Skip to main content
Cookie Gate
The state of ai impact assessment
Category: Consumer Privacy Rights

Right to Opt-out

Also known as: Right to opt out of sale or sharing, Opt-out right
Simply put

The right to opt-out lets consumers tell a business to stop certain uses of their personal information, such as selling or sharing it. Under an opt-out approach, data may be used or shared by default, and the individual must take an affirmative step to prevent it. This differs from opt-in models, where no such use is permitted until the individual first agrees.

Formal definition

The right to opt-out is a consumer privacy right, prominent in US state privacy frameworks such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), that allows a consumer to direct a business to cease specified processing activities, notably the sale or sharing of their personal information. It reflects an opt-out consent model in which processing is permissible by default until the consumer exercises the right, in contrast to the opt-in model generally required for non-essential cookies and similar technologies under EU and UK ePrivacy and GDPR rules. Applicable regulations typically require businesses to provide reasonable and simple methods for exercising the right; for example, regulatory provisions permit a business to require use of a specific opt-out means so long as that means is reasonable and simple for the consumer. The precise scope, covered processing activities, required mechanisms (which may include recognition of opt-out preference signals), and enforcement expectations vary by jurisdiction and by individual statute, and this definition does not resolve those jurisdiction-specific details.

Why it matters

The right to opt-out is central to how several US state privacy frameworks, most prominently the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), allocate control over personal information. Because these frameworks generally operate on an opt-out model, personal information may be sold or shared by default until a consumer takes an affirmative step to stop it. This places the burden of action on the individual, which is a meaningful contrast to the opt-in model generally required for non-essential cookies and similar technologies under EU and UK ePrivacy and GDPR rules, where processing is not permitted until the individual first agrees.

For businesses operating across jurisdictions, this distinction has direct compliance consequences. A consent posture designed around US opt-out rights will not typically satisfy the prior, affirmative consent standard expected in most EU jurisdictions, and vice versa. Treating the two models as interchangeable is a common source of compliance risk. Organizations that serve users in multiple regions generally need to account for both approaches rather than assuming that meeting one standard is sufficient everywhere.

The practical scope of the right, including which processing activities it covers, what mechanisms must be offered, and whether opt-out preference signals must be recognized, varies by jurisdiction and by individual statute. Because these details differ and regulatory expectations continue to evolve, organizations should treat the right to opt-out as a jurisdiction-specific obligation and confirm the applicable requirements for each region in which they operate.

Who it's relevant to

Privacy officers and data protection professionals
Those responsible for cross-jurisdictional compliance need to distinguish the opt-out model used in US state frameworks such as the CCPA from the opt-in consent generally required under EU and UK rules, and to map which processing activities and mechanisms each applicable law requires.
Legal counsel
Counsel advising on multi-state or multi-region operations must assess how the scope, covered activities, and required opt-out methods vary by statute, since these jurisdiction-specific details are not resolved by a general definition of the right.
Web developers and engineering teams
Teams implementing opt-out functionality need to build reasonable and simple methods for consumers to exercise the right, and to account for jurisdiction-specific requirements that may include recognizing opt-out preference signals.
Marketing compliance teams
Teams managing tracking technologies used for selling or sharing personal information should understand that opt-out defaults apply until a consumer acts, and that this differs from the prior-consent expectations that generally govern non-essential cookies in the EU and UK.

Inside Right to Opt-out

Opt-out model of consent
A framework in which processing or tracking may begin without prior affirmative consent, but the individual retains the ability to withdraw or refuse it. This contrasts with the EU/UK opt-in standard, under which consent must be obtained before non-essential cookies are set. The opt-out model is characteristic of several US state privacy laws rather than of EU law.
Scope under US state privacy laws
Under frameworks such as the CCPA/CPRA in California and comparable laws in other US states, consumers generally have a right to opt out of certain activities, which may include the sale or sharing of personal information and, in some cases, targeted advertising. The precise activities covered and the terminology used vary between states, so the scope should be assessed law by law.
Mechanisms for exercising the right
Opt-out rights are typically exercised through mechanisms such as a clearly labeled link or control on a website, a preference center, or by honoring a recognized browser-based signal. The exact mechanisms required depend on the applicable law and evolving regulatory guidance.
Global Privacy Control (GPC) and opt-out preference signals
GPC is a browser or extension signal that communicates a user's opt-out preference automatically. Certain US state regimes contemplate that businesses honor such opt-out preference signals, though the treatment and enforcement of these signals differs across jurisdictions and continues to develop.
Relationship to the EU/UK regime
In most EU jurisdictions and the UK, non-essential cookies generally require prior opt-in consent, so an opt-out approach alone is typically not sufficient there. The right to opt out is therefore best understood as a feature of certain non-EU frameworks rather than a universal standard.
Record-keeping and honoring requests
Handling opt-out requests generally involves receiving the request, applying it to the relevant processing, and maintaining records that the request was honored. A consent or preference management platform can support these operations, but does not by itself guarantee compliance with any particular law.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Right to Opt-out.

Does the right to opt-out mean cookies require opt-in consent everywhere?
No. The right to opt-out and the requirement for opt-in consent reflect different regulatory approaches. Several US state privacy laws, such as California's CCPA and CPRA, generally rely on an opt-out model, meaning certain processing may proceed until the user objects. By contrast, in most EU jurisdictions the ePrivacy rules and GDPR generally require prior, affirmative opt-in consent before non-essential cookies are placed. You should not assume that offering an opt-out satisfies EU consent standards, nor that opt-in is required in every US state. Always confirm the specific obligations for the jurisdictions where your users are located, as these frameworks continue to evolve.
Is honoring an opt-out the same as obtaining consent?
Not necessarily. An opt-out mechanism allows a user to stop or object to processing that may otherwise be permitted by default under certain frameworks, whereas consent under the GDPR must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, requiring a clear affirmative action before processing begins. Honoring an opt-out addresses a user's exercise of a right under an opt-out regime; it does not by itself demonstrate that valid opt-in consent was collected where such consent is required. The two concepts serve different compliance purposes, and treating them as interchangeable can create gaps under the applicable regime.
How can a website recognize and honor a Global Privacy Control signal?
A Global Privacy Control (GPC) signal is a browser- or device-level preference that communicates a user's opt-out choice. To honor it, a site typically needs to detect the signal in incoming requests and treat it as an opt-out for the categories of processing to which it applies under the relevant framework. Some US state frameworks have treated recognized opt-out preference signals as a valid way for users to exercise opt-out rights. The precise handling depends on how a given jurisdiction interprets such signals, so implementation should be aligned with current legal guidance rather than assumed to be universally sufficient. This entry does not address the technical specification details of any particular signal.
What records should an organization keep when a user opts out?
Maintaining records of opt-out choices supports accountability and helps demonstrate that requests were received and acted upon. Organizations may consider logging the fact and time of the opt-out, the scope of processing it covers, and how the preference was applied across relevant systems and any third parties. Record-keeping practices should be tailored to the obligations of the applicable regime, and the specific retention and content requirements are not standardized across jurisdictions. Consent and preference logging tools can support this function, but they do not replace legal judgment about what records are necessary in a given context.
How should opt-out requests be propagated to third parties and downstream vendors?
When cookies, pixels, SDKs, or similar technologies involve third parties, an opt-out often needs to be communicated beyond your own systems so that downstream recipients also cease the relevant processing. This may involve suppressing tags, updating vendor configurations, or transmitting the opt-out through agreed mechanisms. The extent of any obligation to notify third parties, and the timing for doing so, depends on the applicable framework and the contractual and factual relationships involved. Because propagation depends on facts specific to your vendor arrangements, confirm the requirements and technical approach for your particular setup.
Where should an opt-out control be placed so users can find and use it?
An effective opt-out mechanism is generally one that users can locate and operate without undue difficulty. In practice, organizations often provide a clearly labeled link or control and, where relevant, honor recognized opt-out preference signals. The specific presentation, wording, and prominence expectations vary between frameworks and may be shaped by evolving regulatory guidance, so this entry does not prescribe a single required design. A consent management platform can help present and manage such controls, but the placement should still be assessed against the requirements of each applicable jurisdiction.

Common misconceptions

Offering an opt-out satisfies EU cookie consent requirements.
In most EU jurisdictions and the UK, non-essential cookies generally require prior opt-in consent that is freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. An opt-out mechanism alone typically does not meet that standard, because the relevant technologies would already have been set before the user acted.
The right to opt out works the same way in every US state.
Opt-out rights vary between individual US state privacy laws, including differences in the activities covered (such as sale, sharing, or targeted advertising), the required mechanisms, and the treatment of opt-out preference signals. Each applicable law should be assessed on its own terms.
Deploying a CMP or honoring GPC automatically makes a business compliant with opt-out obligations.
Tools such as consent management platforms and support for signals like Global Privacy Control can help operationalize opt-out rights, but they do not replace legal judgment. Compliance depends on the specific applicable law, how the tool is configured, and whether requests are actually honored across relevant processing.

Best practices

Determine which legal regimes apply to your users and processing, and distinguish opt-out obligations under applicable US state laws from the opt-in consent standard that generally applies in the EU and UK.
Provide clear, accessible mechanisms for users to exercise opt-out rights, such as a prominently labeled link or preference control, and calibrate them to the requirements of each applicable law.
Assess whether the applicable frameworks expect you to honor browser-based opt-out preference signals such as Global Privacy Control, and configure your systems accordingly while monitoring evolving guidance.
Map opt-out requests through to the underlying processing so that a user's choice is actually applied across the relevant cookies, pixels, SDKs, and similar technologies, not just recorded at the interface.
Maintain records demonstrating that opt-out requests were received and honored, using a consent or preference management platform to support, but not substitute for, compliance decisions.
Consult qualified legal advice for contested or unresolved questions, since the scope of covered activities, required mechanisms, and enforcement positions differ by jurisdiction and continue to develop.
Promotional banner for the Pentest Readiness checklist download