In the decision of November 30, 2018 on GZ: DSBD122.931/0003-DSB/2018, the data protection authority had to deal, among other things, with the question of whether it meets the requirements for the voluntariness of consent if, when visiting the webpage of the respondent, which operates an online platform including an online newspaper, consent is obtained for the setting of cookies and access to this webpage is granted in return. It was first stated that, in accordance with the previous case law of the data protection authority, the complainant may also rely on any other provision apart from Chapter III of the GDPR (which lists the rights of data subjects in a taxonomous manner) – including an alleged involuntary consent – provided that this could conceivably result in a violation of the right to confidentiality pursuant to Section 1 (1) of the GDPR. 1 FADP is justified. In addition, it was stated that the provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) and the TKG 2003 take precedence over the GDPR as lex specialis. The question of the legal basis or the circumstances permitting the setting of cookies is therefore governed by Section 96 (2) of the German Data Protection Act. 3 TKG 2003, according to which the collection of data (or the use of “advertising cookies”) is only permissible if consent has been given. At the same time, Directive 2002/58/EC refers to Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive), which is no longer applicable since the GDPR came into force, with regard to the more detailed conditions for this voluntary nature. In a systematic interpretation, therefore, the provisions of the GDPR must now be used to assess the existence of voluntary consent. The data protection authority reviewed the facts of the case and took into account the fact that the respondent offers a paid subscription for a small fee as an alternative access. In particular, the question of whether the giving of consent by the complainant is fraught with significant negative consequences, or whether there is a genuine or free choice, was examined. As a result, the complaint was rejected, since as a consequence, if the consent is not given, either the offered paid subscription, or the physically published newspaper of the respondent can be resorted to. In addition, it had to be taken into account in the present facts that the complainant also receives a clearly recognizable benefit when giving consent – namely, receiving full access to a webpage with journalistic online articles and a moderated forum. The fundamental right to data protection cannot only be understood as a right of defense, but also includes – within certain limits, of course – sovereignty over one’s own data in the sense of informational self-determination. However, this data sovereignty does not only have to be expressed in the exercise of the rights of the data subjects, but can also be used in the form of giving consent in return for a clearly recognizable benefit, whereby the drawing of the line is always a case-by-case assessment.