[Enforcement library](/enforcement)

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

OLG Köln held that a weather portal's banner, with no reject option on the first layer and a close link labelled Accept & close, did not get free and informed consent. It granted an injunction.

## Key facts

- **Regulator or court:** OLG Köln (consumer association action)
- **Jurisdiction:** Germany
- **Framework:** TTDSG §25(1) (now TDDDG); GDPR Article 4(11)
- **Record date:** 2024-01-19
- **Procedural status:** Final; no further appeal allowed

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

- The problem
- Case record
- What the court found
- Technical issue
- Timeline
- Outcome
- What it cost
- Why it matters
- How Inth catches this
- Checks for your own systems
- Sources and limits

## 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

| Field | 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; \[VZ NRW\](https://www.verbraucherzentrale.nrw/urteile/olg-koeln-rechtswidriges-cookiebanner-auf-wetteronlinede-91476) 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](https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/koeln/j2024/6_U_80_23_Urteil_20240119.html). 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.

```javascript
// 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

| Date | Event |
| --- | --- |
| 4 May 2023 | LG Köln finds the banner unlawful but dismisses the injunction as worded too broadly |
| 19 January 2024 | OLG 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

- [OLG Köln, 6 U 80/23, judgment](https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/koeln/j2024/6_U_80_23_Urteil_20240119.html) (German)
- [Verbraucherzentrale NRW case summary](https://www.verbraucherzentrale.nrw/urteile/olg-koeln-rechtswidriges-cookiebanner-auf-wetteronlinede-91476) (German)

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.

Related: [Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung](/enforcement/noz-cookie-banner), [Focus Online](/enforcement/focus-online), [Telekom and Google transfers](/enforcement/telekom-google-transfers)