Last reviewed: 2 November 2026

Translated from German; if the versions differ, the German version applies.

Not legal advice: Legal content on this page appears only as verbatim quotations from statutes, court rulings or authority papers, with their source; quotations from German texts are our working translations. We do not assess them ourselves, and no lawyer has reviewed this page. It is no substitute for legal advice in your individual case.

Tying prohibition

In short: “Tying prohibition” – in German „Kopplungsverbot“ or „Koppelungsverbot“ – is the common name for the rule in Art. 7(4) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It concerns the question of whether consent is freely given when a contract or a service is made dependent on it. The word itself does not appear in the regulation; the German data protection authorities use it in the spelling „Koppelungsverbot“.

The wording

GDPR quotations follow the official English text. Quotations from German authority papers are our working translations; only the German wording is authoritative (see the German version of this page).

“When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.” — Art. 7(4) GDPR

Recital 43 takes this further:

“Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance.” — Recital 43 sentence 2 GDPR

Being freely given is part of the definition of consent: “any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes” (Art. 4(11) GDPR, beginning).

What the data protection authorities write

In their guidance on direct marketing, under the heading “‘Tying prohibition’, Art. 7(4) GDPR”, the German data protection authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, DSK) write: “Legally, the so-called tying prohibition is not a genuine prohibition, but consents obtained in this way regularly lack voluntariness, so that they are invalid.” (DSK guidance on direct marketing, February 2022, section 3.4, p. 12, our translation)

Sources

Orientierungshilfe der Aufsichtsbehörden zur Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der Direktwerbung unter Geltung der DSGVO (Februar 2022), Datenschutzkonferenz (DSK), Abschnitt 1.1 (Begriff der Werbung, S. 3), 1.3.2 (Praxisfälle Interessenabwägung, Profiling, S. 5), 1.4.1 (Bestandskunden, S. 6), 2.1 (Informationspflichten, S. 7–8), 3.1 (Gestaltung der Einwilligung, S. 10–11), 3.2 (Visitenkarten, S. 11), 3.3 (Double-Opt-In-Verfahren, S. 11–12), 3.4 (Koppelungsverbot, S. 12), 3.5 (Gültigkeitsdauer, S. 13), 3.6 (besondere Kategorien, S. 14), 3.7 (Widerruf, Nachweis, S. 14–15), 4.2 (Impressumsdaten, S. 15), 4.3 (Beipack-Werbung, S. 15), 5.1–5.4 (Werbewiderspruch, S. 17–20); 1.3.1 (Grundsätzliches zur Interessenabwägung, S. 4) (in German) (accessed on 2 November 2026)

Where the question comes up with newsletters

Typical situations in which the term is discussed:

a discount or voucher for signing up to the newsletter,
a download, such as a guide, only in return for signing up,
a prize draw in which taking part is linked to a newsletter sign-up.

The texts quoted here do not expressly mention discounts, downloads or prize draws. The guidance deals with prize competitions only in connection with postal addresses (section 4.1). We give no legal assessment of our own.

How it differs

Tying prohibition and double opt-in: Double opt-in concerns proof of a sign-up, the tying prohibition whether consent is freely given. They are different questions.
Tying prohibition and withdrawal: Withdrawal of consent is governed by Art. 7(3) GDPR; the rule on tying is in the following paragraph 4 of the same article. More on withdrawal under Consent.

Easily confused

“Prohibition”: The authorities write that the so-called tying prohibition is “not a genuine prohibition” (quotation above). Art. 7(4) itself speaks of “assessing whether consent is freely given”.
Spellings: „Kopplungsverbot“ and „Koppelungsverbot“ mean the same thing. The Datenschutzkonferenz writes „Koppelungsverbot“.

Example from the wording

Recital 43 names two cases in which consent is presumed not to be freely given. For reference, side by side:

Case	Wording (extract from Recital 43 sentence 2)
no separate consent possible	“if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case”
contract dependent on consent	“if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance”

Frequently asked questions

What is the tying prohibition? The common name for Art. 7(4) GDPR. The wording is above.

Is a voucher for signing up to a newsletter allowed? We do not answer this question. The texts quoted make no express statement on it.

Why do the authorities write „Koppelungsverbot“? That is the spelling in the Datenschutzkonferenz’s guidance on direct marketing, section 3.4. Both spellings are in use in German.

Matching tool

There is no tool for this term; our tools do not answer legal questions.