[ketkev]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this actually has some interesting things to think about. Not all cookies require consent under the ePrivacy directive, there is an exception for cookies that are "strictly necessary for the delivery of a service requested by the user". I think that'd fit in this case, since providing a cheater free experience is part of the "service" the players are looking for. At the same time, the ePrivacy directive also mentions that the user should be provided with "clear and comprehensive information" about what is stored. Providing that would render the cookies useless.

I don't know how these would balance each other out legally, but it's fun to think about

[beeboobaa3]

No, that doesn't count. Companies have tried arguing that their ads' tracking cookies are strictly necessary otherwise they wouldn't be able to offer their services (ads pay the bills). And yet, they require consent.

Preventing cheaters is similar. And this is blatantly a tracking cookie.

[eqvinox]

You aren't considering that ad cookies/tracking are used to enable a service to someone else (ad buyers), while this anti-cheat tracking cookie is used to enable a service to the user themselves (a cheat-free gaming experience.) I think that may make the difference.

Also, all of this was in 2017. Anyone doing it in 2024 should indeed run it past a lawyer.