the cookie directive requires users to give consent for cookies to be placed in their browsers. it s possible to take a very literal interpretation from this directive that would require users to give explicit consent before any cookie can be placed in their browsers however it s also possible to interpret the directive in a more practical common the uk has already signalled its intent to implement the provisions of this directive in a practical manner by allowing consent to the use of cookies to be given via we are hopeful that other member states will take a similar common sense approach to the interpretation of this directive. note we re not attorneys solicitors lawyers legal experts. we are the team behind statcounter and we have prepared this post in reponse to a number of queries we have received recently. this post is for informational purposes only. this post is not nor is it intended to be legal advice and should not be considered as such. directives are binding on eu member states not on eu citizens. the related national legislation is binding on eu citizens. a directive should be passed into law by each member state by a specified date at which point it becomes binding on the citizens of the relevant member state. each member state must interpret each directive so it s possible for different member states to have differing laws all based on the same directive. this means that it s the legal interpretation of the directive in each member state that is relevant rather than the actual directive itself. the cookie directive is supposed to be transposed into national law by all eu member states by 25 may 2011. it s not clear how many member states will comply with this deadline. the cookie directive what does it mean the new cookie directive goes further than current legislative provisions stating that consent must be given for cookies to be stored accessed on users computers. if the cookie directive is interpreted literally it appears that an internet user could be required to give consent each time a cookie is placed on that user s via some sort of pop up consent form that asks visitors if they agree to the installation of specific cookies . there are numerous potential problems with this directive including the internet as we know it could not function without cookies. david naylor has created an interesting and worrying example of the possible consequences of this directive here. not a pleasant prospect the scope and applicability of the new legislation is not clear but presents many potential problems. will the new legislation apply to all eu citizens if so how will the eu force non eu websites to comply if non eu websites are not subject to these draconian provisions then will eu websites suffer a reduction in traffic as a result or will eu businesses considering relocating in order to avoid the penal legislation as member states may all adopt different legislative provisions in relation to this directive a single entity operating in several eu countries may have to provide different website consent and privacy options in every jurisdiction. this could present administrative and technical difficulties and cause particular hardship for smaller businesses. by placing severe restrictions on relatively harmless cookies this law may encourage the use of more invasive technologies. all cookies appear to be covered by this directive regardless of how much or how little information they hold. no account is taken of the value of advertising funded content and services nor the consumer support for interest based advertising. reading the directive it appears to us that as each member state adopts the relevant legislation that interpretation of the legislation will apply to all citizens of we re open to correction on this so please feel free to comment below. if that is the case then theoretically every website in the world may have to apply a different set of regulations to their website for every set of visitors to their site from every member state. in practice it s difficult to see us australian or chinese sites tripping over themselves to comply with differing sets of eu legislation plus it s not at all clear how an eu state could impose a sanction on such a website for non compliance in will this lead to non eu sites without burdensome consent requirements being favoured by eu citizens alternatively if the transposed legislation applies to eu websites then what is the definition of such a site as mentioned earlier will eu businesses be encouraged to move their hosting out of the eu to avoid the penal legislation and while we re on the subject of definitions the lack of same in the directive has resulted in huge uncertainty for example no definition of consent is offered but equally this leaves the door open for member states to adopt a flexible and common sense approach to this seemingly archaic directive. some commentators have also discussed the possibility that cookies necessary to the operation of a site may be excluded from the consent provisions but again no definition of necessary is provided. perhaps unsurprisingly we view our own statcounter cookies which we use to track visitor activity as vital to allow us to maintain and improve our sites. our tracking cookies contain minimal information and are used to determine unique and returning visitors only. we know many of our members share this view. reflecting on this directive we feel that the restrictions on cookies may have been initially aimed at behavioural advertising only but somewhere during the drafting unique the cookie directive requires users to give consent for cookies to be placed in the.... unique it s possible to take a very literal interpretation from this directive that would
