You will no doubt have been aware of the 26 May 2012 deadline, which heralded the end of the Information Commissioner's grace period for website owners to comply with the change in law in relation to the use of cookies.
Looking back at our old Naked Law blog, we wrote quite a lot of posts about cookies, the upcoming change in law requiring “explicit consent” from users and what website owners needed to be doing to comply (in fact my very last post dealt with the subject – see here). But where are we now, four months on from the big 'doomsday' deadline?
The main change I have noticed is the use of many different types of banners, roll-over links and cookie policies popping up on websites I visit, which highlight which cookies are being used and how. Many of these aren’t strictly compliant with the letter of the law, because they don’t actually ask a user to consent. Examples of these are where:
- there is just a link to the website’s cookie policy;
- there is a banner or pop-up saying you are ‘deemed’ to accept the use of cookies by continuing to use the website; or
- you can continue to use the website without actually ticking the ‘I consent’ box (unless cookies are automatically switched off until you tick the box, which probably isn’t the case for most websites).
I can’t really be said to have “explicitly” consented to the use of cookies in any of the above examples. However, it does show that website owners are 'taking steps' towards compliance in order to avoid the threat of enforcement action being taken against them by the ICO. Most will also see this as a ‘safety in numbers’ approach.
The problem with where we have got to now is that everyone just seems to be sitting and waiting for someone else to come up with a strictly compliant solution which doesn’t effect user experience, rather than actually working on alternatives themselves. That may be a bit of a generalisation, but I haven’t seen or heard of any new solutions so far. Perhaps, being in the technology sector, one of you can prove me wrong?
In case you have somehow managed to miss the whole debate so far, the ICO's guidance on the new requirements is available through this link.