5 times Hamburg DPA (and German courts) rejected technical workarounds instead of accepting them as compliance. It is a stark warning for those considering working around the GTM consent issue in Germany. 1. IP Anonymization in analytics. Claimed workaround: Companies argued that anonymizing IP addresses (e.g., truncation after collection) made tracking lawful without consent. DPA response: Hamburg and other German DPAs rejected this, stressing that the IP transmission happens before anonymization. Thus, personal data has already been processed unlawfully. This is also seen in guidance and enforcement around Google Analytics and later in Google Fonts rulings. . . 2. Pre-ticked boxes or implied consent. Workaround attempt: Cookie banners with pre-ticked boxes or vague “by continuing you agree” text. DPA/court response: Invalid, only explicit, informed, affirmative consent counts. Hamburg DPA audits CMPs and flags banners that rely on implied consent. . . 3. “Functional” Category Consent for GTM. Workaround attempt: Put GTM into the “functional” (strictly necessary) category in CMPs, arguing that GTM itself doesn’t track users. Court response (VG Hannover, 2025): Rejected. The GTM container itself loads from Google’s CDN and transmits IPs/device data before consent. That makes it non-essential and subject to TTDSG §25(1). . . 4. Use of U.S. services with SCCs + supplementary measures. Workaround attempt: Hamburg Senate argued that Standard Contractual Clauses + Zoom’s additional safeguards sufficed. DPA response: No, Schrems II required more, and risk of U.S. surveillance remained. Result: Hamburg Senate was warned/banned from using Zoom until compliant. . . 5. Self-proclaimed “statistical use only” as seen in H&M monitoring fine (2020). Workaround attempt: Employer justified broad employee data collection as necessary for HR “statistics.” DPA response: Invalid. The scope of data collected was disproportionate and not limited to necessity. Fine: €35.3m. . . Hamburg DPA (and German courts) consistently reject arguments that rely on after-the-fact minimization, categorization tricks, or contractual wording. They judge legality by whether: >> Data was transmitted at all (esp. IPs), >> A valid Art. 6 GDPR basis existed, and >> TTDSG §25 consent was obtained before transmission. Hamburg DPA’s track record shows they judge by legal principles (consent before transmission, strict necessity, proportionality) rather than clever engineering. That means “technical workarounds” are seen as cosmetic fixes. They are unlikely to even engage with the technical justifications, because in their view, the question is simple: was personal data (like IP addresses) transmitted to a third party before explicit consent? If yes, it’s non-compliant.