OECD Consent Technologies Roundtable: Opening Remarks on the Evolution of Consent

Summary

This recap covers my panel moderation at the OECD Consent Technologies Roundtable held in Paris on March 18, 2025. My opening remarks framed the discussion around key tensions and challenges in the rapidly evolving consent management space, focusing on the evolution from basic website analytics to today's complex multi-party tracking ecosystem.

The moderation addressed three critical challenges facing consent management: the fundamental imbalance between granting and revoking consent (Consent vs. Revocation Asymmetry), the tension between interface simplicity and meaningful user control, and the complex problem of signal interpretation when multiple consent indicators conflict. The discussion emphasized the promise of standardization while acknowledging the need to balance simplicity against nuanced privacy choices and the concept of "privacy in numbers" through uniform signals.

Thank you for the opportunity to moderate this panel today. As we explore emerging technical tools for consent management, I'd like to frame our discussion around key tensions and challenges in this rapidly evolving space.

The digital consent landscape has evolved significantly from basic website analytics to today's complex multi-party tracking ecosystem.

Obviously, the tools we create to manage consent must evolve accordingly.

Early attempts to implement consumer-friendly universal privacy controls often fell short (with signals such as Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) and Do Not Tack (DNT) coming to mind).

The Do Not Track signal, demonstrated technical promise but lacked regulatory support. However, it became the foundation for the Global Privacy Control (GPC).

Today's regulatory environment has created fresh opportunities. Frameworks like the California Consumer Privacy Act, which mandates businesses honor opt-out preference signals, and similar requirements in eleven other U.S. states have seen new technical solutions emerge.

The Technical Tools Landscape

Browser-based tools and platform-specific settings allow individuals to communicate their consent preferences automatically.

The GPC signal and Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) represent important innovations in this space.

These tools significantly simplify consumers' ability to exercise their rights by enabling them to send opt-out requests to every site with which they interact, eliminating the need for separate requests for each business.

Key Challenges in Consent Management

Despite this progress, several key challenges remain. I will touch upon three aspects, i.e., (1) Consent vs. Revocation Asymmetry, (2) Interface Complexity vs. User Control, and (3) Signal Interpretation Challenges.

1. Consent vs. Revocation Asymmetry

Many consent mechanisms have a fundamental imbalance.

Users often face multiple steps and complex interfaces to withhold consent, while giving consent may require a single click.

This asymmetry undermines meaningful choice.

The technical implementation of consent revocation is equally important yet often neglected.

A genuinely effective consent tool must make revoking previously granted consent as simple as providing it initially.

However, most systems create friction in revocation, discouraging users from changing their preferences.

This asymmetry leads us directly to our second challenge: the delicate balance between interface design and meaningful user control.

2. Interface Complexity vs. User Control

We face a persistent tension between simplicity and granularity.

How many clicks or steps represent the optimal balance between user burden and meaningful choice?

Yet oversimplified consent choices may fail to capture users' true intentions.

A genuinely fair consent interface would require equivalent steps for granting and revoking consent.

However, designing balanced interfaces proves challenging when business incentives favor consent acquisition over revocation.

Even with perfectly balanced interfaces, we still face perhaps the most complex challenge of all: determining which signal should prevail when multiple indicators conflict.

3. Signal Interpretation Challenges

Perhaps the most complex challenge involves signal interpretation.

When different signals conflict, which takes precedence?

Consider these scenarios:

• Does a user's login status override their browser's opt-out signal?
• Should preferences set in a website's privacy dashboard supersede the Global Privacy Control signal?
• How should businesses interpret signals from non-logged-in users versus subscribers?
• What is the correct interpretation when a user has previously consented to data sharing but then enables an opt-out preference signal?

Without clear standards for signal interpretation, businesses may prioritize signals that favor data collection, undermining user autonomy.

These three challenges highlight why standardization efforts are so critical in this space.

The Promise of Standardization

Standardization efforts offer significant promise.

A simple, streamlined signal with clear implementation guidelines can ensure compliance and build consumer trust.

Universal standards reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation or technical workarounds that could compromise user preferences.

However, we must - in my view - balance the benefits of simplicity against the need to reflect nuanced privacy choices.

Each additional signal value or preference option increases the system's complexity – and potentially its privacy risks through browser fingerprinting.

The strength of a widely adopted privacy signal lies partly in its uniformity.

When millions of users send the same basic signal, they blend, making it difficult to isolate and track specific users – creating "privacy in numbers."

As we discuss technical tools for consent management today, I encourage us to consider these tensions and how emerging solutions might effectively address them.

Thank you.