They get discussed a lot here on HN so it's easy to assume everyone's familiar with them, but if you're not then you should search up a summary on them.

That's how I read it at least, which would mean they're defaulting to cookies when no consent is reached, but I could be wrong.

But much more importantly, it is completely impossible in the context of the thread:

> [Accusation 3.] On their cookie banner, rejecting took two clicks while accepting took one.

> On 3, Microsoft argued that (a) rejecting was not actually required to be as easy as accepting and that (b) since the default was no cookies and it took a click to get cookies that rejecting was easier than accepting. The CNIL disagreed on both.