[whstl]

The ePrivacy Directive does mention cookies in its text, but it says "cookies or similar devices", so it clearly includes localStorage, which the 2002 text predates.

And there was NEVER a requirement for a "cookie banner" in its text. Consent under it can be given in any other way that are not as intrusive, but it was the industry who chose the stupid banner and invasive analytics. Also notice that under both GDPR and ePrivacy Directive, consent is not required for cookies/etc with a legitimate purpose. Examples of those have been given under the ePrivacy Directive from almost the beginning, but more explicitly in the "Opinion 04/2012 on Cookie Consent Exemption" which is from 2012 and predates cookie banners.

[1] Here's an example of asking for consent to store a cookie that doesn't involve a banner: https://www.williamgrant.com . It's in the age-check modal.

[thecopy]

Indeed. The IAB has, imo, purposely made the “consent” modal as confusing and annoying as possible to train users to just accept. All those different purposes… it is all very confusing even for an engineer like me who’s job it is to work with (due to legal department’s conviction that unless we have such a modal we are breaking the law)

[deprecative]

So, is your proposal for a cookie banner replacement a full-page takeover? That seems less ideal than the banner.

[whstl]

What "proposal"? I'm talking about the checkbox in the bottom. It is asking for consent to store PII in a cookie, and it doesn't need a banner.

I was answering to a claim that cookie banners are required by the ePrivacy Directive. There is no requirement for banner anywhere there or in GDPR. They were invented by the advertisement industry, and almost all the time are found to be non-compliant.