On 9 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Judgment in ROGON (Case C-428/23), a landmark ruling that marks a turning point in the regulation of football agents.
The case originated from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the German Federal Court of Justiceconcerning the regulations of the German Football Association (DFB) and their compatibility with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Although the judgment concerns the DFB Regulations, it has direct implications for the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) and the wider professional football ecosystem.
What did the CJEU actually decide?
The Court held that rules adopted by sports federations regulating the activities of third parties (such as football agents) fall within the scope of EU competition law, in particular Article 101 TFEU.
However, it also clarified that such restrictions may be lawful provided they satisfy a proportionality test. As the Court stated:
“The exception established by the Court of Justice for restrictions pursuing a legitimate public interest objective may, under certain conditions, apply to rules adopted by a sports federation which, by addressing its members, regulate the use of the services of third-party undertakings.”
In other words, the CJEU did not invalidate the DFB Regulations. Instead, it held that each restrictive provision must:
(i) pursue a legitimate objective (such as preserving the integrity of competitions, protecting minors, ensuring transparency, etc.);
(ii) be suitable, necessary and proportionate in the strict sense; and
(iii) constitute the least restrictive means of achieving that objective.
Does the FIFA Football Agent Regulations remain valid?
The judgment neither examines nor declares the FFAR to be valid or invalid. It concerns only the DFB Regulations, although the Court acknowledges that the DFB is subject to FIFA’s regulatory framework.
That said, the validity of similar rules is now effectively conditional, as national courts will have to assess whether specific provisions satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
In the present case, the CJEU expressly leaves that assessment to the German court, stating:
“It is for the Federal Court of Justice to determine whether the DFB rules at issue satisfy all the conditions for the application of the exception concerned.”
Accordingly, the FFAR remains in force, but their compatibility with Article 101 TFEU will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis by applying the same test of legitimate objective, necessity and proportionality.
What happens to the commission cap?
The commission cap has neither been upheld nor struck down by this judgment. However, its legal position has been significantly weakened.
For such restrictions to survive judicial scrutiny, the relevant federation will have to demonstrate that no less restrictive measure is capable of achieving the same legitimate objective.
If the federation cannot substantiate, with evidence and objective analysis, that the commission cap is strictly necessary to protect the football ecosystem, the restriction could ultimately be regarded as an anti-competitive practice prohibited under Article 101 TFEU.
How should clubs and football agents respond?
Football agents:Agents now have a stronger legal basis to challenge before national courts those regulatory provisions they consider disproportionate or unjustified, particularly economic restrictions such as commission caps. The burden of proving proportionality will now rest on the federation.
Clubs: Clubs should continue to comply with the applicable regulations (both FIFA and national association rules) and exercise caution when negotiating intermediary agreements. It would be advisable to include safeguard clauses allowing contractual adjustments should national courts declare certain provisions of the FFAR invalid in the future.
Federations:Sports federations should thoroughly justify their regulations by providing evidence that the restrictions are genuinely intended to protect the integrity and sustainability of the sector, rather than to restrict competition.
What can we expect going forward?
Two main consequences appear likely.
Increased litigation: a new wave of proceedings before national courts is to be expected, with agents and agencies challenging the proportionality of various regulatory restrictions, particularly commission caps.
Review of the Regulations: FIFA and national football associations may ultimately be required to amend their regulations in order to strengthen the justification, necessity and proportionality of the restrictions they impose and thereby reduce the risk of successful legal challenges.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s judgment does not bring the debate surrounding football agents and commission caps to an end. However, it clearly defines the legal framework within which future disputes will be assessed and establishes the principles that will determine which regulatory provisions are capable of surviving scrutiny under EU competition law.
Every year, many families move to Spain for professional, personal, or lifestyle reasons. When their children play football, most assume that the process will be straightforward: find a club, apply for a federation licence, and start the season.
It is often at this point that they encounter concepts that are completely unfamiliar to most families—international transfer, FIFA authorisations, Article 19 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), and FIFA TMS—together with a procedure that, in many cases, leaves the child unable to compete for months, or even until reaching the age of 18.
Unfortunately, there is nothing new about that. These situations arise every season and have become an all-too-familiar problem.
What is truly concerning is when the federation does not even issue a formal decision refusing the licence. Instead, it simply informs the club that it will not process the application any further, declares the file closed, or states that the matter has already been decided.
This inevitably leads to a question that many parents ask us when they come to our firm: if there is no formal decision, what exactly can be appealed?
That was precisely the issue addressed in this case, in which the Spanish Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes – CSD) fully upheld the appeal lodged by the team at Himnus Football Lawyers.
The decision not only reiterates that foreign minors who are legally resident in Spain are entitled to obtain a federation licence, but also introduces a particularly important principle: certain actions taken by the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), even if they do not take the form of a formal administrative decision, may still be challenged where they effectively prevent the procedure from continuing.
This may sound like a highly technical issue, but for many families it makes the difference between accepting that their child cannot play and still having a legal avenue through which to defend their rights.
When the problem is no longer FIFA, but the procedure itself
The case began like many others.
A foreign minor moved to Spain with his family as part of a genuine relocation entirely unrelated to football. The family obtained lawful residence, established their home in Spain, and the child became integrated into the Spanish education system. Like any other young player, the child simply wished to continue playing football.
The club applied for the federation licence and, because the player had previously been registered abroad, the RFEF initiated the international transfer procedure applicable to minors.
The initial application was ultimately rejected by FIFA.
When the family subsequently instructed Himnus Football Lawyers, the deadline to appeal FIFA’s decision before the CSD had already expired, meaning that an entirely different legal strategy had to be adopted.
After reviewing the file, we identified significant new evidence that had not been considered in the original application and that substantially reinforced the reality of the family’s relocation and the player’s effective residence in Spain.
Rather than challenging FIFA’s original decision, we requested that the RFEF submit a new application supported by this additional evidence.
It was at that stage that the real problem emerged.
The RFEF refused to forward the new application to FIFA, taking the view that the matter had already been decided and was therefore barred by the principle of res judicata, with no grounds for opening a new procedure.
As a result, the file was closed, preventing any further progress and leaving the player without a licence.
The family was then placed in a particularly difficult position.
There was no formal administrative decision refusing the licence. There was no new FIFA decision either.
There was simply an action by the RFEF which, in practice, made it impossible for the licensing procedure to continue.
And that gave rise to the central legal issue.
Can an action be appealed if it is not a formal decision?
The intuitive answer might be no.
If there is no formal administrative decision, one might assume that there is nothing capable of being challenged.
Administrative law, however, works differently.
Throughout any administrative procedure, numerous intermediate procedural acts are adopted. As a general rule, these procedural acts cannot be appealed separately.
There is, however, a crucial exception.
Where such an act prevents the procedure from continuing or causes irreparable harm, it ceases to be a mere procedural step and becomes independently appealable.
That was precisely the situation here.
The issue was not simply that the RFEF declined to resubmit the application to FIFA.
The decisive point was that this refusal made it impossible for the licensing procedure to continue.
Although there was no formal refusal of the licence, the practical consequence was exactly the same: the player could not play.
That formed the cornerstone of our appeal.
We argued that the RFEF’s conduct could not be characterised as a mere internal procedural step because it produced definitive legal effects.
By closing the file and refusing to submit a new application to FIFA, the RFEF had effectively prevented the player from pursuing any possibility of obtaining a licence.
To accept the contrary would produce an outcome fundamentally incompatible with the procedural guarantees underpinning administrative law.
It would allow a federation to avoid judicial or administrative review simply by refraining from issuing a formal decision.
The CSD: what matters is not the name of the act, but its effects
Before addressing whether the player was entitled to obtain a licence, the CSD first had to determine whether the RFEF’s conduct was capable of being appealed.
The RFEF argued that it was not.
It maintained that it had merely reviewed the documentation and confirmed that FIFA had already ruled on the same situation, meaning that no appealable administrative decision existed.
The CSD disagreed.
Relying on Article 112 of the Spanish Administrative Procedure Act, it recalled that certain procedural acts may indeed be challenged where they produce particularly significant legal effects, including preventing the continuation of the proceedings.
That was exactly what had happened.
The RFEF’s refusal to submit a new application to FIFA was not a mere internal administrative step. On the contrary, it prevented the procedure from continuing and made it impossible for the player to obtain a federation licence.
The CSD therefore concluded that the RFEF’s conduct constituted a qualified procedural act, capable of being challenged because it definitively blocked the procedure.
The decision states this in particularly clear terms:
“The RFEF’s refusal to submit a new application to FIFA and its decision to close the file on 30 April 2026 is equivalent to refusing the licence itself, since that submission is a necessary prerequisite for obtaining the licence.”
The CSD therefore makes it clear that what truly matters is not how the RFEF labels a particular action, but the legal effects that action produces.
If a decision permanently prevents a minor from continuing the procedure necessary to obtain a federation licence, that decision may be reviewed, even where no formal administrative decision has been issued.
Having confirmed its jurisdiction, the CSD then examined the substance of the dispute.
In doing so, it reaffirmed the approach it has consistently adopted in recent years.
The decision recalls that Spanish law affords particular protection to minors’ right to participate in sport and promotes the integration of foreign nationals who are legally resident in Spain.
Accordingly, in the context of non-professional football, the decisive requirement for obtaining a federation licence is the player’s lawful residence in Spain.
A decision that goes far beyond this individual case
The real importance of this decision lies not only in the fact that one young player ultimately secured recognition of her right to obtain a federation licence.
Its significance lies in the message it sends to countless other families facing similar situations.
Very often, the problem is not limited to the final decision itself.
Applications that are no longer processed, files that are simply closed, or refusals to continue the procedure may have consequences every bit as serious as an express refusal of the licence.
And, as the CSD has now confirmed, those actions may also be challenged.
Of course, this does not mean that every action taken by the RFEF is automatically appealable.
Each case must be assessed on its own facts.
However, it does demonstrate that the absence of a formal administrative decision does not necessarily mean that all legal remedies have been exhausted.
For that reason, before concluding that a minor will be unable to compete in Spain, it is essential to examine carefully how the entire administrative procedure has been conducted.
At Himnus Football Lawyers, we have spent years assisting families in matters concerning the registration of foreign minors.
Time and again, we meet parents who believe there is no solution simply because the RFEF has stopped processing their child’s application.
As long as situations like these continue to arise, there will continue to be young players whose access to sport is delayed by procedural issues that are, in many cases, open to legal review.
Ideally, families should not have to appeal to the Spanish Sports Council simply to enable their children to exercise a right that Spanish law itself expressly protects.
Until that day comes, one simple principle is worth remembering:
When the RFEF blocks the procedure, the absence of a formal decision does not necessarily mean that there is nothing to appeal.
The Spanish Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes – CSD) has once again ruled on an issue which, far from being settled, continues to generate recurring disputes: the registration of foreign minors in official competitions in Spain.
On this occasion, it has done so in the context of another case handled by Himnus Football Lawyers, in which the CSD upheld the appeal lodged by the parents of a foreign minor legally resident in Spain, to whom the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) had refused to issue a federation licence due to the absence of the required FIFA authorisation.
The decision not only recognises the minor’s right to obtain a federation licence, but also reinforces—with increasingly indisputable clarity—a line of reasoning that the CSD itself has maintained for years: in Spain, foreign minors who are legally resident cannot be subjected to additional restrictions arising from international sporting regulations that have not been formally recognised.
The case: refusal to issue a licence to a foreign minor holding a Spanish residence permit
The case arises from a situation that is relatively common in practice. A foreign minor, whose legal residence in Spain is evidenced by a valid TIE (Foreigner Identity Card), applies for a federation licence in order to participate in non-professional competition.
The RFEF refuses the application on the grounds that, as the player had previously been registered with another association, prior authorisation from FIFA is required pursuant to Article 19 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
In accordance with this approach, the application is processed through FIFA TMS, relying on the exception set out in Article 19(2)(a)—relating to the relocation of the parents for reasons unrelated to football. However, the Players’ Status Chamber rejects the application on the basis that this circumstance has not been sufficiently established.
From that point onwards, the consequence is automatic: the RFEF does not process the licence application and the minor is unable to compete.
Faced with this situation, the parents—assisted by Himnus Football Lawyers—lodged an appeal before the CSD, advancing an argument which, as we shall see, is legally well-founded: if the minor is legally resident in Spain, his or her registration cannot be made conditional upon obtaining an international authorisation that is not required under Spanish law.
The key issue: lawful residence as the sole requirement
The CSD addresses the substance of the case by adopting an approach which, although not new, is particularly emphatic in this decision. The issue is not whether the minor falls within one of the exceptions under Article 19 of the RSTP, but rather which requirements are actually applicable under Spanish law.
The answer is clear: in the field of non-professional sport, the only relevant substantive requirement for the registration of a foreign minor is proof of lawful residence in Spain.
The decision states:
“Lawful residence in Spain is sufficient to obtain the licence requested from the RFEF, which constitutes the authorisation required to participate in the non-professional competition in which the applicant seeks to compete.”
This statement has important implications because it dismantles the approach that has traditionally been followed. It is no longer necessary to reconstruct the family’s relocation or to fit the case within one of the exceptions under the RSTP. Nor is the player’s previous registration with another association of any relevance.
The decisive factor is exclusively the minor’s legal status in Spain. From that perspective, the conclusion is difficult to dispute: if the minor is lawfully resident, he or she is entitled to obtain a federation licence.
The inapplicability of Article 19 of the RSTP in Spain
One of the central aspects of the decision is, once again, the analysis of the applicability of Article 19 of the RSTP within the Spanish legal system.
The CSD recalls that international sporting regulations cannot automatically be imposed in Spain unless they have been formally recognised by international organisations composed of States, as required by Article 49.5 of the Spanish Sports Act.
In this case, the conclusion is once again unequivocal: there is no evidence that the RSTP has been formally recognised either by the European Union or by the Council of Europe. This means that its application cannot prevail over domestic legislation where the two are in conflict.
The reasoning is not new, but its extension is significant. Until now, this doctrine had been clearly applied in cases involving Spanish minors. The present decision goes one step further by expressly extending it to foreign minors who are legally resident in Spain, thereby closing an interpretative gap that had continued to generate disputes in practice.
The right to participate in sport and social integration
The decision does not limit itself to a purely regulatory analysis but introduces an additional dimension that reinforces its reasoning.
The CSD recalls that the Spanish Sports Act not only permits foreign nationals to participate in sporting activities, but also imposes an obligation on the public authorities to promote such participation, particularly in the case of minors.
In this regard, it emphasises that obstacles hindering such participation must be removed, in accordance with the principles of social integration and the protection of minors.
Furthermore, the legal framework itself provides that no restrictions may be imposed on the granting of federation licences to foreign nationals who are legally resident in Spain beyond those established under national legislation.
From this perspective, requiring an international authorisation based on regulations that have not been formally recognised not only lacks legal basis, but is also incompatible with the principles underpinning the Spanish legal system.
Judgment and conclusions
In light of all of the above, the CSD upholds the appeal and recognises the minor’s right to be issued with a federation licence without the need to obtain prior FIFA authorisation.
The practical consequence is clear: the minor may be registered and compete under the same conditions as any other player in Spain.
Beyond the specific case, the decision once again reinforces a doctrine through which the CSD has repeatedly corrected the RFEF’s approach to the registration of minors.
The novelty here is significant, not because it changes the legal test, but because it extends its scope: this is no longer confined to Spanish minors returning from abroad, but now also applies to foreign minors who are legally resident in Spain. The conclusion, however, is exactly the same.
Lawful residence is sufficient. Nothing more should be required.
At Himnus Football Lawyers, we have been handling this type of case for many years, and this latest decision merely confirms the legal position that we have consistently defended. Minors’ access to sport cannot be made conditional upon expansive interpretations of international regulations that are not applicable under Spanish law.
What is truly striking, at this stage, is that these disputes continue to arise. The problem is no longer a legal one. The rules are clear, the doctrine is well established, and the decisions continue to point in the same direction. The problem is simply one of implementation.
Until the federation’s practice is genuinely aligned with this doctrine, families will continue to be forced to appeal, minors will continue to be prevented from competing for months, and the system will continue to generate a completely avoidable state of legal uncertainty.
With the resulting economic, temporal and personal cost for those who, ultimately, should be the least affected: the minors themselves.
On 1 May, the Spanish Sports Council (Consejo Superior de Deportes – CSD) upheld the appeal lodged by the parents of a Spanish minor who had been prevented from participating in official football competitions following the refusal of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) to issue him with a federation licence.
The refusal, based on FIFA’s rejection of the requested international transfer, has now been declared unlawful by the highest administrative authority for sport in Spain, which has ordered that the minor be granted a federation licence.
This decision constitutes a further and unequivocal confirmation of the inapplicability in Spain of Article 19 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) in cases where requirements intended exclusively for foreign nationals are imposed on Spanish minors.
As the CSD stated:
“The RFEF’s requirement that additional conditions be satisfied, such as proving that one of the exceptions under Article 19 of the RSTP applies, is contrary to Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution,” as it creates an unacceptable situation of unequal treatment between Spanish citizens.
1. The case: refusal to issue a licence for failure to satisfy the exceptions under the RSTP
The dispute arose when the player’s parents, advised by Himnus, applied on his behalf for a federation licence to enable him to compete in the Valencian regional under-14 competition after returning to Spain from Australia with their son.
The RFEF, without taking into account that the player was a Spanish citizen legally resident in Spain, rejected the application on the grounds that FIFA had refused to approve the registration pursuant to Article 19 of the RSTP, since none of the exceptions applicable to the international transfer of minors had been met. In particular, reliance had been placed on the exception contained in Article 19(2)(a), relating to the relocation of the parents for reasons unrelated to football, which was rejected by the FIFA Players’ Status Sub-Committee.
Faced with this situation, the parents lodged an appeal before the CSD, arguing that, as the player was a Spanish citizen, he should not be required to obtain international authorisation in order to be registered with the federation of his own country. They also argued that the RFEF had incorrectly applied its own regulations by making the issuance of the licence conditional upon additional requirements that are not imposed on other Spanish citizens, in particular those set out in Article 134 of its General Regulations, which applies to players who do not hold Spanish nationality and is entitled “Players who do not hold Spanish nationality”, a provision which, for obvious reasons, was not applicable in the present case.
The appeal further argued that the improper application of Article 134 of the General Regulations stemmed from an incorrect interpretation of Article 19 of the RSTP. In this regard, the RFEF’s automatic reliance on Article 19 of the RSTP, without taking into account the player’s Spanish nationality or his legal status in Spain, reflected an interpretation that disregarded both the primacy of the Spanish legal system and the settled case law of the Spanish Sports Council.
In its decision, the CSD first examined its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and concluded that, by effectively refusing to issue the federation licence as a consequence of FIFA’s decision, the RFEF had adopted an administrative act capable of being reviewed, since it was exercising a public function under Article 50(c) of the Spanish Sports Act. According to the decision:
“It is for the international federation to issue the authorisation enabling the RFEF to grant the licence. It must therefore be concluded that the acts carried out by the RFEF are decisive in determining whether the licence is refused or not processed and, accordingly, its actions in this respect are subject to appeal before the CSD.”
2. Private regulations cannot prevail over the Spanish legal system
The CSD then addressed the substance of the dispute. As regards the compatibility of Article 19 of the RSTP with the Spanish legal system, it recalled that Article 49.5 of the Spanish Sports Act requires any international sporting regulation imposing restrictions on the issuance of federation licences to have been formally recognised by international organisations composed of States. In the present case, the CSD noted that there is no evidence that the RSTP has been formally recognised either by the Council of Europe or by the European Commission. Accordingly, those regulations cannot prevail over Spanish domestic law.
In the words of the CSD itself, adopting the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of the State:
“It cannot be considered that the rules governing the transfer of minor players contained in the RSTP, and incorporated into Article 134 of the RFEF General Regulations, constitute applicable national or international sporting regulations that have been recognised by international organisations composed of States (…)
It cannot be concluded that the RSTP has been recognised by international organisations (…) there is no evidence that the RSTP has been formally recognised by any international organisation.”
3. Breach of the principle of equality and the best interests of the child
The CSD went on to state that requiring the minor—a Spanish citizen—to justify his registration by reference to one of the exceptions under Article 19 of the RSTP constituted a breach of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution. It held that the player had been placed in a less favourable legal position than other Spanish citizens who had never previously been registered abroad, thereby creating unjustified discrimination based on nationality or previous place of residence:
“The RFEF’s requirement that additional conditions be met, such as proving the applicability of one of the exceptions under Article 19 of the RSTP, is contrary to Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution, as it places Spanish minor footballers applying for a federation licence after having been born or lived abroad in a less favourable legal position, requiring them to justify their relocation to Spain—their own country—by reference to one of the exceptions contained in private international regulations and, where none of those exceptions applies, preventing them from obtaining a federation licence in Spain.”
The decision also recalls that the right to participate in sport, particularly in the case of minors, enjoys enhanced protection both under the Spanish Sports Act and under international treaties ratified by Spain. Public authorities, including sporting federations when exercising public functions, are required to remove any obstacle preventing or restricting access to sport on equal terms:
“With regard to the sporting activity of minors, Article 7(1) of the Sports Act provides that minors and their rights and needs shall receive special protection from the public authorities. Furthermore, Article 7(3) recognises that ‘the sporting activities carried out by minors must, at all times, be appropriate and proportionate to their personal development and to their physical, psychological and emotional capacities, in accordance with Organic Law 1/1996 of 15 January on the Legal Protection of Minors, as amended by Organic Law 8/2021 of 4 June, and with the provisions of the international treaties and conventions ratified by the Spanish State.“
4. The ruling
The CSD ultimately upheld the appeal and declared that the minor was entitled to be issued with a federation licence in accordance with Spanish legislation and the RFEF General Regulations, without the need for prior FIFA authorisation.
With this decision, the CSD reaffirms the doctrine established in previous cases and emphasises the primacy of the Spanish constitutional order over private international sporting regulations that have not been formally recognised, particularly where the fundamental rights of Spanish minors are concerned.
5. Conclusion: a practice that should not continue
This latest decision of the CSD cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a long-established body of case law that has repeatedly warned the RFEF against the automatic application of Article 19 of the RSTP to Spanish minors. Nevertheless, this practice continues.
It is surprising that, despite this consistent line of decisions, the RFEF continues to refuse licence applications submitted by Spanish minors simply because they previously lived abroad. As explained above, there is neither a legal nor a regulatory basis for placing Spanish citizens in a less favourable legal position, nor can their access to sport be made subject to authorisation from a private foreign federation.
The Spanish Sports Council has once again made it clear that, in Spain, the rights of minors and the constitutional principle of equality prevail over any sporting regulations that have not been officially recognised.
It is now essential for the two bodies concerned—the RFEF and the CSD—to provide a definitive solution to this issue and, in the best interests of the children involved, introduce the necessary regulatory amendments to ensure that situations such as these do not arise again. Minors (whether Spanish or foreign) who are legally resident in Spain should be able to obtain their federation licences automatically and play football without forcing families to bring repeated appeals before the CSD, with the entirely avoidable financial, time-related and, above all, emotional costs that this entails for children and their families.
Para ofrecer las mejores experiencias, utilizamos tecnologías como las cookies para almacenar y/o acceder a la información del dispositivo. El consentimiento de estas tecnologías nos permitirá procesar datos como el comportamiento de navegación o las identificaciones únicas en este sitio. No consentir o retirar el consentimiento, puede afectar negativamente a ciertas características y funciones.
Funcional
Always active
El almacenamiento o acceso técnico es estrictamente necesario para el propósito legítimo de permitir el uso de un servicio específico explícitamente solicitado por el abonado o usuario, o con el único propósito de llevar a cabo la transmisión de una comunicación a través de una red de comunicaciones electrónicas.
Preferencias
El almacenamiento o acceso técnico es necesario para la finalidad legítima de almacenar preferencias no solicitadas por el abonado o usuario.
Estadísticas
El almacenamiento o acceso técnico que es utilizado exclusivamente con fines estadísticos.El almacenamiento o acceso técnico que se utiliza exclusivamente con fines estadísticos anónimos. Sin un requerimiento, el cumplimiento voluntario por parte de tu proveedor de servicios de Internet, o los registros adicionales de un tercero, la información almacenada o recuperada sólo para este propósito no se puede utilizar para identificarte.
Marketing
El almacenamiento o acceso técnico es necesario para crear perfiles de usuario para enviar publicidad, o para rastrear al usuario en una web o en varias web con fines de marketing similares.
