If they got rid of the third party services (in this case, Google ReCaptcha and Google's CDN) they would be fine with their current implementation. First party cookies that are necessary do not require any form of opt-out, and a notice about them is compliant. They are not using any third party tracking for marketing (as far as I can tell). Most businesses are using cookie opt-in regardless of the specifics of their usage because businesses are risk averse, but there is nuance, and it is not an absolute requirement.

Thanks for flagging, have shared the feedback with the team.

For me, this isn’t an issue of feedback, it’s an issue of culture. Does the company do the right thing?

Wise does this properly which makes me trust them straight away.

Edit. Don’t want to come off too harsh, just saying the cookie approach doesn’t help me trust the company compared to the main competitor.

How did you not know this? Makes me think you missed a lot more behind the scenes.

No one is perfect my friend. A user pointed out a potential issue in the UK with cookies and a person from the company responded saying they’ve made a team aware.

What else would you expect? The amount of flack people get they post a Show HN is getting out of control.

It's not "a potential issue in the UK" it's an issue across the EU - they were pointing out it's also an issue in the UK even though we've left the EU.

GDPR is not a new or surprising thing, and the absolute basics should be known by any developers working with private data. It's frankly shocking if they didn't know while starting a company in the UK, and I don't know if it's worse if they didn't know or didn't care.

This is a business that it will be vital that they are following regulations, and if they're skipping this, why should I trust they're following the rest?

Customers are opted out by default - opting in is optional. Although I agree it would be nice to have a mechanism to hide the cookie banner. Something we should look into adding.

> without having a cookie opt-out option

A financial company playing fast and loose with the law, and especially data protection law, does not bode well.

One to avoid methinks.

on the other hand, an internet company playing fast and loose with EU cookie opt-outs seems so par for the course that I would take it as more suspicious if they were not?

> an internet company playing fast and loose with EU cookie opt-outs seems so par for the course

And I, like many, avoid business with any such companies who display a contempt for personal data.

If my ISP did such a thing, they would be very quickly reported to the Information Commissioner. Also, I think you will find the UK is beholden to the GDPR. It isn't simply an "EU cookie" law as you seam to imply.

> A financial company playing fast and loose with the law

That escalated quickly.

> That escalated quickly

Pfft

The company clearly had poor legal advice and/or didn't think things through, yet they want my money and personal data? At the very least, you should consider this error analogous to the Van Halen 'no Brown M&Ms rider', in that it flags sloppy practice elsewhere [1].

[1] https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9

They were approved by the UK Financial Conduct Authority. That surely takes some serious legal effort and attention to detail.

Also, their About Us page suggests that they are staffed by people from relevant financial services companies. Plus they are backed by some VCs who would not take risks by handing money to a company if they thought the legal side wasn't up to par.

We don't know why there wasn't an annoying cookie popup. So assuming that the company in general plays "fast and loose" doesn't seem warranted.

> UK Financial Conduct Authority

Frequently satirised in Private Eye [1] as the 'Fundamentally Complicit Authority' :-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye