The full decision can be found here [1]. The consumer protection agency did also seek that LinkedIn be forced to respect DNT, but the court did not grant this relief, reasoning that it was overly broad in two ways. First, it did not specify precisely enough what is meant by DNT — in particular, the suit did not limit itself to the DNT header, but referred to any kind of configured signals sent by the browser. Second, it described the behaviour that LinkedIn is supposed to cease when encountering such a signal in an overly broad manner.
If upheld, the judgement certainly seems to open the door for future litigation, and one might even hope for potential targets to adjust their behaviour in anticipation of it, but I would not hold my breath there.
If upheld, the judgement certainly seems to open the door for future litigation, and one might even hope for potential targets to adjust their behaviour in anticipation of it, but I would not hold my breath there.
[1] https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/2023-10/23-10-10_Stn...