invisit
All posts

By Miraç Berk12 min read

Do you need a cookie banner for analytics? EU, UK and US in 2026

What EU, UK and US law says about analytics cookies and cookieless tracking as of November 2026, with a setup-by-setup table and a checklist.

A soft 3D cookie beside a half-closed consent banner on a browser window, with violet dithered light and shadows.

In the EU and the UK, analytics that store or read information on a visitor’s device need consent unless an exemption for audience measurement applies, and regulators disagree on how far that exemption reaches for cookieless tools. In the US, no general law requires a cookie banner for analytics: you need a privacy policy, plus an opt-out that honours Global Privacy Control if your analytics sell or share personal data.

Below are the rules as of November 3, 2026, from the laws and regulators themselves. We build invisit, a cookieless analytics tool, so we have a stake; where invisit’s position is uncertain, we say so.

The short answer for the EU, the UK and the US

EU UK US
The rule ePrivacy Directive Article 5(3), in each country’s law PECR regulation 6, rewritten from February 5, 2026 No cookie consent rule; state privacy laws
What triggers it Storing or reading information on the device, any technology The same, plus collecting information the device emits Selling or sharing personal data, targeted ads
Consent-free analytics? Not in the Directive; France exempts it under limits Yes, for statistics, with notice and a way to object Yes; opt-outs and a privacy policy instead

What does EU law say about analytics cookies?

EU law makes consent the default for any analytics that touch the visitor’s device, and analytics is not one of its exemptions. Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive allows “the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user” only with consent, after “clear and comprehensive information”.

The only exemptions are transmitting a communication and what is “strictly necessary” for a service the user “explicitly requested”. The rule covers any information, not only personal data.

In Opinion 04/2012, the EU’s data protection regulators found that first-party analytics cookies “are not exempt from consent but pose limited privacy risks”, and suggested lawmakers add an exemption. The Directive still has none.

When analytics process personal data, the GDPR applies on top: a lawful basis, a privacy notice and a processing agreement with your vendor. An IP address can be personal data in a website operator’s hands.1

Cookieless analytics is not automatically exempt in the EU. The European Data Protection Board’s Guidelines 2/2023 on the technical scope of Article 5(3), final version 2.0 adopted on October 7, 2024, read the rule as covering far more than cookies:

The EDPB leaves exemptions to national regulators, noting that falling under Article 5(3) “does not systematically mean that consent needs to be collected” (paragraph 56). So a cookieless script is still inside the rule, and the banner question becomes whether your country exempts audience measurement.

France exempts audience measurement from consent under strict conditions; Germany’s regulators decline to say it is exempt in general.

The CNIL’s audience measurement page, dated July 4, 2025, exempts trackers used only to measure the site’s audience on behalf of the publisher alone, producing anonymous statistics only, never cross-referenced with other processing or passed to third parties in non-anonymous form, and never following a person across sites or apps. It recommends telling users in your privacy policy, a tracker lifetime such as 13 months that does not extend on each visit, and keeping the data at most 25 months.

Its July 2025 self-assessment grid is stricter than most founders expect. For a fingerprint-style visitor hash, it recommends mixing in something site-specific, such as the domain, and a time component. Its recommended measures also switch off UTM and campaign-ID collection, cut referrers to the domain, rule out following one visitor’s navigation, and put an opt-out link in the privacy policy. Vendors may document alternatives, but may not call a tool “validated by the CNIL”.

Matomo’s CNIL mode shows the cost: it turns off the Visits Log, visitor profiles, User ID, heatmaps and session recordings, discards campaign parameters, masks three bytes of each IP address and deletes raw data after 744 days.

Germany’s section 25 of the TDDDG copies Article 5(3) almost word for word. Its regulators’ guidance for digital services (version 1.2, November 2024) refuses to call reach measurement exempt in general, because “even the simple measurement of visitor numbers” is not part of the basic service “per se” and depends on its purpose (paragraph 90, our translation). It treats reading device properties with JavaScript to build a fingerprint as access (paragraph 24). In Germany, consent-free analytics rests on your own documented argument.

Regulators have not agreed on analytics that count visitors with a daily hash of the IP address and user agent:

Source Position on hash-based counting
EDPB (EU) IP-based tracking can fall under Article 5(3); exemptions are for national regulators
CNIL (France) Usable for consent-free measurement, with the site and a time component in the hash, among the other conditions
DSK (Germany) Fingerprints built from JavaScript-read properties are access; no general exemption for reach measurement
ICO (UK) Fingerprinting, which can use HTTP headers and IP addresses, is covered wherever it accesses information on a device
Plausible Hashes a daily salt, domain, IP and user agent, deletes the salt every 24 hours, and says you “do not need cookie banners”
Simple Analytics IP hashes combined with dates are “still considered fingerprinting and requires consent under GDPR and PECR”

Vendors describe their own products, so weigh the regulators first. Either way, a daily hash keeps you inside the GDPR: Fathom’s documentation says it processes “personal data (IP Address and User-Agent)” for its customers.

What changed for analytics cookies in the UK in 2026?

Since February 5, 2026, UK sites can use cookies and similar technologies for analytics without consent, if the analytics are statistical, aimed at improving the site, and visitors are told and can object. Section 112 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, brought into force by S.I. 2026/82, rewrote PECR regulation 6 and added Schedule A1. Its paragraph 5 allows storage or access when:

  1. its sole purpose is to collect information “for statistical purposes” about how the service or website is used, “with a view to making improvements”;
  2. the information is shared only with someone helping you make those improvements;
  3. visitors get “clear and comprehensive information” about the purpose;
  4. visitors have “a simple means of objecting, free of charge”, and do not object.

Regulation 6 now also covers “collecting or monitoring information automatically emitted by the terminal equipment”, and paragraph 5(2) keeps that kind of collection out of the statistics exception.

The ICO finalised its storage and access guidance on April 29, 2026. Its exceptions chapter says the exception is about “how your service is used, not about who uses it”:

The ICO’s only example of “automatically emitted” information is wifi probe requests. Whether the IP address and user agent of an ordinary page request count is not settled, and that decides how comfortably a hash-based tool fits the exception.

Not yet. As of November 2026 an EU analytics exemption is still a proposal, and the current rules apply in full.

The European Commission’s Digital Omnibus proposal of November 19, 2025 would exempt “creating aggregated information about the usage of an online service to measure the audience of such a service, where it is carried out by the controller of that online service solely for its own use”. On October 21, 2026 the Council agreed its position: the rules stay in the ePrivacy Directive, with added consent-free purposes including audience measurement. Negotiations start once the European Parliament adopts its position; its committees had not voted by late October 2026 (Legislative Train).

No. No federal law, and none of the state privacy laws, requires opt-in consent before ordinary first-party analytics. US state laws work on opt-out: people can stop the sale or sharing of their data and targeted advertising, and several states require you to honour Global Privacy Control (GPC) as that opt-out.

Sensitive data is different: Colorado, for one, requires consent before processing it, and health and children’s data have their own rules, not covered here.

What each analytics setup needs in the EU, the UK and the US

Setup On the device EU UK US
GA4 with cookies _ga cookies kept 2 years Consent Consent, as typically configured Privacy policy; opt-out and GPC if data is shared
GA4 with Consent Mode Basic: nothing until consent. Advanced: cookieless pings Consent; the banner is still required Consent, as typically configured Same as GA4
Cookieless, no identifier Script sends page and referrer; nothing stored Low risk; depends on the national reading Statistics exception: notice and opt-out Privacy policy
Cookieless, daily hash Nothing stored; server hashes IP and user agent daily Disputed; France allows it under limits Statistics exception if aggregate; unsettled Privacy policy
First-party analytics cookie Visitor ID cookie, often a year or more Consent, except France under its limits Statistics exception for aggregate use only Privacy policy; opt-out if data is sold or shared

GA4 sets _ga and _ga_<container-id> for two years by default (Google), and Google’s EU user consent policy makes you collect consent where the law requires it in the EEA, the UK and Switzerland. To use the UK statistics exception, a GA4 property would at least need Google signals, ads links and data sharing off, plus an objection control.

Consent Mode changes what the tag does after the visitor chooses, not whether you ask. In basic mode, no tags load before the banner is answered. In advanced mode, denied visitors still send cookieless pings with the user agent, referrer and a random number per page load: a script making the browser send information, as in EDPB paragraph 33.

Simple Analytics decides visits from the referrer and keeps no identifier, the most conservative design here. Plausible and Fathom rotate their hash salt daily; Umami rotates its salt monthly by default, so a returning visitor stays linkable for up to a month. DataFast’s default script sets a datafast_visitor_id cookie for a year, and DataFast says you may need a banner for it.

invisit sits in the daily-hash row, so the same country-by-country readings apply to it as to Plausible or Fathom. We do not claim it is exempt everywhere. What it does, checked against its code:

src/analytics.ts
import { consent, init } from '@invisitdev/web'

init({ site: '<site id>' })

// The "stop measuring me" link in your privacy policy
export function optOutOfAnalytics(): void {
  consent('denied')
}

To ask first, start with init({ site: '<site id>', requireConsent: true }) and call consent('granted') from your banner.

Where invisit fits less well:

Checklist: privacy policy, banner or neither

The trap to avoid is treating “cookieless” as the exemption. Every exemption above comes with conditions, usually notice, an opt-out and aggregate use only, and you meet them in your privacy policy and your setup, not in your vendor’s marketing.

Footnotes

  1. The EU Court of Justice held in Breyer (C-582/14) on October 19, 2016 that a dynamic IP address can be personal data for a website operator with legal means to identify the person behind it. ↩