The case for banning cookie banners

April 7, 2026

AI Summary

5 min read

The case for banning cookie banners

Cookie banners are not just annoying—they're actively harmful, and we'd be better off with nothing at all. That's the argument Kate Klonick, a professor at St. John's and a longtime observer of tech policy, makes in a recent paper. She joined The Vergecast to explain how a well-intentioned European privacy directive turned into a 25-year-old regulatory failure that manufactures consent without actually protecting anyone.

How cookie banners became the default

The story of cookie banners begins not with GDPR but with the EU's e-privacy directive, which was itself a response to early-2000s anxiety about ad tracking. As Klonick explains, the directive said nothing about banners or pop-ups. It simply required that users have "the right to refuse such processing" of their data. But the law was vague, and industry filled the gap. Lawyers and lobbyists converged on cookie banners as the compliance solution that would keep companies from being fined. That interpretation calcified over time, even though advisory opinions from regulators explicitly said banners weren't required.

Continue reading the full summary in the app — free to try.

Read Full Summary →

Free • No credit card required

Listen to Audio Summary Open in App

Never miss an episode of The Vergecast

Get every new episode summarized in your inbox — free, ~5 minutes to read.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

What you'll learn

1 (00:02) **Show Introduction & Host's New Phone** - David Pierce introduces the show and describes a new modular "Sidephone" with interchangeable attachments like a keyboard and iPod-style click wheel.
2 (01:41) **Episode Preview: Cookie Banners & Ask Maps** - David outlines the two main segments: Kate Klonick on why cookie banners should be eliminated, and Allison Johnson on the new Ask Maps feature.
3 (04:13) **The Thesis: Why Cookie Banners Must Go** - David introduces Kate Klonick and her argument that cookie banners are not just annoying but actively harmful and should be eliminated entirely.
4 (08:02) **The History of Cookie Banners: From E-Privacy to GDPR** - Kate explains the 15-25 year history, starting with the EU's e-Privacy Directive and the rise of ad-tracking technology.
5 (12:44) **The Harm of Cookie Banners: Why "Nothing" Is Better** - Kate argues that cookie banners are not neutral; they actively prevent progress by creating a false sense of regulatory and user agency.
6 (16:50) **The Concept of "Manufactured Consent"** - Kate explains how cookie banners, like unreadable terms of service, create a system of "manufactured consent" that doesn't empower users.
7 (19:22) **What a Better Solution Could Look Like** - Kate floats potential alternatives, including browser-level solutions, a more serious conversation about non-PII data harms, and economic models like paying users for their data.

+ Full timestamped outline available in the app

Guests on this episode

Kate Klonick

Show Notes

Cookie banners — those pop-ups that appear on practically every webpage demanding you accept their tracking systems — are one of the most consistent low-grade annoyances of life online. But Kate Klonick, a professor and writer, argues they're actually much worse than that, and the only plausible solution is to get rid of them entirely. After that, The Verge's Allison Johnson tells us about her AI-enhanced Google Maps experience, and why the new Ask Maps feature has the potential to be both incredibly cool and incredibly creepy. Then, she helps David answer a question from the Vergecast Hotline (call 866-VERGE11 or email ⁠[email protected]⁠!) about whether E Ink phones might solve all our problems.

Vote for The Vergecast in the Webby Awards! A vote for The Vergecast is a vote that Brendan Carr is a dummy, that buttons are good, and that party speakers rule the world. Voting is open until April 16. ⁠https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2026/podcasts/shows/technology⁠