[pocketarc]

If you're adding a cookie banner for legal reasons, that means you're covering against GDPR, which says that you're -not- allowed to refuse service based on someone not wanting cookies that are not necessary for providing the service (e.g. all the analytics/tracking crap).

You're obligated to give them a way to opt out while continuing to use your service, and it should be as easy to decline as it is to accept[0]. The funny part, of course, is that countless services have put up banners that don't make it easy at all to reject, which means they're still not compliant, they just make the legal team feel warm and fuzzy.

That's why you see necessary vs all, because it's "can we track you or not". If you're just doing absolutely required cookies (e.g. session cookie), you don't even need a banner.

[0]: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent

[snmx999]

Some of Germany's largest online newspapers, like Bild (https://www.bild.de/) demand either that you subscribe to their online paper or consent to all cookies. As far as I see there is no way to reject the cookies.

[diffeomorphism]

Ruled illegal already for other websites:

https://noyb.eu/de/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...

[markus92]

English link: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...

[warrenm]

If that is true, why would any sane company/website stay based in the EU (if they want to use cookies)?

[diffeomorphism]

Unrelated to where you are based. Also there is no restriction on cookies as such, just on spying. So defaulting to spying seems much less sane now, agreed.

[mnw21cam]

That's only because Schrems hasn't got round to suing them yet.