The Belgian Market Court delivered a significant judgment in favor of IAB Europe, annulling a prior enforcement decision by the Belgian Data Protection Authority (APD) and reshaping the regulatory landscape for digital advertising consent frameworks across Europe. The case centers on the Transparency & Consent Framework (TCF), a technical and governance standard widely used by publishers, advertisers, and Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) to capture and signal user consent under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ePrivacy requirements.
The TCF and the APD Enforcement
The TCF, developed by IAB Europe, was introduced to help organizations comply with GDPR when collecting, storing, and transmitting user consent for personalized advertising and related processing within programmatic ecosystems. The framework defines the TC String, a compact signal encoding a user’s consent and preference choices, which participating vendors then read and act upon.
In February 2022, the APD ruled that the TCF did not comply with GDPR requirements, determining that the framework involved processing personal data without a valid legal basis and imposing a €250,000 fine on IAB Europe. The regulator ordered corrective actions intended to ensure legal compliance for both the framework and its operational ecosystem.
IAB Europe challenged the APD’s findings, particularly the legal interpretation of joint controllership and the scope of corrective measures. The organization launched appeals that progressed through the Belgian Market Court and involved preliminary questions before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Those questions focused on whether the TC String constitutes personal data and the extent to which IAB Europe should be regarded as a joint controller for its processing.
The Market Court’s Decision and Its Rationale
In its January 7 ruling, the Market Court annulled the APD’s 2023 validation of IAB Europe’s action plan, finding it was legally flawed in scope and process. The court held that the APD exceeded its authority by validating corrective measures premised on an expansive view of IAB Europe’s role beyond its actual involvement in processing TC Strings. Instead, the court reaffirmed that IAB Europe’s joint controllership is limited to TC String processing, not the downstream advertising and measurement activities driven by TCF participants.
The court also identified a procedural issue: the APD adopted its validation decision without providing IAB Europe with a meaningful opportunity to be heard, undermining foundational principles of administrative due process. As a result, the matter has been remanded for reassessment under a narrower scope of responsibilities and with proper procedural safeguards.
Implications for the TCF Ecosystem
The ruling carries broad implications for the consent and ad-tech ecosystem:
- Regulatory clarity: It limits enforcement to what the courts have legally determined to be IAB Europe’s role, reducing uncertainty for framework managers, publishers, vendors, and CMPs.
- Procedural standards: It reinforces that data protection authorities must adhere to procedural safeguards when enforcing corrective measures under GDPR.
- Framework stability: Many TCF participants faced operational risk due to implementation timelines tied to the action plan; the annulment restores a more measured environment for compliance planning.
This contested enforcement context, intertwined with evolving European data protection jurisprudence, continues to stimulate debate about how technical standards intersect with legal responsibility in digital advertising.
Why Consent Management Matters Now
This judicial outcome arrives at a moment when privacy compliance is under intensified scrutiny in Europe. Digital advertisers, publishers, and service providers face increasing expectations from regulators and users to demonstrate that consent signals are captured lawfully, transmitted transparently, and enforced consistently across websites and devices.
The APD’s original enforcement signaled regulator interest not only in data controllers, but also in the technical frameworks and CMP operations that underpin consent flows. In this environment, organizations reliant on cookie banners and consent signaling infrastructure face two simultaneous requirements: legal compliance and technical validation of consent mechanisms.
Captain Compliance’s CMP and the TCF Validator Test
Amid the regulatory complexity around the TCF and consent frameworks, Captain Compliance’s Consent Management Platform (CMP) differentiates itself by offering what it asserts is the only banner implementation that passes the TCF validator test.
What the TCF Validator Test Evaluates
In practice, “TCF validator” checks evaluate whether a consent banner implementation correctly follows TCF specifications and consent logic, including whether it captures choices properly, encodes them accurately in the TC String, and reflects user changes (including withdrawal) in a reliable way. CMP implementations often fail these checks when they pre-select consent options, mis-handle opt-outs, or produce inconsistent signaling.
Why Captain Compliance Is Positioned to Pass Validator Requirements
Captain Compliance’s CMP is designed to align technical consent signaling with real-world governance and audit expectations. Key attributes include:
- Validator-aligned signaling: Consent signals are generated with an emphasis on producing technically consistent TC Strings and enforceable user preferences.
- Transparent user choice design: Interfaces emphasize clarity of user choice and consistent preference handling.
- Operational evidence: Consent logging and decision records are structured to support audit readiness and compliance documentation.
- Ongoing adaptability: As TCF versions evolve, implementation logic can be updated to keep pace with specification changes and market requirements.
In an environment where regulators are scrutinizing consent infrastructure, a CMP that reliably passes validation checks is not merely a technical win; it reduces compliance friction and supports defensible consent operations.
What Happens Next for the TCF
Following the Market Court’s decision, the APD is expected to reassess corrective measures consistent with the court’s findings and procedural requirements. For TCF participants and privacy technology vendors, the decision signals:
- continued regulator attention to consent signaling and governance structures;
- ongoing legal clarification around joint controllership as applied to technical standards; and
- increased pressure on CMP implementations to be both legally sound and technically verifiable.
For publishers, advertisers, and digital service operators, the practical takeaway is straightforward: consent management must be treated as core infrastructure, not a last-mile UI element.
Consent Management Software For Privacy and Advertising Team Leaders
The Market Court’s ruling in favor of IAB Europe is a meaningful recalibration of enforcement scope in the digital advertising consent ecosystem. It reinforces that corrective measures must be grounded in clearly defined legal roles and applied through fair process, while also underscoring that consent frameworks and CMP implementations remain central to GDPR-aligned operations in ad tech.
Organizations that want to reduce operational risk should treat post-decision stability as an opportunity to improve their consent architecture: inventory consent dependencies, validate signaling, align vendor disclosures, and adopt CMP solutions that withstand technical scrutiny. In that context, a CMP that passes recognized validator checks, such as Captain Compliance’s implementation, can serve as a practical foundation for more reliable compliance outcomes.
If you haven’t reviewed the Global Vendor List from IAB please do review and download our industry leading CMP.
