Back to Home11/19/2025, 1:54:40 PM

Europe's cookie nightmare is crumbling. EC wants preference at browser level

44 points
64 comments

Mood

calm

Sentiment

neutral

Category

tech

Key topics

GDPR

browser security

EU regulations

The European Commission is pushing for browsers to implement a preference for handling cookies at the browser level, potentially simplifying compliance with GDPR regulations.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Very active discussion

First comment

23m

Peak period

44

Hour 1

Avg / period

44

Comment distribution44 data points

Based on 44 loaded comments

Key moments

  1. 01Story posted

    11/19/2025, 1:54:40 PM

    5h ago

    Step 01
  2. 02First comment

    11/19/2025, 2:17:21 PM

    23m after posting

    Step 02
  3. 03Peak activity

    44 comments in Hour 1

    Hottest window of the conversation

    Step 03
  4. 04Latest activity

    11/19/2025, 2:52:19 PM

    4h ago

    Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (64 comments)
Showing 44 comments of 64
Klaster_1
5h ago
2 replies
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45667866

Personally, I find this a move in the wrong direction where hostile behavior by websites is normalized and hidden. Cookie banners show web site true colors. When someone asks me to share data with a thousand of "partners", I leave.

moritzwarhier
4h ago
I think I agree, at least until it's clear how exactly this should be implemented.

Fingerprints can be shared with third parties without cookies, and while I know that the so-called "cookie law" is not really just about cookies, this is where the deception begins.

For some reason, I think it's easier to force websites to list everyone they share data with, than to force them to comply with an invisible preference that says "don't share data".

It even sounds as if this could be a trojan horse to dismantle parts of the GDPR altogether (see the DNT references in this thread...), and I happen to think that by and large, GDPR is good.

thinkingtoilet
4h ago
I agree. I think it's one of those things that people complain about because other people complain about. You have to click a button. Wow. What an ordeal. The title of this thread used the term "nightmare". I would be thankful that my life is so wonderful that clicking a button is considered a "nightmare". It's transparent and if you don't like it, don't go to that site.
pjc50
5h ago
5 replies
This was the correct decision and could have been made a decade ago. An .. institutional deficiency was trying to make the GDPR as completely general as possible rather than doing a technology mandate. But this had two consequences: bad actors could circumvent it, and good actors just trying to comply ended up horribly confused (e.g. is logging an IP address in an Apache log "personal data"?).

DNT header. Legally binding. Out of the way of the end user. Unambiguous for enforcement purposes. Probably the end of targeted advertising, but that was always the logical conclusion of GDPR.

chuckadams
5h ago
1 reply
Cookie consent banners and such come from the ePrivacy Directive, not the GDPR. The banners themselves were never mandated, but lacking any other standardized opt-in signal, that's what everyone converged on anyway.
kevin_thibedeau
4h ago
To be clear, the other option was to respect privacy by default and comply with the GDPR without any banner.
graemep
5h ago
1 reply
I agree cookie banners were the wrong solution, and sometimes made things worse (it make a cookie whitelist extensions I used to use unusable because you have to allow the cookie that stores your cookie preferences).

However, this bit concerns me:

> This key change is part of a new Digital Package of proposals to simplify the EU’s digital rules, and will initially see cookie prompts change to be a simplified yes or no single-click prompt ahead of the “technological solutions” eventually coming to browsers. Websites will be required to respect cookie choices for at least six months, and the EU also wants website owners to not use cookie banners for “harmless uses” like counting website visits, to lessen the amount of pop-ups.

That implies there will be "harmless tracking" allowed, and it removes choices. The latter might restrict dark patterns, but it might also encourage "allow all cookies or you cannot read the site at all" approaches.

Projectiboga
4h ago
Fine I can vote with my feet and avoid sites that say "no cookies, no lookie" and use archive if I am really eager to read something.
hypeatei
5h ago
DNT is dead by the way, Global Privacy Control (GPC) is the new privacy signal mechanism. It has actual legal weight in some jurisdictions already like California and their CCPA law for example.
ragebol
5h ago
Would there have been cookie banners if DNT was respected?
iamacyborg
4h ago
> An .. institutional deficiency was trying to make the GDPR as completely general as possible rather than doing a technology mandate.

Making it a technological mandate would have made it trivial to circumvent.

avmich
5h ago
2 replies
> This is not a real choice made by citizens

This is something which courts should consider more about other things, such as EULA and Terms and Conditions. Same reasons.

MangoToupe
5h ago
2 replies
Are EULAs even enforceable?
Tuna-Fish
4h ago
In the EU, it's complicated.

There is a very clear law that forbids any additional contract terms post the point of sale, so that if you go to a store, purchase a box with software in it and then go home to install it, when it pops up a dialog for you to "agree" on, you can just ignore it, nothing in that is enforceable at all. And no, small print text on the box that says you have to agree to terms in the software does not change anything. But that's not how software is sold anymore.

EULAs in general are not unenforceable, so long as they are presented before the sale. This is precisely why Steam (for example) now gives you the EULA before it lets you buy anything.

deafpolygon
4h ago
they are generally thought to be, but require litigation- which is a problem for the general population!

corporations have enough money to tie you up in court with lawyers.

naIak
5h ago
3 replies
The choice citizens would make every single time is to see the website without ads. Of course, publishers aren’t happy about that, since they would have to close shop. Maybe the EC should consider both sides of the equation.
kevin_thibedeau
4h ago
Ads don't require invasive tracking. They work in print, radio, television, and 90s web without tracking.
debugnik
5h ago
Advertising has existed for centuries, I'm sure it can survive as an industry without requiring invasive tracking.
mkmk3
5h ago
False dichotomy, just advertise based on the content of the site without spying on people
thrance
5h ago
3 replies
In the meantime, if you're browsing the web with uBlock Origin, you should definitely enable cookie list filters in Dashboard > Filter lists > Cookie Notices. Haven't seen a banner in ages.
lol768
4h ago
This occasionally causes breakage though; because many cookie notices open up modal dialogs and disable scrolling.
Mistletoe
4h ago
Thank you I didn’t know this.
cpburns2009
4h ago
I've noticed more and more websites breaking from that. The page won't scroll and you can't interact with anything.
zzzeek
5h ago
1 reply
yes. everyone install Cookie Auto Delete.

the problem is a plugin like that would take out entire industries because it would basically end anonymous tracking cookies.

deafpolygon
4h ago
2 replies
They no longer track you by (only) cookies- the GPDR made sure of that. Fingerprinting is the current standard and there’s no easy way to block that.
disgruntledphd2
4h ago
> They no longer track you by (only) cookies- the GPDR made sure of that. Fingerprinting is the current standard and there’s no easy way to block that.

Without consent, this is illegal, so if this is happening someone's gonna get sued and fined.

tcfhgj
4h ago
The GDPR surely didn't have an influence on that.

The GDPR is technologically agnostic about tracking. You don't accept, then no tracking either way.

retube
5h ago
2 replies
LOL the EC mandarins have finally had enough of the endless nagging!
nerdsniper
4h ago
What are "EC mandarins"? Google doesn't give me anything useful.
croes
4h ago
The nagging which was done by the data collectors to blame the EC
elric
5h ago
1 reply
Much like the current cookie banner shitshow, a "centrally configured" setting which "websites must respect" will accomplish nothing. There is no consent, informed or otherwise. Advertisers and their ilk are still hoovering up all the data they can, with or without cookies or consent.

Locking up a few people who don't respect their users' privacy would be a much more effective way of achieving actual results. AFAIK no big adtech or data brokers have been punished in any way.

jack_tripper
4h ago
>Locking up a few people who don't respect their users' privacy would be a much more effective way of achieving actual results. AFAIK no big adtech or data brokers have been punished in any way.

I'm a big fan of personal accountability in the corporate world.

kotaKat
4h ago
1 reply
lostmsu
4h ago
It's still 1.x, but this time legally enforced (hopefully).
Devasta
4h ago
1 reply
Just ban individually targeted advertising and be done with it.
IlikeKitties
4h ago
When the Digital Services/Markets Act was written this was actually considered. But there's also companies that surveil your browsing data and sell that for other purposes not just advertisement. Market Research and such. I'd have been for a blanket ban though.

Sadly, this is mostly a matter of not enforcing the GDPR enough. Things such as "data minimization" and the erosion of "technically necessary" already should protect us. Instead the Business Community chose malicious compliance on a vast scale and the data protection agencies did nothing.

alkonaut
4h ago
1 reply
Users will overwhelmingly use browsers in vanilla config. The question here will be how browser vendors show this option. If - say - a company that gives away a browser for free but makes money from ads designed this, then they'll hide the option deep in some obscure menu, never remind people it exists, and reset it on every update.

So the devil is in the details. The best option I think isn't a secret setting in a browser, but a standardized consent dialog. Basically the sites communicate to the browser a standardized data format for consent. Then the browser shows that query in a popup that looks the same for every site. That means 1) the sites no longer have a chance to do dark patterns 2) it's less confusing for end users since the UX is always the same 3) it allows users to check a "Automatically reject for all sites". The site should not know whether the user has auto-rejected this, or manually rejected it. There should be no option to automatically consent for all sites (Can't have that). So the only ergonomic choice is to set it to auto reject.

Having this "use this choice (reject) for all sites" is the really important part here. Because it means that ALL users of ALL browsers will quickly see this choice, so in short order a huge chunk of users will have made this permanent rejection choice.

troupo
4h ago
> The question here will be how browser vendors show this option.

We know exactly how. Here's Google presenting "more private web". If you click "yes, I'm in", all the tracking options will be turned on: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1664682689591377923

And of course HN (and the industry at large, and journalists) will blame it on "clueless bureaucrats writing regulations"

BoppreH
4h ago
I like the cookie law as a sort of 4D chess move.

Step 1: force websites to add an opt-out flow for privacy-minded users.

Step 2: websites don't complain too much because they can implement it in obnoxious and dark-pattern-laden ways, so that few users actually opt-out.

Step 3: now that websites have proven there's no technical barrier and the flows are already implemented, slowly retire unnecessary user tracking and data sharing.

I'd be surprised if this was planned ahead of time, but it's not a bad strategy.

stickfigure
4h ago
Here's my proposal:

* Let websites do whatever they want with cookies/local storage.

* Let browsers delete them as often as they want.

* Make other kinds of fingerprinting illegal.

troupo
4h ago
"Europe's cookie nightmare" has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with companies assuming that they have god-given right to all your data in perpetuity.

Things like "precise location information stored for 12 years": https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

Europe literally said: we're not going to force specific tech decisions on you. All we ask is to let people opt-in if they want to be tracked. What we got is "we care about your privacy, we're sending all your data to 15000 partners" from the industry.

To people crying "but this should've been mandated as a browser setting": Which world's largest advertising company has dominating browser marketshare and subsumes all web standards committees? What exactly prevented that company to come up with a browser settimg that isn't "we sell you data by default and use dark patterns to trick you to agree" https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1664682689591377923?

Our industry is shit, and we blame governments for regulations that ... assume that industries shouldn't be shit. There's literally no need for EU to regulate browser settings. And yet here we are.

mimsee
4h ago
IMO there isn't a cookie nightmare but rather a tracking nightmare. I'm not fully up-to-date on if there is a separate EU directive on cookies on the internet specifically, but the GDPR is the _General_ Data Protection Regulation. Meaning that if I go and collect your info on pen and paper, I must then ask your permission on how I process and share that data, especially if sharing that data is not necessary to complete the main transaction but is somehow done auxiliary to the main purpose. (e.g. I buy a pillow online, my info is used to target ads for me.)

GDPR itself doesn't require consent for functional cookies. For example, Apple.com does not have a cookie consent box _at all_.

On tracking specifically, I feel there are at least two levels. One that happens in-browser by third party companies. These are your classic advertisements. The other is more first-party backend-heavy. These would be your local grocery store using your purchase history linked to your membership card and using that data to create analytics and targeted ads etc.

So creating a browser setting would likely not toggle all tracking away, just the ones that are "annoying" while browsing.

aswegs8
4h ago
EU! EU! EU!
sunshine-o
4h ago
> says the EU. “This will drastically simplify users’ online experience.”

They are proudly removing the annoyance they mandated 7 tears ago.

Do we have to congratulate them?

20 more comments available on Hacker News

ID: 45979527Type: storyLast synced: 11/19/2025, 3:09:38 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.