Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

"I will never pay for this" Perception of fairness and factors affecting behaviour on 'pay-or-ok' models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that users see cookie paywalls as profit-driven, judge fairness only conditionally, and say no killer feature would make them pay, so consent given under financial pressure may not be freely given under the GDPR.

desk verdict A transparent and useful qualitative study of cookie-paywall perceptions; the fairness and expectation findings hold up, but the behavioral 'no killer feature' claim rests on stated intentions from hypothetical mockups and should be read that way. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12892 v4 pith:LHKMSWSN submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CY

Victor Morel , Farzaneh Karegar , Cristiana Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords cookiepaywallspay-or-okmodelsconsentfairnessuserexpectationsGDPRdataprotectionqualitativefocusgroups
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Through four online focus groups with fourteen EU-based participants shown mockups of cookie paywalls, this paper tries to establish how ordinary users perceive 'pay-or-ok' models and what actually drives their choices. It finds that participants overwhelmingly read these paywalls as profit-driven, judge fairness conditionally—fair when a real third option, transparent data practices, or authentic content is present, unfair when they feel forced to choose between paying and being tracked—and repeatedly say that no single killer feature would make them pay. On that basis the paper argues that consent given under financial pressure, when users would rather neither pay nor be tracked, may fail the GDPR's requirement that consent be freely given, and that the model risks turning privacy into a paid privilege. The study is offered as a qualitative account of user decision-making on cookie paywalls, with design and policy recommendations following from it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'pay-or-ok' model, also called a cookie paywall: a binary choice in which a data subject either consents to tracking technologies, generally for behavioral advertising, or pays a fee to access the service without that processing. The mechanism that carries the argument is a four-step, scenario-based focus-group instrument: after a briefing on banners and paywalls, participants discussed general perceptions and then reacted to six mockups modeled on a subscription-management platform, varying the framing—ad-free only versus tracking-free, one-click payment, exclusive content, cheap price, explicit third-party sharing, and website type—choosing to pay, accept tracking, or leave and justifying the choice. Thematic analysis of the transcripts yields four themes (perceived objectives, fairness, expectations, and decision factors), and the paper reads those themes against EU data protection law, especially Articles 4(11) and 7 of the GDPR, to assess whether consent under financial pressure can be freely given.

What would settle it

A direct test would compare stated intentions with observed behavior on the same users and designs: run a live or realistic A/B study in which participants face an actual paywall with the same six option framings and record real pay, consent, and leave rates. If real payment rates or consent rates diverge substantially from the focus-group statements—for instance, if a 'never pay' participant pays when exclusive content is real and access is needed—the paper's conclusions about actual decision-making would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that users' perceptions and stated behavior on cookie paywalls do not match the assumptions built into the binary 'pay-or-ok' design. Participants primarily saw the paywall as a way for websites to make money either way, and their fairness judgments were conditional: paywalls were called fair when content was authentic or original, when data practices were transparent, and when leaving the site remained a real option, and unfair when a 'reject all' option was absent, when the choice felt coerced, and when privacy was framed as something to be purchased. Across the scenario-based mockups, access to exclusive content, low price, and trust in the provider could make some participants consider paying, but most said they would not pay regardless of the situation, and trust never tipped anyone toward paying. From this the paper concludes that consent obtained under financial pressure may not be freely given within the meaning of the GDPR, and that the model risks making privacy and data protection a privilege of those who can afford it.

Load-bearing premise

The study's load-bearing premise is that what participants say they would do with six mockups in a 90-minute focus group approximates how they would actually behave on real cookie paywalls; if stated intentions and real choices diverge, the decision-factor findings describe narratives about hypotheticals rather than observed pay-or-ok behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the stated reluctance to pay is representative, cookie paywalls will not deliver the revenue publishers expect: most users say they would accept tracking or leave rather than pay, consistent with the roughly 99% consent rate reported for similar models.
  • Absent a third option such as a visible 'reject all' button or contextual-ad-only access, users experience the binary as coercive, which undercuts the GDPR's freely-given consent standard and the lawfulness of the processing.
  • Conditions such as exclusive, authentic content, a cheap or fair price, and a trusted provider can produce conditional willingness to pay, but no single feature dominates; payment decisions are combinations, often ambivalent.
  • The model risks economic exclusion: lower-income users say they cannot pay and therefore end up consenting to tracking, turning data protection into a purchasable privilege and a source of socioeconomic discrimination.
  • Design and policy responses follow: regulators should require meaningful alternatives for essential services, ensure transparency framed without fear-mongering, define exclusivity and authenticity criteria, and consider prohibiting the model in future legislation such as the Digital Fairness Act.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the data are stated intentions about hypothetical mockups rather than observed behavior, the decision-factor findings are best read as narratives about hypotheticals; a field experiment or log analysis of real pay-or-ok walls could test whether the stated 'never pay' stance holds when actual content access is at stake.
  • The backfiring of the '300+ vendors' transparency condition suggests a testable extension: transparency that is legally complete but framed as a threat can reduce trust and drive users away, implying that disclosure design, not just disclosure content, shapes perceived fairness and autonomy.
  • Fairness judgments were conditional and contradictory within the same participants, which implies that policy interventions aimed at perceived fairness—such as adding a reject-all option or contextual ads—could shift acceptance of the model without changing the underlying economics.
  • The economic-exclusion finding points to a measurable prediction: in jurisdictions where pay-or-ok is common, lower-income users should exhibit higher consent-to-tracking rates; this could be examined with demographic data from consent-management platforms or large-scale surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a qualitative study of how users perceive 'pay-or-ok' cookie paywalls. Four online focus groups with 14 EU/EEA participants were shown six Contentpass-style mockups and asked to state whether they would pay, accept tracking, or leave. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke) yields four themes: perceived objectives of paywalls (mostly profit-driven), conditional fairness judgments, design expectations (e.g., a 'reject all' option, contextual ads), and factors affecting stated pay-or-consent decisions. The authors combine these findings with a GDPR analysis, arguing that consent given under financial pressure may not be 'freely given,' and offer design and policy recommendations, including a call to prohibit the model in the future Digital Fairness Act.

Significance. If read as a study of user perceptions and stated willingness, the paper makes a useful contribution to an understudied area. It provides a transparently reported qualitative dataset, including a codebook, verbatim quotes, and explicit acknowledgment of the modest sample and lack of full theoretical saturation. The identified themes (e.g., perceived coercion, desire for a third option, and conditional fairness) are plausible and connect to ongoing regulatory debates about consent-or-pay models under the GDPR. The main risk is that the paper moves from 'participants said they would not pay' to 'no killer feature would lead users to pay' and 'users would likely never pay,' a behavioral prediction that the data, based on hypothetical mockups, cannot support as stated. The GDPR argument itself does not depend on observed behavior, but the paper's framing overstates the empirical grounding for that legal conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, §3.4, §4.2] The central behavioral claim that 'there was no real killer feature' and 'users resent cookie paywalls and would likely never pay' is derived from participants' stated choices on six hypothetical Contentpass-style mockups (§2.1, Appendix A.3). Participants were asked to 'act as though they had just landed on the page,' but no payment was made, no trackers fired, and the 'exclusive content' in Scenario 3 was left unspecified. The paper itself invokes the privacy paradox (§4.1, citing [5]) and Strycharz et al.'s control paradox [46] to caution that stated intentions and actual behavior diverge. Yet §3.4 and §4.2 treat T4.1–T4.3 as direct evidence of what 'influences users' decisions.' Because the abstract's 'no killer feature would lead users to pay' and the conclusion that users 'would likely never pay' are load-bearing for the paper's policy recommendations, this inference needs to be reframed as self-reported willingness under hypothetical conditions, with the limitation explicitly connected to the analysis. The qualitative perception themes (T1–T3) remain credible; the behavioral extrapolation is not.
  2. [§3.4, T4.8] The claim that 'trust never affected participants in a way that would lead them to pay' is an absence claim based on a sample of 14 participants. The evidence shows that trust influenced some participants to accept cookies, but it does not establish the negative universal about trust and payment. This sentence should be softened to 'no participant in this sample reported that trust alone would lead them to pay,' which is the defensible reading of the focus group data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2] The text states '14 adults (FG1 = 5, FG2 = 4, FG3 = 3, FG4 = 25)', but the footnote and Table 1 indicate FG4 had two participants. Please correct 'FG4 = 25' to 'FG4 = 2'.
  2. [Table 1] The demographic counts in Table 1 appear internally inconsistent (e.g., FG1 lists five participants by age but four by gender; FG2 lists five by gender but four by age). Please reconcile the table with the stated group sizes.
  3. [References] Reference [1] contains a malformed DOI prefix ('https://doi.org/doi/10.2759/294673'); it should read 'https://doi.org/10.2759/294673'.
  4. [§3.1] The phrase 'To our surprise' is informal for a research report; consider replacing it with a neutral statement such as 'In contrast to the prior themes, few participants...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: qualitative focus-group findings and external legal analysis; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation or numerical prediction; its claims are thematic interpretations of focus-group discussions and a legal assessment anchored in the GDPR, EDPB Opinion 08/2024, the DMA decision, and external literature. The central empirical claims—that participants view paywalls as profit-driven, that fairness judgments depend on transparency, exclusivity, and alternatives, and that no single feature would make them pay—are summaries of participant statements, not renames of inputs. The cited prior work by the authors [33,34,45] is used only to establish prevalence/context and to note that Scenario 5's wording 'reflected current practices'; it does not supply the load-bearing result. The paper explicitly acknowledges that stated behavioral intentions may diverge from real behavior by invoking the privacy paradox [5] and the control paradox [46]; this is a limitation of external validity, not circularity. No fitted parameter is called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citations, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and honest about its exploratory sample. No circularity found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no numerical fit; its central claims rest on qualitative data collection and interpretation. The listed axioms are the assumptions under which the focus group findings can speak to real-world pay-or-ok behavior and EU consent law.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Stated behavior in hypothetical scenario discussions approximates real pay-or-ok behavior.
    The study's factor findings (T4) rely on what participants say they would do with mockups, not observed choices. The paper itself cites the privacy paradox literature (Section 4.1, [5]) showing stated intentions can diverge from behavior.
  • domain assumption Thematic coding reached code saturation sufficient to support prevalence-style statements such as 'most participants' and '9 out of 14'.
    Authors state full theoretical saturation was not achieved but code saturation was approached (Section 2). Frequency counts across 14 participants are fragile and cannot support strong general claims.
  • domain assumption Prolific-recruited English-speaking EU/EEA/Swiss participants represent relevant EU user perspectives.
    The sample is young, educated, and half low-income; country of residence was not collected; diversity was balanced by gender only. This sampling assumption underpins the policy recommendations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "I will never pay for this" Perception of fairness and factors affecting behaviour on 'pay-or-ok' models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHKMSWSN

@misc{pith2026250512892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "I will never pay for this" Perception of fairness and factors affecting behaviour on 'pay-or-ok' models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHKMSWSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12892}
}
read the original abstract

The rise of cookie paywalls ('pay-or-ok' models) has prompted growing debates around the right to privacy and data protection, monetisation, and the legitimacy of user consent. Despite their increasing use across sectors, limited research has explored how users perceive these models or what shapes their decisions to either consent to tracking or pay. To address this gap, we conducted four focus groups (n= 14) to examine users' perceptions of cookie paywalls, their judgments of fairness, and the conditions under which they might consider paying, alongside a legal analysis within the EU data protection legal framework. Participants primarily viewed cookie paywalls as profit-driven, with fairness perceptions varying depending on factors such as the presence of a third option beyond consent or payment, transparency of data practices, and the authenticity or exclusivity of the paid content. Participants voiced expectations for greater transparency, meaningful control over data collection, and less coercive alternatives, such as contextual advertising or "reject all" buttons. Although some conditions, including trusted providers, exclusive content, and reasonable pricing, could make participants consider paying, most expressed reluctance or unwillingness to do so. Crucially, our findings raise concerns about economic exclusion, where privacy and data protection might end up becoming a privilege rather than fundamental rights. Consent given under financial pressure may not meet the standard of being freely given, as required by the GDPR. To address these concerns, we recommend user-centred approaches that enhance transparency, reduce coercion, ensure the value of paid content, and explore inclusive alternatives. These measures are essential for supporting fairness, meaningful choice, and user autonomy in consent-driven digital environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Telematics and Informatics34(7), 1038–1058 (2017)

    Barth,S.,DeJong,M.D.:Theprivacyparadox–investigatingdiscrepanciesbetween expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–a systematic literature re- view. Telematics and Informatics34(7), 1038–1058 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [46]

    Computers in Human Behavior120, 106750 (2021).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10

    Strycharz, J., Smit, E., Helberger, N., van Noort, G.: No to cookies: Empowering impact of technical and legal knowledge on rejecting tracking cookies. Computers in Human Behavior120, 106750 (2021).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.chb.2021.106750

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    Publications Office of the European Union (2023).https: //doi.org/doi/10.2759/294673

    Armitage, C., Botton, N., Dejeu-Castang, L., Lemoine, L.E.C., Directorate- General for Communications Networks, C., Technology): Study on the impact of recent developments in digital advertising on privacy, publishers and adver- tisers – Final report. Publications Office of the European Union (2023).https: //doi.org/doi/10.2759/294673

    work page doi:10.2759/294673 2023

  4. [2]

    Austrian DPA (DSB): A cookie banner’s first layer needs to contain a visually equivalent option to reject cookies,https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=BVwG_ -_W_108_2284491-1

    work page

  5. [3]

    Aziz, M.A.B., Wilson, C.: Johnny Still Can’t Opt-out: Assessing the IAB CCPA Compliance Framework. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2024(4), 349– 363 (2024). https://doi.org/10.56553/popets-2024-0120, https://doi.org/ 10.56553/popets-2024-0120

    doi:10.56553/popets-2024-0120 2024

  6. [4]

    pay-or-consent

    Bachelet, V.: “pay-or-consent” and emerging trends in digital contract law. https://doi-org.utrechtuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.54648/erpl2024047 (2024)

    work page doi:10.54648/erpl2024047 2024

  7. [6]

    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (JOLT) 37 (2024)

    Bielova, N., Santos, C., Gray, C.M.: Two worlds apart! Closing the gap between regulating EU consent and user studies. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (JOLT) 37 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2) (Jan 2006).https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2) (Jan 2006).https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Content Pass: contentpass,https://www.contentpass.net/en/publications

  2. [9]

    https://doi.org/10.71265/tkk29041

    D’Amico, A., Pelekis, D., Santos, C.T., Duivenvoorde, B.: Meta’s pay-or-okay model:AnanalysisunderEUdataprotection,consumerandcompetitionlaw 2024, 254–272. https://doi.org/10.71265/tkk29041

    2024 doi

  3. [10]

    Now take some cookies: Measuring the GDPR’s impact on web privacy

    Degeling, M., Utz, C., Lentzsch, C., Hosseini, H., Schaub, F., Holz, T.: We Value Your Privacy... Now take some cookies: Measuring the GDPR’s impact on web privacy. In: Proceedings of the 26th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    EDPB: Opinion 08/2024 on valid consent in the context of consent or pay mod- els implemented by large online platforms,https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/ files/2024-04/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay_en.pdf

    2024

  5. [12]

    Euronews: Eu digital fairness act is for business as much as consumers, says justice commissioner (2025), https://tinyurl.com/4svy5das, accessed: 2025-05-15

    2025

  6. [13]

    European Commision: Commission finds apple and meta in breach of the dig- ital markets act, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ ip_25_1085

  7. [14]

    Available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/ item-detail.cfm?item_id=622227 (2018) 20 Morel et al

    European Commission: Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679, WP260 rev.01. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/ item-detail.cfm?item_id=622227 (2018) 20 Morel et al

    2018

  8. [15]

    In: 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW)

    Fouad, I., Santos, C., Al Kassar, F., Bielova, N., Calzavara, S.: On compliance of cookie purposes with the purpose specification principle. In: 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW). IEEE (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    In: 9th International Conference on HCI in Business, Government and Organizations

    Giese, J., Stabauer, M.: Factors that influence cookie acceptance: Characteristics of cookie notices that users perceive to affect their decisions. In: 9th International Conference on HCI in Business, Government and Organizations. p. 272–285 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    In: 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2021)

    Gray, C.M., Santos, C., Bielova, N., Toth, M., Clifford, D.: Dark patterns and the legal requirements of consent banners: An interaction criticism perspective. In: 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference

    Hils, M., Woods, D.W., Böhme, R.: Measuring the emergence of consent manage- ment on the web. In: Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference. p. 317–332. IMC ’20 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    In: ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (2021)

    Kampanos, G., Shahandashti, S.F.: Accept all: The landscape of cookie banners in greece and the uk. In: ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    pay or okay

    Kollmann, K.: Reconciling “pay or okay” models with the gdpr: The austrian dpa decision and other recent approaches in europe (2023).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2023/2/15

    2023 doi

  14. [21]

    Krueger, R.: Designing and conducting focus group interviews (2002)

    2002

  15. [22]

    This website uses cookies

    Kulyk, O., Hilt, A., Gerber, N., Volkamer, M.: “This website uses cookies": Users’ perceptions and reactions to the cookie disclaimer. In: EuroUSEC (2018).https: //doi.org/10.14722/eurousec.2018.23012

    2018

  16. [23]

    Journal of Systems and Software (2023)

    Kulyk, O., Renaud, K., Costica, S.: People want reassurance when making privacy- related decisions—not technicalities. Journal of Systems and Software (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    it doesn’t tell me anything about how my data is used

    Kyi, L., Mhaidli, A., Santos, C.T., Roesner, F., Biega, A.J.: “it doesn’t tell me anything about how my data is used”: User perceptions of data collection pur- poses. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems. CHI ’24, Association for C...

    2024

  18. [25]

    Morgan Kaufmann (2017)

    Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research methods in human-computer inter- action. Morgan Kaufmann (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Computer Law & Security Review31 (03 2015)

    Leenes, R., Kosta, E.: Taming the cookie monster with dutch law – a tale of regulatory failure. Computer Law & Security Review31 (03 2015). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.clsr.2015.01.004

    2015 doi

  20. [27]

    In: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2022)

    Ma, E., Birrell, E.: Prospective consent: The effect of framing on cookie consent decisions. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    In: Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium

    Machuletz,D.,Boehme,R.:MultiplePurposes,MultipleProblems:AUserStudyof Consent Dialogs after GDPR. In: Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium. vol. 2, pp. 481–498 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    FAT* ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency36, 105374 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr

    Malgieri, G.: The concept of fairness in the gdpr: A linguistic and contextual in- terpretation. FAT* ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency36, 105374 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr. 2019.105374

    2020

  23. [30]

    In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2020)

    Matte, C., Bielova, N., Santos, C.: Do Cookie Banners Respect my Choice? Mea- suring Legal Compliance of Banners from IAB Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    I will never pay for this

    Matte,C.,Santos,C.,Bielova,N.:PurposesinIABEurope’sTCF:whichlegalbasis and how are they used by advertisers? In: APF 2020 - Annual Privacy Forum. pp. 1–24. Lisbon, Portugal (Oct 2020),https://inria.hal.science/hal-02566891 “I will never pay for this” 21

    2020

  25. [32]

    Max von Grafenstein and Nina Elisabeth Herbort: Regulation of On- line Advertising’ (Federation of German Consumer Organisations (2024), https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/2025-02/vzbv-Gutachten_ Expert-Opinion_Grafenstein_Herbort_Online-Advertising.pdf

    2024

  26. [33]

    In: 22nd Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (2023)

    Morel, V., Santos, C., Fredholm, V., Thunberg, A.: Legitimate interest is the new consent-large-scale measurement and legal compliance of iab europe tcf paywalls. In: 22nd Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society

    Morel, V., Santos, C., Lintao, Y., Human, S.: Your consent is worth 75 euros a year-measurement and lawfulness of cookie paywalls. In: Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. pp. 213–218 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03610 (2024)

    Müller-Tribbensee, T., Miller, K.M., Skiera, B.: Paying for privacy: Pay-or-tracking walls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03610 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    the case against commercial surveillance online (2021)

    Myrstad, F., Tjøstheim, I.: Time to ban surveillance-based advertising. the case against commercial surveillance online (2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    CoRR abs/2001.02479 (2020), http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02479

    Nouwens, M., Liccardi, I., Veale, M., Karger, D.R., Kagal, L.: Dark patterns after the GDPR: scraping consent pop-ups and demonstrating their influence. CoRR abs/2001.02479 (2020), http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02479

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    significant is- sues

    Orland, K.: Over half of LLM-written news summaries have “significant is- sues”—BBC analysis, https://tinyurl.com/yzxxc27z

  32. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference

    Rasaii, A., Gosain, D., Gasser, O.: Thou shalt not reject: analyzing accept-or- pay cookie banners on the web. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. pp. 154–161 (2023)

    2023

  33. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Sanchez-Rola, I., Dell’Amico, M., Kotzias, P., Balzarotti, D., Bilge, L., Vervier, P.A., Santos, I.: Can i opt out yet? gdpr and the global illusion of cookie control. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. p. 340–351. AsiaCCS ...

    2019

  34. [41]

    Technology and Regulation (TechReg) pp

    Santos, C., Bielova, N., Matte, C.: Are cookie banners indeed compliant with the law? Deciphering EU legal requirements on consent and technical means to verify compliance of cookie banners. Technology and Regulation (TechReg) pp. 91–135 (2020), https://doi.org/10.26116/techre...

    2020 doi

  35. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Sheil, A., Acar, G., Schraffenberger, H., Gellert, R., Malone, D.: Staying at the roach motel: Cross-country analysis of manipulative subscription and cancellation flows. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’24, Association for...

    2024

  36. [43]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW2), 1–24 (2022)

    Smart, M.A., Sood, D., Vaccaro, K.: Understanding risks of privacy theater with differential privacy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW2), 1–24 (2022)

    2022

  37. [44]

    In: 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

    Soe, T.H., Nordberg, O.E., Guribye, F., Slavkovik, M.: Circumvention by design - dark patterns in cookie consent for online news outlets. In: 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. NordiCHI ’20 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06920 (2024)

    Stenwreth, A., Täng, S., Morel, V.: To be or not to be (in the eu): Measurement of discrepancies presented in cookie paywalls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06920 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    In: Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2019 (2019) 22 Morel et al

    Trevisan, M., Traverso, S., Bassi, E., Mellia, M.: 4 Years of EU Cookie Law: Results and Lessons Learned. In: Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2019 (2019) 22 Morel et al

    2019

  40. [48]

    Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2019).https: //doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354212

    Utz, C., Degeling, M., Fahl, S., Schaub, F., Holz, T.: (Un)informed Consent: Studying GDPR Consent Notices in the Field. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2019).https: //doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354212

    2019

  41. [49]

    Prefer not to answer

    Wesselkamp, V., Fouad, I., Santos, C., et al.: In-depth technical and legal analysis of tracking on health related websites with ernie extension. In: Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES ’21). ACM, Seoul, Korea (2021). https://doi.org/10....

    2021

  42. [50]

    What is your age? 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, +65

  43. [51]

    How do you identify yourself? Female, Male, Non-binary

  44. [52]

    What is your latest educational degree/level? Middle School, High School, BSc, MSc, PhD

  45. [53]

    What is your latest educational degree/level? - What is (was) your field of study (if applicable)?

  46. [54]

    How would you rate your confidence in using computers and navigating the internet? 1 = Not confident at all, 2 = Slightly confident, 3 = Moderately confident, 4 = Confident, 5 = Very confident

  47. [55]

    How would you describe your ability to understand and manage cookie consent banners? 1 = I don’t understand cookie banners and find them difficult to manage, 2 = I have a basic understanding of cookie banners but often struggle to manage them, 3 = I understand cookie banners w...

  48. [56]

    I will never pay for this

    What is your current work situation? Employed or self-employed, Looking for a job, Studying, Others 8) What is your monthly income after tax? Less than 15,000 SEK, Between 15,000 and 25,000 SEK, Between 25,000 and 35,000 SEK, Between 35,000 and 45,000 SEK, More than 45,000 SEK...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.