Texts to 22 Oct 2026

Amendment 458· Digital Omnibus proposal Recital 45

Alternative

Tabled by
Irena Joveva and 5 others (Renew)Irena Joveva, Michael McNamara, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Fabienne Keller
Committee and document
ITRE–LIBE·amendments 401–526 to the draft report (CJ72-AM-790968, PE790.968v01-00)·27 July 2026
Source
Official text, pp. 48–50·printed header: Recital 45
Targets
Recital 45 of the Digital Omnibus proposal

Text of the amendment

As tabled

Wordingagainst the Commission’s

(45) Data subjects that have refused a request for consent are often confronted with a new request to give consent each time they visit the same controller’s online service again. This may have detrimental effects to the data subjects which may consent just in order to avoid repeating requests. The controller should therefore be obliged to respect the data subject’s choices to refuse a request for consent for at least a certain period.To enable genuine freedom of choice, the controller should therefore be obliged to respect the data subject’s choices to refuse, withdraw, or receive relavent information to make informed decision regarding a request for consent for at least one year, prevening continuous requests, including via pop-up windows on online interface. Moreover, data subject’s freedom to express a refusal or withdrawal of consent must be as effortless and instantaneous as granting it. Therefore, web browsers and operating systems should enable user-friendly, straightforward and prominently displayed single-click button to refuse or withdraw consent directly alongside any option to accept. Furthermore, users should never be put in the situation of surrendering their data by providers of services denying them access to a service or any functionality of that service, unless it is strictly necessary for the functioning of that service. It is also necesarry to protect users from unsolicited invasive stealth tracking methods. Therefore, online choice architectures should be designed neutrally, and the processing of indentifiers beyond what is strictly to remember a privacy choice when consent is refused or withdrawn should not be permitted. Furthermore, in order to guarantee the validity of user intent, consent obtained through manipulative designs or dark patters that distors free choice should be considered legally invalid.

Struck CommissionHighlighted amendment

Target

Wording of the targeted provisionlaw in force, Commission proposal, latest Council text

Commission proposalCOM(2025) 837

Data subjects that have refused a request for consent are often confronted with a new request to give consent each time they visit the same controller’s online service again. This may have detrimental effects to the data subjects which may consent just in order to avoid repeating requests. The controller should therefore be obliged to respect the data subject’s choices to refuse a request for consent for at least a certain period.

Council text of 22 October 2026ST 14756/26

Subscribers or users that have refused a request for consent are often confronted with a new request to give consent each time they visit the same provider’s online service again. This may have detrimental effects to the subscribers or users which may consent just in order to avoid repeating requests. The provider should therefore be obliged to respect the subscriber or users' choices to refuse a request for consent for at least a certain period. This obligation is applicable to any provider that accesses or stores information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user, including so-called third-party cookie. The provider may request consent within this period where a new request for consent is necessary, for example if the purpose of processing changes. This could be the case where a new service is offered or where substantial changes to the service are made. A new request may also be made where the cookie or other technology recording the subscriber or user’s choice is no longer valid for reasons beyond the service provider’s control, including when the user has deleted the cookies. Furthermore, the amendments to Directive 2002/58/EC should not be understood as setting out conditions relating to the online revenue streams of media services providers.

Cite this amendment

Amendment 458 (Irena Joveva and others), European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, amendments 401–526 to the draft report on COM(2025) 837 (CJ72-AM-790968, PE790.968v01-00, 27 July 2026), pp. 48–50

Link, short form and official text
Reference

Amendment 458 (Irena Joveva and others), European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, amendments 401–526 to the draft report on COM(2025) 837 (CJ72-AM-790968, PE790.968v01-00, 27 July 2026), pp. 48–50

Short form

ITRE–LIBE Amendment 458 (CJ72-AM-790968), p. 48

Entry in the source list