The Problem with Opt-Out Consent Mechanisms

Content  including text and images © Aditya Mohan. All Rights Reserved. Robometircs, Amelia, Living Interface and Skive it are trademarks of Skive it, Inc. The content is meant for human readers only under 17 U.S. Code § 106. Access, learning, analysis or reproduction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) of any form directly or indirectly, including but not limited to AI Agents, LLMs, Foundation Models, content scrapers is prohibited. These views are not legal advice but business opinion based on reading some English text written by a set of intelligent people.

Many companies rely on opt-out mechanisms rather than clear opt-in consent, leading to significant issues in data privacy today. This misuse of opt-out approaches, particularly by companies like LinkedIn, shifts the responsibility for data protection to users rather than the organization. Often, this results in users unwittingly granting permissions due to unclear settings or lack of awareness.

Book of the Month Club: One fitting example from the historical past that illustrates an opt-out issue similar to the modern consent mechanisms would be book club memberships from the mid-20th century, specifically the "Book of the Month Club" model.

The Book of the Month Club, which began in 1926, was a popular subscription service that provided customers with monthly book selections. However, its membership model during the mid-20th century operated on an opt-out basis. Here’s how it worked: every month, a book selection was automatically shipped to members unless they explicitly sent a notification indicating they did not want that month's selection. If the member failed to respond, they would receive the book, often without realizing that it was coming, and they were billed for it automatically.

This opt-out model placed a significant burden on the members:

Many customers simply accepted the book deliveries because the effort to decline them regularly was cumbersome. It worked in favor of the company by increasing sales, much like modern companies use opt-out systems to increase engagement or data collection. However, it often left customers with unwanted items, akin to today’s users unwittingly consenting to data use due to unclear settings or failure to opt out.

This example closely mirrors modern digital consent issues by shifting the responsibility onto individuals to opt out repeatedly, rather than requiring companies to seek explicit permission upfront. In both the historical and modern cases, the use of default enrollment benefits the provider at the cost of the consumer's freedom to choose.

LinkedIn's History with Privacy Issues

In 2015, LinkedIn settled a $13 million lawsuit related to its "Add Connections" feature. This feature accessed users' email contacts and sent repeated invitations without explicit permission. Instead of requiring upfront consent, LinkedIn automatically enrolled users, leading to allegations of privacy violations.

In September 2024, LinkedIn faced criticism once again. It updated its privacy policy to allow user data, including images, to be used for training AI models by default. This practice denied users meaningful control over their personal information and increased the risk of data exploitation without informed consent. Unless users manually opted out, their data was automatically enrolled, triggering backlash over privacy rights. This approach mirrored the 2015 situation and highlighted ongoing issues with adherence to data protection standards such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which emphasize explicit user consent.

Historical Comparisons to Opt-Out Consent Mechanisms

The debate between opt-out and opt-in consent has deep historical roots that extend well beyond the digital age. Throughout history, similar issues of personal choice and imposed consent have emerged.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, publishers often used opt-out models for subscriptions. Newspapers and magazines would send issues to individuals unsolicited, expecting them to pay unless they actively refused. This practice, known as "negative option billing," led to widespread frustration as consumers found themselves billed for services they never explicitly agreed to. This parallels how digital companies today automatically enroll users into services. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States eventually stepped in to regulate these practices, emphasizing the need for clear and affirmative consent.

The history of organ donation policies also provides a clear parallel. Countries like Austria and Spain adopted opt-out systems, where citizens are presumed to be organ donors unless they explicitly opt out. This contrasts with countries like Germany and the United States, which use an opt-in model where individuals must declare their willingness to donate organs. The difference in consent approaches has had a significant impact on organ donation rates. Spain, which follows an opt-out system, consistently has one of the highest organ donation rates globally. However, this also raises ethical concerns about whether presumed consent truly reflects an individual's wishes. The opt-out model shifts the burden onto individuals, much like LinkedIn's approach to user data.

During the mid-20th century, aggressive door-to-door sales tactics often employed an implicit opt-out approach. Salesmen for products such as vacuum cleaners or encyclopedias would leave items in customers' homes, pressuring them to make a purchase unless they actively returned the product. These tactics created a sense of obligation, similar to how modern opt-out mechanisms exploit user inertia. Eventually, consumer protection laws were enacted to curb these tactics, with judges highlighting the unfair burden placed on individuals. Judge Learned Hand, a prominent figure in U.S. legal history, famously commented on the necessity of protecting consumers from undue coercion—a sentiment highly relevant to today’s discussions on digital consent.

In the 1960s and 1970s, banks in the United States frequently enrolled customers into additional services such as overdraft protection or credit insurance without obtaining explicit consent. Customers often discovered these enrollments only after being charged fees, leading to widespread public outrage. This led to the introduction of stricter regulations for banking services to ensure clearer communication and explicit consent. As U.S. Senator William Proxmire stated during debates on consumer protection, "The right to choose must be preserved, and anything less undermines the confidence people have in the institutions they trust." These historical practices echo the modern-day need for clarity in data consent.

Travel Insurance and Product Protection Plans: Another example from the past that effectively illustrates the opt-out issue is insurance add-ons for travel or major purchases in the mid-20th century.

In the 1960s and 1970s, consumers who bought travel tickets—such as airline, train, or bus tickets—or made major purchases like home appliances were often automatically enrolled in insurance add-ons or product protection plans. Here’s how it worked:

These practices benefited insurance companies and retailers by increasing their revenue through inertia—most consumers either didn’t notice the additional charges or were unwilling to go through the hassle of removing them. Like modern digital opt-out systems, these tactics relied on the consumer's failure to act, placing the onus on individuals to prevent the automatic enrollment of unwanted services.

The opt-out model was used to increase sales at the expense of consumer choice and awareness, effectively mirroring the data consent challenges faced today. The insurance or extended warranties were automatically assumed to be acceptable to the consumer, much like how today’s users are often automatically enrolled in data-sharing policies without informed consent.

Data for Generative AI Concerns

LinkedIn's "Data for Generative AI Improvement" setting has heightened concerns about data misuse and privacy, partly because it was buried deep within the privacy policy rather than being communicated prominently to users. By default, this setting allows LinkedIn to use personal data, including user images, to train AI models, raising fears of data exploitation and a lack of transparency. This data isn't just used internally—it is also shared with affiliates like Microsoft and may be sold to other parties. Such practices expose users to the risk of unknowingly sharing personal information without informed consent. The setting should require an opt-in approach, giving users the explicit choice to approve the use of their data.

The Implications of Opt-Out Mechanisms

The implications of using opt-out mechanisms rather than opt-in are significant. Historical judicial precedents have also shown the importance of explicit consent in various contexts.

In the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME (2018), the court ruled that requiring non-union public employees to pay union fees without explicit opt-in consent violated their First Amendment rights. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that "by compelling individuals to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern, the opt-out system effectively infringes on personal autonomy and free choice."

Similarly, in Knox v. SEIU (2012), the Supreme Court struck down the union’s attempt to charge non-members for political activities without prior opt-in consent. Justice Alito pointed out that "acceptance of the opt-out approach appears to have come about more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles." This ruling highlights that opt-out consent is often insufficient for protecting individual autonomy, particularly in sensitive matters.

In bankruptcy law, third-party releases without explicit consent have also been contentious. Judges, such as Judge Sontchi, have noted that third-party releases without opt-in consent may violate principles of informed agreement, underscoring the broader ethical need for explicit consent. Such practices undermine privacy regulations that aim to protect users through affirmative consent, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, which mandates opt-in consent for data collection. For companies developing AI models reliant on vast datasets, respecting user consent is not only a legal obligation but also a cornerstone of ethical AI development. For instance, Apple has successfully implemented an opt-in model for data collection, emphasizing user control and transparency, which has helped reinforce their reputation for privacy-focused practices. The continued use of opt-out systems erodes trust and exposes companies to significant ethical and legal challenges, as seen with LinkedIn's repeated controversies.

Conclusion

For organizations, especially those developing cutting-edge AI technologies, it is crucial to prioritize transparency and user control over data. Opt-out mechanisms may serve short-term corporate interests, but they ultimately damage user trust and lead to long-term reputational harm. By adopting opt-in mechanisms, companies can align themselves with both ethical standards and evolving privacy regulations, ensuring users maintain control over their personal data.

The lessons from history are clear: whether it's unsolicited subscriptions, organ donation policies, door-to-door sales, or banking services, the burden of consent should rest with the entity seeking it, not with the individual. Only through true opt-in mechanisms can organizations build trust and uphold ethical standards in the digital age.

Further read