Was there not some sort of rule brought in by the EU that these things are meant to be opt in rather than opt out? Could have sworn some sort of rule for that came in years ago
The British ICO’s guidance is as follows, “if the request for consent is vague, sweeping or difficult to understand, then it will be invalid. In particular, language likely to confuse – for example, the use of double negatives or inconsistent language – will invalidate consent.”
As you click to consent to two options and click to withhold consent from one option, this would be considered inconsistent language.
If the box is pre-checked (the screenshot is unclear), that would also not be considered valid consent as that requires an obvious and positive action by the person using the website.
So from a GDPR perspective this is certainly on the dodgy side but they’ve obviously interpreted it as being compliant.
Assuming this is a opt out (meaning it’s opt in by default) then they probably justify this as falling under legitimate interests. I’d personally disagree with that approach especially seeing as they’ll be processing your postal address (possibly through a 3rd party)
If it was me I’d email them to ask them to explain themselves
Shittle loads ireland
It’s only a matter of time before they start throwing double/triple negatives in there:
“Do not tick here if you do not, not want to receive Promotional Offers by Post”
Littlewoods – pay more!
I don’t get it… What’s wrong with it?
I was changing electricity suppliers a couple of years ago. I liked the look of one company and rang them up to open an account with them. They pointed me towards their website to fill out their signing up form. Filled out the whole thing and then right at the end there were two tick boxes – “Send me promotional material from 3rd party companies via text message to my phone” and – “Send me promotional material from 3rd party companies via email”. When you unticked one box, it ticked the other. Like WTF?! I have to choose one? I simply exited the website.
Got a call from one of their representatives the next day asking why I hadn’t signed up yet. When I told her I had no intention of signing up with them and why, she said – “Yeah, a lot of people don’t like that”…
/r/AssholeDesign
In the Industry this is referred to as “Dark UX” it’s designed in a way so that the user may end up doing what the company would like them to do rather then being clear and intuitive.
/r/darkpatterns
They tried to rope me into a very complex credit purchase rather than just take my card details when I was buying a camera for the woman.
Felt very sly as it was easier to do that than just add the card details to the new account.
I wonder do they also end up confusing the customers who WANT to receive promo offers, that they end up leaving the box ticked/ unticked by mistake.
And those customers would be alot more responsive to newsletters etc…
14 comments
Asshole by design
Was there not some sort of rule brought in by the EU that these things are meant to be opt in rather than opt out? Could have sworn some sort of rule for that came in years ago
The British ICO’s guidance is as follows, “if the request for consent is vague, sweeping or difficult to understand, then it will be invalid. In particular, language likely to confuse – for example, the use of double negatives or inconsistent language – will invalidate consent.”
As you click to consent to two options and click to withhold consent from one option, this would be considered inconsistent language.
If the box is pre-checked (the screenshot is unclear), that would also not be considered valid consent as that requires an obvious and positive action by the person using the website.
So from a GDPR perspective this is certainly on the dodgy side but they’ve obviously interpreted it as being compliant.
Assuming this is a opt out (meaning it’s opt in by default) then they probably justify this as falling under legitimate interests. I’d personally disagree with that approach especially seeing as they’ll be processing your postal address (possibly through a 3rd party)
If it was me I’d email them to ask them to explain themselves
Shittle loads ireland
It’s only a matter of time before they start throwing double/triple negatives in there:
“Do not tick here if you do not, not want to receive Promotional Offers by Post”
Littlewoods – pay more!
I don’t get it… What’s wrong with it?
I was changing electricity suppliers a couple of years ago. I liked the look of one company and rang them up to open an account with them. They pointed me towards their website to fill out their signing up form. Filled out the whole thing and then right at the end there were two tick boxes – “Send me promotional material from 3rd party companies via text message to my phone” and – “Send me promotional material from 3rd party companies via email”. When you unticked one box, it ticked the other. Like WTF?! I have to choose one? I simply exited the website.
Got a call from one of their representatives the next day asking why I hadn’t signed up yet. When I told her I had no intention of signing up with them and why, she said – “Yeah, a lot of people don’t like that”…
/r/AssholeDesign
In the Industry this is referred to as “Dark UX” it’s designed in a way so that the user may end up doing what the company would like them to do rather then being clear and intuitive.
/r/darkpatterns
They tried to rope me into a very complex credit purchase rather than just take my card details when I was buying a camera for the woman.
Felt very sly as it was easier to do that than just add the card details to the new account.
I wonder do they also end up confusing the customers who WANT to receive promo offers, that they end up leaving the box ticked/ unticked by mistake.
And those customers would be alot more responsive to newsletters etc…