IIRC you cannot block user that clicks "I reject cookies" but that doesn't stop sites from being login-only.

So "account-only" would be allowed, but "if you reject cookie you need account" would break it.

You still need to get user consent about any tracking and 3rd party tho.

Users accept vendor's conditions upon registering and are giving their consent.

But that consent is invalid according to the law if it was easier to give consent than to say no.

> Users accept vendor's conditions upon registering and are giving their consent

That's the Angloamerican common law's logic. In civil law, the law cannot be overridden by others 'agreeing' to override it. Its more like software engineering in that regard, instead of arbitrary interpretations.

This is entirely unrelated to common vs civil law. You're right though that in this case terms of service are ineffective.

It is totally due to that difference. Contracts form the basis of common law. The reason why so many US corporations think that someone 'agreeing' to terms and therefore entering a contract with the company regarding the usage of the site over those terms means anything in civil law. It does not. In the eyes of civil law, the use of the site would need to take place per the laws and regulations present in civil law as opposed to whatever that the user may agree in terms.

> This is factually inaccurate; contracts are one area of, but not the basis of, common law.

Of course it isn't the entire basis of the law. However it lies in the fundamental of the entire common law institution: Common law originated from the feudal relationship in between the liege lord and the vassal contracting each other based on certain criteria. Over time, this concept was meshed with medieval customs and started being applied to the society as a whole. Hence the awkward medieval-feeling nature of the common law with all those 'precedents', 'interpretations' and 'agreements'.

> In common law, contracts don't trump other law, and contracts or provisions thereof can be invalid for being contrary to public policy.

Today. And mainly because the US combines common law and civil law in a meshed system. For the UK, its mainly because common law was basically unworkable and indefensible in the modern age after civil law became de facto standard in the entire world, setting the legal discourse. Still, the contractual concepts lies in the fundamental of the law as evidenced by the 'agreement' concept that is so extensively being utilized by US corporations.

Law is a philosophical construct, not a programming language. By their own statement Microsoft demonstrated bad faith and intent to coerce, and this forms an antithesis of compliance.

Never dick around trying to use contract terms and narrow technicalities to bypass regulations and obligations. It won’t go well.

Terms and conditions do not override law. Coerced consent is not consent.

By law, the user experience must not be different based on whether the user has or has not given consent for tracking.

Registration implies consent to process information (identity) for the purposes for which that information was provided, namely access to the content. It does not imply consent to use that information for other purposes such as tracking, and so any attempt to track a user around a site for advertising purposes using their login details would be in breach of the GDPR, unless the user has explicitly and freely given separate consent for that to be done. For that to be possible, the request for consent to track must be completely separate from the process of creating an account or logging in - it cannot be part of the terms and conditions.

Even if you register for a service, the service needs to ask you to explicitly opt in for any kind of tracking that you might want.

Others have pointed out the specifics related to websites and GDPR/the ePrivacy directive, but there's another example of why what you say isn't really true that might help understand, and that's EU (and for now UK) consumer law.

A site might have terms and conditions, or conditions of sale etc. but if you as an individual buy something you still have protection from consumer laws. Any conditions you agree to are only ever in addition to your statutory rights.

So, a company might state that an item has a 12 month warranty (as happened with me, a Mac computer bought from Apple), and it might break after that time (mine after something like 13 months). In my case Apple said they were not going to fix it for free because it was out of warranty and I didn't have Apple care (deliberately because I knew consumer law), but I successfully argued that (as stated in the legislation) that there was a reasonable expectation that the item should have worked for a lot longer than that, ultimately making them responsible. They did in the end accept this and fix it.

There's other examples, like if an item is not as described then the company selling it has to pay costs to have it returned, and that the company is responsible for the item while it is in transit in either direction. You are due a refund within 14 days of the /rejection/ of the item, not any other timescale, or dependent on when you return the item, etc. etc.

In summary, your "terms and conditions" are effectively irrelevant if they attempt to reduce or bypass existing legislation.