What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

FinlandFinlex

Otavamedia must offer cookie refusal on the first consent screen

The design steered users towards acceptance. Following IAB Europe’s TCF standard did not prove compliance with cookie rules.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 27 August 2026

IT, Cybersecurity & Data Legal & Corporate

Industry: Across industries

Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court has upheld an order requiring Otavamedia Oy to offer refusal of non-essential cookies on the first level of its suomenkuvalehti.fi consent mechanism, alongside acceptance of all cookies.Finlex In KHO:2026:65, the court dismissed the company’s appeal and left the lower court’s outcome unchanged.Finlex The consent mechanism as implemented did not secure a genuinely free choice.Finlex

The first screen offered “Hyväksy kaikki” and “Asetukset”. Acceptance was highlighted in green and allowed users to proceed directly to the website’s content. Refusing non-essential cookies required opening settings, navigating extensive information and finding “Estä kaikki” on the second level. That refusal button did not stand out clearly, while acceptance remained visually emphasised. The first screen did not expressly explain how to refuse or whether the site could be used after refusal.

The Supreme Administrative Court assessed these features together. Acceptance was especially quick and simple, while withholding consent was materially slower and harder. Because users face cookie choices on many websites, even relatively small additional effort can steer them towards consent despite their reservations. The court found that the design improperly influenced freedom to withhold consentFinlex; the differences were not justified by the company’s stated need to provide detailed, specific information.

Otavamedia argued that its mechanism followed the widely used IAB Europe TCF standard. The court held that conformity with a standard did not demonstrate compliance with the applicable rulesFinlex, and it was not established that the standard required this particular implementation. It also rejected the argument that the regulatory decision unjustifiably restricted business freedom or interfered with freedom of expression.

The upheld remedy gives users the refusal option at the first level.Finlex The Supreme Administrative Court’s reasoning rests on the overall design and its effects on choice, including visibility, navigation and emphasis. It declined to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice because there was no justified doubt about the relevant interpretation of EU law.

The underlying consent rule requires consent and understandable, comprehensive information about storage or use; exceptions cover transmission-only purposes and storage or use necessary to provide a service expressly requested by the user. The legal basis is laki sähköisen viestinnän palveluista, sections 205 and 330, read with Directive 2002/58/EC, Articles 2(f) and 5(3), and Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Articles 4(11) and 7(4).

Review refusal visibility, button emphasis and navigation steps in the consent interface so users are not steered into accepting non-essential cookies by a harder refusal route.

Sources

KHO:2026:65