A business that sells or shares data must treat a widely recognised browser or device signal, such as Global Privacy Control, as a valid opt-out for that browser or device and every profile linked to it, including pseudonymous ones, and for the consumer where known. It may not ask for more than the signal, must apply the signal even where it conflicts with an earlier privacy setting (it may then ask for consent), may not read the later absence of a signal as consent, and must show on its website whether the signal was honoured (for example Opt-Out Request Honored). To skip posting the links under section 1798.135(b), it must process signals in a frictionless way, without fees, pop-ups or degraded experience, and meet the extra conditions in subsection (g).
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
CCPA/CPRA CCR 7025 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of CCPA/CPRA your existing evidence covers. Hold GDPR and 17 of 89 CCPA/CPRA controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the GDPR pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.