Researchers counter advertising industry: Consent agents strengthen competition and civil rights

Six researchers from Germany and Austria are responding to the open letter from 19 industry associations and defending a key mechanism of the planned EU digital reform: For the researchers, consent agents are currently the only way for consumers to make informed decisions.

 

Shortly after the open letter from the German advertising industry to several federal ministries, researchers, including Max von Grafenstein, ECDF Professor of Digital Self-Determination at the Berlin University of the Arts, and Dr. Elias Grünewald, associated researcher at the ECDF, have now spoken out in their own open letter. The researchers refute the central arguments of the open letter and warn against weakening planned protective measures in the European Commission’s so-called Digital Omnibus.

 

Specifically, the issue concerns Article 88b of the draft, which aims to mandatorily introduce so-called consent agents. These software solutions are intended to allow users to set their privacy preferences once and centrally. The goal: Instead of clicking away cookie banners every time they visit a website without understanding the consequences, consumers would have consistent control over their data.

 

The advertising industry had argued that the mechanism was not technically mature, endangered the financial foundation of the free internet, and would lead to declining consent rates. The researchers clearly refute this: A long-term study with around 1,000 participants shows that well-designed consent agents can increase consent rates—including for personalized advertising—by up to 20 percent compared to the status quo.

 

Furthermore, the researchers argue that the concept has long been technically proven. Projects such as EMIDD and DaSKITA at TU Berlin, the ADPC specification by the NGO NOYB, and functional applications like the “Consent-O-Mat” or the “Consenter” demonstrate this.

 

The researchers see the industry’s criticism as primarily driven by the economic interests of market-dominant players who profit from opaque processes. Article 88b would, for the first time, create a level playing field in the market, where data protection-compliant services could then clearly outperform “data-hungry” competitors. At the same time, they call for stricter regulations: market-dominant platforms such as Apple or Google should not be allowed to operate their own consent agents, as this would further cement their market power.