[hnarn]

Instead of ranting and providing nothing but conjecture about how "expensive" GDPR is (whatever that means), or insinuating that lawyers "arguing" about something proves that legislation is ineffective (that's literally their job), refer to first hand sources and ask constructive questions in good faith about what you don't understand. Here's one example: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

Both first party session cookies and "shopping cart" cookies are mentioned as explicit examples of cookies that do not require prior consent and are unlikely to cause any concern.

[lmkg]

Please do not use that website. It presents itself as an authoritative resource, but it is not actually an authoritative resource. Nor, frankly, even a very good one.

Actual first party resource: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/guidance-...

ICO is literally the agency that issues fines for GDPR violations in the UK. They have a lot of explicit guidance about what's OK and what's not.

More detailed guidance on the "strictly necessary" exemption: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/guidance-...

[nickpp]

Then why does the very gdpr.eu website have a cookie banner at the bottom of the page?! There is clearly no session or shopping cart going on.

[SiempreViernes]

Uh, are you asking why a site with that doesn't use cookies in a purely functional manner has a cookie banner?

In any case, it's the usual reason: they have google tracking, and it seems like they embed content from other sides the easy way. You too can learn the answer to the mystery of why there is a consent banner by clicking the "Privacy policy" button, this one actually explains it clearly, like it was supposed to be a model example or something.

[nickpp]

Actually the unobtrusive cookie banner as implemented on that site is illegal under GDPR. Check out https://ico.org.uk/ for a correctly implemented popup with its dismal UX.