Tags
Read time
7 min read
Last updated
January 23, 2026
Growing tired of OneTrust? Migrate seamlessly with Ketch Switch
Ketch makes consent banner set-up a breeze with drag-and-drop tools that match your brand perfectly. Let us show you.
OneTrust cannot operationalize privacy choices end to end without extensive engineering support. While it captures privacy signals at the surface, it does not natively synchronize consent across devices, systems, and channels. As a result, large enterprises inherit compliance risk, operational drag, and inconsistent customer experiences unless they build and maintain custom solutions themselves.
Ketch removes that burden by design. Native identity resolution, real-time orchestration, and no-code configuration ensure privacy choices are honored automatically—across people, systems, and channels—without ongoing engineering effort.
This gap is not cosmetic; it is architectural. Without native identity resolution, consent remains tied to browsers and devices instead of people. As regulators increasingly evaluate whether privacy choices follow the individual across contexts, this limitation becomes direct enforcement exposure rather than a technical inconvenience.
Key takeaway: Regulators don’t enforce banners, they enforce outcomes. When opt-outs don’t actually stop data use across devices and systems, compliance fails. OneTrust’s surface-level approach consistently breaks under real enforcement scrutiny.
Regulators enforce opt-outs, not banners. “Do Not Sell” and CPRA opt-out requests must be simple to submit, honored consistently across devices, enforced downstream, and provable on demand. Not just captured at the surface level.
OneTrust largely treats opt-outs as a capture problem rather than an enforcement problem. Cookie blocking or front-end suppression may stop scripts from firing, but downstream systems—advertising platforms, analytics tools, CDPs, and internal databases—often continue processing personal data unless customers build additional custom logic.
Regulators, including the CPPA and state attorneys general, have made clear that privacy controls must function as promised. When opt-out signals fail to stop data use across systems, regulators treat the gap as non-compliance, not a tooling limitation.
Key takeaway: OneTrust often forces consumers through multiple steps to complete an opt-out. Regulators increasingly view this friction as obstructive, and enforcement actions show little tolerance for multi-step opt-out workflows.
OneTrust frequently fragments the opt-out experience across multiple surfaces. A consent banner may capture a “Do Not Sell” signal, but consumers are frequently redirected to a separate page or workflow to actually complete the opt-out across systems.
Regulators have made it clear through enforcement actions and guidance that adding unnecessary steps after a consumer submits a CPRA opt-out request can be viewed as discouraging or obstructive to the exercise of privacy rights.
In fact, the coordinated sweep by the CPPA and Attorneys General of California, Colorado, and Connecticut targeting businesses that ignored consumer opt-out signals specifically warned against practices that require consumers to take additional steps after submitting an opt-out request.
When opt-out workflows are fragmented or inconsistent, the impact shows up quickly for customers, internal teams, and regulators alike.
In 2025, the CPPA fined Tractor Supply Co. $1.35 million for allegedly failing to honor consumer opt-out requests in a consistent and operable way under California’s privacy law, illustrating that regulators will take action when opt-out processes don’t actually work end to end.
When opt-outs break between banners, forms, or systems, regulators treat the failure as a compliance issue, not a technical limitation.
Ketch unifies consent management and opt-out intake into a single, connected workflow.
A consumer submits one opt-out request, and Ketch automatically enforces that choice across systems without extra verification, redirects, or follow-up steps. The result is a low-friction “Do Not Sell” experience that aligns with CPRA expectations and materially reduces compliance risk.
Read further: Opt-Out Sync: comprehensive “Do Not Sell” enforcement
Key takeaway: Cross-device opt-out enforcement in OneTrust exists in theory, but in practice requires custom engineering and fragile identity logic. As consumers move across devices, opt-outs fall out of sync, creating inconsistent enforcement and regulatory exposure.
OneTrust does support server-side logging and provides mechanisms intended to synchronize consent beyond the browser. However, this capability is not native or automatic. In practice, honoring opt-outs across devices and browsers requires significant custom engineering, manual identifier passing, and ongoing reconciliation logic built and maintained by the customer.
Customers migrating from OneTrust consistently report that cross-device opt-out enforcement only “kind of” existed—and that making it work required substantial engineering effort. Even then, enforcement was brittle, slow to update, or prone to falling out of sync as identifiers, systems, or channels changed.
Because identity resolution and consistency live outside the core platform, opt-out honoring often degrades over time as consumers move between devices, browsers, and authenticated states.
Regulators increasingly expect opt-out choices to follow the person—not the device—and treat these inconsistencies as failures to honor consumer intent, regardless of whether server-side logging technically exists.
When opt-out choices are tied to browsers instead of people, the consequences compound quickly.
In its enforcement action against Todd Snyder, the CPPA found that opt-out mechanisms were improperly configured and failed to honor consumer signals as required. The agency made clear that using a consent management platform does not absolve businesses of responsibility if opt-out choices are not consistently honored.
Ketch stores opt-outs at the person level, not the browser level.
When a consumer opts out anywhere—web, mobile app, or authenticated experience—Ketch automatically honors that choice everywhere the same person is recognized. Cross-device and cross-browser enforcement happens in real time, without custom code or manual identity stitching.
This identity-aware approach aligns directly with CPRA expectations and emerging enforcement patterns, reducing the risk that opt-outs silently fail as customers move between devices.
Read further: Identity Synchronization
Key takeaway: OneTrust enforcement largely stops at the browser. Without native server-side orchestration, data often continues flowing to advertising, analytics, and backend systems after an opt-out is submitted.
OneTrust primarily enforces opt-outs through client-side mechanisms like cookie blocking or script suppression. This approach limits enforcement to the front end, while downstream systems—such as advertising platforms, analytics tools, CDPs, and internal databases—often continue processing data unless additional custom logic is built.
True downstream enforcement requires server-to-server orchestration that ensures personal data is restricted at the system level, not just the browser level.
For many use cases, customers must write their own code, rely on manual processes, or use industry frameworks that do not guarantee enforcement inside partner systems.
Regulators have emphasized that these kinds of partial implementations create gaps between consumer intent and actual data use.
When opt-outs are not enforced downstream, the risk compounds quickly.
In its enforcement action against Sephora, the California Attorney General found that the company continued sharing personal data with advertising and analytics partners after consumers exercised “Do Not Sell” rights.
The settlement made clear that blocking cookies or displaying a banner is not enough if data continues flowing to third parties.
Ketch was built for downstream enforcement from day one.
Ketch orchestrates opt-outs with clicks, not code. When a consumer submits an opt-out request, Ketch automatically triggers configured actions across every connected system—advertising platforms, analytics tools, CRMs, CDPs, and internal databases—without custom development.
The result is true end-to-end enforcement that aligns with regulatory expectations and gives businesses confidence that opt-out requests actually stop data use everywhere they should.
Key takeaway: When regulators ask for proof, OneTrust customers are left reconstructing events manually. In an enforcement environment focused on outcomes, retroactive reconstruction is risky and often insufficient.
With OneTrust, generating proof of opt-out compliance often requires manual investigation, data exports, or assistance from customer support. Consent data may live in different places, and downstream enforcement actions are not always centrally logged.
As a result, teams are left reconstructing what happened after the fact, especially for anonymous users or historical requests.
Regulators have signaled that this kind of retroactive reconstruction is risky, particularly during audits or investigations. This gap is increasingly costly in the context of CIPA demand letters and private litigation, where companies must quickly rebut claims with concrete evidence showing when notice occurred, how consent was captured, and whether tracking was properly controlled.
When proof isn’t readily available, the exposure increases quickly.
In its enforcement action against Todd Snyder,, the CPPA warned that companies must scrutinize their privacy tools to ensure they “work as intended,” emphasizing that the burden of proof remains with the business, not the vendor.
If a company cannot show how opt-out choices were processed and enforced, regulators may treat that gap as a compliance failure.
Ketch treats auditability as a core platform capability, not an afterthought.
Ketch produces complete, verifiable audit logs for every privacy action, including opt-outs. Each record shows when the request was made, how it was processed, and which downstream systems were updated—available instantly without manual investigation or support tickets.
The result is on-demand proof that stands up to regulatory scrutiny and gives teams confidence during audits, inquiries, and demand letters.
Read further: Privacy 360 Analytics Suite: audit-ready reporting
Key takeaway: OneTrust’s reliance on code, manual configuration, and engineering ownership turns privacy operations into a bottleneck as programs expand across systems, channels, and jurisdictions.
The real cost of OneTrust shows up after go-live. As privacy programs expand across channels, systems, and jurisdictions, OneTrust’s reliance on code, manual identity handling, and ongoing engineering effort slows teams down and increases operational risk.
Key takeaway: Limited page caps and simplistic sampling leave large portions of modern sites unscanned. Undiscovered trackers create blind spots where privacy controls silently fail.
OneTrust’s cookie and tracker scanning is limited in both depth and coverage. Page caps—often in the 10–15k range—combined with simplistic sampling approaches mean large portions of complex sites are never analyzed.
When trackers aren’t discovered, they can’t be governed. This creates blind spots where cookies fire, data is collected, and personal information flows—regardless of how polished banners or opt-out workflows may appear.
Because these gaps are invisible, privacy failures often go undetected until regulators, auditors, or plaintiffs identify them.
Scanning limitations turn privacy enforcement into guesswork rather than verification:
Ketch treats scanning as validation, not discovery. Its crawler-based, variance-driven sampling dynamically selects and rotates URLs to maximize coverage while maintaining efficiency.
Beyond identifying trackers, Ketch surfaces:
This allows teams to identify and fix enforcement gaps proactively—before regulators or plaintiffs do—rather than discovering failures after the fact.
Key takeaway: Synchronizing consent beyond the website requires custom scripts and integrations, making enforcement an ongoing engineering project rather than a reliable operational capability.
OneTrust integrations typically rely on APIs or generic connectors rather than true out-of-the-box enforcement. To synchronize consent beyond the website, teams must write and maintain custom scripts that pass consent signals into systems like Salesforce, Marketo, analytics platforms, ad tech, and data warehouses.
This approach makes consent synchronization a technical project instead of an operational capability.
When consent synchronization depends on custom code, teams pay the price over time.
These kinds of operational failures are not theoretical. In its enforcement action against BetterHelp, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that consumer data continued flowing to advertising platforms despite privacy representations to the contrary.
The FTC made clear that relying on technical integrations or internal controls is not sufficient if those mechanisms fail to consistently stop downstream data use in practice. When privacy enforcement depends on fragile integrations, regulators judge outcomes, not intent.
Ketch provides pre-built, identity-aware integrations that synchronize choices automatically across systems.
No scripts. No APIs to stitch together. No last-mile burden.
Read more: Integrations that fit every tech stack
Key takeaway: Consent enforcement in tag managers depends on manual configuration by individuals. As tags and vendors change, mappings drift and enforcement breaks, often without detection.
In OneTrust, enforcing consent through a tag management system such as Google Tag Manager depends largely on manual configuration by the TMS owner.
Consent states may be published to the data layer, but humans must define triggers, consent modes, and tag dependencies directly inside the TMS.
This model is fragile. As tags, vendors, and purposes change, mappings drift out of sync and enforcement silently breaks. Keeping consent enforcement aligned becomes an ongoing engineering and operational burden rather than a durable system capability.
Manual tag enforcement turns privacy into a people problem instead of a system guarantee:
Ketch automates tag orchestration through native TMS integrations.
Tags are fetched directly from the TMS, dependencies are defined centrally in Ketch, and enforcement logic is automatically pushed back—without requiring manual intervention inside the TMS.
Consent enforcement becomes systemic and repeatable rather than dependent on individual configuration. Privacy teams configure once and trust that changes remain aligned as tags, vendors, and purposes evolve.
Key takeaway: OneTrust’s linear DSR model limits automation and flexibility, forcing privacy teams to handle growing complexity manually instead of operating scalable, decision-based workflows.
OneTrust’s DSR handling follows a largely linear model: intake, verification, response. While this approach can satisfy basic compliance requirements, it limits the ability to model real business processes as privacy programs become more complex.
As request volumes grow and use cases diversify, this linear structure makes it difficult to adapt workflows based on factors such as identity confidence, product line, jurisdiction, or request type.
Meaningful automation often requires custom development or manual intervention.
Treating DSRs as tickets turns privacy operations into a support function rather than an operational system.
Ketch treats DSRs as programmable workflows.
Teams can fetch attributes from multiple systems, apply decision gateways, and dynamically route requests based on identity strength, product line, jurisdiction, or request type—all through configuration, not code.
With pre-built, identity-aware integrations, these workflows operate natively across systems without scripts or custom APIs.
Customers migrating from OneTrust routinely achieve significant automation gains. One $10B+ quick-service restaurant chain now automates 95% of DSR activity with half the operational staff—transforming privacy operations into a scalable, resilient system.
Key takeaway: The gap between OneTrust and Ketch is architectural. OneTrust depends on engineering and manual maintenance. Ketch delivers native identity, automated enforcement, and provable outcomes through configuration.
This architectural gap is why large enterprises—including media, retail, and regulated industries—have moved away from OneTrust after years of use, citing identity synchronization failures, enforcement gaps, and escalating operational risk.
OneTrust was built to capture privacy signals at the surface. Ketch was built to operationalize privacy choices end to end—across people, systems, and data flows—without code.
The result is a meaningful gap in scale, speed, and regulatory resilience.
Read further: OneTrust Alternative
Compare: Best Enterprise Data Privacy Software to Watch in 2026
With OneTrust, privacy programs depend on engineering availability, custom integrations, and continuous maintenance as laws and systems change.
With Ketch, privacy teams configure workflows once and trust that consumer choices are honored everywhere: automatically, consistently, and provably.
That’s the difference between managing privacy as a collection of tools and running privacy as a durable operational system.
Privacy enforcement has moved beyond banners. Regulators now expect businesses to honor consumer intent consistently, across people, systems, and channels, and to prove it.
Modern privacy laws focus on what actually happens after a choice is made, not how a banner looks or where a toggle lives. If a customer opts out on a mobile device but still receives targeted ads on the web, regulators view that as a failure—regardless of how complex the underlying tooling may be.
As enforcement actions make clear, privacy programs are judged on outcomes, not effort. Platforms that stop at surface-level capture cannot meet that bar at scale.
Regulators are scrutinizing whether privacy controls operate consistently across identities, systems, and time. Platforms that lack native identity resolution and real-time orchestration increasingly fail this test, not because teams lack effort, but because the architecture cannot deliver consistent outcomes at scale.
Ketch was built for this enforcement reality: person-level intent, real-time orchestration, and provable outcomes across systems. OneTrust was not.
