On a web page, I received a cookie pop-up that looked like this:

enter image description here

Which reads as:

We use cookies. You probably don't care. Click the button to get rid of this pointless message.

Whatever (the button)

This seems pretty lax and lazy.

Does it comply with cookie laws?

If it helps, I am in the USA.

I have very little legal experience, so tell me if I should clarify or add details.

  • 1
    GDPR does not cover cookies - that’s a different EU regulation
    – Dale M
    Commented Mar 5, 2021 at 20:32
  • Thank you @DaleM. That further pushes my point of very little legal experience. ;) Commented Mar 5, 2021 at 20:35

1 Answer 1


The ePrivacy Directive

Cookies are governed in the EU by the ePrivacy Directive which was first passed in 2002, and revised in 2009. However, if a site places a cookie, and later reads the cookie and stores an indication of the cookie content, this may be personal information and thus also subject to GDPR rules.

(Other privacy laws, such as the CCPA, may also impose requirements on cookie use, when they apply.)

Note that the so-called "EU cookie law" is a directive and not a regulation. This means that it is up to the various EU countries to implement it in their national legislation, and different countries may implement it in different ways. It would be the actual laws in individual EU countries that would be binding on website operators, and I am not going to try to find and analyze all the various laws on the topic.

Paragraph 25 of the directive (linked above) reads:

However, such devices, for instance so-called "cookies", can be a legitimate and useful tool, for example, in analysing the effectiveness of website design and advertising, and in verifying the identity of users engaged in on-line transactions. Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important where users other than the original user have access to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such equipment. Information and the right to refuse may be offered once for the use of various devices to be installed on the user's terminal equipment during the same connection and also covering any further use that may be made of those devices during subsequent connections. The methods for giving information, offering a right to refuse or requesting consent should be made as user-friendly as possible. Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.

This should mean, if implemented straightforwardly, that cookies, beyond those absolutely essential to the operation of a site, can only be placed if a user is notified of the intention to place them, and freely consents. This can be done once per user, on an initial session. Users are supposed to be provided with provided with "clear and precise information". I do not think a simple statement that the site uses cookies fulfills this. At the very least the purposes for which cookies will be used should be provided. The directive does not make clear what level of detail about individual cookies such a notice must provide.

The notice described in the question neither describes the purpose of cookie placement, nor does it offer any meaningful choice to accept or reject them. As such, I do not think it would be compliant with the directive. If cookies are read back (which is after all pretty much the point of having them) and can be potentially identified with an individual, then under the GDPR (article 6) there must be a lawful basis for processing them, and the interaction above would not be enough to establish consent as a lawful basis. There might be some other basis that does not require consent, however.

Interpretations from others

This page from cookiebot explains some of the history of the directive, and how it contrasts with the GDPR (which is a regulation, and so is directly applicable without the action of national legislatures).

This page from The Verge discusses recent changes in the directive and the guidelines for applying it, and criticizes how it has been complied with, and ignored, by many sites.

Cookies and the GDPR

This page, "GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive", from GDPR.EU says:

... cookies, insofar as they are used to identify users, qualify as personal data and are therefore subject to the GDPR. Companies do have a right to process their users’ data as long as they receive consent or if they have a legitimate interest.

Passed in the 2002 and amended in 2009, the ePrivacy Directive (EPD) has become known as the “cookie law” since its most notable effect was the proliferation of cookie consent pop-ups after it was passed. It supplements (and in some cases, overrides) the GDPR, addressing crucial aspects about the confidentiality of electronic communications and the tracking of Internet users more broadly.

To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:

  • Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
  • Provide accurate and specific information about the data each cookie tracks and its purpose in plain language before consent is received.
  • Document and store consent received from users.
  • Allow users to access your service even if they refuse to allow the use of certain cookies
  • Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place.

That page also describes the proposed ePrivacy Regulation which, if passed, will replace the current directive, and links to drafts of it.


The site described in the question probably does not comply with legislation implementing the ePrivacy directive. Depending on where it is hosted and targeted, and what it does with cookies that it sets, it may fail to comply with the GDPR as well.

There has been very little enforcement of the directive so far. This may change in the future, particularly if it is replaced by a regulation, as has been proposed.

  • Cookie consent enforcement is very uneven, with some regulators such as the ICO saying outright that it's not a priority. However, there were cases like Spain's fine for Vueling airline (€30k, visitors couldn't consent only for specific cookie purposes) and the Planet49 case (opt-out had been used instead of consent). The GDPR is relevant here because it defines "consent".
    – amon
    Commented Mar 6, 2021 at 6:32
  • 1
    @amon True. Bu tthe GDPR is also relevant because the content of a cookie can easily become PI being processed by the controller. Commented Mar 6, 2021 at 14:13
  • What if a site includes information from cookies in error logs for the purpose of quickly distinguishing situations where a few users experience frequent errors from those where many users experience occasional errors, and such information is not intended to facilitate tracking of users but might potentially be abusable for that purpose by someone who was able to induce transient failures that would end up getting logged?
    – supercat
    Commented Feb 23, 2023 at 23:12
  • @Supercat Such uses might be considered to come under "strictly necessary". It is almost always the case that PD being processed could be abused. That is why a DC must take appropriate precautions, including contracts restricting those who have access for maintenance purposes. Whether including cookie data in logs is appropriate or not will depend on exactly what is included, who has access to the logs, and under what conditions. Until we have case law or at least DPA decisions, one can only speculate. Commented Feb 24, 2023 at 0:20
  • @DavidSiegel: My question is how the term "strictly necessary" would be interpreted in cases where information is logged without an immediate usage, but to ensure that it will be available if it turns out to be necessary for system diagnostics. If it turns out that client-side scripts fail on a certain browser when a particular plug-in is installed, improving the user experience of people using those plug-ins would be impossible if one didn't have information about browser configuration, and the fact that one happened to find the problem by building a table of configurations for which...
    – supercat
    Commented Feb 24, 2023 at 16:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .