Every choice enforced.Every decision on the record.
When anyone asks about your compliance, you have an exact answer. And your marketing keeps its signal.
Consent is a race: the banner, the tags and the platform each load on their own clock, and pixels fire before anyone chooses. Meanwhile some of the consent you already earned never reaches your ad platforms. Blotout Consent closes both gaps in one place.
Ask three people whether you're compliant. You'll get three answers.
Legal cites the privacy policy. Marketing shows the banner. The network tab tells a third story: pixels firing before anyone clicked a thing. Most brands live with that gap, because checking feels optional.
On Shopify, the platform's own analytics layer defaults to granted before any consent tool has loaded.
Two questions separate a consent banner from a consent platform: what actually fires after a visitor decides, and can you show the record when someone asks? A standalone banner answers neither.
Enforced
A yes starts flowing the moment it's given. A no stays a no everywhere your events are sent, because both travel through the same system that delivers them, served first-party from your own domain.
Proven
Every decision becomes a record: what was asked, which banner version, what was chosen, and what it triggered. Queryable per customer, exportable across any date range.
Growing
Consented events keep reaching your ad platforms server-side, so campaigns keep learning and customer value keeps compounding while compliance runs underneath.
The proof is your own storefront.
The same test the firms behind those demand letters run takes two minutes, and you can run it on your own store right now.
Two-minute self-test
Open your store in a private window with the network tab visible. Click No when the banner asks, then keep shopping and watch what loads.
Free consent audit
Or send us your store URL. We audit your public storefront, with nothing to install, and report what fires before and after a choice, checked against your own network tab.
The record
From day one, every decision lives in the record: timestamp, banner version, region, and what it triggered. Queryable per customer, ready to export.
When someone asks
A plaintiff's firm, a platform audit, a regulator: all three ask the same question. Your log should answer it in minutes.
Will consent cost us performance?
That worry is the tradeoff Blotout Consent was built to close. Consent runs inside the same system that delivers your events. Every consented event keeps reaching your ad platforms server-side, campaigns keep learning instead of guessing, and customer value keeps compounding. A no stays a no, and a yes loses nothing.
Consent that adds signal instead of costing it.
One system, from the first ask to the record
Consent runs on the same first-party infrastructure that delivers your events, served from your own domain. The choice the banner records is the same object that gates delivery, feeds your ad platforms, and shows up in analytics.
Blotout Consent is the consent management platform: the banner asks, the system enforces, the log proves it. Configured once per region at onboarding, it then runs on its own in every market you serve.
Rebuild once, consented and on the record.
There are now firms whose business is scanning stores for pixels that fire before consent, with letters priced just below the cost of a defense. And most brands are rebuilding their tracking this year anyway, because the platforms keep moving the ground: if you are on Shopify and not on Plus, the legacy scripts where old tracking lives retire on August 26, 2026. Rebuilding once, consented and on the record, beats rebuilding twice.
Built to be audited, starting with us.
SOC 2 Type II, with every control public and continuously monitored at trust.blotout.io. Single-tenant infrastructure, first-party delivery, and a record you can export at any time.
The objections we hear most.
We already have a CMP.
Good. Run the two questions on it: what fires after a No, and can you export the record when someone asks? If both pass, keep it. If neither does, that is the gap we close.
Our lawyer says we're covered.
Your lawyer is right about the paperwork. Demand letters do not cite paperwork; they cite what your site did. The record is what closes the gap between the two.
Compliance costs us performance.
That is the tradeoff we built against. Consent runs inside the same system that delivers your events, so consented signal keeps flowing server-side while the gated part actually holds. You are not choosing between compliant and growing. You are choosing whether both run through one system.
We're too small to be a target.
The letters are not aimed at the Fortune 500. They are priced just below the cost of defending yourself, which works best on brands big enough to pay and too small to have a legal department. And the scanner that picks the targets does not check your revenue. It checks whether a session recorder loads before consent.
Does this help with CIPA?
The claims turn on what loaded before a visitor chose: pixels, session replay, chat widgets. The consent audit shows you exactly that, on your own storefront, and once consent runs in the delivery path, the record shows what your site did on any given day. We do not make the legal call. Your counsel does that, and we supply the evidence.
Do you handle data-rights requests?
Yes. Access, correction and deletion run as self-service for your visitors, with every request verified, fulfilled and recorded from submission through completion. And enforcement keeps the surface small: when a no holds, there is less data to hand over in the first place.
Two ways in.
Want certainty first?
Send us your store URL and we will run a consent audit on your public storefront. Nothing to install, nothing to grant. You get a report of what fires before and after a choice, checked against your own network tab.
Already know, or a letter already told you?
We start directly. Your store is enforcing within days, and every choice goes on the record from day one.
Either way you end up in the same place: an exact answer, on the record.