Companies could stop selling and storing your data. They could only use cookies when absolutely essential. They could use lots of kinds of UX.
This is the equivalent of businesses who put a big visible "20% the state says we have to give our employees healthcare" fee on their bill to throw a hissy fit and hope customers get angry at the government for protecting them instead of the business for exploiting them.
it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does.
You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1]
Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2]
Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3]
Why does static site of Europe's parliament need big cookie banner? Or is that the parliament which created this law doesn't know what you know or they are doing "malicious compliance".
I know the technical reason. I was contesting the GP's comment that most site display banner "Instead of complying". Most website needs basic tracking and there is nothing wrong in it.
We are just conditioned to see it without difference in basic tracking and tracking all your clicks across site and selling it to advertisers.
Because they use a commercial service (AT Internet) for analytics and visitor tracking as stated in their cookies policy and cookie inventory. This information is readily available through the cookie banner.
You can comply with the law without banners and dark pattern defaults. These businesses are maliciously complying by making things more obnoxious and painful than they need to be.
A comparison would be a store who was angry the law says you have to be 21 to buy alcohol and starts requesting everyone, even people not buying alcohol, to show ID or be kicked out. That's not a bad law, that's a bad business maliciously complying.
Let me know when you find a User Agent that can smack a CEO over the head with a virtual cluebat whenever he sells a list of email addresses that signed up to his site, because that's what the regulation is about and I certainly don't see how a UA could enforce it.
The user agent can refuse to store cookies, but it can't do much against supercookies (cookie-like features not knowingly implemented by the user agent programmers) or fingerprinting: you need something like legislation to curb practices like that.
Companies could stop selling and storing your data. They could only use cookies when absolutely essential. They could use lots of kinds of UX.
This is the equivalent of businesses who put a big visible "20% the state says we have to give our employees healthcare" fee on their bill to throw a hissy fit and hope customers get angry at the government for protecting them instead of the business for exploiting them.