Yes, it is most likely illegal.
https://noyb.eu/en/noybs-pay-or-okay-report-how-companies-make-you-pay-privacy
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
57 points (95.2% liked)
General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) ⚖
1415 readers
1 users here now
Everything related to the #GDPR is discussed here. This is the first and only community specifically for GDPR topics which is decentralized and outside of walled-gardens. #EDPB recommendations and guidance can and should also be discussed here.
For the moment, chatter on the similar California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) could be discussed at least until the volume of messages compels us to split it into a separate community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s only really illegal if someone tests it in court… who wants to try and find a lawyer to challenge every newspaper in the EU, Meta, Facebook etc.
This has already been challenged by complaints to data protection authorities and court cases.
And the result was this guidance detailing exactly how to implement it, direct from the Governing body in charge of enforcement of GDPR:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/
Edit: and this was a result of complaints and a public consultation, not any court case AFAIK.
You've misunderstood the GDPR, what are you referring to is the UK GDPR, not the (EU) GDPR.
I assumed UK GDPR as the Guardian is a UK Newspaper.
The UK GDPR is officially referred to as the UK GDPR, while the European GDPR is just called the GDPR, as it is the original.
This community is mainly for the GDPR, likely the European one, as the EDPB is mentioned in the description.
The GDPR applies to everyone providing services in the EEA, as per Art. 3 GDPR.
Therefore you should've clarified that you're referring to the UK GDPR.
Well good luck getting The Guardian geoblocked in the EU. I won’t make the mistake of sharing my knowledge on this sub again.
This kind of thing is super common for EU-based news sites, too. It's not (or very rarely) punished.
I dunno about EU - The most outrageous stuff is usually on US sites, and Guardian is UK.
In Denmark, the "reject all" button is prominent everywhere - I am not sure if it's a Danish or a EU thing, but I feel protected
Almost every major German news site does it.
Yeah there's a local Finnish tabloid (Iltalehti) that notoriously does this, and for some reason is yet to receive consequences for it. If the practice becomes widespread with sites like the Guardian doing it, I suspect the authorities will finally have to take a stance.
They have an RSS feed... You can read the articles they publish on there without impediment.
What rule is this breaking?
The one where rejecting cookies must be as easy as accepting them.
I believe you should be able to “reject all” as simply as “accept all” for cookies according to the GDPR.
I mean it’s right there… there is a reject and an accept. The issue is this site doesn’t let you read the article unless you do another thing… but you can reject the cookies very easily.
The worst is “Accept all” and “Customise choices” which brings up 100+ slide checks which are all pre-populated.
No there isn't. There's a "reject all and subscribe" which is not the same thing as a pure "reject all." The law doesn't allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that.
The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay.
I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal.
In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears.
It’s not a single click though. It is way more friction to reject then accept. So it def goes against spirit of EU rules.
Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online.
Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say
I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation.
No need for ad hominem attacks here
This hasn't been the first time I've seen this exact complaint against them in particular here on Lemmy, which seems sus. I honestly doubt the veracity of this.
I'm in the US (though I connect from various countries) and I haven't seen this particular prompt there ever. I use Firefox mobile and have it set up to send the GPC (Global Privacy Control, AKA "do not track") signal, which the site says it honors whenever I land there.
To be fair, I am also signed in with an account I set up using a randomly-generated [at] duck.com email alias, fake name etc. It's a free account, but even just doing that gets rid of the worst nags there. I also have given them money in the past (just random donations, don't want to do the whole subscription thing). I still see the prompts to subscribe, but it's like with Wikipedia - everyone knows it's annoying, but it's necessary for them to do that and have money coming in.
Honestly, the Guardian is one of the best major outlets that lets you read for free, which is a difficult line to walk. They filled a hole left by BBC, which has clearly mostly gone down the tubes. I've never been blocked from reading an article, as long as I'm logged in with the free account I made. I'm personally ok with that minor tradeoff to allow access to (IMO) the most prominent non-American western outfit still doing high-quality journalism.
Why not go after the actually shitty sites (especially the ones our crowd may not realize are actually shitty), and not the one just trying their best to generate needed income without compromising quality/integrity and, meanwhile, letting anyone read for free?
Wdym doubt the veracity? Like you think I photoshopped this or something? Why would I do that lmao.
Why not go after the actual shitty sites?
They don’t impact me because I don’t even bother reading them.
Enjoy it while you can, the prompt is legit. It seems there are people on here trying to ensure the Guardian starts Geoblocking instead of just ignoring a Swiss Cheese based pop up with multiple workarounds.
Looks like everyone here just wants to make sure everyone knows they are ‘more right’ than those trying to help them.
It's a grey area - reader mode on Firefox bypasses that crap. "Pay or ok" is legal in the UK, but generally despised.
My research (which admittedly was just me asking AI) said that this is in fact legal as they just have to make it possible not to use cookies and making you pay for it is allowed. The bit about making it as easy to reject them as to accept them is just a guideline. I find most of these work with whatever reader mode you have in your browser so it’s not really a problem.
My research (which admittedly was just me asking AI)
Asking AI is not research.
Your post is bad and you should feel bad.
Misinformation. Don't use AI for research.