If some companies still hoped for regulatory leniency, the legal landscape at the end of 2025 leaves little room for doubt: surface-level compliance is no longer enough.
Within just a few weeks, several major enforcement actions have reshaped the compliance narrative around cookies and tracking technologies. Different authorities, different legal bases but a clear and converging message.
1️ Technical reality prevails over formal appearance
(Vanity Fair / Condé Nast – CNIL, €750,000)
The French Data Protection Authority sanctioned the publisher of Vanity Fair for depositing advertising cookies before any valid consent and, more critically, for continuing to read trackers despite an explicit refusal via the “Reject all” button.
This decision is grounded in the French transposition of the ePrivacy framework, which requires prior consent for any non-essential tracker.
The takeaway is structural:
➡️ a compliant-looking consent banner is meaningless if the backend behavior does not strictly reflect the user’s choice.
Compliance is assessed technically, not declaratively.
2️ Responsibility across the commercial ecosystem
(American Express – CNIL, €1.5 million)
Here, the CNIL went further by addressing the interdependence between tracking technologies and commercial prospecting.
Beyond unlawful cookie placement, the authority emphasized a key principle of data protection law:
➡️ the advertiser remains responsible for processing carried out on its behalf, including by marketing and analytics partners.
The failure to ensure a free, specific, informed and unambiguous consent as required under the GDPR resulted in a significantly higher sanction.
This decision reinforces a recurring message:
👉 outsourcing does not dilute accountability.
3️ A European-scale shift: transparency and dark patterns
(X – European Commission, €120 million)
The €120 million fine imposed on X marks the first major enforcement action under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
While the legal basis differs from traditional cookie enforcement, the underlying concern is familiar: user manipulation through opaque interfaces.
The Commission targeted misleading design choices (dark patterns) and deficiencies in advertising transparency systems that rely heavily on tracking and profiling mechanisms.
This confirms a broader regulatory trend:
➡️ interface design itself has become a compliance object.
🔎 A common legal thread
Despite different authorities and instruments, these decisions converge around a single core requirement:
the loyalty of the user interface.
Whether under ePrivacy rules, the GDPR, or the DSA, regulators are scrutinizing:
- the effectiveness of consent mechanisms,
- the alignment between user choice and technical execution,
- and the absence of manipulative or misleading design.
Compliance is no longer a matter of wording it is a matter of architecture.
🎯 These sanctions reflect a structural escalation:
- higher fines,
- repeated inspections,
- and increasing convergence between national and EU-level enforcement.
For companies, cookie compliance can no longer be treated as a peripheral technical issue.
It is now a governance topic, requiring coordination between legal, IT, marketing, and UX teams.
The real risk for 2026 is not the absence of a banner but the gap between what the interface promises and what the system actually does.
Sources :
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/ip_25_2934
https://cnil.fr/fr/cookies-la-cnil-sanctionne-american-express-dune-amende-de-15-million-deuros
