[kcplate]

> The dickover is purely spite from the websites.

No, it’s a legal CYA that provides safe harbor in case you are accused of the behavior. If a law says you need to inform, your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.

[happymellon]

> your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.

How is not bothering to understand your business, using it as an excuse to hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived and blaming a law that doesn't talk about cookie banners NOT spite?

[kcplate]

> How is not bothering to understand your business

If you are a lawyer how technically competent would you need to be to have complete assurance that your engineering team is now and always will be in full compliance to eliminate all risk to allow a lack of consent.

Or…you just drop the Ack on site and not worry over it. Thats not spite, it’s compliance convenience.

The method of compliance may may not be perfect, but it addresses the legal problem. There wouldn't be a legal issue without the law. This is not a chicken or the egg situation. No law, no need to inform even if no tracking cookies exist.

> hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived

By informing and asking for a acknowledgment? That seems pretty benign compared to a ton of things I have seen over the last nearly three decades.