The Cookie Banner Disaster

The Noble Goals

The EU's GDPR and ePrivacy Directive had genuinely good intentions:

These are reasonable goals! Users should know what data is collected and have a choice about it. Companies shouldn't track people secretly. The problem isn't the goals—it's the implementation.

The Implementation Disaster

Problem 1: Nobody Reads the Banners

Studies show that users click "Accept All" in under 2 seconds without reading. The banners don't inform—they're just obstacles to the content users came for. Consent without comprehension isn't meaningful consent.

Problem 2: Dark Patterns Everywhere

Companies quickly learned to game the system. "Accept All" is a big green button. "Customize" or "Reject" requires multiple clicks through confusing interfaces. The regulation meant to empower users created new ways to manipulate them.

Problem 3: Compliance Theater

Sites display banners to avoid fines, not to genuinely respect user privacy. Many continue tracking regardless of user choice. The banner becomes a legal checkbox, not a privacy tool.

Problem 4: Degraded User Experience

Every website now has a popup covering content on first visit. Mobile experiences are especially awful—banners can cover half the screen. The internet got measurably worse for users.

Why We Can't Fix It

The worst part? Everyone agrees the current system is broken. Users hate it. Developers hate it. Even regulators admit it's not working as intended. Yet it persists.

Regulatory Inertia

Changing legislation takes years. The original directive took years to implement. Updates take even longer. Meanwhile, the broken system remains in place.

Fear of Fines

GDPR fines can reach 4% of global revenue. No company wants to risk being the example. So they implement cookie banners defensively, even when the law's intent might not require it.

Consent Management Industry

A whole industry now exists to sell cookie consent solutions. These companies lobby to maintain the status quo. The problem created its own defenders.

What Could Work Better

The original problem—users being tracked without consent—had simpler solutions:

Both approaches achieve the privacy goals without destroying user experience. But they require either browser cooperation or stricter enforcement—neither of which happened.

Lessons for Tech Legislation

1. Test User Experience Before Mandating

Did anyone user-test cookie banners before requiring them? Did regulators consider how actual humans would interact with consent dialogs? Apparently not.

2. Consider Second-Order Effects

Regulations create incentives. The cookie requirement created incentives for dark patterns, compliance theater, and a new industry profiting from the problem.

3. Build in Sunset Clauses

If regulation isn't working, there should be mechanisms to adjust or remove it. Cookie consent requirements have no automatic review—they persist indefinitely.

4. Technical Problems Need Technical Solutions

Privacy is a technical problem. Legal notices don't solve it—technical enforcement does. Safari blocking trackers achieves more privacy than millions of cookie banners.

What Developers Can Do

You can't opt out of cookie requirements, but you can minimize the damage:

• Don't use tracking cookies if you don't need them: If you're not running ads or detailed analytics, you might not need consent at all.
• Use privacy-respecting analytics: Plausible, Fathom, and similar tools don't require cookie consent because they don't track individuals.
• Make rejection easy: If you must have a banner, make "Reject All" as easy as "Accept All." Don't be part of the dark pattern problem.
• Question every third-party script: Each tracking pixel and analytics tool adds to your consent obligations. Are they worth it?

The Cautionary Tale

Cookie consent banners will likely be remembered as one of the great failures of tech regulation. Not because privacy isn't important—it is. But because the implementation made the internet worse while failing to actually protect privacy.

DHH's frustration resonates with anyone who uses the web. We created a universal annoyance that helps no one, and we can't undo it. That's a failure of process, not intent.