Goodbye, Cookie Pop-Ups? Inside the EU’s Battle to Fix Cookie Consent Laws

• EU “Cookie Law” Origins: The EU’s cookie consent rules originate from the 2002 ePrivacy Directive (also known as the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive), which was amended in 2009 to require websites to obtain users’ consent before storing or reading most cookies en.wikipedia.org. This amendment – often dubbed the “EU Cookie Law” – led to the proliferation of cookie consent pop-ups on virtually every website in Europe gdpr.eu. Member States implemented these rules around 2011, with some national variations in enforcement and guidance.
• Impact on Users & Web Design: The cookie consent requirement profoundly changed the internet browsing experience. Users today are confronted with consent banners on almost every site, often as soon as a page loads. Web designers have had to implement intrusive pop-up dialogs or banners asking for cookie permission, which many users find annoying and disruptive. Estimates suggest Europeans collectively spend hundreds of millions of hours each year clicking through these consent prompts en.wikipedia.org, contributing to what regulators call “consent fatigue.”
• Effect on Digital Advertising: By forcing an opt-in for tracking cookies (except those “strictly necessary” for a service), the law shifted the digital advertising landscape. Advertisers and data brokers could no longer rely on dropping third-party tracking cookies by default. Many users decline optional cookies, limiting data collection for targeted ads. The use of third-party cookies has been in decline since GDPR and the ePrivacy rules took effect gdpr.eu. Ad tech firms responded with pop-up consent frameworks and (in some cases) “cookie paywalls” (asking users to accept ads or subscribe). The industry also explored alternatives to cookies (like browser fingerprinting or new ad tech standards) to maintain advertising revenues under stricter consent rules.
• Criticisms and Unintended Consequences: The EU’s cookie consent framework has faced intense criticism. Privacy advocates and users argue that the constant banners are a nuisance and do little to actually protect privacy en.wikipedia.org. Many companies deployed designs known as “dark patterns” – interfaces that make it much easier to “Accept All” cookies than to reject them – undermining the spirit of informed consent noyb.eu. According to one watchdog, only about 3% of users genuinely want tracking cookies, yet manipulative banner designs lead over 90% of users to click “agree” in frustration noyb.eu. This “consent fatigue” (being bombarded with consent requests) has led even regulators to admit the system isn’t working as intended pinsentmasons.com. Europeans have grown accustomed to clicking away cookie notices on autopilot, raising doubts about how meaningful that “consent” really is.
• EU Reform Efforts (2023–2025): Recognizing the problems, the EU has been actively seeking to overhaul the cookie consent rules. A voluntary “Cookie Pledge” initiative in 2023 aimed to have big tech and ad companies agree on fixes (like simpler consent notices and alternatives to tracking-based ads), but it failed to gain traction – most industry players felt it was premature or too onerous, and no pledge was signed at the 2024 Consumer Summit euronews.com euronews.com. Now the European Commission is pursuing regulatory changes. In late 2025 it launched a “Digital Omnibus” proposal to simplify the ePrivacy Directive’s cookie provisions, aiming to “limit cookie consent fatigue” and reduce the need for repetitive pop-ups ppc.land. The Commission is considering pragmatic tweaks – for example, clarifying when consent isn’t needed, enabling more user-friendly consent management, and providing legal clarity for businesses – with formal proposals expected by 2024–2025.
• Key Proposals for Change: Among the ideas floated by regulators are: (1) Streamlined consent interfaces – every cookie banner should include an equally prominent “Reject All” button and clear info about a site’s data practices iapp.org; (2) Remembering user choices – if you’ve already refused tracking on a site or via your browser, you shouldn’t have to repeat that choice on every visit iapp.org; (3) Browser-level settings or one-time choices – allowing users to set a blanket preference (for example, “don’t track me” in the browser or device settings) that websites will honor, instead of bombarding users with individual consent prompts iapp.org; (4) No “pay or OK” coercion – ensuring that if a website offers an ad-free paid subscription in lieu of tracking, it must also offer a free option with privacy-friendly ads (so users aren’t forced to either pay or surrender privacy) iapp.org; and (5) Fewer consent prompts for low-risk uses – e.g. not requiring separate consent for basic analytics or ad performance cookies when they pose minimal privacy risk or when the user has already agreed to an ad-supported model iapp.org. These proposals are being debated with input from data protection authorities, industry, and consumer groups.
• Stakeholder Reactions:Privacy regulators and advocates generally welcome the push to reduce “consent fatigue” and strengthen privacy. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has supported the Commission’s objectives but cautions that any new mechanism must still ensure truly free choice – consent is only valid if refusing tracking doesn’t lead to unfair disadvantages or costs for the user iapp.org. Consumer organizations agree that the status quo forces people to click mindlessly and want solutions that put users in control by default. On the other side, industry groups and publishers have raised concerns. Publishers worry that letting browser makers or big platforms manage cookie preferences could concentrate power in Big Tech (who control browsers or operating systems) and disrupt advertising revenues iapp.org. Ad tech firms argue that not all cookies are equal – for instance, measuring ad performance or audience reach might be treated differently than profiling – and they fear overly broad rules could hamper legitimate uses iapp.org. They also note that voluntary pledges offered little incentive: unlike formal codes of conduct, signing the pledge wouldn’t have conferred any legal safe harbor iapp.org. Despite these reservations, many in industry acknowledge that the writing is on the wall: the EU is determined to tame the “cookie banner chaos,” whether through voluntary measures or, increasingly likely, new regulations.
• What’s Next: The next 1–2 years will be pivotal for the future of cookie consent in Europe. The Commission’s simplification package is expected to be finalized following consultations (stakeholders had until Oct 2025 to provide feedback ppc.land). If agreed upon, changes to the ePrivacy rules could take effect a year or two thereafter, possibly reducing the ubiquitous pop-ups by 2026–2027. Additionally, EU officials have hinted at broader legislation – some speak of a potential “Digital Advertising Act” in the future – to more comprehensively address online advertising and privacy iapp.org. In the meantime, enforcement of existing rules is still ramping up: national data protection authorities have issued significant fines for non-compliant cookie practices (for example, Belgian authorities imposed daily fines of €25k on a widely used ad consent framework found to violate EU law) ppc.land. All stakeholders – from small website owners to tech giants – are watching closely, as any overhaul will affect how users interact with websites, how publishers make money, and how advertisers reach audiences across the EU.

The Origin of the EU’s Cookie Consent Law (ePrivacy Directive)

The story begins in the early 2000s. In 2002, the EU passed the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC), commonly called the ePrivacy Directive. This law was intended to safeguard privacy in the digital realm – covering things like the confidentiality of communications, spam emails, and online tracking. Originally, the ePrivacy Directive said websites should give users the right to refuse or opt out of cookies, but it did not yet mandate an explicit opt-in for most cookies. However, by the end of that decade, concerns about online tracking had grown. In 2009, the EU amended the ePrivacy Directive (via Directive 2009/136/EC) to strengthen privacy around cookies. This 2009 amendment required websites to obtain users’ informed consent before storing or accessing information like cookies on their devices (except for cookies “strictly necessary” to provide a service the user requested) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. In effect, the EU flipped the model from “notify and opt-out” to “ask and opt-in” for cookies and similar tracking tools.

When this updated rule – often referred to as the “EU Cookie Law” – came into force, it wasn’t an immediately uniform change across Europe. Since the ePrivacy Directive had to be transposed into each member country’s national law, there were variations in implementation and timing. The deadline for transposition was May 2011, and around that time, countries like the UK, France, Germany, and others updated their laws to comply.

Each national authority provided its own guidance on how websites should seek consent, leading to some differences. For instance, the UK’s implementation (in its Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations) initially suggested that browser settings might in the future be used to signal consent – anticipating a world where a user’s browser could tell all sites their cookie preferences en.wikipedia.org. In practice, suitable browser-based solutions didn’t yet exist, so UK regulators allowed websites to use “implied consent” for a transitional period (for example, banners that said “by continuing to use this site, you accept cookies”). By contrast, other countries took a stricter stance, insisting on an explicit click on “Accept” before non-essential cookies could be set. The Netherlands initially enforced a particularly strict version of consent (leading to some Dutch sites experimenting with cookie walls or even temporarily blocking EU visitors). France’s data protection authority (CNIL) and Germany’s regulators also eventually demanded explicit opt-in and disallowed tactics like pre-ticked checkboxes. Despite these early differences, the broad principle was the same EU-wide: non-essential cookies cannot be placed until the user has given consent.

It’s worth noting the rationale behind the law. EU policymakers were responding to growing public awareness (and unease) about online tracking. Cookies – small data files a site can store in your browser – were being used more and more to track people’s behavior across sites, build profiles, and target ads. The intent of the “Cookie Law” was to give users more transparency and control over such tracking. Recital 25 of the directive acknowledged cookies can be useful (for things like remembering your shopping cart), but stressed that users should have the opportunity to refuse cookies that invade their privacy en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. In short, the EU wanted to protect the personal sphere of the user from hidden online surveillance gdpr.eu gdpr.eu. Requiring consent put the power in the user’s hands – at least in theory.

By 2012–2013, the era of cookie banners had begun. Websites across Europe started adding pop-ups or notice bars saying some variant of: “This site uses cookies. By using our site, you agree to our use of cookies” – or later, offering buttons to accept or manage settings. The implementation was often clunky at first, and compliance was patchy. Many users were confused or simply clicked “OK” to get rid of the notification. But over the next few years, as enforcement loomed and best practices evolved, the cookie consent mechanism became a standard feature of web browsing in Europe.

How Cookie Consent Changed User Experience and Web Design

For everyday internet users in Europe, the most visible result of the ePrivacy “Cookie Law” was the eruption of cookie consent banners on practically every website. Before these rules, one could hop from site to site freely. After the rules, visiting a new website often meant your screen would be dimmed or a box would appear, asking you to agree (or sometimes, just informing you that cookies were being used). This was a fundamental shift in user experience (UX): no longer could you seamlessly navigate to content; you first had to deal with a privacy prompt.

From a web design perspective, this was a significant new requirement. Websites had to implement a mechanism to obtain and record consent. This led to countless design approaches: top or bottom notification bars, modal dialog boxes in the center of the screen, and even full-page interstitials on first visit. Designers and UX teams faced the challenge of making these notices compliant (meeting legal requirements for information and options) while trying not to alienate users. It was a delicate balance: the notice had to be prominent enough to be genuine, but every extra click or confusing message risked driving visitors away.

One immediate effect was increased friction in web browsing. Especially in the early years (circa 2012–2015), many sites implemented very generic and sometimes clunky banners. Users commonly complained that their web journey felt interrupted constantly by “pesky pop-ups.” Imagine going to read a news article and, before you can scroll, having to deal with a banner asking about cookies – and possibly digging through settings to turn off tracking cookies if you didn’t want them. Multiply that experience by dozens of sites, and it’s easy to see why frustration grew. In fact, studies estimate that Europeans spend an astonishing amount of time clicking through these dialogs – on the order of 575 million hours every year collectively just dealing with cookie banners en.wikipedia.org. That figure (from a 2023 study) dramatizes how a well-intended privacy measure became a daily time-waster for millions.

Because of the user annoyance, some design best practices started to emerge. For example, rather than showing a huge paragraph of legal text, many sites moved to a cleaner message like “We use cookies to improve your experience. You can accept or manage settings.” with two buttons: “Accept All” and “Manage/Reject.” Web designers also tried less disruptive formats – e.g. a small pop-up in a corner instead of a full-screen overlay – though regulators often insisted the consent must be explicit and thus hard to miss. There was also an incentive to make the banner user-friendly, because if users found it too confusing they might just leave the site entirely. In essence, the cookie law forced a new UX element into web design, one that almost no one (user or designer) really wanted, but everyone had to deal with.

Critically, many websites treated the cookie notice as a mere formality – something to get users to click “yes” as quickly as possible. This gave rise to those “dark pattern” designs: for instance, a big bright “Accept All” button versus a tiny, greyed-out “manage settings” link for those who want to refuse. Some pop-ups had a deceptive button layout where the option to decline was buried in sub-menus. Others would appear to give a choice but if you clicked “X” to close the banner, it might count as consent (a practice later deemed non-compliant). These design choices were deliberate: as noyb, a European privacy group, noted in 2021, an entire “industry of consultants and designers” was crafting “crazy click labyrinths to ensure imaginary consent rates”, effectively frustrating people into clicking ‘OK’ noyb.eu. The result: users often weren’t making a free choice; they were being nudged or worn down by interface tricks.

From the user’s perspective, the experience often felt like this: You arrive at a site, get hit with a banner. You sigh and either click “accept” just to make it go away, or spend extra time hunting for the “reject” option. Doing this repeatedly led to what’s been termed “consent fatigue” – people get so tired of the prompts that they stop thinking about them. Even the European Commission has acknowledged that users are “bombarded by consent requests” and this can degrade the quality of consent (people click mindlessly) pinsentmasons.com.

It’s not an exaggeration to say the law changed the visual landscape of the web. Cookie banners became as ubiquitous as website headers or footers. They also spawned an entire sector of cookie consent management providers – companies offering ready-made banner solutions and compliance tools for websites. For example, you might notice some cookie pop-ups look very similar – that’s because many sites outsource the function to popular consent management platforms.

In summary, the ePrivacy Directive’s consent requirement inserted a new routine into web browsing: the ritual of the cookie click. While it achieved the goal of making users aware of tracking, it undeniably also made web use more cumbersome. Over time, regulators and designers have tried to refine the approach (with clearer language, “accept/reject” symmetry, etc.), but the fundamental UX challenge remains: how do you give users a real choice about cookies without constantly interrupting them? That question is at the heart of current reform efforts.

Effects on the Digital Advertising Ecosystem

Beyond user experience, the cookie consent law had huge implications for the digital advertising industry and online publishers. In the pre-2011 status quo, it was common for websites (especially ad-supported ones like news sites, blogs, etc.) to allow dozens of third-party ad trackers to collect data on visitors by default. These cookies could follow users across sites, enabling advertisers to build profiles and target ads with great precision. It all happened quietly in the background. The ePrivacy Directive’s consent rule changed that dynamic by essentially putting an obstacle in front of third-party tracking.

For advertisers and ad tech companies, this was a jolt. If many users simply ignored a banner or actively chose “no, don’t track me,” it would cut off a major data source. And indeed, once European sites started asking, a significant share of users either declined non-essential cookies or (perhaps more often) failed to actively agree, meaning tracking shouldn’t occur. Some early surveys indicated consent rates that were quite low when a clear “reject” was offered – implying a lot of valuable advertising data could be lost.

The ad industry responded with a mix of technical and strategic adaptations:

• Consent Frameworks: The industry (led by organizations like IAB Europe) developed standardized frameworks to manage and transmit user consent signals. If you’ve ever clicked “manage preferences” and seen a long list of ad partners toggled on/off, that’s part of the Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF) which sites use to communicate your choices to all their advertising partners in the ecosystem. The goal was to ensure that if you said “no” to tracking cookies, all the dozens of ad exchanges and advertisers integrated on the site would hear that signal and (supposedly) comply. This was a massive coordination effort in advertising tech, essentially creating a technical language for consent so that one click could propagate to many companies.
• “Paywalls” and Cookie Walls: Some publishers experimented with giving users an ultimatum: either accept our tracking cookies or lose access (or pay for an alternative). These cookie walls were controversial – consumer groups argued they were against the idea of free consent (since denying cookies meant you couldn’t use the service). The legality of cookie walls has been debated; some regulators frowned on them unless a truly equivalent alternative (like a reasonably priced subscription) was offered. Recently, companies like Meta even floated subscription versions of Facebook/Instagram for European users as a way to comply with privacy requirements – essentially, “pay us or consent to personalized ads.” The EDPB (European Data Protection Board) has taken the stance that forcing users to pay for privacy in such a way can be inherently coercive, unless a genuinely free, less-intrusive option is available iapp.org. This tension between ad-funded free content and privacy came to the forefront because of the cookie rules.
• Loss of Third-Party Cookies = Search for Alternatives: Advertisers began looking into other tracking methods. We saw increased interest in things like browser fingerprinting (which ePrivacy also aims to regulate similarly to cookies) and in encouraging users to log in (first-party data). Big tech companies responded too: Apple’s Safari browser and Mozilla Firefox started blocking third-party cookies by default, effectively going even further than the EU law by technologically preventing a lot of tracking. Google’s Chrome announced plans to phase out third-party cookies (a move still in progress). In essence, the industry began preparing for a future where the traditional tracking cookie would eventually disappear, due both to legal pressure and browser changes. This is partly why we now hear about new ad targeting proposals (like Google’s Privacy Sandbox with Topics API, or other “cohort” based advertising) – these emerged from the need to balance advertising needs with privacy concerns in a post-cookie world.
• Advertising Impact: For some publishers, especially small ones relying on ad networks, there was fear that if many users opted out of cookies, ad revenue would drop. Contextual advertising (showing ads based on page content, not user data) saw renewed interest, since it doesn’t rely on tracking cookies and thus doesn’t require consent. The overall effect on ad revenue is hard to measure and has evolved over time. Initially, compliance was spotty, so many ads kept tracking as before. But as enforcement ramped up, compliance improved. Enforcement actions made headlines – for example, in early 2022 the Belgian Data Protection Authority ruled that the IAB Europe’s consent framework itself violated GDPR rules, highlighting how even the ad industry’s attempt to self-regulate was falling short. IAB Europe was told to fix the issues and was threatened with fines (the Belgian DPA even imposed daily fines of €5,000 in 2023 until compliance plans were addressed) ppc.land. This sent a message that authorities expected the ad tech ecosystem to genuinely change practices, not just put up a façade of compliance.

In terms of market dynamics, the EU’s privacy rules (GDPR plus the cookie consent requirements) arguably favored the largest players in some ways. Giants like Google and Facebook had the resources to adapt and also had massive troves of first-party data (since users log in to their services). Smaller ad tech firms and publishers dependent on third-party cookies struggled more. There’s an argument – often made by critics – that the complex consent rules ironically entrenched Google’s and Facebook’s dominance, because advertisers shifted spend to platforms where they could still target effectively (using logged-in data) rather than dealing with the uncertainties of open web cookies. This was not an intended outcome, but it has been part of the conversation around these laws.

On the flip side, privacy advocates would say that whatever the market effects, the law did push the industry toward more ethical practices. Users at least have the opportunity to know when they’re being tracked and say no. The awareness of cookies and data privacy is far higher now among the general public than it was a decade ago. Even if many users click “accept” out of convenience, the presence of the banner implicitly reminds everyone that data collection is happening, which is a non-trivial shift from the invisible tracking of before.

Overall, the cookie consent framework forced the digital advertising machine to become more transparent and obtain permission. It introduced friction that likely cut down on some tracking (especially from those who choose to opt out), and it spurred innovation in both compliance tech and alternative advertising methods. At the same time, it created new headaches – both for industry (reworking business models) and for users (dealing with constant pop-ups). This balance between protecting privacy and preserving a usable, open ad-supported web is exactly why the debate continues, and why the EU has been rethinking how to achieve the original goals with fewer side effects.

Criticisms and Unintended Consequences of the Cookie Consent Framework

It didn’t take long after cookie consent banners appeared for a broad backlash to form. Practically everyone – users, businesses, even regulators – came to realize that the system had serious flaws. Let’s break down the main criticisms and unintended effects that have emerged:

• 🟠 “Cookie banners are a nuisance”: This is the most common complaint from users. What was meant to be a helpful privacy control quickly turned into what many consider an annoyance or spam in its own right. Users feel they are “constantly bombarded” by the same question over and over en.wikipedia.org. When every single website demands a click or two just to enter, the web becomes less friendly to navigate. Some users liken it to a form of “popup hell,” reminiscent of the bad old days of endless pop-up ads – except now it’s legally mandated. The cumulative frustration is huge: as noted, an analysis calculated about 575 million hours are wasted annually in Europe on these repetitive clicks en.wikipedia.org. That’s not just a minor inconvenience – it represents real lost productivity and a degradation of user experience at scale.
• 🟠 “Consent fatigue and mindless clicking”: A key goal of the law was to ensure users make an informed choice. But with so many prompts, people have developed consent fatigue – they’re tired of seeing the question and often just click anything to make it go away. It’s human nature: when bothered constantly, you stop paying attention. As a result, the quality of consent is questionable. Many users don’t truly read what they’re agreeing to. It’s arguable that today a large portion of “accepted” cookie consents are given under duress or at least impatience, rather than genuine agreement. Even regulators acknowledge that when faced with too many choices, users can’t meaningfully engage every time pinsentmasons.com. This undermines the very intent of the law (meaningful control).
• 🟠 Dark patterns and manipulation: Instead of treating consent as a solemn user right, many website operators turned it into a game of psychological trickery. They employed UI designs to nudge users to “Accept”. Examples include: an “Accept All” button in bright color vs. a dull “Reject” link; requiring 5 clicks to refuse but 1 click to accept; pre-ticked checkboxes (now clearly illegal under GDPR); or misleading wording like “Continue without accepting” hidden behind more text. These so-called dark patterns have been rampant. Privacy activists like Max Schrems (noyb) have been highly critical of this, noting companies “deliberately make privacy choices a nightmare” for users noyb.eu. Schrems famously launched a campaign in 2021 to end “cookie banner terror,” automatically sending complaints to hundreds of websites using deceptive banners noyb.eu noyb.eu. He pointed out the irony that companies blamed the GDPR or EU law for the annoying banners, when in fact it was often the companies’ own design choices that made them so frustrating noyb.eu.
• 🟠 Minimal privacy benefit: Another critique is that the entire exercise often yields limited privacy improvement. Because so many users click “yes” without deliberation, advertisers still get the data in many cases. Users who want to protect their privacy have to be very persistent and tech-savvy (for instance, actively denying cookies on each site or using browser extensions). Some argue that the law created a false sense of security: people might think, “I’m protected because I see these privacy notices,” but in reality many just surrender their data anyway under the relentless design pressure. In other words, the consent framework may be more checkbox compliance than true privacy protection in practice. This criticism has been echoed by some academics and even lawmakers who worry that if everyone is clicking “OK” by default, we haven’t meaningfully enhanced privacy rights.
• 🟠 Impact on small businesses: Website owners and small businesses have also struggled. The rules can be confusing (what exactly is “strictly necessary”? do we need consent for Google Analytics? etc.), and compliance requires implementing and maintaining a consent solution. Many had to subscribe to consent-management services or hire consultants, which is an extra cost. If they get it wrong, they face the risk of fines or legal complaints. There’s a sentiment among some businesses that the EU approach was overly bureaucratic, forcing even low-risk sites to jump through hoops and scaring website owners with complex regulation. This has fed into a narrative (sometimes seen in media) that EU internet regulation, however well-meaning, ends up as red tape that hurts businesses without delivering proportional benefits.
• 🟠 Fragmentation and confusion: While the law aimed to harmonize privacy protection, initially there was a lot of fragmentation. Each country’s regulator had slightly different interpretations in the early 2010s. For example, France didn’t fully enforce explicit opt-in until around 2013–2014 when CNIL updated guidelines; Germany applied its Telemedia Act alongside GDPR; Spain had its own take, etc. This meant international websites had to juggle different expectations. Eventually, the GDPR (in 2018) helped unify the standard (e.g., by clarifying that silence or pre-ticked boxes do not equal consent). But even today, enforcement intensity varies: the French CNIL handed out multimillion-euro fines to the likes of Google and Amazon in 2020–21 for cookie violations, whereas some other countries have been less aggressive. This uneven enforcement has led to some companies taking compliance more seriously in certain markets than others – an unintended side-effect of how the rules rolled out.
• 🟠 Workarounds and new tracking methods: Knowing that cookies required consent, some actors looked for ways to circumvent the spirit of the law. Techniques like device fingerprinting (which gathers many data points to recognize a user without a cookie) gained traction – even though regulators say the consent rule applies to those techniques too. The arms race between privacy tech and tracking tech intensified. You could say the cookie law inadvertently pushed trackers to become more covert. It also pushed browsers to intervene (as mentioned, Safari and others started blocking cookies). So one consequence is that it hastened a move toward a more privacy-respecting browser environment – which is good for privacy but also an outcome that came about in a roundabout way due to the inefficacy of banners.

In summary, the cookie consent framework has been a classic case of good intentions meeting practical challenges. Virtually everyone agrees on the intention: people should have a say in how their data is used. But the implementation mechanism – asking every user, every time – has clearly been flawed. The barrage of pop-ups annoyed users, the manipulative designs undermined trust, and the actual privacy gains are debated. As a result, calls to reform or replace the system have grown louder each year. By highlighting these criticisms, we can better understand why the EU is now moving to change the rules yet again. The status quo, many feel, isn’t sustainable; it’s creating fatigue and cynicism about privacy notices, which ultimately helps no one.

The Push for Reform (2024–2025): Toward a New Cookie Consent Approach

Facing widespread discontent with the cookie consent status quo, the European authorities have been actively working on fixes. Over the past couple of years (2023–2025), several efforts to reform cookie rules have emerged, ranging from voluntary initiatives to legislative proposals. Here’s an overview of what’s been happening on the reform front:

1. The Unfulfilled Promise of the ePrivacy Regulation:
First, it’s important to note a broader context: the EU had long planned a major update in the form of an ePrivacy Regulation (ePR) to replace the old directive. This was supposed to align with the GDPR and, among other things, streamline cookie consent (potentially by allowing consent via browser settings). Initial drafts even suggested “goodbye to cookie banners” by honoring Do-Not-Track signals admin.mondaq.com. However, the ePrivacy Regulation became bogged down in negotiations for years, due to disagreements over various issues (not just cookies, but also things like confidentiality of communications and data retention). After almost a decade of debate, the European Commission officially withdrew the ePrivacy Regulation proposal in 2025 verasafe.com. This withdrawal acknowledged that the comprehensive overhaul wasn’t going to happen (at least not in that form). But importantly, the problem hadn’t vanished – the old ePrivacy Directive from 2002/2009 remains in force, and its limitations are increasingly problematic in the modern digital environment verasafe.com. So, the Commission decided to pursue more immediate, targeted fixes instead of an all-encompassing regulation.

2. The “Cookie Pledge” – A Voluntary Initiative (2023–2024):
In 2023, the European Commission (spearheaded by Didier Reynders, the Commissioner for Justice and Consumers) tried a soft-law approach: a voluntary “Cookies Pledge”. The idea was to bring together major players in the digital advertising ecosystem – big tech companies (Google, Meta, etc.), advertisers, publishers, and consumer organizations – and have them agree on a set of principles to improve the cookie consent experience iapp.org iapp.org. Throughout 2023, there were roundtable discussions and draft pledging principles circulated. These principles, seen as a pilot or stop-gap, included things like: making consent prompts less burdensome, giving users an easy reject option, stopping “pay or okay” practices, and exploring technical solutions for preference management iapp.org iapp.org. The European Data Protection Board was consulted to ensure any pledges wouldn’t conflict with existing law iapp.org.

For a time, this pledge approach generated buzz – could industry self-regulate to fix the problem? However, by April 2024, it became clear the cookie pledge was floundering. At the big Consumer Summit in April (where the pledge was supposed to be unveiled), nothing was announced. A Commission spokesperson frankly told Euronews that the initiative “failed to gain traction” euronews.com. The majority of stakeholders felt it was “premature,” especially since new EU laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) were just coming into effect, and they wanted to see those bed in first euronews.com. In essence, many companies weren’t ready to volunteer stricter measures that could potentially disadvantage them, preferring to wait for (or avoid) actual regulation. The pledge’s collapse underscored the difficulty of achieving consensus between privacy advocates and the ad industry. It was a bit of a setback for the Commission’s soft approach.

3. Regulatory “Plan B” – The Digital Omnibus and Targeted Reforms:
With the voluntary path yielding lukewarm results, the Commission turned back to legislation – but in a more surgical way than the defunct ePrivacy Regulation. In 2025, the Commission announced a “Digital Omnibus” package – essentially a set of quick amendments to various digital laws to simplify and update rules. One of the key targets is the cookie consent rule in the ePrivacy Directive. The goal, as stated, is to “focus on immediate adjustments” that can “limit consent fatigue” while still protecting users pinsentmasons.com pinsentmasons.com.

According to Commission documents, these changes would reduce the cases where consent is required and provide more practical ways for users to manage cookie preferences ppc.land ppc.land. In other words, rather than scrapping consent, they want to streamline when and how consent is asked:

• Some ideas include expanding the exceptions for harmless or first-party cookies. For example, many argue that basic audience measurement (analytics) could be exempted from consent if strict privacy safeguards are in place. If the rules allow certain low-risk cookies without consent, that would mean fewer banners for users to deal with.
• Another component is enabling centralized consent or refusal mechanisms. The Commission has floated the concept of “central cookie management,” where a user could, say, use their browser or a one-time setting to express cookie preferences, and websites would have to respect that ppc.land. This aligns with what many technologists have suggested: a return to something like the Do Not Track idea, but enforceable. In fact, one pledge principle explicitly was to explore solutions for users to set preferences in advance (like a setting to systematically refuse certain types of tracking) iapp.org.
• The Commission is also looking at legal clarity on what constitutes “rightful access and processing” of data via cookies pinsentmasons.com. This could involve clarifying ambiguous areas of the law that have led to over-cautious implementations. For instance, if a service uses cookies in a way that doesn’t actually invade privacy (like storing a preference on your device), perhaps consent isn’t needed – but today many such scenarios still trigger a banner because website owners fear non-compliance.

The Digital Omnibus initiative included a public consultation in late 2025, and stakeholders across industries have been giving feedback ppc.land. The timeline suggests the Commission will make formal legislative proposals by end of 2025 or early 2026, which would then need to be approved by the European Parliament and Council. If all goes smoothly (a big “if” in EU lawmaking), these amendments could be adopted perhaps in 2026, with a transition period before taking effect.

4. Key Principles and Proposals on the Table:
Drawing from the failed pledge and various policy discussions, we can outline some key reform proposals likely to shape the new approach:

• “Reject All” button mandate: Regulators want to end the era of misleading banners. There is broad agreement that any consent prompt must give an equally simple option to decline. France’s CNIL already enforces this (sites in France have added prominent “Reject” buttons to comply) verasafe.com. We can expect an EU-wide rule reinforcing that accepting or rejecting cookies should be equally easy and clear.
• Simplified first layer, fuller second layer: A user shouldn’t have to read a novella to understand cookie choices. The idea is to show minimal, crucial info up front (including who profits from tracking – e.g. an explanation if the site relies on ad revenue) iapp.org, and then let interested users click deeper for more details. This could make banners less overwhelming.
• No consent per each tracker: One pledge principle said “consent to cookies for advertising purposes should not be necessary for every single tracker.” iapp.org This hints at grouping purposes or companies so that one consent can cover multiple related things, rather than hitting the user with 20 checkboxes for each ad partner. Perhaps if a user says “yes, show me personalized ads,” the site could infer consent for associated tasks like measuring ad performance or frequency capping, without separate prompts for those technicalities.
• Addressing “cookie fatigue” via memory: A major cause of fatigue is having to repeat choices. The reform discussion includes a solution: websites should remember a user’s choice (especially a NO) for a reasonable time iapp.org. For example, if you refuse cookies on a site, that site might be allowed to store a small token or note so it doesn’t ask you again for, say, 6 months or a year. (Ironically, this might involve storing a cookie to remember you don’t want cookies – a privacy paradox, but solvable by making that particular cookie legally exempt as it’s used for privacy preference). This way, the most privacy-conscious users wouldn’t be confronted with the same banner every single visit. The pledge suggested a one-year period as a reasonable timeframe before asking again iapp.org.
• Browser/OS-based preference signals: Perhaps the most transformative idea is letting users set a one-time preference (like a browser setting or a plugin indicating “never track” or “only essential cookies”) and having all sites respect it. This was considered in the original ePrivacy Regulation drafts and is now back in focus. If technically standardized (e.g. through something like the emerging Global Privacy Control (GPC) signal or similar), this could effectively eliminate the need for individual banners – your browser would communicate your choice to each site automatically. The Commission is very interested in this, but it requires coordination with tech companies and might be voluntary unless baked into law. The pledge explicitly had stakeholders discuss this possibility iapp.org.
• Ensuring genuine choice (no coercion): Regulators, guided by the EDPB, insist that any new regime must maintain that consent is free and not forced. So practices that undermine that – like the aforementioned cookie walls that have no free alternative – are likely to be directly addressed. We might see rules that if a site uses a “consent or subscribe” model, the alternative must be fair (e.g. the subscription price not exorbitant, or a truly less personalized ad experience provided) iapp.org. Essentially, the law may codify that privacy cannot be a luxury good – users shouldn’t be strong-armed into paying for basic privacy.

It’s clear the Commission and data protection authorities are trying to thread a needle: keep the core idea of user consent and privacy control, but eliminate the aspects that have made it impractical. They want to reduce the frequency of consent prompts and make the necessary ones more meaningful.

5. Stakeholder Input and Reactions:
During this reform process, various stakeholders have been lobbying and giving opinions:

• Privacy regulators & advocates: They largely support making consent less of a farce. The EDPB (comprised of EU data protection regulators) gave an opinion on the Commission’s pledging principles, basically endorsing the goals but warning against weakening any legal rights iapp.org. Privacy NGOs like noyb, Access Now, BEUC (European consumer organization) have argued for things like global opt-out signals and a stricter ban on manipulative designs. They’re pushing to ensure that any simplification doesn’t equate to loopholes for trackers, but rather genuinely shifts the power to users (for example, a browser-based opt-out that must be honored would be a huge win for user control in their eyes).
• Industry (advertising, publishers, tech): Reactions here are mixed. There is general agreement that the current situation is suboptimal (advertisers know users hate the banners, and consent rates in some cases are low, which is bad for business). So they too want a better system – but their idea of “better” can differ. Big publishers and media groups have a specific worry: if browsers start controlling consent (say, a user sets a blanket “no tracking” in Chrome or Safari), that could drastically cut off data flows and also potentially put power in the hands of browser makers (like Google, Apple) who might then mediate the advertising relationship iapp.org. European publishers have long been wary of Apple’s ITP (Intelligent Tracking Prevention) for example, because it hurt their ad revenues by blocking cookies. They don’t want to cede even more control to the tech giants. Advertisers and ad tech firms also argue for nuance – e.g., they lobby that not all cookies are for “tracking” in the nefarious sense. Some are for analytics, some for personalization that users might actually want (like remembering video volume levels or content recommendations). They urge that the new rules should differentiate and not apply a blunt opt-in requirement to every single use case iapp.org. They also emphasize the need for legal certainty: if they are to invest in new solutions (like contextual ads or new tech), they want to know the rules won’t keep shifting.
• EU Institutions: Within the EU, any legal change will be negotiated by the Council (member state governments) and the European Parliament. Historically, some countries are more privacy-protective (e.g. Germany, France) while others prioritize minimizing burden on business. In Parliament, there’s a strong pro-privacy contingent as well. With EU elections in 2024 and a new Commission taking office in late 2024, the political landscape is evolving. The current push has momentum, but we will likely see debates on the details. For instance, if a Digital Advertising Act is proposed in the next Commission’s term, it could face heavy lobbying. One insightful comment from Reynders (the Commissioner behind the pledge) was that if voluntary steps failed, it would strengthen the argument in the next mandate (post-2024) to introduce mandatory rules iapp.org iapp.org. Now that the pledge did fail, it won’t be surprising if the 2025–2029 Commission moves forward with stricter measures.

In fact, Reynders has hinted that the consumer protection side of the Commission moved into this area partly because the dedicated tech-policy department (which was stuck with the ePrivacy Regulation impasse) wasn’t delivering results iapp.org. So there’s even a bit of internal EU turf dynamics – but ultimately the impetus to solve cookie consent problems is shared across the board.

6. Outlook and Next Steps:
As of late 2025, we’re in the middle of this reform process. The Digital Omnibus consultation has ended ppc.land, and we await concrete legislative text. The Commission aims for relatively quick fixes (since these are amendments, not whole new laws, in theory faster to agree). If and when adopted, there will likely be a transition period for companies to adapt their cookie practices to the new rules. So realistically, 2026 might be the year we start seeing visible changes on websites – perhaps fewer banners, or new types of prompts influenced by the rules (for instance, maybe initial prompts that say “set your privacy preferences for all sites” or more standardized icons indicating your choice).

It’s also worth mentioning that technology might assist. Browser developers could implement built-in consent management interfaces. There’s active discussion in web standards groups about how a user could store a general preference and how sites could query it. If the EU gives a legal blessing to that approach, tech companies are more likely to build it. The result could be a scenario where, say, you update your browser or phone settings and from then on, you simply stop seeing most cookie banners because your preference is being communicated silently (one can hope!).

In summary, the reform push is about making the web user-friendlier while preserving privacy choices. It’s a response to the loud and clear feedback that the current consent model isn’t working well. The coming changes won’t eliminate the need for consent in many cases – but they aim to eliminate the repetitive nuisance and inefficiency. As we move into 2024 and 2025, keep an eye on announcements from Brussels: cookie rules are now front and center in the EU’s digital policy agenda once again.

Quotes and Insights from Regulators, Advocates, and Industry

To capture the sentiment around the EU’s cookie consent laws and the push for change, here are a few telling quotes and viewpoints from different sides:

• Max Schrems (Privacy Activist, NOYB): Schrems has been one of the most vocal critics of manipulative cookie banners. In launching NOYB’s campaign against unlawful banners, he remarked on how companies twist the intent of the law: “A whole industry of consultants and designers develop crazy click labyrinths to ensure imaginary consent rates. Frustrating people into clicking ‘okay’ is a clear violation of the GDPR’s principles… Companies openly admit that only 3% of all users actually want to accept cookies, but more than 90% can be nudged into clicking the ‘agree’ button.” noyb.eu. This quote encapsulates why many see the current system as broken – it’s essentially tricking users, not respecting their genuine choices.
• European Commission (spokesperson on the Cookie Pledge): When the Commission’s voluntary pledge failed to launch, an official spokesperson explained, “The majority of stakeholders involved… considered that introducing a voluntary approach relating to digital advertising was ‘premature’ considering the recent entry into application of new legislation in the field, such as the DSA and DMA” euronews.com. In other words, industry players weren’t ready to sign on, partly because they felt they were already dealing with a lot of new rules. The Commission diplomatically noted it “will continue to reflect on possible measures… in the future” euronews.com – a hint that binding regulation might be the next step.
• Didier Reynders (EU Commissioner for Justice and Consumers): Reynders spearheaded the pledge and indicated that if it didn’t work, regulation could follow. In a late 2022 interview he said voluntary commitments are “maybe a first step… After that pilot phase, we can see if it’s needed to come up with a regulation to impose the best possible practices to all the actors.” iapp.org. This quote shows the mindset: try collaboration first, but be ready with law if cooperation fails. Now, given how things unfolded, it sets the stage for upcoming regulatory intervention.
• Enrico Girotto (Head of Policy, Federation of European Data and Marketing – an industry group): Representing an industry perspective, Girotto commented on the pledge, “Though the EDPB has welcomed the objectives of the initiative, there is no guarantee whether the operationalization of these pledges will ensure compliance with the GDPR or the implementation of the ePrivacy Directive… [The initiative] raises more questions than answers.” iapp.org iapp.org. He pointed out that the pledge had no clear legal standing (no incentives or safe harbors for those who sign), and that it tried to reduce information overload while ironically adding new info requirements (like explaining business models). This highlights industry’s skepticism about well-meaning but complex schemes that might not solve the fundamental issues.
• European Data Protection Board (EDPB) Opinion: In its review of the Commission’s draft principles, the EDPB stressed a core privacy doctrine: consent must be free. It noted, for instance, that if a service offers an alternative to tracking that costs money (a subscription), the cost difference must not be so big as to effectively coerce users into consenting. They wrote that consent is only valid if there’s “no risk of coercion or significant negative consequences like substantial extra costs if no consent is given.” iapp.org. This stance is basically pushing back against the “pay or okay” model – reinforcing that from a regulator’s view, free choice means a real choice, not a Hobson’s choice.
• Publishers (Media sector concerns): While not a single quote, a commonly expressed view from news publishers and online media is concern over browser-level solutions. They argue something like: “If browsers are allowed to decide cookie settings for users by default, it could further empower companies like Google or Apple at our expense. We support user privacy, but solutions must involve publishers – otherwise we may lose the direct relationship with our readers and the ability to sustain advertising revenue.” This concern was reflected in the stakeholder feedback where the media sector opposed centralizing preferences at the browser level, fearing disintermediation by Big Tech iapp.org.
• Consumer Advocates (e.g. BEUC, national consumer orgs): These voices emphasize the daily frustration consumers face. A typical sentiment: “Internet users shouldn’t have to click through dozens of confusing banners to protect their privacy. The system must change so that the default is privacy-friendly – for example, by letting people set their choices once. We welcome the Commission’s recognition that consent fatigue is real and harmful.” Consumer organizations have generally applauded the recognition of consent fatigue and pushed for measures like global opt-out and banning deceptive designs. They often cite that confidence in digital services increases if people feel their choices are respected, which is good for everyone in the long run.

In essence, regulators and privacy advocates are strongly aligned in saying the current approach needs fixing to restore meaningful consent, whereas industry stakeholders agree on the need for change but want to ensure any new system is workable and doesn’t unduly harm legitimate business models or give even more gatekeeping power to a few tech firms. These quotes and perspectives underline the balancing act the EU faces: how to simplify the cookie consent process and strengthen privacy without unintended side-effects on the digital economy.

What the Future Holds: Impact of the Changes on Users, Publishers, and Advertisers

With reforms on the horizon, what might the future of cookie consent look like – and how will it affect the various parties involved? Let’s consider the potential impacts on users, publishers (website owners/content providers), and advertisers/Ad tech:

For Users (General Public)

Less annoyance, more control – that’s the promise. If the reforms proceed as envisioned, users in the EU could finally see a dent in those relentless pop-ups. In practical terms, this could mean: you visit a website and no banner appears because either the site didn’t need to ask (thanks to relaxed rules for certain cookies) or your browser already told it your preference. Imagine a browsing experience where you’ve pre-set “No tracking cookies” in your device once, and thereafter you largely browse uninterrupted. Consent prompts might become far less frequent. And when you do see them, they should be more straightforward – e.g. a clear choice to accept or reject, with honest information about what’s at stake. This would reduce the mental burden on users.

Importantly, user trust might increase. Many internet users have grown cynical, assuming that no matter what they click, they’re being tracked. If the new system is more transparent and respects a user’s one-time choices, people may feel more in control of their personal data. For those who do value privacy strongly, the future could allow them to enforce that preference broadly without fighting a battle on each site. On the other hand, users who don’t mind personalization could still opt in easily and get the tailored content/ads if they wish – but it would be a more conscious choice rather than a tricked one.

There’s also the aspect of user education. As part of reforms, we might see campaigns or clearer messaging explaining options (for instance, a browser might have a setup screen: “Do you want to allow websites to show you personalized content based on tracking? Yes/No”). This could increase general awareness about online privacy. One subtle effect might be fewer “cookie consent” jokes and memes – as the pain point diminishes, the topic might fade a bit from popular frustration. However, the transition period might be confusing; users will need to adapt to a new approach (perhaps learning to use new browser privacy settings). Overall, though, if done right, users stand to benefit the most – enjoying a smoother web experience with their privacy choices better respected.

For Publishers and Website Owners

Publishers have a dual stake: they care about user experience on their site, but also often rely on advertising income which in turn relies on data. In the short term, publishers will have to adapt their consent implementations to whatever new rules come. This might mean investing in updated consent management tools that can, for example, read a browser’s preference signal or implement the new “don’t ask again for X time if user said no” logic. There could be some development cost, but many will be happy to do it if it means less friction for their audience (happy readers are more likely to stay).

If certain analytics or first-party marketing cookies no longer need consent, publishers can also breathe a sigh of relief – they can gather some basic metrics or run certain site features without worrying about a user’s refusal. That could improve functionality (for instance, a language preference cookie could be set without a nag screen).

However, for cookies/trackers that are truly third-party advertising-related, publishers will have to navigate possibly lower opt-in rates in a scenario where users can globally opt out. If a significant chunk of users effectively say “no tracking” via a browser setting, the publisher’s ad inventory (the space they sell to advertisers) might fetch lower prices because it’s not targetable. This is a continuation of a trend they’re already experiencing with things like Safari’s cookie blocking.

Some publishers might respond by doubling down on contextual advertising (selling ads based on content or context, not personal data). Others might try to cultivate more logged-in users (first-party data) through subscriptions or memberships, since consent rules generally allow more leeway when the data is collected in the context of a logged-in, direct relationship. We might see more sites asking users to create free accounts – trading some data directly with the site rather than with dozens of third parties.

From a regulatory risk perspective, simpler rules could help publishers avoid fines. Today, a small website might inadvertently violate cookie rules and risk penalties; tomorrow, if the obligations are clearer and lighter for certain cookies, compliance is easier. It’s worth noting that some national laws (like in France) have already forced publishers to improve banners (with reject buttons, etc.), so many larger publishers are already implementing best practices. They will welcome an EU-wide leveling that forces all players (including non-European sites targeting EU users) to play by the same improved rules – no more undercutting by those who ignore consent hoping users won’t notice.

For Advertisers and Ad Tech Companies

This group will likely see a mix of challenges and new opportunities. On one hand, if the reforms tilt toward more users opting out (due to easier mechanisms to do so), advertisers lose some granular targeting ability. The worst-case fear for advertisers is an environment where a majority of users effectively say “don’t track me,” leading to a significant loss of data for personalized advertising. This could make online advertising less efficient, potentially raising costs or reducing returns on ad spend. Ad tech intermediaries that heavily rely on third-party cookie data might need to pivot or risk obsolescence.

On the other hand, the current consent paradigm has high transaction costs and legal uncertainties for industry. A clearer, standardized system might actually reduce compliance overhead in the long run. Advertisers could spend less time worrying about whether the data they’re using was lawfully obtained via some convoluted banner, and more time exploring privacy-friendly marketing techniques. We might see growth in cohorts or contextual ad products that do not require individual tracking consent (Google’s proposed Topics API is one example where ads can be semi-targeted without identifying the user). If those become more accepted, advertisers will adapt to using them.

There’s also an incentive for industry to innovate in privacy-enhancing tech (PET). The Commission explicitly hopes that by nudging away from the personal-data free-for-all, it will “incentivize privacy-enhancing technology development” ppc.land. This could mean things like better algorithms for targeting ads to context, or on-device processing that matches ads to user interests without sharing raw data. Ad tech companies that pivot to such models could thrive in the new landscape.

It’s possible that larger platforms (Google, Facebook) will maintain a strong position because they have so much first-party data and login information that the changes won’t hit them as hard as the open web. However, even those giants are under pressure – regulatory and public – to offer more privacy options (witness Meta offering an ad-free subscription in Europe as an option). They will likely adjust by providing users more clear choices and perhaps more anonymization under the hood. We might also see more partnerships between publishers and advertisers to share data responsibly (with user consent) in data clean rooms or other controlled environments, as a workaround to third-party cookies vanishing.

In summary, advertisers and ad tech will need to become more privacy-centric by design. The days of quietly dropping trackers are ending; the future is about either getting explicit user buy-in for personalization or finding ways to achieve marketing goals without personal data. Advertisers who rely on broad reach and contextual targeting may find little change (their ads will still be seen, just maybe less hyper-targeted). Those who relied on micro-targeting may have to recalibrate strategies – focusing more on content, creativity, and aggregate data rather than individual tracking.

A More Balanced Digital Ecosystem?

If the reforms strike the right balance, we could see a digital ecosystem where users are less harassed and more empowered, publishers can still fund content but perhaps through slightly altered means (more context, more direct user relationships), and advertisers can still reach audiences but with improved transparency and perhaps via new tech solutions. Ideally, the most pernicious current practices (like confusing consent prompts and invisible data brokers tracking people) would be curtailed, restoring a bit of the straightforwardness of web browsing.

Of course, much will depend on implementation. There will likely be a learning curve as the new rules roll out. Companies might test the boundaries, and regulators will need to keep an eye out for any new forms of manipulative practices that could emerge (for example, if global browser signals take off, will some websites try to ignore them or find loopholes?). Enforcement will remain key – the rules only matter if overseen.

In conclusion, the upcoming changes to the EU’s cookie consent laws aim to address the well-known failings of the current framework. For the general public, it holds the promise of a smoother online experience with robust privacy choices that aren’t a daily hassle en.wikipedia.org. For businesses, it’s a signal to innovate and rebuild trust – those who adapt early to user-friendly, privacy-first approaches may actually engender more user loyalty and avoid regulatory wrath. The spirit of the original law – giving people agency over their online data – is set to be reinvigorated with a dose of practical common sense. If all goes as planned, we might finally be able to say a grateful “good riddance” to the worst of the cookie banner era, while still preserving the fundamental right to privacy that kick-started this entire journey gdpr.eu.

Sources:

• European Commission, ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and 2009 Amendment – introduced the requirement for prior consent for cookies en.wikipedia.org.
• GDPR.eu (Proton/EU co-funded resource), Overview of Cookies and EU Law – notes the ePrivacy Directive became known as the “cookie law” due to the pop-ups it spawned gdpr.eu.
• Wikipedia (ePrivacy Directive) – highlights that cookie consent banners are widely regarded as a nuisance and that Europeans lose ~575 million hours a year clicking them en.wikipedia.org.
• NOYB.eu – Max Schrems’ comments on “cookie banner terror” and companies using dark patterns to game consent (Press release, 31 May 2021) noyb.eu noyb.eu.
• Pinsent Masons (Out-Law News) – “EU to address ‘consent fatigue’…” (18 Sept 2025) quoting the European Commission on plans to limit consent fatigue and clarify cookie rules pinsentmasons.com.
• Euronews – “Commission’s data cookie pledge crumbles” (23 Apr 2024), detailing the failure of the voluntary cookie pledge and stakeholder reluctance euronews.com euronews.com.
• IAPP (Privacy Advisor) – “EU crusade against web cookies faces uncertain future” (18 Jan 2024) with in-depth analysis of the draft pledge principles and stakeholder reactions iapp.org iapp.org iapp.org.
• PPC Land – “Commission launches effort to simplify EU digital rules” (21 Sep 2025), summary of Digital Omnibus proposal aiming to cut consent fatigue and reduce cases needing consent ppc.land ppc.land.
• Euractiv – various reporting on EU plans to reduce cookie banners and discussions of a possible Digital Advertising Act iapp.org.
• European Commission – “Cookies Pledge” page (2023) for background on the voluntary initiative iapp.org iapp.org.
• European Data Protection Board – Opinion on cookie pledge (2023), emphasizing need for free consent (cited via IAPP) iapp.org.
• National DPA guidance: e.g. CNIL (France) requiring “Reject All” option verasafe.com, and Belgian DPA enforcement actions imposing fines for non-compliant consent mechanisms ppc.land.