Internet's biggest annoyance: Cookie laws should target browsers, not websites

The problem here is not the law, but malicious compliance by websites that don't want to give up tracking.

"Spend Five Minutes in a Menu of Legalese" is not the intended alternative to "Accept All". "Decline All" is! And this is starting to be enforced through the courts, so you're increasingly seeing the "Decline All" option right away. As it should be. https://www.techspot.com/news/108043-german-court-takes-stan...

Of course, also respecting a Do-Not-Track header and avoiding the cookie banner entirely while not tracking the user, would be even better.

No, the problem is 100% the law, because it was written in a way that allows this type of malicious compliance.

Laws need to be written well to achieve good outcomes. If the law allows for malicious compliance, it is a badly written law.

The sites are just trying to maximize profit, as anyone could predict. So write better laws.

But the law never allowed this. Enforcement just turned out to be an issue due to the enormity of it all.

Also, please remember that in Europe there is no such thing as "the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law." The intent of the law IS the law.

Honest question, isn't the spirit of the law the same as the intent of the law?

Yes and sometimes it's subtly different from the letter of the law. The point is, if I understand it correctly, that in the US, courts always literally interpret the law as written, whereas in the EU there's a culture of sometimes, when the letter of the law super clearly differs from the intent it was obviously written with, siding with the intent of the law rather than the precise wording.

No. US courts consider both, to the extent that it’s a bright-line divider between “conservative” judges and “liberal” ones, where the former are far more likely to profess strict adherence to the text of the law (particularly constitutional law).

In any case, there is always a difference between the “intent” of a large and diverse body of politicians, and the actual text of a law. Any practical legal system must take it into consideration.

> where the former are far more likely to profess strict adherence to the text of the law (particularly constitutional law)

This is a fiction and just an excuse conservative justices use to make conservative rulings when they don't like a law.

They are perfectly fine to abandon the text of the law whenever it doesn't move forward a conservative agenda. The shining example of this is the voting rights act. Something never amended or repealed by congress but slowly dismantled by the court counter to both the intent and the text of the law.

And if you don't believe me, I suggest reading over the Shelby County v. Holder [1] decision because they put it in black and white.

> Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.

IE "We know the law says this, and it's still supposed to be in effect. But we don't like what it does so we are canceling it based on census data".

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/529/

> This is a fiction and just an excuse conservative justices use to make conservative rulings when they don't like a law.

Isn't this the other way around? If you cite "the spirit of the law" then you're ignoring the text in order to do whatever you want.

Finding a "conservative" judge who does the latter is evidence that the particular judge is hypocrite rather than any argument that ignoring what the law actually says is the right thing to do.

But you also picked kind of a bad example, because that wasn't a case about how to interpret the law, it was about whether the law was unconstitutional.