About
A graded record of the ad-data chain: what refusing costs you, who receives you, and whether the refusal covers everything. Built from documents companies published themselves.
Who runs this
One person, Josh, based in the UK - the same person who runs its sister project, Is It Training on Me?.
I can't lie and say the whole site is hand-written. A language model drafts most of the words on it, working from the archived documents of each company. What it can't do is decide. I decide the grades, I check every quote against the archived copy before it's published, and the build refuses any quote that isn't there word for word. I write to the companies, I read what comes back and I edit what the model wrote when it's wrong or when it doesn't sound like me.
A verdict here should stand or fall on the sentence it quotes and the archived copy behind it, not on who wrote it. Every grade comes from a published rule applied to a dated clause, quoted word for word, so anyone can run the same rule against the same document and check the arithmetic. Where I get one wrong, it goes on corrections with the original claim still visible. If you're exercising a legal right that needs a full name, ask at the address on contact and you'll be given it.
I have no financial interest in any company graded here, hold no position in advertising or adtech, and take no money from any company in the corpus. See advertising for why that last one is a rule, not a happy accident.
Funding
Nobody graded on this site pays for it, and it carries no advertising. If that ever changes, this page will say so before it happens, name who is paying, and itemise it, without anybody having to ask.
That isn't a flourish. This site's whole subject is who pays whom for information about you. Asking companies to publish their recipients while keeping my own funding private would be an argument I couldn't win, and would deserve to lose.
Who reads this
What this site knows about its readers is below, in full. It is what Cloudflare counts while serving the pages: requests and page views by country over the last week. No page carries a script, cookie or beacon to produce it, and nothing finer than a country and a number exists to show. The privacy page says what's read back and what isn't.
Where requests come from
| United States | 2,716 | |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 591 | |
| Belgium | 473 | |
| United Kingdom | 404 | |
| QA | 277 | |
| Germany | 257 | |
| China | 223 | |
| Singapore | 169 | |
| Hong Kong | 113 | |
| France | 99 | |
| Brazil | 93 | |
| T1 | 69 | |
| 52 other countries | 547 |
2,441
over 7 days, across 64 countries
- All requests
- 6,031
- Requests per page view
- 2.47
Requests, not readers: crawlers are mixed in and can't be separated on this plan, especially in datacentre-heavy countries. Page views is the narrower figure. At 2.47 requests per page view, most of what is counted took one page and left. That bounds how many were first-time readers. It doesn't say who the rest were, and it isn't turned into an audience number here.
Counted by the CDN while serving the pages. No script, cookie or beacon, and nothing finer than a country and a number, so there's no per-visitor record to show, or to leak.
What this site is not
It isn't legal advice, and it isn't a compliance assessment. A grade says what a company's own published documents establish about refusing. It says nothing about whether the company is lawful, whether a regulator would agree, or whether the documents describe what actually happens inside the business.
It also isn't an accusation of bad faith. Several entities here are graded F because a document is silent or absolute, which may be a drafting decision, not a business one. The grade describes the document. See what documents can't establish.
Contact
Corrections, disputes and right-of-reply: file a correction. Suggesting an entity for the corpus: submit one. Security issues: see security.txt.