Agreed. Don’t make a threat - just make the GDPR complaint. Inform the company if you want. How many times have you remembered to follow up on one of those threats to see if you should still make a complaint?
Articles that interpret this directive also say that one expectation of this wording is that users should not need to log in. Arguably, registering by scribbling a random password is “easy”. Remembering that password later is “hard”.
It’s not infantilization. These bills are designed to prevent “one more hoop” design by the company to make it too annoying to unsubscribe. Your position assumes good faith behaviour by the company with the newsletter. That is absolutely not a given.
The point of the easiness of unsubscription isn’t to make it possible for total idiots. It is to make it frictionless.
Take law - since this technically is on the same subject. So, so much of the legal profession now (unfortunately) involves putting up so many rudimentary roadblocks that people are compelled to settle and agree. Firms suing small companies with single attorneys will send massive archives of paper during discovery. They’ll file an irrelevant “first amendment” claim to defend their actions, all to make sure people’s time is occupied. Even if the opposing council is qualified to respond to and dismiss every single petulant thing, it will take up their precious time, stressing them and reducing how long they have to form an argument.
Law practice has actually similarly introduced legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits and paperwork overload. On the idea of newsletters, it’s especially important for it to be easy because many people have been erroneously signed up for MASSES of them. It should be; Click, Click, gone.
Glad this is highly illegal in the European union.
Doesn’t stop this happening to you though.
I send out tonnes of GDPR threats to these companies and I wonder if they go anywhere
They will at a minimum once you forward a CC complaint to the GDPR office.
Agreed. Don’t make a threat - just make the GDPR complaint. Inform the company if you want. How many times have you remembered to follow up on one of those threats to see if you should still make a complaint?
What part is illegal? I’m not aware of any laws specifically requiring you not to provide authentication when accessing unsubscribe settings.
Not written in a direct, full, and literal sense, only because it’s difficult to legally define a login, but:
src
Articles that interpret this directive also say that one expectation of this wording is that users should not need to log in. Arguably, registering by scribbling a random password is “easy”. Remembering that password later is “hard”.
deleted by creator
It’s not infantilization. These bills are designed to prevent “one more hoop” design by the company to make it too annoying to unsubscribe. Your position assumes good faith behaviour by the company with the newsletter. That is absolutely not a given.
The point of the easiness of unsubscription isn’t to make it possible for total idiots. It is to make it frictionless.
Take law - since this technically is on the same subject. So, so much of the legal profession now (unfortunately) involves putting up so many rudimentary roadblocks that people are compelled to settle and agree. Firms suing small companies with single attorneys will send massive archives of paper during discovery. They’ll file an irrelevant “first amendment” claim to defend their actions, all to make sure people’s time is occupied. Even if the opposing council is qualified to respond to and dismiss every single petulant thing, it will take up their precious time, stressing them and reducing how long they have to form an argument.
Law practice has actually similarly introduced legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits and paperwork overload. On the idea of newsletters, it’s especially important for it to be easy because many people have been erroneously signed up for MASSES of them. It should be; Click, Click, gone.