Google Analytics, Cookies, and Regulatory Compliance in UK and EU Laws

Disclaimer: This is research, not legal advice. Seek professional legal advice if unsure about your own situation.

The digital privacy landscape has undergone a profound transformation since the original article’s context of 2011-2012, so I thought it was worth updating.

Key developments include the full enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) across the European Union, the United Kingdom’s post-Brexit divergence with its own UK GDPR and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR), and the recent enactment of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Furthermore, the anticipated ePrivacy Regulation proposal has been formally withdrawn, and the widespread adoption of Google Analytics 4 (GA4) has introduced new privacy features alongside persistent compliance challenges.

For website owners, these shifts necessitate an urgent re-evaluation of current practices. Immediate actions are crucial to ensure compliance and mitigate significant financial and reputational risks. This includes a thorough audit of all cookie usage, the implementation of robust Consent Management Platforms (CMPs), careful configuration of GA4 for privacy, and a nuanced understanding of the evolving legal requirements in both the UK and EU.

1. The Evolving Landscape of Digital Privacy Regulations

The current legal framework governing online data collection and cookies is complex, characterised by both interconnectedness and divergence between EU and UK laws. Understanding these foundational regulations is paramount for any entity operating online.

1.1. The Enduring ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and its Relationship with GDPR

The original article heavily referenced the ePrivacy Directive, specifically the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 in the UK. It is important to clarify that the core ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) remains a foundational EU law for electronic communications privacy, encompassing rules on cookies and similar technologies.[1, 2, 3] This Directive requires individual EU member states to implement its provisions into their national laws.[2, 4]

The ePrivacy Directive complements the broader General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While the GDPR governs the processing of personal data across various contexts, the ePrivacy Directive provides specific rules for electronic communications, most notably requiring prior user consent for the use of non-essential cookies.[2, 3, 4, 5] The stringent definition of “consent” under the GDPR—mandating it to be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous—directly applies to the consent requirements stipulated by the ePrivacy Directive.[5, 6]

A significant development since the original article’s publication is the formal withdrawal of the proposed ePrivacy Regulation by the European Commission on February 11, 2025.[4, 7, 8] This proposal aimed to replace the existing Directive with a directly applicable regulation, thereby harmonising rules across the EU. However, its withdrawal was attributed to a “lack of consensus” among legislators and the recognition that the proposal had become “outdated” in light of recent technological and legislative changes.[8] This outcome means that the current ePrivacy Directive and the national laws derived from it will continue to apply.[4, 8] This perpetuates a fragmented regulatory environment for cookie consent across the EU, as national implementations can vary. Businesses operating across multiple EU member states must continue to navigate these subtle differences, which can increase compliance complexity compared to what a single, directly applicable regulation would have offered. This also suggests that the issue of “cookie banner fatigue” will persist without a harmonised, simplified approach from the EU legislative side.

1.2. The UK’s Distinct Path: UK GDPR, PECR, and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

Following its departure from the European Union, the UK adopted its own version of the GDPR, known as the UK-GDPR, which came into effect on January 31, 2020. Concurrently, the UK retained the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR), which serve as the national implementation of the ePrivacy Directive within the UK.[3, 9] PECR specifically governs various electronic communications, including marketing calls, emails, texts, faxes, and, critically, the use of cookies and similar technologies on websites.[3, 10]

A pivotal legislative update in the UK is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), which received Royal Assent on June 19, 2025.[11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] This Act introduces notable changes to the UK’s data protection and privacy legislation, including amendments to PECR. While the DUAA does not replace the UK GDPR or PECR, its purpose is to simplify existing rules and foster innovation within the digital economy.[15, 16]

The DUAA introduces significant adjustments to cookie consent requirements by rewriting Regulation 6 of PECR.[11, 12, 17] Previously, the general rule under PECR was that consent was required for almost all cookies, leading to concerns about “consent fatigue” among users.[18] The DUAA introduces four new exceptions to this general consent requirement, joining the existing “strictly necessary” exception.[17]

The five cookie exceptions under the DUAA are:

1. Communication Exception: This applies when the sole purpose of the cookie is for the transmission of a communication, and the transmission would be impossible without the use of that particular technology. Examples include device fingerprinting used exclusively for network management or session cookies for load balancing.[17]
2. Strictly Necessary Exception (Existing): This exception applies when the cookie’s purpose is essential to provide a service explicitly requested by the user. The service cannot technically be provided without these cookies. Examples include remembering items in an online shopping basket, ensuring security, preventing fraud, detecting technical faults, or authenticating a user. Importantly, this exception does not extend to cross-device tracking, online advertising, or social media plug-ins.[17]
3. Statistical Purposes Exception: This applies when the sole purpose of cookies is to collect information for statistical analysis about how an online service or website is used, with the aim of making improvements. It is specifically for Information Society Services and focuses on the use of the service rather than identifying, tracking, or monitoring individuals or groups. This exception does not apply to online advertising. While consent is not required, clear and comprehensive information about these cookies and a “simple and free” means to opt-out must be provided. Third-party analytics providers are permitted under this exception only if they act solely as processors for this purpose, not as joint or separate controllers, necessitating appropriate data processing agreements.[17]
4. Appearance Exception: This applies when the sole purpose is to adapt the way the service appears or functions based on the user’s preferences, such as remembering a selected language on a multilingual website. Similar to the statistical purposes exception, it requires clear information and a “simple and free” opt-out mechanism.[17]
5. Emergency Assistance Exception: This applies if the sole purpose is to identify the geographical position of a user’s device to provide emergency assistance, provided the user has specifically requested such assistance. This includes using GPS-based location information.[17]

The introduction of these new exceptions represents a notable relaxation in the UK’s cookie consent requirements, particularly for first-party analytics and functional cookies.[12, 17] This legislative adjustment aims to reduce the burden of blanket consent and address the pervasive “consent fatigue” experienced by users, while still preserving user control through an opt-out mechanism.[18] This approach creates an “international fragmentation” [18] where companies operating in both the EU and UK will face divergent cookie compliance regimes. While UK businesses may gain increased flexibility, those with EU users must continue to adhere to the stricter EU consent requirements. This policy shift reflects an attempt to balance privacy protection with commercial realities and user experience.[18]

1.3. The Digital Markets Act (DMA): Implications for Large Online Platforms

The Digital Markets Act (DMA), which became effective in November 2022, is a significant piece of EU legislation that designates large online platforms, such as Google, as “gatekeepers”.[19, 20] Its primary objective is to ensure fair and open digital markets by imposing specific obligations on these dominant entities.[20]

While the DMA is fundamentally an antitrust and competition law rather than a direct data privacy regulation, it has an indirect yet profound impact on cookie practices. The Act requires gatekeepers to align their operations with its objectives, which has led Google to introduce Consent Mode V2. This framework enables advertisers and website owners to capture data from users in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the UK while complying with the DMA’s principles.[19] The DMA also mandates enhanced transparency for advertising tools and explicitly prohibits the use of “dark patterns”—misleading interface designs that manipulate users into unintended choices.[20, 21, 22]

The DMA’s influence illustrates how different digital regulations, such as competition law and data privacy law, are becoming increasingly intertwined. A company’s compliance with one set of regulations can necessitate changes that directly impact its adherence to others. For instance, even if a website owner is not directly classified as a “gatekeeper” under the DMA, they are indirectly compelled to adopt privacy-enhancing technologies like Google Consent Mode V2 because their service providers (e.g., Google) are subject to the DMA’s requirements. This interconnectedness means that businesses must consider the broader regulatory ecosystem, rather than focusing solely on the direct applicability of a single law, to ensure comprehensive compliance.

Table 1: Key Data Privacy Regulations (EU & UK) Overview

Regulation Name	Jurisdiction	Type	Effective Date (or Royal Assent/Withdrawal)	Primary Focus	Key Impact on Cookies/Tracking
ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC)	EU	Directive	2002 (Implemented nationally)	Confidentiality of electronic communications	Requires prior user consent for non-essential cookies; complements GDPR.
GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)	EU	Regulation	May 25, 2018	Broad personal data processing	Sets standards for valid consent (freely given, specific, informed, unambiguous); applies to cookie consent.
UK GDPR	UK	Regulation	January 31, 2020	Broad personal data processing in the UK	UK’s equivalent of EU GDPR; applies the same consent standards.
PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003)	UK	Regulations	2003 (Amended over time)	Electronic communications, including cookies	UK implementation of the ePrivacy Directive requires consent for non-essential cookies.
Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA)	UK	Act	Royal Assent: June 19, 2025 (Phased implementation)	Data sharing, digital verification, amendments to UK GDPR & PECR	Introduces new exceptions to cookie consent for statistical and appearance purposes (opt-out required, not consent).
Digital Markets Act (DMA)	EU	Regulation	November 2022	Fair and open digital markets for gatekeepers	Indirectly impacts cookies by requiring gatekeepers (e.g., Google) to ensure fair practices, leading to tools like Consent Mode V2.
Digital Services Act (DSA)	EU	Regulation	November 2022	Online safety, transparency, and accountability for online platforms	Bans “dark patterns” and certain targeted advertising (e.g., for minors or sensitive data), influencing cookie consent interface design.

 

2. Cookies and Tracking Technologies: Current Standards and Requirements

This section elaborates on the specifics of cookie usage, defining valid consent and outlining practices that are no longer permissible under modern privacy standards.

2.1. Defining and Categorising Cookies: Beyond the Basics

Cookies are small files saved on a user’s device, such as a computer, phone, or tablet, when they visit a website.[2, 23, 24] The regulatory framework extends beyond traditional HTTP cookies to encompass “similar technologies” that store or access information on a user’s device. This includes HTML5 Local Storage, web beacons, Flash cookies, and device fingerprinting, all of which are covered by ePrivacy and PECR.[2, 24, 25]

Cookies are generally categorised based on their purpose, which in turn dictates their consent requirements:

• Necessary/Essential Cookies: These cookies are strictly required for a website to function correctly and to provide a service explicitly requested by the user. Examples include remembering items in a shopping cart, ensuring security in online banking, or user authentication. These types of cookies typically do not require explicit user consent in either the EU or the UK.[2, 5, 6, 25, 26, 27]
• Preference/Functionality Cookies: These cookies remember user choices and settings, such as language preferences or currency. In the UK, under the new Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, these cookies are now exempt from the consent requirement if their sole purpose is to adapt the service’s appearance or function based on user preferences. However, clear information about their use and a “simple and free” opt-out mechanism must still be provided.[5, 17]
• Statistical/Analytics Cookies: These cookies collect information for statistical purposes about how an online service or website is used, with the objective of making improvements. In the UK, the DUAA 2025 also exempts these from the consent requirement if their sole purpose is statistical analysis of service usage. Similar to preference cookies, they necessitate clear information and an opt-out option. It is crucial to note that this exemption is not broad and does not cover identifying, tracking, or monitoring individuals, nor does it apply to online advertising.[6, 17, 27]
• Marketing/Advertising Cookies: These are used for purposes such as behavioural tracking, delivering personalised advertisements, and building user profiles. These cookies always require explicit, opt-in consent from users in both the EU and the UK, as they are considered privacy-intrusive.[6, 17]

2.2. The Gold Standard of Consent: Freely Given, Specific, Informed, Unambiguous

The standard for valid consent, heavily influenced by the GDPR, is rigorous and applies to cookie consent under both EU GDPR and UK GDPR. Consent must be:

• Freely Given: Users must have a genuine choice, without being coerced or penalised for refusing consent.
• Specific: Consent must be given for clearly defined purposes, not as a blanket acceptance for all data processing.
• Informed: Users must receive clear and comprehensive information about what data is being collected, why, by whom, and for how long, before they make a choice.[5, 25, 28]
• Unambiguous Indication of the User’s Wishes: Consent requires a clear, affirmative action, such as clicking an “Accept” button. Pre-ticked boxes or inferring consent from continued browsing are not considered valid.[5, 6, 25, 28, 29]

Furthermore, consent must be granular, meaning users should be able to consent to specific categories of cookies (e.g., analytics, marketing) rather than being presented with an “all or nothing” choice.[5, 6, 28] The options to “Accept” and “Reject” cookies should be presented with equal prominence and accessibility to avoid manipulative designs.[5, 6, 30] Users must also be able to easily withdraw or change their consent at any time, typically through a “revisit widget” or a clear link.[5, 6, 28] Non-essential cookies must be blocked from loading until explicit consent is given.[5, 28] Finally, website operators are required to securely store proof of valid consent as legal documentation [5, 28, 29], and consent should be renewed at least every 12 months, with some national guidelines recommending more frequent renewal, such as every six months.[5]

2.3. Prohibited Practices: Cookie Walls and Dark Patterns

Regulatory bodies have increasingly focused on the manner in which consent is obtained, scrutinising practices that undermine genuine user choice.

Cookie Walls are a prime example of a prohibited practice. These mechanisms make access to a website or service conditional on the user consenting to all cookies, effectively presenting a “take it or leave it” scenario. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidelines from May 2020 explicitly rule out cookie walls as a valid means of obtaining consent, on the grounds that such consent is not “freely given”.[6]

Dark Patterns refer to misleading or manipulative interface designs that trick users into making choices they might not intend.[21, 22, 29] These can include deceptive wording, visual cues that highlight “accept” over “reject,” or complex navigation designed to frustrate users into accepting cookies. Regulators, such as France’s CNIL, are actively targeting these practices and have issued significant fines against companies employing them.[29, 31, 32] The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) also explicitly bans the use of dark patterns on online platforms.[21, 22]

The regulatory focus on these practices signifies a maturation of privacy enforcement. Early compliance efforts often focused on merely having a consent banner, irrespective of its user-friendliness or ethical design. However, regulators are now explicitly targeting practices that undermine the “freely given” and “informed” aspects of consent, which are core principles of the GDPR.[6] This development pushes businesses beyond a purely technical checklist approach to compliance, demanding a more user-centric and ethical design for their consent interfaces. Compliance now requires not only what is done but how it is done, emphasising the importance of user experience and fostering trust.

Table 2: Cookie Categories and Consent Requirements

Cookie Category	Purpose	EU Consent Required?	UK Consent Required? (PECR & DUAA 2025)	Additional Requirements	Examples
Strictly Necessary / Essential	Essential for website functionality or requested service provision (e.g., security, authentication, shopping cart).	No	No	N/A	Session cookies for login, shopping cart contents, and security features.
Communication	Solely for the transmission of communication, where impossible without the technology.	Yes (Implicitly via ePD)	No (New DUAA exception)	Clear info & opt-out required.	Device fingerprinting for network management, session cookies for load balancing.
Statistical / Analytics	Collects data on website/service usage for improvements (e.g., page views, traffic sources).	Yes (Explicit opt-in)	No (New DUAA exception)	Clear info & opt-out required; not for identifying individuals or advertising. Third-party providers must act as processors.	Google Analytics cookies for total visits, page-by-page traffic analysis.
Preference / Functionality	Remembers user choices and settings (e.g., language, currency, display preferences).	Yes (Explicit opt-in)	No (New DUAA exception)	Clear info & opt-out required; not for behavioural targeting.	Language selection cookie, display settings.
Marketing / Advertising	Tracks user behaviour for personalised ads, profiling, and ad measurement.	Yes (Explicit opt-in)	Yes (Explicit opt-in)	Granular choice, easy withdrawal, no dark patterns.	Third-party advertising cookies, social media tracking pixels.
Emergency Assistance	Solely for identifying the geographical position for emergency assistance, if requested by the user.	Yes (Implicitly via ePD)	No (New DUAA exception)	User must have requested assistance.	GPS-based location information for emergency services.

 

3. Google Analytics 4 (GA4): Privacy-Centric Analytics in a Regulated World

Google Analytics 4 (GA4) represents Google’s current analytics platform, designed to address evolving privacy concerns and replace the legacy Universal Analytics.

3.1. GA4’s Core Privacy Features: IP Anonymisation and EU Data Collection

GA4 marks a significant shift from Universal Analytics, adopting an event-based data model that facilitates more granular tracking of user interactions across various devices and platforms.[33] This new iteration incorporates several privacy-focused features intended to enhance compliance:

• IP Anonymisation by Default: GA4 is designed not to log or store individual IP addresses. For traffic originating from EU-based devices, IP addresses are used solely for deriving coarse geo-location data (such as city, continent, country, and region) before being immediately discarded. This process occurs on EU-based servers, ensuring that no individual IP addresses are logged or made accessible.[34, 35]
• EU Data Collection and Processing: All data collected from EU-based devices is initially processed through domains and on servers located within the EU before being forwarded to Google Analytics servers for further processing. This aims to keep EU data within the EU for initial stages of collection.[34, 35]
• Data Retention Controls: Website owners are provided with options to configure data retention periods for their analytics data, typically offering choices such as 2 or 14 months.[35, 36]
• Granular Data Collection Controls: GA4 offers controls to disable the collection of Google-signals data and granular location and device data on a per-region basis, allowing for more tailored privacy settings according to geographical requirements.[34, 35]
• User Data Deletion Requests: GA4 includes mechanisms that enable users to request the deletion of their personal data, aligning with data subject rights under privacy regulations.[33, 34, 36]

3.2. The Schrems II Ruling and EU-US Data Transfers: Ongoing Challenges and the DPF

Despite GA4’s enhanced privacy features, the legality of transferring EU personal data to the United States for processing by US-based companies like Google remains a contentious issue. The core of this challenge stems from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)’s “Schrems II” ruling in July 2020. This decision invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, a previous framework for data transfers, on the grounds that US surveillance laws (such as FISA 702 and the CLOUD Act) do not provide adequate protection for EU personal data against access by US government agencies.[32, 33, 37, 38, 39]

Following the Schrems II ruling, several EU Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) in countries like Austria, France, and Italy issued rulings that the use of Google Analytics (specifically Universal Analytics at the time) violated the GDPR due to these international data transfer concerns, even with IP anonymisation in place.[33, 37, 38, 39] France, for example, imposed significant fines on Google, including a €150 million penalty related to cookie practices.[31, 32]

In response to this legal vacuum, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) was adopted on July 10, 2023, aiming to re-establish a legal basis for EU-US data transfers. The DPF provides guidelines for US government access to data and offers redress mechanisms for EU individuals.[33, 38] Google has since become certified under this new framework.[38]

However, the DPF has been met with scepticism and faces potential legal challenges. Privacy advocacy groups, notably NOYB (European Center for Digital Rights) led by Max Schrems, have expressed strong doubts about its efficacy and intend to challenge it, citing similarities to previously invalidated frameworks and ongoing concerns about US surveillance laws.[33, 38] The stability of the DPF is also subject to political shifts, with concerns that a change in US administration could undermine its legal validity.[38] This situation highlights a persistent legal uncertainty regarding the transfer of EU personal data to the US, including data processed by GA4. Businesses cannot assume the DPF provides an ironclad solution and are advised to consider “host in Europe” contingency plans or explore alternative solutions like server-side tagging.[38] This ongoing tension reflects the fundamental divergence between US national security interests and EU data protection principles.

Consequently, while GA4 has made significant strides in privacy features, it is generally considered not fully GDPR compliant for EU citizens and residents on its own, primarily due to these unresolved international data transfer issues and the ongoing legal challenges to the DPF.[33, 35, 39] Achieving full compliance often requires website owners to implement additional measures beyond GA4’s default settings.[33, 36]

3.3. Implementing Google Consent Mode V2: Basic, Advanced, and Behavioural Modelling

Google Consent Mode V2 is a framework designed to integrate user consent preferences directly with Google’s advertising and analytics tools, allowing Google services to dynamically adjust their behaviour based on the user’s consent status.[40, 41] This updated version, introduced in November 2023, includes two additional parameters to enhance consent signalling.[40] Proper implementation involves setting a default consent state before a user interacts with a consent banner and subsequently updating that state based on their choices.[40] It is most effectively implemented in conjunction with a Google-certified Consent Management Platform (CMP).[19, 28, 41]

A key feature of Consent Mode V2, particularly relevant for GA4, is Behavioural Modelling. When users decline analytics cookies, GA4 would typically experience a “data gap” due to missing information. Behavioural modelling addresses this by using machine learning to model the behaviour of users who decline analytics cookies based on the observed behaviour of similar users who did accept them.[42, 43] This process helps to extrapolate meaningful insights and fill data gaps, providing a more complete picture of user activity even without direct consent for all data points.[42, 43]

The benefits of behavioural modelling include a deeper understanding of user behaviour, improved data accuracy by compensating for missing information, and assistance in maintaining compliance by providing insights without directly processing non-consented data.[43] However, this approach has limitations: the forecasts are not always precise, they provide approximations rather than exact data, they cannot gather new data from non-consenting users, and they are not real-time or predictive in nature. Effective behavioural modelling also requires a sufficient volume of both consented and denied events to train the models accurately.[43]

The introduction of Consent Mode V2 and its behavioural modelling capabilities represents a strategic response by Google to the challenge of data loss stemming from strict consent requirements. This approach aims to maintain the utility of analytics products in an increasingly privacy-first digital environment. It underscores an industry-wide trend towards leveraging synthetic or modelled data to overcome limitations imposed by consent-driven data collection. However, it also raises important considerations regarding the transparency and auditability of such models, and whether “inferred” data truly aligns with the spirit of user choice, even if it avoids direct data collection.

3.4. Leveraging Server-Side Tagging for Enhanced Compliance

Server-side tagging is an advanced implementation strategy that can significantly enhance privacy compliance for web analytics. Instead of sending data directly from a user’s browser to third-party services like Google Analytics, server-side tagging creates an intermediary layer. Data is first sent to a server-side container (controlled by the website owner), where it can be processed, filtered, and then forwarded to various destinations.[44]

This architectural shift offers substantial privacy advantages. It provides greater control over data processing before it reaches third parties, enabling capabilities such as automatic Personally Identifiable Information (PII) redaction, centralised consent handling, and even region-specific data residency.[44] By allowing organisations to control data processing and anonymisation more effectively within their own environment before it leaves for external platforms, server-side tagging can notably improve GDPR and CCPA compliance, particularly addressing concerns related to international data transfers.[44, 45]

Beyond compliance, server-side tagging offers practical benefits, including improved data completeness (with reported increases of 15-30%), better cookie retention rates (over 85%), and enhanced attribution accuracy.[44] This approach transforms advanced data privacy compliance from merely a legal burden into a technical strategy that can yield more accurate data, improved website performance, and a competitive advantage in a privacy-conscious market. It fundamentally shifts the locus of control over data from the user’s browser or third-party services to the website owner’s server infrastructure.

Table 3: Google Analytics 4 Privacy Features and Compliance Status

GA4 Feature	Description	Contribution to Privacy/Compliance	Current Status/Limitations	Action Required by User
IP Anonymisation	Does not log/store individual IP addresses; uses IPs for coarse geo-location then discards.	Reduces identifiable personal data collection.	Default in GA4.	N/A (automatic)
EU Data Collection	Data from EU devices collected and processed on EU servers before forwarding.	Aims to keep EU data within EU for initial processing.	Improves regional data handling, but final processing by US entity still raises Schrems II concerns.	Ensure proper configuration for EU-based traffic.
Data Retention Controls	Allows setting data retention periods (e.g., 2 or 14 months).	Enables compliance with data minimisation principles.	User configurable; shorter periods enhance privacy.	Configure retention settings in GA4.
Consent Mode V2	Integrates user consent choices with Google services, adjusting data collection behaviour.	Facilitates dynamic compliance based on user consent.	Requires correct implementation with a CMP; updated parameters must be used.	Implement a Google-certified CMP and configure Consent Mode V2.
Behavioural Modelling	Uses machine learning to model behaviour of non-consenting users based on consenting users.	Helps fill data gaps from consent denials, improving data accuracy.	Provides approximations, not real-time data; requires sufficient consented/denied traffic.	Ensure Consent Mode V2 is correctly implemented and data thresholds are met.
Data Deletion Requests	Provides mechanisms for users to request deletion of their data.	Supports data subject rights (right to erasure).	User-initiated process.	Be prepared to handle and action data deletion requests promptly.
EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF)	New framework for EU-US data transfers following Schrems II invalidation.	Aims to provide a legal basis for data transfers to certified US entities.	Subject to ongoing legal challenges and scepticism regarding long-term stability.	Sign a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) with Google; monitor DPF legal status; consider “host in Europe” contingency.
Server-Side Tagging	Processes data via own server before sending to third parties.	Offers greater control over data, PII redaction, and enhanced GDPR compliance.	Requires technical setup and infrastructure (e.g., Google Cloud Run).	Evaluate feasibility and implement for enhanced data control and compliance.

 

4. Crafting Compliant Cookie Consent Mechanisms

Designing and implementing effective cookie consent mechanisms is critical for legal compliance and building user trust.

4.1. Best Practices for Cookie Banners and Consent Management Platforms (CMPs)

Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) are indispensable tools for obtaining, managing, and documenting user consent for cookies and other tracking technologies.[2, 5, 28] When designing and implementing a cookie banner through a CMP, adherence to key principles is essential:

• Clear and Comprehensive Information: The initial banner message should provide a brief, easy-to-understand explanation of why cookies are used and their general purpose, with a prominent link to a more detailed privacy and cookie policy.[5, 25, 28, 30]
• Explicit Opt-in: For all non-essential cookies (such as analytics, marketing, or personalisation cookies), prior, active opt-in consent is mandatory. This means pre-ticked boxes are prohibited, and users must actively choose to accept these cookies.[5, 6, 28, 29]
• Granular Choice: Users must be empowered to consent to specific cookie categories rather than being forced into an “accept all” or “all or nothing” decision. The banner should offer distinct options for categories like necessary, preference, statistics, and marketing cookies.[5, 6, 28, 30]
• Equal Prominence: The options to “Accept” and “Reject” (or “Decline”) cookies should be presented with equal visual prominence and accessibility. Designs that subtly nudge users towards acceptance, known as “dark patterns,” are strictly prohibited and actively targeted by regulators.[5, 6, 29, 30]
• Easy Withdrawal: Users must be able to withdraw or change their consent as easily as it was given. This is often facilitated by a “revisit widget” or a clearly visible link on the website, allowing users to manage their preferences at any time.[5, 6, 28, 30]
• Blocking Until Consent: Critically, non-essential cookies must be prevented from loading or setting on a user’s device until their explicit consent has been received.[5, 28]
• Consent Logging: Valid consent must be securely logged and stored as legal documentation, providing proof of compliance if required by regulatory bodies.[5, 28, 29]
• Geo-targeting: For websites with international audiences, CMPs should be configured to geo-target banners, displaying legally compliant options appropriate for the user’s location (e.g., EU, UK, US).[29]

4.2. Transparency and Information Requirements for Users

Beyond the banner itself, comprehensive transparency is a cornerstone of modern privacy compliance. PECR mandates “clear and comprehensive” information about cookie purposes [24, 25], a requirement mirrored by the transparency principles of the UK GDPR.[25]

This entails providing a detailed list of all cookies used on the website. For each cookie, the list should specify its provider, the type of data it collects, its precise purpose, and its duration (how long it remains active on the user’s browser).[5, 28, 30] This detailed cookie list should be easily accessible, typically within a dedicated cookie policy or as a clear section within the overall privacy policy, linked directly from the consent banner.[28, 30] The information should be presented in language and a level of detail appropriate for the intended audience, ensuring users can truly understand the implications of their choices.[25]

4.3. Examples of Compliant Implementations (e.g., Government Websites)

Government websites often serve as exemplary models for compliant cookie consent mechanisms, reflecting a “modern standard” of implementation. These sites are designed to adhere strictly to current regulations and frequently serve as public benchmarks.

The UK government’s GOV.UK website provides a strong example of a compliant cookie banner.[27, 46] It offers clear choices for different cookie types, such as analytics, communications/marketing, and settings, while explicitly stating that strictly necessary cookies are always active. The design facilitates user understanding and provides a clear path to detailed cookie information.[27] Similarly, the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) website, another UK government entity, demonstrates a compliant approach by categorising cookies and providing a transparent table of specific cookies in use, their purposes, and expiry dates.[26]

These examples from government websites provide a tangible demonstration of how to implement compliant and user-friendly cookie consent mechanisms in practice. They illustrate that achieving compliance does not necessarily require overly intrusive pop-ups or complex interfaces. Instead, they showcase how clarity, granular consent (where applicable), and comprehensive transparency can be integrated into a website’s design, aligning with both the letter and the spirit of privacy laws and fostering user trust.

5. Enforcement and Future Outlook

The regulatory landscape has moved beyond initial grace periods to a phase of aggressive enforcement, with significant penalties for non-compliance.

5.1. Recent Major Fines and Enforcement Actions (EU & UK)

Regulatory bodies in both the EU and the UK have demonstrated a strong commitment to enforcing data privacy laws, issuing substantial fines for cookie and GDPR violations. These penalties are increasingly tied not just to the absence of consent but to the manipulative nature of consent mechanisms and deceptive practices.

In the European Union, Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) have imposed multi-million and even billion-euro fines against major technology companies:

• Meta (Facebook/Instagram): Fined €60 million by the French CNIL in 2022 for making it difficult for users to refuse cookies. In 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) levied a record-breaking €1.2 billion fine on Meta for unlawful transfers of EU/EEA user data to the US, violating GDPR international transfer guidelines.[31, 32]
• Google: Received multiple fines from the French CNIL, including €150 million and €100 million in 2022 for failing to provide users with easy ways to refuse cookies. Additional fines of €90 million and €60 million were issued in 2021 for similar violations.[31, 32]
• Amazon: Fined €35 million by the French CNIL in 2020 for placing advertising cookies on users’ computers without obtaining consent.[31]
• TikTok: Received a €5 million fine from the French CNIL in 2023 for issues with its cookie consent flow, and a €345 million fine from the Irish DPC in the same year.[31, 32]
• Apple: Fined €8 million by the French CNIL in 2022 for placing ad identifiers on iPhones without user consent.[31]

In the United Kingdom, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) actively enforces PECR. While the historical maximum fine under PECR was £500,000 [14, 47], the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 significantly increases this. Recent ICO enforcement actions have primarily focused on unsolicited direct marketing calls and texts, with fines ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds.[48] However, the principles of consent and transparency applied in these cases are directly relevant to cookie compliance.

The escalating enforcement actions, particularly in the EU, demonstrate a clear shift from a “grace period” to aggressive regulatory intervention. Fines are substantial and are increasingly targeting not just the absence of consent, but also deceptive practices that undermine user autonomy, such as dark patterns and overly complex refusal mechanisms. This trend underscores the critical need for genuine, user-friendly consent mechanisms, as regulators are scrutinising the quality of consent, not merely its presence.

5.2. The ICO’s Evolving Enforcement Strategy and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025’s Impact on Penalties

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 brings significant changes to the UK’s enforcement regime for PECR, particularly concerning cookies and direct electronic marketing. The maximum fines for PECR breaches will now align with those for UK GDPR violations, increasing substantially to the higher of £17.5 million or 4% of global annual turnover.[14, 16, 47, 49] This change is particularly impactful as it removes the previous threshold that required a “serious contravention likely to cause substantial damage or distress” for a fine to be considered. Now, any contravention of Regulation 6 of PECR (cookies) is potentially subject to these higher penalties.[14]

The ICO maintains a risk-based approach to enforcement, considering factors such as the level of intrusion, the efforts made by organisations to provide clear information and obtain consent, and the degree of consumer concern.[25] The ICO’s “Online Strategy” for 2025 emphasises ensuring individuals have meaningful choice over online tracking, with online advertising being a key focus.[49] The regulator is also actively investigating data management platforms.[49]

In a notable development, the ICO is proposing to relax its enforcement of cookie consent requirements for “lower-risk advertising cookies,” such as those used for fraud prevention, allowing them to be set without explicit user consent.[18] This proposal is part of a broader consultation on updating existing cookie guidance to reflect the DUAA’s new exceptions for statistical analysis and website appearance cookies.[18] This move aims to encourage the adoption of less intrusive advertising models.[18]

This nuanced approach by the ICO, influenced by the DUAA, reflects a recognition that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to cookie consent may have been counterproductive, leading to “consent fatigue” and disincentivising less intrusive practices.[18] The goal is to strike a better balance between privacy protection and commercial realities. However, the challenge lies in clearly defining “low risk” and ensuring regulatory certainty, as businesses may be hesitant to rely solely on guidance without formal legal exemptions.[18] This ongoing discussion highlights the inherent difficulty in finding a practical “sweet spot” for digital privacy regulation that effectively satisfies both user rights and business needs.

Table 4: Summary of Recent Major Cookie/Privacy Fines (EU & UK)

Regulatory Body	Company Fined	Fine Amount (approx.)	Year Issued	Primary Violation	Relevant Law
Irish DPC	Meta (Facebook)	€1.2 Billion	2023	Unlawful EU-US data transfers (Schrems II)	GDPR
French CNIL	Google	€150 Million	2022	Difficult cookie refusal mechanisms	ePrivacy Directive, GDPR
French CNIL	Google	€100 Million	2022	Difficult cookie refusal mechanisms	ePrivacy Directive, GDPR
Irish DPC	TikTok	€345 Million	2023	GDPR violations (including cookie consent flow)	GDPR
French CNIL	Facebook	€60 Million	2022	Difficult cookie refusal mechanisms	ePrivacy Directive, GDPR
French CNIL	Apple	€8 Million	2022	Lack of consent for ad identifiers	ePrivacy Directive
French CNIL	Amazon	€35 Million	2020	Placing advertising cookies without consent	ePrivacy Directive, GDPR

 

5.3. Anticipated Regulatory Developments and Industry Trends

The digital privacy landscape is dynamic, with several ongoing and anticipated developments:

• EU ePrivacy Regulation Stalled: As previously noted, the proposal for a new ePrivacy Regulation has been withdrawn.[4, 8] While this specific legislative effort has ceased, there is speculation that a new “Digital Advertising Act” might be tabled in its place, indicating continued EU focus on regulating online advertising.[49]
• Digital Services Act (DSA): Although not directly a cookie law, the DSA, effective November 2022, has significant implications for how online platforms manage user data and advertising. It explicitly bans “dark patterns” and prohibits targeted advertising based on sensitive personal data or for minors.[21, 22] This will influence how platforms design their consent interfaces and handle user data for advertising purposes.
• Global Fragmentation: Data privacy laws continue to evolve worldwide, leading to a fragmented regulatory environment. Different jurisdictions may adopt varying consent models (e.g., opt-in vs. opt-out) and specific requirements.[29] Businesses with international audiences must navigate this complexity, often requiring geo-targeted consent solutions.
• “Consent or Pay” Models: These models, which offer users a choice between free access with tracking or paid access without tracking, are emerging. They can be legal, but only if they meet strict conditions, including offering a genuine, freely given choice, a reasonable fee, and informed consent that is not bundled with unrelated purposes.[29, 50]
• Browser Changes and Deprecation of Third-Party Cookies: The ongoing deprecation of third-party cookies by major browsers, such as Google Chrome’s planned phase-out, will force a fundamental shift in online tracking methods. This trend is pushing the industry towards first-party data strategies and increasing the adoption of server-side tagging to maintain measurement capabilities while adapting to a privacy-centric web.

6. Actionable Recommendations for Website Owners

To navigate the complex and evolving landscape of digital privacy, website owners must adopt a proactive and comprehensive approach to compliance.

6.1. A Step-by-Step Compliance Checklist

The following checklist outlines essential steps for achieving and maintaining modern privacy compliance:

• Audit Your Website Thoroughly: Conduct a comprehensive audit to identify all cookies and other tracking technologies currently in use on your website. Understand their purpose, duration, and whether they are first-party or third-party [original article].
• Implement a Robust Consent Management Platform (CMP): Select a Google-certified CMP that supports granular consent, requiring explicit opt-in for all non-essential cookies. Ensure the CMP facilitates easy withdrawal of consent and is designed to avoid “dark patterns”.
• Update Privacy and Cookie Policies: Ensure your privacy and cookie policies are clear, comprehensive, and easily accessible from your website. These policies must accurately reflect all data processing activities, specific cookie usage, details of third parties involved, data retention periods, and user rights.
• Configure Google Analytics 4 (GA4) for Privacy:
  • Verify that IP anonymisation is active (which is the default in GA4).
  • Utilise GA4’s EU data collection settings to ensure data from EU users is processed through EU domains and servers initially.
  • Review and set appropriate data retention periods within GA4 to comply with data minimisation principles.
  • Enter into a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) with Google to formalise data processing responsibilities.
• Implement Google Consent Mode V2: Ensure correct implementation of Consent Mode V2 (whether basic or advanced) to effectively integrate user consent signals with GA4 and other Google advertising services.
• Consider Server-Side Tagging: Explore the adoption of server-side tagging. This advanced method offers enhanced control over data processing, allows for automatic PII redaction, and can significantly improve compliance, particularly concerning international data transfers.
• Review UK-Specific Exemptions (DUAA 2025): For audiences in the UK, assess whether your use of statistical or appearance cookies qualifies for the new opt-out exceptions introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. If so, ensure that clear transparency and a simple opt-out mechanism are still provided, as consent is not required but user control is still mandated.
• Monitor and Document Continuously: Regularly scan your website for newly added cookies or tracking technologies. Maintain meticulous records of user consents and document all changes made to your consent mechanisms and privacy policies.

6.2. Ongoing Monitoring and Adaptation Strategies

The digital privacy landscape is in constant flux, necessitating continuous vigilance and adaptation:

• Stay Informed: Regularly monitor official guidance and updates from key regulatory bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in the EU, and relevant national Data Protection Authorities. Subscribing to industry newsletters and following legal experts is also advisable.
• Conduct Regular Audits: Implement a schedule for periodic audits of your website’s tracking technologies, data flows, and consent mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance with the latest regulations.
• Seek Expert Legal Counsel: For complex scenarios, particularly those involving international data transfers or intricate data processing activities, consulting with legal professionals specialising in data protection law is highly recommended.
• Prioritise User Experience: Beyond merely meeting legal requirements, prioritise user experience in the design of your consent mechanisms. A transparent, user-friendly approach fosters trust and encourages genuine consent, contributing to a more positive brand perception.