
Withdrawing consent UK: what has to stop after a no
At a glance
UK-04CriticalPECR reg. 6 and Sch. A1 (from 5 Feb 2026); UK GDPR Arts. 7(3), 83(5)(a)
Peeky tests the reject click, not withdrawal: it says no to your cookie banner and looks for tracking that carries on after the visitor said no.
Last checked against the source:
The rule
UK-04 asks what happens after a visitor has made a choice. The rule that decides whether a cookie may be set at all is covered in UK-01. This check covers whether the site respects a refusal, and whether it stops when consent is taken back.
Regulation 6(1) now reads: “Subject to Schedule A1, a person must not store information, or gain access to information stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user.” Regulation 6(2) adds that this includes “instigating the storage or access”. The version in force was substituted on 5 February 2026 by section 112 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Schedule A1 sets out the exceptions, and its consent route applies where the user “gives consent to the storage or access” having been “provided with clear and comprehensive information”.
The consent in PECR is the UK GDPR’s. Regulation 2 says consent by a user or subscriber “corresponds to the data subject’s consent in the UK GDPR”. Article 7(3) of the UK GDPR then says: “The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time.” It also says that “It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent”, and that withdrawal does not affect the lawfulness of processing done before it.
The two narrow exceptions in Schedule A1, for collecting statistics about how a service is used and for adapting how a page looks to the user’s preferences, each carry a further condition. The user must be given “a simple means of objecting, free of charge”. So even a cookie under one of those two exceptions has to stop when the visitor objects.
The ICO’s guidance turns this into instructions. If someone withdraws consent, “you must: stop using them; cease any processing of personal data the technologies undertake; and tell any third parties you are working with that the person has withdrawn their consent.” It adds that a withdrawal must be treated as a request for erasure of what was gathered under that consent. Where a visitor has not clicked any option, “you must not use the storage and access technologies that require consent.” And the guidance lists as an expectation that the mechanism “functions as intended. Storage and access technologies are only set when valid consent is gathered, or when they meet an exception.”
How enforcement has treated this is clearest in the ICO’s own letters. On 21 November 2024 it wrote to website operators that it had tested whether non-essential advertising cookies were placed “even if the user did not consent to such cookies”. Where a site offered a consent mechanism but placed the cookies despite the visitor choosing reject all, the ICO said the later processing was likely to lack a lawful basis under Article 6 of the UK GDPR, was therefore likely to infringe Article 5(1)(a), and might also infringe PECR regulation 6. It set a deadline of 10 January 2025 and said it planned to publish the names of organisations that did not act.
Penalties moved on 5 February 2026. The ICO’s commencement statement says it can now issue fines of up to 17.5 million pounds or 4% of global turnover under PECR. UK GDPR Article 83(5)(a) already placed the conditions for consent, including Article 7, in that upper tier.
What PeekWell checks and how
UK-04 asks the same question as EU-02: after the visitor clicked Reject all, did anything non-essential still run? The scan answers it from what the page did after the no.
The scan is automated. It opens your public pages the way a first-time visitor’s browser would, clicks Reject all on your banner, and notes any analytics, advertising or session-replay tool that still starts. Anything that runs after the refusal becomes a finding, and what the scan saw is the evidence.
The title of this check says withdrawn consent, and the scan’s question is narrower. It checks a refusal on a first visit. It can’t say whether tracking stops when someone who said yes changes their mind later, so that’s worth checking by hand.
The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited, and the members area when you give it a sign-in. It doesn’t port-scan, try to get in where it isn’t allowed, run any security test or open addresses nobody linked to. A banner built in an unusual way may not be recognised. Collection on a server, or inside an app, is outside what a browser visit can see. A Passed means the expected behaviour was observed on the pages scanned. It doesn’t say the site complies.
Why it matters for a company
The ICO has made this a target. Its December 2025 release says it assessed whether any non-essential advertising cookies were placed even though a user had not consented, across the UK’s top 1,000 websites. It reports that 979 sites met its checks at the time of the latest test and 21 did not. Of the 979, 415 passed without intervention and 564 improved after initially failing; the other 21 did not meet its checks, and 17 received preliminary enforcement notices. The ICO says: “We are pleased that this threat of enforcement action has led to nearly all of the websites concerned bringing themselves into compliance.”
The ICO’s December 2025 release names no sites. A named outcome on cookies is the reprimand of Bonne Terre Limited, trading as Sky Betting and Gaming, dated 2 September 2024 and announced on 17 September 2024. The ICO said the company’s advertising cookies and data sharing began before visitors could accept or reject, from 10 January to 3 March 2023, and that it changed its setup in March 2023 so people could reject before data was shared. That case is about the order of events. It still shows how the ICO reads the sequence: a choice offered after tracking starts is not treated as a choice.
The risk has changed since the ICO’s first letters. The ICO’s commencement statement says it can now issue fines of up to 17.5 million pounds or 4% of global turnover under PECR.
Smaller companies and larger companies
PECR and Article 7(3) have no size threshold. The ICO’s letters went to the most visited sites first, and its December 2025 results are all about the largest 1,000, but nothing in the rule exempts a smaller operator.
In a small company the banner usually comes from a plugin or a website builder’s built-in tool. The plugin records the choice but only controls the tags it knows about. A script pasted into the theme, a chat widget or an embedded video keeps running after reject. Nobody tests it, because the banner looks right and the button clicks.
In a larger company the work spreads over teams. A tag manager holds many tags, a release changes which fire, and the choice has to reach every domain and app. Withdrawal is harder than refusal at that scale, because tags that started after an earlier yes must be stopped and third parties told, as the ICO’s guidance asks.
Enforcement cases
Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

Larger companies
Bonne Terre Limited (trading as Sky Betting and Gaming)
The ICO said that between 10 January and 3 March 2023 the company placed advertising cookies and shared personal information with advertising technology companies before people could accept or reject cookies. The ICO announced the reprimand on 17 September 2024. This case is about the timing of the choice rather than a rejection that was ignored; the ICO's separate cookie letters test for rejection directly.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about Bonne Terre Limited (trading as Sky Betting and Gaming)Google LLC (Lloyd v Google, the Safari workaround claim)
The claim alleged that from 9 August 2011 to 15 February 2012 Google placed DoubleClick advertising cookies on iPhone users' Safari browsers even though Safari's default setting blocked third-party cookies, and collected browsing data for advertising. The Supreme Court dismissed the representative claim because damages would need individual assessment, and made no finding on whether the alleged tracking happened.
Read the UK Supreme Court publication about Google LLC (Lloyd v Google, the Safari workaround claim)Grocery Delivery E-Services UK Ltd (HelloFresh)
This decision is about marketing emails and texts under PECR regulation 22, not cookies. The ICO found the company sent about 80 million marketing messages from August 2021 to February 2022 on an opt-in that did not mention texts and was bundled with an age confirmation, and that it carried on contacting some people after they had asked it to stop.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about Grocery Delivery E-Services UK Ltd (HelloFresh)Roularta Media Group (Knack and Le Vif websites)
The Belgian authority found that withdrawing consent on the news sites took more steps than giving it. On levif.be the cookie tool froze on a black screen when a visitor tried to withdraw; on knack.be the number of cookies did not fall after the visitor went back to the minimum choices. The publisher blamed a misconfigured consent tool, which it replaced in March 2020.
Read the Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit / APD (Belgium, EU data protection authority) publication about Roularta Media Group (Knack and Le Vif websites)Infinite Styles Services Co. Limited (SHEIN)
After inspecting shein.com in August 2023, the French authority found that when a visitor clicked 'Refuse all' in the banner, or later withdrew consent, new cookies were still placed and cookies already present continued to be read. Advertising cookies were also placed as soon as visitors arrived.
Read the CNIL (France, EU data protection authority) publication about Infinite Styles Services Co. Limited (SHEIN)
Smaller companies
Coastal Windows & Conservatories (UK) Limited
This decision is about marketing calls under PECR regulation 21, not cookies. The ICO found that from January to June 2023 the company made 18,280 marketing calls to numbers registered with the Telephone Preference Service, and complainants said they received repeated calls after asking the company to stop.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about Coastal Windows & Conservatories (UK) LimitedAFK Letters Co Ltd
This decision is about marketing calls under PECR regulation 21, not cookies. The ICO found that from January to September 2023 the company made 95,277 marketing calls, 95,131 of them to people registered with the Telephone Preference Service, and could not show that anyone called had agreed to it; one complainant said she had asked to be removed from the list.
Read the ICO (United Kingdom) publication about AFK Letters Co Ltd
How to fix it
Make the visitor’s choice control every tag, and make it reversible. The ICO’s guidance gives the target: a mechanism that “functions as intended”, with storage and access technologies set only when valid consent is gathered or an exception applies.
- Reproduce it. Open your site in a private window with the network tab open. Click Reject all, reload two or three pages, and write down every third-party request and cookie that appears afterwards.
- Find what sits outside the banner tool. Scripts pasted into the theme, plugins that add their own tracking, embedded videos and chat widgets ignore the banner unless they are put behind it. Move them under the consent tool’s categories or remove them.
- Start tags only from the accept event. In the tag manager, give each non-essential tag a trigger tied to the consent tool’s accept event, and leave a reject with none. Check that a saved Reject is honoured on the next page.
- Add a way back. Put a permanent Cookie settings link in the footer. When a visitor withdraws, stop the tags, delete the cookies you set, and tell any vendor that needs to know, as the ICO’s guidance says.
- Check the exceptions. If you rely on the statistics exception for analytics, check there is a simple, free way for visitors to object and that the objection stops the tag.
- Re-scan. Clear cookies and storage, click Reject all, and run a scan again. Then accept, withdraw through the settings link, and check by hand that the requests stop.
Whether a particular setup satisfies the ICO is a question for your legal adviser, and Peeky reports only what it sees.
Questions
Does the ICO say a website must stop tracking when I reject cookies?
In its November 2024 letters to website operators the ICO tested whether non-essential advertising cookies were placed even if the visitor chose reject all. It said that was likely to lack a valid lawful basis under Article 6 of the UK GDPR and may infringe PECR regulation 6.
For a visitor who clicks nothing, its guidance says you must not use storage and access technologies that require consent.
How do I withdraw cookie consent on a UK website?
Through a settings link or icon that people can reach at any time, often called Cookie settings. The ICO says a site must let people withdraw consent with the same ease as they gave it.
When consent is withdrawn the site must stop using the technologies, stop the processing they carry out, and tell any third parties involved.
What do the PECR cookie rules say?
Regulation 6 says a person must not store information on a visitor's device, or gain access to it, unless an exception in Schedule A1 applies. The main route is consent given after clear and comprehensive information. Two narrow exceptions, for statistics and for how a page looks, also require a simple, free way for the visitor to object.
Did the cookie rules change in 2026?
Yes. From 5 February 2026 the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 replaced regulation 6 with a version that points to a new Schedule A1 of exceptions. It also brought PECR fines in line with UK GDPR, up to 17.5 million pounds or 4% of worldwide turnover.
Where can I read the ICO's cookie guidance?
On the ICO website under guidance on the use of storage and access technologies. It was first published in draft in December 2024 and finalised on 29 April 2026. The page on managing consent in practice covers withdrawal, refusal and what a working consent mechanism looks like.
Filed with
The rule
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, reg. 6 and Sch. A1, as substituted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, s. 112 and Sch. 12
Read the rule (Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, reg. 6 and Sch. A1, as substituted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, s. 112 and Sch. 12)A case
Bonne Terre Limited (trading as Sky Betting and Gaming)
Read the decision (Bonne Terre Limited (trading as Sky Betting and Gaming))Sources
The law
- PECR 2003 (SI 2003/2426), regulation 6, as in force from 5 February 2026
- PECR 2003, Schedule A1 (storage and access exceptions), version of 5 February 2026
- UK GDPR, Article 7 (conditions for consent)
- PECR 2003, regulation 2 (definition of consent)
- UK GDPR, Article 83 (administrative fines)
- Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, section 112 (storing information in terminal equipment)
- PECR 2003, regulation 21 (unsolicited calls for direct marketing)
- PECR 2003, regulation 22 (unsolicited emails and texts for direct marketing)
Guidance
- ICO, How do we manage consent in practice?
- ICO, Guidance on the use of storage and access technologies (final, 29 April 2026)
- ICO, template letter to website operators on cookie banner compliance (21 November 2024)
- ICO, Statement on the commencement of the Data (Use and Access) Act (5 February 2026)
- ICO, Online tracking strategy update, April 2026
Decisions and cases
- ICO, Action taken against Sky Betting and Gaming for using cookies without consent (17 September 2024)
- ICO, Reprimand to Bonne Terre Limited t/a Sky Betting and Gaming (2 September 2024)
- ICO, ICO action secures increased cookie compliance (4 December 2025)
- Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, UK Supreme Court, 10 November 2021
- ICO, ICO fines HelloFresh £140,000 for spam texts and emails (12 January 2024)
- ICO, Monetary penalty to Coastal Windows & Conservatories (UK) Limited (15 August 2024)
- ICO, Monetary penalty notice to AFK Letters Co Ltd (March 2025)
- Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (Belgium), decision on the merits 85/2022 on cookies on the Knack and Le Vif websites (25 May 2022, in Dutch)
- CNIL (France), Cookies placed without consent: SHEIN fined 150 million euros (3 September 2025)
Further reading
Last checked against the source:
For information only. Not legal advice.
