{"id":6742,"date":"2021-06-11T10:48:16","date_gmt":"2021-06-11T10:48:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/?p=6742"},"modified":"2026-06-16T23:11:15","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T23:11:15","slug":"privacy-data-protection-compliance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/expertises\/tech-and-digital\/privacy-data-and-cybersecurity\/privacy-data-protection-compliance\/","title":{"rendered":"ePrivacy (cookies)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Cookies and ePrivacy constitute a particularly concrete, visible and testable domain within digital regulation, because they do not affect the user at a distance, but directly at the first point of contact with a website, platform, app or digital service. Whereas many obligations in the fields of data protection, cybersecurity, data governance and Digital Crime Control operate behind processes, systems, contracts and internal controls, ePrivacy appears quite literally on the user\u2019s screen. The cookie banner, the consent layer, the settings screens, the choice to accept or reject, the explanation of tracking and the manner in which preferences are stored therefore form a directly observable expression of the way in which an organisation exercises digital power. In that small moment, a broad normative reality converges: information position, commercial pressure, technical configuration, behavioural steering, legal permissibility, transparency, accountability and respect for digital autonomy. An organisation may have privacy policies, records of processing activities, supplier contracts and compliance documentation in place on paper, but where the user is confronted at the first digital point of contact with unclear language, asymmetric choices, manipulative design or effectively mandatory tracking, doubt immediately arises as to the actual quality of digital integrity governance.<\/p>\n

Within Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, ePrivacy therefore has a significance that extends far beyond cookie compliance in the narrow sense. Cookies, pixels, SDKs, device identifiers, local storage, fingerprinting techniques and comparable tracking mechanisms can activate data flows that are relevant to marketing, analytics, personalisation, platform optimisation, advertising auctions, customer segmentation and behavioural profiling. This creates an interface between privacy protection, consumer trust, cybersecurity, fraud sensitivity, data quality, reputational risk and Digital Crime Risks. Where tracking is insufficiently controlled, personal data may circulate more widely than is defensible, third parties may gain unclear access to user information, vulnerable groups may be approached on the basis of behavioural characteristics, and actual data processing may diverge from the public promise made to users. ePrivacy is therefore not a decorative element of digital service provision, but a sharp instrument for assessing whether an organisation is capable of bringing technology, commerce, law and integrity together within a single consistent governance model.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Cookies and ePrivacy as the visible intersection of technology, consent and transparency<\/h4>\n

Cookies and ePrivacy are situated at the intersection of technology, law and user experience, because the legal question of valid consent cannot be separated from the technical operation of tracking mechanisms and the manner in which choices are presented to users. Consent that appears legally carefully formulated loses its meaning where tracking already takes place before a choice has been made, where categories are unclear, where the option to reject remains hidden, or where third parties receive data through scripts and tags without the user being able reasonably to understand that this is happening. In that respect, ePrivacy is a domain in which formal compliance quickly falls short when the technical implementation does not align with the normative purpose of the rules. Transparency requires not only text, but also correct timing, an understandable structure, actual control and demonstrable compliance within the digital environment itself.<\/p>\n

The visibility of cookies makes this domain reputationally sensitive. Users do not need to be lawyers, privacy officers or IT specialists to experience that a cookie banner feels unfair. A brightly coloured accept button, a hard-to-find rejection option, several additional screens for refusal, vague categories such as \u201cpartners\u201d or \u201cimproving the experience\u201d, or a default setting that maximises tracking can immediately create the impression that consent is not being requested but directed. From the perspective of Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, that is relevant because trust in digital interaction has risk-control value. Where users experience that an organisation exerts pressure even in relation to a simple cookie choice, a broader suspicion arises that data, security, marketing and profiling are also not being handled with due care. The visible detail then becomes an indicator of a deeper integrity problem.<\/p>\n

A careful approach therefore requires cookies and ePrivacy not to be treated as a separate technical project, but as part of strategic digital integrity governance. Legal analysis must be connected with tag management, consent management, vendor governance, security controls, marketing processes, data minimisation and user communication. The question is not only whether a cookie banner is present, but whether the entire chain of tracking, consent, transfer, retention periods, purpose limitation and evidentiary record-keeping is demonstrably correct. An organisation that structures this carefully shows that digital service provision is not designed solely around conversion, measurability and commercial optimisation, but also around legal protection, controllability and protection against Digital Crime Risks that may arise when data is collected and shared in an unfocused, uncontrolled or opaque manner.<\/p>\n

ePrivacy rules as a test of digital fairness towards users<\/h4>\n

ePrivacy rules function as a test of digital fairness because they make the relationship between organisation and user concrete at the moment when data collection begins. The core question is not merely whether consent has been legally validly obtained, but also whether the user has been placed in a real position to make a free, specific, informed and unambiguous choice. Digital fairness requires that the user is not confronted with misleading wording, behavioural design that pushes towards acceptance, unnecessary complexity or an apparent choice in which rejection is made materially more difficult than consent. The ePrivacy standard therefore requires more than a mechanical click record. It requires a fair interaction in which information and freedom of choice are not subordinated to commercial conversion objectives.<\/p>\n

That fairness directly affects accountability. An organisation that processes data through cookies and comparable technologies must be able to explain which techniques are used, which purposes are pursued, which parties are involved, which categories of data are affected and on which legal basis or consent basis that processing rests. Within Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, this explanatory function carries additional weight because opaque tracking chains may overlap with risks relating to data breaches, unauthorised access, fraudulent advertising chains, identity enrichment, misuse of behavioural data and broader Digital Crime Risks. Where it is unknown which third parties obtain access to user information through scripts, pixels or advertising tags, not only a privacy risk arises, but also a loss of control that undermines the organisation\u2019s digital resilience.<\/p>\n

Digital fairness becomes visible in the extent to which the organisation takes the user\u2019s perspective seriously. A legally correct but practically incomprehensible cookie text may still fall short where the user does not obtain a realistic understanding of what is happening. Terms such as \u201coptimisation\u201d, \u201cpersonalisation\u201d, \u201cpartners\u201d, \u201clegitimate interests\u201d or \u201cimproving the experience\u201d may conceal rather than clarify where they do not make clear that behavioural data is being collected, linked, analysed or shared for commercial purposes. An integrity-driven ePrivacy configuration distinguishes between strictly necessary cookies, functional settings, analytical measurements and tracking for marketing or profiling. In doing so, the user is not only informed, but also protected against an information asymmetry in which the organisation holds all the knowledge and the user is given only a cosmetic choice.<\/p>\n

Consent, information duties and user expectations in online environments<\/h4>\n

Consent in online environments has meaning only where it is based on understandable information, genuine freedom of choice and a design that does not manipulate the user. In the context of cookies and ePrivacy, that is a demanding standard because digital interfaces are often designed to promote speed, convenience and conversion. The user generally does not visit a website in order to study privacy settings, but to obtain information, use a service, make a purchase or establish contact. This makes consent vulnerable to routine clicking, fatigue, inattention and influence through design choices. An organisation that takes this behavioural context seriously does not structure consent as a trap or obstacle, but as a clear, balanced and revocable choice.<\/p>\n

The information duty must therefore align with what a reasonably informed user needs in order to understand the consequences of tracking. This means that information about cookies must not remain confined to general, abstract or technically obscuring language. The user must be able to understand which types of data are collected, why this occurs, whether data is shared with third parties, whether profiling or personalised advertising takes place, how settings can be adjusted and how consent can be withdrawn. From the perspective of Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, that transparency is also important for internal control. An organisation that communicates clearly externally must internally possess knowledge of the actual tracking practice. Where marketing, IT, legal, compliance and external suppliers each know only part of the reality, but no central insight exists into the full data flow, the information duty becomes vulnerable and the risk of inaccurate public statements increases.<\/p>\n

User expectations are an important assessment factor in this context. Not every user expects that a simple website visitor will be followed through several advertising partners, that click behaviour will be combined with other online signals, or that profile information will be used for commercial segmentation. Where the actual intensity of tracking goes beyond what may reasonably be expected, the need for clear information and explicit freedom of choice increases. In that regard, ePrivacy is not only a legal standard, but also a trust standard. The user must be able to experience that digital service provision is not made dependent on silent data collection that is barely visible. An organisation that structurally ignores user expectations may create marketing value in the short term, but builds long-term reputational vulnerability, complaint sensitivity and supervisory exposure into its operations.<\/p>\n

Cookies as data instruments and reputationally sensitive issues<\/h4>\n

Cookies are data instruments because they make it possible to measure user behaviour, manage sessions, remember preferences, analyse website performance, attribute conversions, personalise advertisements and optimise digital customer journeys. That instrumental value explains why cookies and comparable technologies are deeply interwoven with commercial digital business operations. At the same time, that same value is the source of risk. The more valuable behavioural data becomes for marketing, analytics and platform optimisation, the greater the temptation to expand data collection, formulate categories broadly, choose expansive default settings and give third parties access to digital interactions. Cookie management thereby shifts from a technical precondition to a strategic data governance issue.<\/p>\n

The reputational sensitivity arises because cookies reveal how an organisation handles power over information. The user does not see the full tracking chain, but does experience the way in which consent is requested. An organisation that hides the rejection option, uses unclear language or presents tracking as a necessary condition where that is not the case implicitly communicates that commercial interests weigh more heavily than transparency and autonomy. This can be damaging for brands that place trust, professionalism, social responsibility or secure service provision at the centre of their identity. Within Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, that reputational dimension deserves particular attention because digital integrity is not assessed only after incidents, investigations or data breaches, but also in everyday interactions in which users experience whether their position is taken seriously.<\/p>\n

Cookies must therefore be controlled as part of a broader data chain. This requires insight into which cookies and trackers are active, who places them, at what moment they are activated, which data they collect, which third parties gain access, which retention periods apply and how consent is technically enforced. It is not sufficient to publish policy where the actual website configuration diverges from it. Nor is it sufficient to rely on default settings of consent management platforms, advertising networks or external agencies. An organisation that takes cookies seriously as a data instrument conducts periodic checks, tests changes in tags and scripts, records decisions, critically assesses suppliers and ensures that commercial data ambitions do not become detached from privacy protection, Digital Crime Control and managerial responsibility.<\/p>\n

The tension between commercial optimisation and privacy protection<\/h4>\n

The central tension within ePrivacy lies in the collision between commercial optimisation and privacy protection. Digital marketing and online service provision often focus on measurability, personalisation, retargeting, conversion, customer segmentation and behavioural analysis. Privacy protection, by contrast, requires purpose limitation, data minimisation, transparency, freedom of choice, restriction of third-party access and restraint in profiling. These interests do not necessarily have to be incompatible, but they do require an explicit balancing exercise. Where commercial optimisation becomes dominant without counterweight, the risk arises that tracking will expand continuously, that consent will be designed as a conversion tool and that privacy protection will be reduced to a textual formality. ePrivacy therefore compels the limitation of digital commercial power.<\/p>\n

That limitation matters because behavioural data can acquire a particularly sensitive character when it is collected, combined and interpreted over time. In isolation, a click, page view or advertising interaction may appear limited in significance. In combination with location data, device characteristics, purchasing behaviour, search interests, customer profiles or external datasets, however, a detailed picture may emerge of preferences, vulnerabilities, financial position, health signals, family context, political interests or other sensitive aspects of users\u2019 lives. From the perspective of Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, this concerns more than privacy. Behavioural data may be valuable for legitimate analysis, but also attractive for misuse, social engineering, account takeover, phishing segmentation, fraud-oriented targeting and other Digital Crime Risks. The richer the profile, the greater the control obligation.<\/p>\n

A balanced organisation therefore does not opt for maximum data collection simply because the technology makes it possible, but for proportionate data processing that is defensible in terms of purpose, necessity and user trust. Commercial optimisation must be tested against the question of which data is truly necessary, which less intrusive alternatives exist, which forms of analytics are possible without consent under strict safeguards, which tracking may take place only after valid consent and which processing activities should better be left aside altogether. Privacy protection then becomes not a brake on innovation, but a quality condition for sustainable digital service provision. Under that approach, ePrivacy becomes a governance issue: the organisation determines not only how conversion is increased, but also which limits apply to influence, profiling and data sharing.<\/p>\n

ePrivacy as a practical litmus test for transparent digital service provision<\/h4>\n

ePrivacy functions as a practical litmus test for transparent digital service provision because this domain immediately reveals whether legal obligations have actually been translated into fair digital interaction. In this environment, transparency is not a static text in a privacy notice, but an operational quality of the entire user journey. The user must be able to understand, at the relevant moment, which tracking takes place, why that tracking is deployed, which parties are involved, what the consequences of consent are, and how a choice once made can later be amended. Where that information is available only through lengthy, generic or difficult-to-access texts, there is no real transparency, but rather information overload. Digital service provision that seeks to rely on trust must therefore offer clarity without requiring the user to engage in legal or technical detective work.<\/p>\n

A cookie banner or consent layer is, in that respect, more than an interface element. It is a public statement about the relationship between the organisation and the user. The design of buttons, the order in which choices are presented, the naming of categories, the default settings, the ability to reject tracking and the intelligibility of the explanations together determine whether the information position is balanced. A banner that makes acceptance easy and rejection difficult may formally offer a choice, but materially impair the user\u2019s autonomy. Within Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, this matters because digital integrity is assessed not only by reference to policies and documentation, but also by reference to visible conduct. An organisation that claims transparency while designing choice processes in a manipulative manner creates a discrepancy between promise and performance.<\/p>\n

Transparent digital service provision therefore requires a control model in which legal, compliance, marketing, IT, security and supplier management do not operate in isolation, but share the same factual understanding of tracking and consent. The organisation must know which cookies are active, which scripts collect data, which analytics tools are used, which advertising partners receive data, which consent status applies and how changes are monitored. That factual control is indispensable for Digital Crime Control, because unmanaged tracking chains may lead to unintended data sharing, security vulnerabilities, misuse of behavioural data, fraudulent advertising interactions and broader Digital Crime Risks. ePrivacy thereby becomes a practical test of whether digital service provision is not only commercially effective, but also controllable, explainable and defensible.<\/p>\n

The relationship between tracking, profiling and trust in online interaction<\/h4>\n

Tracking and profiling directly affect trust because they often follow the user beyond the visible moment of interaction. Where the user visits a website, completes a form, views a product or uses a service, a data chain may arise behind the scenes in which behaviour is measured, linked, analysed and used for segmentation or influence. In itself, tracking may serve a legitimate function, for example for security, session management, usage statistics or service delivery. The risk arises when tracking is used in a manner that the user does not expect, does not understand or cannot genuinely refuse. The digital interaction then becomes unequal: the organisation obtains detailed behavioural information, while the user has only limited insight into the scope, destination and significance of that data.<\/p>\n

Profiling intensifies this tension because behavioural data is not merely collected, but also interpreted. Visit frequency, click behaviour, pages viewed, purchasing interest, device characteristics, location indicators, time of use and interactions with advertisements may together lead to assumptions about preferences, willingness to buy, vulnerability, financial capacity or susceptibility to particular messages. Where such profiles are used for behavioural advertising, retargeting or personalised influence, a normative question arises that goes beyond technical tracking. The central question is whether the user still has sufficient control over the digital environment in which information, offers and stimuli are tailored to previous behaviour. Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management must include such processes in the assessment of Digital Crime Risks, because profile information may also be valuable for deception, phishing, social engineering, identity fraud and other forms of digital misuse.<\/p>\n

Trust in online interaction therefore requires limitation, precision and demonstrable care. Not every form of tracking warrants the same treatment, but every form requires clear classification, an appropriate purpose, a correct consent basis and a controllable technical implementation. Profiling practices must be critically assessed in terms of proportionality, transparency, data minimisation and potential consequences for users. An organisation that controls tracking and profiling prevents digital service provision from turning into an invisible observation space in which the user is continuously measured without meaningful choice. In that way, trust is protected not only through words, but through demonstrable limits on data collection, data sharing and behavioural influence.<\/p>\n

Cookie management as a combination of legal, technical and UX issues<\/h4>\n

Cookie management is a multidisciplinary issue because legal standards are effective only where they are technically enforced correctly and designed fairly within the user experience. Legally, it must be established which cookies are strictly necessary, which processing activities require consent, what information must be provided to the user, how consent is recorded and how withdrawal must take place. Technically, it must then be ensured that cookies and scripts are not placed too early, that preferences are respected, that tags depend on the correct consent status and that changes to websites, apps or marketing tools do not introduce uncontrolled tracking. From a UX perspective, the choice environment must be clear, neutral and accessible, without misleading emphasis, unnecessary friction or language that conceals the consequences.<\/p>\n

This combination makes cookie management vulnerable to fragmentation. Marketing may add new tags for campaigns, IT may implement scripts through tag managers, external agencies may place advertising technology, legal may update texts and compliance may manage policies, while no central view exists of how the system actually operates. In such a situation, there is a real risk that the cookie banner appears legally careful, but does not technically correspond to reality. This may result in the placement of tracking cookies before consent, the incorrect categorisation of marketing cookies as functional, insufficient blocking of third parties or inadequate recording of consent choices. Within Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, this is a concrete control risk because technical deviations simultaneously put legal defensibility and protection against Digital Crime Risks under pressure.<\/p>\n

An effective cookie management process therefore requires periodic inventories, technical scans, supplier assessments, contractual control, clear allocation of ownership, change management and evidentiary record-keeping. Every change in website functionality, advertising campaigns, analytics configuration or external scripts must be capable of being assessed against ePrivacy requirements before data is collected. Retention period management also deserves attention: consent must not be presumed indefinitely, cookie lifetimes must align with purpose and necessity, and withdrawn consent must actually take effect in the technical layer. This creates a coherent control practice in which legal standard-setting, technical configuration and user experience reinforce one another. Cookie management then becomes not a separate compliance component, but an operational instrument for Digital Crime Control, privacy protection and reliable digital service provision.<\/p>\n

ePrivacy compliance as a first impression of digital normative firmness<\/h4>\n

ePrivacy compliance often forms the first impression of digital normative firmness, because the user experiences, immediately upon entering a digital environment, how carefully rights, choices and information are handled. Before a privacy notice has been read, an account has been created or a service has been used, the cookie configuration communicates which priorities the organisation sets. A balanced, clear and technically correct consent layer inspires trust. An opaque, coercive or misleading cookie banner produces the opposite effect. That first impression may be decisive for the broader assessment of the organisation, especially where the service depends on confidentiality, professional care, financial reliability or the handling of sensitive data.<\/p>\n

That normative firmness must be demonstrated through consistency. The public text, the technical reality, the internal documentation and the actual supplier chain must correspond with one another. Where the cookie notice states that marketing cookies are placed only after consent, but technical control shows that advertising pixels are active immediately, a serious integrity problem arises. Where users are told that settings can easily be adjusted, but withdrawal proves hidden or ineffective, consent loses its meaning. Where third parties are described in general categories while, in reality, a broad network of advertising and data partners obtains access, transparency is hollowed out. In this context, Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management requires external statements not to stand apart from internal controls, but to be supported by demonstrable control over systems, processes and third parties.<\/p>\n

The first impression of ePrivacy compliance is also significant for regulators, business partners, clients, investors and other stakeholders. Cookie practices are relatively easy to verify and may therefore quickly give rise to complaints, investigations, reputational criticism or contractual questions. An organisation that falls short on this visible point risks creating broader doubt about privacy governance, cybersecurity, supplier management and Digital Crime Control. Conversely, a careful ePrivacy configuration can demonstrate that digital responsibility is not activated only after incidents, but is structurally embedded in everyday interactions. ePrivacy thereby performs a signalling function: the way in which cookies and tracking are handled shows whether the organisation sets limits on digital data power before harm, complaints or regulatory intervention occur.<\/p>\n

Strategic digital integrity governance becomes visible in the handling of cookies and tracking<\/h4>\n

Strategic digital integrity governance becomes visible in relation to cookies and tracking because this domain compels choices about power, transparency, proportionality and commercial restraint. An organisation can technically measure a great deal, build legally complex consent layers and create commercially valuable profiles, but the central question remains whether those possibilities are deployed in a defensible manner. Cookies and tracking sharply expose the tension between data-driven growth and user protection. They show whether decision-making is dominated by conversion, advertising performance and measurability, or whether normative criteria such as data minimisation, intelligibility, freedom of choice, security and protection against Digital Crime Risks are also determinative.<\/p>\n

Within Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management, ePrivacy therefore belongs at the centre of digital risk governance. Tracking cannot be assessed solely as a marketing technique, because data flows arising through cookies, pixels and comparable technologies are also relevant to fraud sensitivity, data breach risk, supplier dependency, third-party exposure, reputational vulnerability and regulatory scrutiny. Every external tracker potentially expands the circle of parties involved in digital interactions. Every profile-building process increases the value and sensitivity of the data position. Every unclear consent flow complicates evidence and may weaken the organisation\u2019s legal position. Strategic governance therefore requires tracking decisions to be made with visibility over both commercial benefit and legal, technical and integrity-related consequences.<\/p>\n

A strong approach to cookies and tracking requires managerial discipline. There must be a clear decision-making framework for the use of analytics, marketing technology, advertising partners, personalisation and profiling. That framework must determine which tracking is necessary, which tracking is possible only after valid consent, which techniques are too risky, which suppliers do not fit the desired protection level and which controls are required to make compliance demonstrable. The broader societal sensitivity surrounding online influence, dark patterns, behavioural advertising and data trading must also be considered. In this way, ePrivacy does not become a separate compliance exercise, but a concrete instrument through which Integrated Digital Crime Risk Management gives direction to digital service provision that remains reliable, proportionate, controllable and respectful towards users.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
\r\n \r\n
\r\n \r\n \n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Prevention\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Detection\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Investigation\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Response\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Advising\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Litigating\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Negotiating\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article> \r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n \r\n \r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n \t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cookies and ePrivacy constitute a particularly concrete, visible and testable domain within digital regulation, because they do not affect the user at a distance, but directly at the first point of contact with a website, platform, app or digital service. Whereas many obligations in the fields of data protection, cybersecurity, data governance and Digital Crime Control operate behind processes, systems, contracts and internal controls, ePrivacy appears quite literally on the user\u2019s screen. The cookie banner, the consent layer, the settings screens, the choice to accept or reject, the explanation of tracking and the manner in which preferences are stored therefore<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":34521,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[515],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-privacy-data-and-cybersecurity"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6742"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6742\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34592,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6742\/revisions\/34592"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34521"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}