Many organizations still operate under a dangerous assumption: “We have a cookie banner on our website, so we’re covered from a compliance perspective.” In practice, regulators are increasingly evaluating how consent actually functions in real-world environments. That’s why many organizations are conducting formal consent and consumer rights reviews to ensure their mechanisms operate as intended.
Unfortunately, 2026 is proving to be the year that regulators “look under the hood.” Recent enforcement actions show that consent failures are rarely about the presence or absence of a banner alone. Instead, they often stem from deeper operational issues: misconfigured consent tools, broken opt-out mechanisms, and interface designs that make privacy choices harder than they should be.
Whether the issue is ignored browser opt-out signals, advertising cookies that continue operating after a consumer opts out, or “dark patterns” that make privacy choices harder to exercise, the message is the same: Cookie consent is not just a banner. It is a compliance system.
Regulators Are Looking Beyond the Banner
Privacy regulators are no longer satisfied with surface-level compliance. They are increasingly evaluating how consent mechanisms function in practice. In California, a record-breaking wave of enforcement, totalling over $9 million in fines (since 2025), has targeted companies that fail to bridge the gap between their privacy policy and their technical implementation.
The 2026 Enforcement Snapshot:
| Company & Settlement | Enforcer & Primary Compliance Failure |
|---|---|
| Disney — $2,750,000 (February 11, 2026) |
California Attorney General Regulators found that Disney did not properly apply consumer opt-out requests across its streaming services and devices[cite: 149]. Issues included:
|
| PlayOn Sports — $1,100,000 (February 27, 2026) |
CPPA Issues were identified regarding data collection via their digital ticketing platform[cite: 149]. Issues included:
|
| Ford Motor Company — $375,703 (February 27, 2026) |
CPPA Determined that unnecessary barriers were created for consumers trying to opt out[cite: 150]. Under CCPA, companies may not require identity verification for opt-out of sale/sharing[cite: 150]. Issues included:
|
For a broader look at the California enforcement landscape, see California’s Privacy Watchdogs Are Biting: Key Lessons from Recent CCPA Enforcement Actions.
The posture is expanding beyond California. In late 2025, regulators from California, Colorado, and Connecticut launched a joint GPC sweep. Other notable U.S. actions include:
- Oregon: Issued 38 cure letters in 2025, primarily targeting denied deletion requests.
- Connecticut: Conducted five privacy notice sweeps and two cookie banner sweeps.
- Texas: Launched a dedicated privacy enforcement team in 2024, targeting minors’ privacy and TDPSA violations.
UK ICO and EU Enforcement Sweeps
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has systematically expanded its crackdown to include the top 1,000 websites. Common ICO findings include dropping tracking cookies (like Google Analytics) before consent is given or failing to provide a visible “Reject All” option.In the EU, jurisdictions require affirmative opt-in consent before any non-essential trackers are loaded. Notable actions include:
- France: CNIL fined Google €325M and Shein €150M for invalid cookie consent
- Netherlands: Dutch DPA issued formal warnings to 200+ websites over cookie banners and increased monitoring since April, including fined Kruidvat €600K for pre-ticked consent boxes
- Denmark: The Danish DPA recommended a DKK 50,000 fine against an employment agency that deleted personal data after receiving an access request, effectively denying the right.
- Hungary: The Hungarian DPA fined a bank for failing to inform a data subject of their right to lodge a complaint after a deletion request.
- Spain: The Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) ordered a telecom to certify compliance with a data portability request within 10 days, threatening GDPR Art. 58.2 sanctions.
- Greece: Fined a sports company €20,000 for failing to respond to deletion requests and lacking proper DSR mechanisms.
- Netherlands: Fined Ambitions People Group €6,000 for ignoring nine deletion requests, and Experian €2.7M for broader GDPR violations.
Why Implementations Fail in Practice
The biggest misconception in consent management is that implementation is a “set it and forget it” task. Modern websites are dynamic—marketing tags change, new pixels are deployed, and scripts evolve. Over time, these changes create gaps.
Failure to Honor Browser Privacy Signals (GPC)
The importance of Global Privacy Control (GPC) has shown up repeatedly in enforcement. In the Disney ($2.75M) settlement, regulators found that Disney restricted GPC signals to individual devices even when users were logged into their accounts.
- The Lesson: It is not enough to capture a signal and apply it to that device; if the user is logged in or known, the signal must be consistently honored across your entire data stack.
Broken Opt-Out & DSR Mechanisms
One recurring theme in enforcement is the failure to provide a working, meaningful opt-out.
For example, PlayOn Sports was fined by the California Privacy Protection Agency after allegations that it tracked users and served targeted advertising without a sufficient opt-out mechanism. The mechanism used dark patterns that forced consumers into agreeing to sale/sharing of their personal data. Tractor Supply also faced enforcement tied to failures to properly honor opt-out rights and provide required notices.
Regulators are specifically targeting “DSR friction,” such as:
- Excessive Verification: Under CCPA, companies may not require identity verification for opt-out of sale or sharing requests.
- Ineffective Methods: Mechanisms (like phone or email) that do not actually stop web-based tracking technologies.
- Failure to Honor Withdrawals: Not processing deletion or portability requests within required timeframes.
These cases reinforce a practical lesson for privacy teams: an opt-out link or settings page is not enough if the mechanism is confusing, incomplete, or ineffective.
Ignoring Privacy Signals Is Becoming Harder to Defend
Another major issue is failure to recognize and honor privacy signals such as Global Privacy Control.
The growing importance of GPC has shown up repeatedly in enforcement and regulatory guidance, starting with the 2022 Sephora settlement. In the Disney streaming services settlement, opt-out implementation issues and failures related to honoring privacy signals were part of the scrutiny. Similar themes have also appeared in other California enforcement settlements.
This is a critical point for organizations that rely on multiple vendors, tracking technologies, and consent layers. It is not enough for privacy teams to assume that GPC is being captured somewhere in the stack. It must be consistently honored and translated into action meaning the opt-out signal needs to be honored across all systems and channels where there is sale/sharing of personal data.
If browser-based privacy choices are ignored, the presence of a banner will do little to reduce enforcement exposure.
Misconfigured Cookie Banners Are Still a Major Weak Spot
Some of the most striking enforcement outcomes have involved websites that appeared to have consent tools in place but were not configured correctly.
In the Todd Snyder settlement, regulators found that a misconfigured cookie consent banner prevented consumers from opting out for an extended period. That case is an important reminder that even a temporary malfunction can create significant compliance exposure.
Similarly, in France, Shein was fined €150 million for placing advertising cookies without valid user consent. That action illustrates that this is not just a California issue. Regulators globally are taking a closer look at how cookie banners are implemented and whether they are working properly.
For privacy teams, the lesson is simple: the existence of a cookie banner does not prove that consent controls are working.
Design Choices Can Also Become Compliance Failures
Consent compliance is not only about code. It is also about user experience.
Regulators have made clear that dark patterns and asymmetrical choice design can undermine valid consent. If accepting tracking is fast and obvious, but rejecting it is buried behind extra clicks or vague wording, regulators may view that as an unlawful impairment of user choice.
This is one of the most important shifts in privacy enforcement. Consent and preference management design is now being evaluated as part of compliance.
That means privacy, legal, marketing, and web teams all need to work together to assess questions like:
- Is “Reject All” as visible as “Accept All”?
- Are choices presented symmetrically?
- Is the language clear and understandable?
- Are users nudged toward the outcome the business prefers?
These are no longer just design questions. They are compliance questions.
For a closer look at how this issue played out in a specific case, see What Honda’s $632,500 CCPA Fine Teaches Us About Lawful Data Processing.
Why Consent Compliance Breaks Over Time
One reason cookie banner implementations keep failing is that websites are constantly changing.
A consent setup may appear compliant at launch, then drift over time because of:
- new advertising or analytics tools
- changes in tag manager configurations
- website redesigns
- new third-party scripts
- updates to consent platform settings
- inconsistent implementation across domains, regions, or properties
This is why cookie consent management should be treated as an ongoing compliance function, not a one-time deployment.
Organizations that test once and move on may miss issues that emerge later, especially when multiple teams influence the website experience.
How to Fix Cookie Consent Gaps Before They Become Enforcement Issues
To reduce risk, privacy teams should treat consent management as a continuous review and monitoring process.
That typically includes:
- Validate banner configuration regularly: Ensure cookies are blocked until the correct signal is received.
- Review opt-out flows end-to-end: Confirm that user choices are actually honored across downstream vendor activity.
- Honor browser-based privacy signals: Verify that GPC is detected and applied consistently across browsers and devices.
- Assess consent UX for dark patterns: Is your “Reject All” button as visible as your “Accept All” button?
- Reassess vendor and tracking behavior: Make sure third-party technologies, contracts, and configurations align with the user choices being captured.
Steps for DSR and Opt-Out Compliance
- Lower Friction for Submissions: Offer simple submission methods and only ask for the minimum information necessary to process the request.
- Eliminate Verification for Opt-Outs: Treat submitted opt-out requests as valid upon receipt without requiring email confirmation steps.
- Build Backend Workflows: Ensure opt-out signals are translated to all downstream systems and third-party ad tech.
- Maintain Records: Retain logs of all DSR submissions, banner changes, and scan results with timestamps to provide proof of compliance to regulators
Take Action: Complimentary Cookie Consent Compliance Review
As recent actions show, you cannot afford to treat consent as a static feature. To help privacy teams identify potential gaps, TrustArc is offering a complimentary compliance review of your cookie consent management setup.
- A TrustArc privacy expert will evaluate key aspects of your implementation, including:
- Banner configuration and consent flows
- Opt-out mechanisms and user choice controls
- Recognition of browser-based signals (GPC)
- Potential UX risks and dark patterns
Organizations that want a better understanding of whether their current setup is aligned with evolving expectations can also request a complimentary Cookie Consent Compliance Review.
The Bottom Line
Whether it’s Disney, PlayOn Sports, or Ford, the conclusion is the same: Consent failures are operational failures. A banner alone does not make a website compliant; what matters is whether the underlying system supports meaningful user choice.
Because when regulators review your site, they aren’t just looking for a banner. They are looking for proof that it works.
Disclaimer: This review is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. TrustArc is not a law firm.
Consent & Rights, Covered from Click to Completion.
Make consent management and consumer rights requests a breeze. Centralize consent, streamline DSR fulfillment, and scale compliance across every touchpoint without compromising user trust.
Streamline consent and rights
