[DerpObvious]

But they may only use the storage once consent has been given, which can only happen after a warning has been issued.

The two clauses seem to indicate that consent must be before storage, and warning before consent, hence there must be a warning /before/ the storage on the remote machine.

[potatolicious]

In either case, storing the cookie before consent, in the Google context, seems to run directly counter to the intent and spirit of the law.

I'm not big on technicalities. Normally I would put this in the "not a big deal" bucket, but in this case the specific cookies do not belong to the website itself. This means that you cannot retroactively "untrack" a user once they refuse your warning.

If this was just the website's own cookie, and if the cookie could be deleted and all tracking data would vanish from the site's own backend, then I'd be inclined to give it a pass.