association action)
Jurisdiction
Germany
Framework
TTDSG §25(1) (now TDDDG); GDPR Article 4(11)
Judgment

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

The problem

The banner’s first layer offered Accept and Settings, with no way to refuse. In the top right corner, where visitors expect a close button, a link read "Akzeptieren & Schließen" with an X: clicking it to get rid of the banner gave consent. The consumer association Verbraucherzentrale NRW sued and won on appeal.

Case record

Court
Oberlandesgericht Köln, 6th civil senate, 6 U 80/23
Parties
Verbraucherzentrale NRW v the operator of wetteronline.de. The published judgment anonymises the defendant; VZ NRW names the site
Decision
Judgment of 19 January 2024, partly overturning LG Köln 33 O 311/22 of 4 May 2023
Law
TTDSG §25(1) with GDPR Article 4(11)
Result
Injunction against the banner design as shown
Stage
Final. The court did not allow an appeal to the BGH

What the court found

These are court findings in the final judgment. Inth translated the German.

  • Consent given through the banner could not be regarded as free and sufficiently informed under §25(1) TTDSG and Article 4(11) GDPR.
  • "The first layer contains no rejection option at all for the consumer" (translated). Settings only led to a second layer offering "Alles Akzeptieren" (accept all) and "Speichern" (save), and an average user could not tell what each button would do.
  • The design steered users towards consenting, as the lower court had already found.
  • The court barred the operator from running the banner without a rejection option equivalent to the consent option, and from using the "Akzeptieren & Schließen" link with an X in the top right corner to collect consent, in the form shown in the judgment.

Technical issue

Inth’s technical interpretation: the close control was wired to the same handler as Accept. Visitors who wanted the banner gone, not who wanted to agree, were recorded as consenting. A close control should either dismiss without consent or not exist.

// Risky: closing the banner records consent
closeButton.onclick = () => consent.grantAll();

// Safer: closing records no consent; optional tags stay off
closeButton.onclick = () => consent.dismissWithoutGranting();

Illustrative pattern, not the defendant’s code. Generic consent API, not a specific c15t call.

Timeline

  1. 4 May 2023LG Köln finds the banner unlawful but dismisses the injunction as worded too broadly
  2. 19 January 2024OLG Köln grants the injunction on appeal and refuses a further appeal

Outcome

Injunction, backed by a court penalty of up to €250,000 for each breach. The court did not allow an appeal to the BGH, and VZ NRW reports the judgment as final. Costs of both instances were split equally.

What it cost

No fine. A banner redesign, half the legal costs and exposure to court penalties for any repeat.

Why it matters

Close-means-accept is a common banner shortcut, and this is a final appeal ruling against it. It also confirms that Accept versus Settings, with refusal only on a second layer, is not a real choice.

How Inth catches this

  • Consent banner: Accept and Reject get the same weight by default, and 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 the page, time, region and consent state.
  • Evidence: consent records show each visitor’s choice, country and policy.

Checks for your own systems

In the repository

  • Check what the banner’s close control calls, and make sure it never grants consent.

In the browser and network

  • Close the banner with the X and check which cookies and requests follow.
  • Confirm the first layer offers a reject option as easy to use as Accept.

With the people responsible

  • Ask whether anyone measured consent rates after adding a close-to-accept link, and remove it.

Sources and limits

Source review: 20 October 2026. This page describes the cited records and procedural stage. It does not audit WetterOnline’s current systems. Inth translated the German quotes and wrote the technical checks; they cannot decide which laws apply or prove compliance.