Implicitly, I think signal11 is making this argument:

Prior assumption: You cannot read primary legislation and understand it correctly, unless you're a lawyer specialising in that area of law.

Instead, you should copy people who've probably received competent legal advice.

Observation: A great many websites, including those of EU government bodies, use cookie consent modals.

Conclusion: Cookie consent modals must be legal.

There is in fact case law which interprets the legislation and says explicit consent is required[1] but of course it doesn’t mandate modals.

However it does note[2] that

> That decision is unaffected by whether or not the *information stored or accessed on the user’s equipment is personal data*. EU law aims to protect the user from any interference with his or her private life, in particular, from the risk that hidden identifiers and other similar devices enter those users’ terminal equipment without their knowledge.

This sets a fairly high bar for getting consent for any identifier-laden cookie. So I can understand why people choose to use modals as a risk-reduction approach, and why it has become accepted practice. If you do end up in court, it’s reasonable to expect courts to consider established practice is while formulating their judgement.

However, I do fundamentally disagree with the notion that explicit consent at the time of first visit is a good model for ordinary internet users. It was a good first effort but regulators need to do better, and strengthen ways for users to effectively pre-set their consent preferences in advance, think ‘Do Not Track’ but with teeth.

[1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-673/17

[2] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...