[josefx]

As long as the most widely used browser is owned by Google? No way that could possibly end up being intentionally broken and misleading. The law would have to specify the exact shape of the cookie dialogue down to the pixel and I still would expect Google to find a way to fuck it up.

[Griffinsauce]

> I still would expect Google to find a way to fuck it up.

Playing cat and mouse with only a few large entities vs. literally every website on the web seems like progress.

And let's be realistic, "intentionally broken" can be prevented by having a serious deterrent and removing the incentive.

[piva00]

> The law would have to specify the exact shape of the cookie dialogue down to the pixel and I still would expect Google to find a way to fuck it up.

In the EU it's more usual for judges to take the "spirit of the law" into account for rulings rather than the "letter of the law" that is more common in Common Law systems.

I don't know enough and IANAL to state that with sureness about the whole legal system of all EU countries but it's a rule-of-thumb, the law doesn't need to be absurdly specific to avoid loopholes, it just needs to be good enough to cover ground for judges to judge if the accused is following its spirit.

[zeepzeep]

> The law would have to specify the exact shape of the cookie dialogue down to the pixel

Sounds good to me.

> I still would expect Google to find a way to fuck it up.

Sure, then we change the law again and/or sue Google.

[josefx]

> Sure, then we change the law again and/or sue Google.

Which generally seems to have an almost 10 year delay for every iteration since Google will appeal on every instance and do its best to slow down every curt issued request heading its way to the fullest amount possible. The result: Not happening in the next century or two.