Artifact GuideEU

EU ePrivacy Directive Member State cookie rules

A cited method to review cookie and tracker controls when the EU baseline is implemented through national laws and national authority practice.

Use the country-review record below to connect each launch market to its national rule, authority guidance, tracker configuration, and consent or exemption decision.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Oct 15, 2026
Overview

Article 5(3) sets the EU baseline for storing information on, or accessing information already stored in, a user's . The EDPB's final Guidelines 2/2023 treat equipment as terminal equipment when it is connected or technically connectable to the interface of a public communications network; equipment that forms part of the public network itself is not terminal equipment. Examples include smartphones, laptops, network-attached storage devices, connected cars, connected TVs, and smart glasses. Once a device qualifies, Article 5(3) can apply to storage or access even while the device is disconnected and is not limited to browser cookies. Member States were required to transpose the amended rule by 25 May 2011, and national authorities apply the resulting national law. A country review therefore needs the current transposition provision, the competent authority's current guidance or decisions, the enforcement body and procedure, and the facts of the deployment. Recheck the country analysis after a law or guidance change, market launch, new tracker or purpose, analytics-vendor change, or material banner redesign. This page gives a sourcing method and one France-specific analytics example; it is not a country-by-country rule table.

Section 1

EU baseline before checking national rules

The baseline question is not limited to browser cookies. The final EDPB Guidelines 2/2023 use three criteria: the operation concerns information; it involves connected or connectable to a public communications network; and it constitutes storage or gaining access. The guidance analyses the public-network requirement within the terminal-equipment criterion. Local storage, pixels, SDK identifiers, device signals, and similar techniques may therefore need review when they involve terminal-equipment storage or access.

The amended directive text requires Member States to ensure that this storage or access is allowed only after consent with clear and comprehensive information, unless the activity is for transmission over an electronic communications network or is strictly necessary for a service explicitly requested by the user or subscriber.

  • Inventory each cookie, tracer, SDK, pixel, local-storage entry, device identifier, and server-side mechanism that depends on reading or writing terminal-equipment information.
  • Classify whether each item stores information, gains access to stored information, or only processes information after lawful storage or access has already happened.
  • Separate consent-required items from narrowly exempt items tied to transmission or a user-requested service.
  • Keep the Article 5(3) analysis separate from the later GDPR analysis of personal-data processing, even when the same banner captures both decisions.
Section 2

Why Member State law and authority practice matter

A directive is implemented through national law, so a cookie review cannot stop at the EU text. For placement or reading of cookies, teams need the applicable national transposition rule and any binding or persuasive guidance from the authority that enforces that rule in the relevant market.

Do not choose applicable law from a single factor such as controller establishment, website language, or the user's location. Record every country in which the site or app is offered or specifically targeted, the entities involved, and where the storage or access occurs. Then obtain a case-specific jurisdiction analysis when more than one national rule could apply. This page cannot determine that conflict from Article 5(3) alone.

This page gives one national-authority example: CNIL guidance for audience measurement on websites and apps. That guidance says the position may vary nationally and directs readers to check the local data protection agency's position before relying on an exemption.

  • List the launch and target countries, relevant entities, user groups, and technical deployment before selecting national sources.
  • Identify the national transposition provision and competent authority for each country that the jurisdiction analysis keeps in scope.
  • Collect the current national authority cookie guidance, enforcement pages, or formal decisions before making country-specific claims.
  • Treat CNIL analytics guidance as a France-specific source, not an EU-wide exemption table.
  • Do not infer another Member State's banner layout rule, analytics exemption, enforcement route, penalty level, or authority name unless that fact is present in usable public source support.
Section 4

Review checklist for publishing or changing cookies

Review this checklist before launching a new site, app, tag manager rule, analytics tool, advertising pixel, consent-management-platform change, or market expansion. The goal is to prevent an EU-level rule from being documented while the national implementation question is left blank.

If the team cannot identify the applicable national source, do not convert that gap into a rule. Mark the country-specific conclusion as unresolved and route it for legal or local authority review.

Can we use one EU cookie rule for every Member State?

Use Article 5(3) as the EU baseline, but do not treat it as a complete country answer. The directive is implemented through national law, and national authority guidance or practice may affect analytics exemptions, banner expectations, and enforcement risk.

What sources do we need for a country-by-country cookie review?

For each country in scope, collect the current national transposition provision, competent-authority guidance or decisions, enforcement powers and procedure, and any penalty or banner rule used in the conclusion. Record the date, legal status, official URL, exact rule and deployment facts; leave unresolved questions open for local-law review.

  • Confirm the technology: cookie, local storage, SDK, pixel, device identifier, fingerprinting signal, analytics script, or another access mechanism.
  • Confirm the Article 5(3) result: consent required, transmission-only, strictly necessary for a user-requested service, or unresolved.
  • Confirm the Member State evidence: national law or authority guidance with an external HTTPS source URL and date checked.
  • Confirm the deployed UX: consent is obtained before non-exempt storage or access, rejection and withdrawal work, and user-facing purposes match the technical inventory.
  • Confirm the audit record: inventory row, source reference, banner screenshot, consent or exemption evidence, engineering test, approver, and reassessment trigger.
Recommended next step

Build a cookie review that separates EU baseline from national proof

Sorena can help turn cookie inventories, national source checks, consent tests, and exemption records into a review workflow that shows what is supported and what still needs jurisdiction-specific source support.

Primary sources

References and citations

cnil.fr4 citations
Referenced sections
  • Historical French guidance from 11 June 2020. National-authority example for analytics cookies, including consent, exemption conditions, and the warning that ePrivacy analytics positions may vary nationally. Check current French eligibility rules before relying on an exemption.
  • Historical French guidance from 11 June 2020. Provides one usable national-authority example for analytics cookies and warns that ePrivacy analytics positions may vary nationally. Check current French eligibility rules before relying on an exemption.
  • Historical French guidance from 11 June 2020. Supports detailed analytics-cookie evidence such as purpose limitation, independent processing, IP truncation, tracker lifetime, and opt-out operation for the CNIL example. Check current French eligibility rules before relying on an exemption.
Show 1 more
  • Historical French guidance from 11 June 2020. Supports treating analytics-cookie exemptions as source-specific and nationally variable. Check current French eligibility rules before relying on an exemption.
"may be subject to national variation"
More quoted passages
"limit the lifetime of the trackers"
"before depositing or reading"
edpb.europa.eu4 citations
Referenced sections
  • EDPB guidance for determining whether cookies, pixels, identifiers, local processing, or other techniques fall within Article 5(3)'s technical scope.
  • Supports the technical scoping approach for cookies, pixels, local processing, IoT reporting, and unique identifiers.
  • Supports collecting technical evidence for storage, access, terminal equipment, and common tracking techniques.
Show 1 more
  • Supports testing beyond ordinary cookies by checking storage and access across common tracking techniques.
"technical scope of Art. 5(3)"
More quoted passages
"does not exclusively apply to cookies"
"URL and pixel tracking"
"common techniques"
cnil.fr
Referenced sections
  • For already-exempt audience-measurement trackers, recommends user information, a lifespan suitable for audience comparison such as 13 months without automatic renewal, maximum 25-month retention of collected information, and periodic review. This recommendation does not by itself establish exemption eligibility.
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Official EUR-Lex source for the amended Article 5(3) rule, Member State implementation duties, and national enforcement provisions.
"storing of information, or the gaining of access"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Supports the EU baseline: Member States must require consent for terminal-equipment storage or access, subject to transmission and strictly-necessary service exceptions.
"storing of information, or the gaining of access"
Show all related guides (32)

EU ePrivacy Confidentiality of Communications: Article 5 controls

Article 5 confidentiality guide for EU ePrivacy communications, traffic data, metadata, terminal-equipment access, consent limits, and GDPR interplay.

EU ePrivacy consent-log evidence workflow for cookies and trackers

Build evidence that links each cookie or tracker decision to the banner shown, the user's signal, the live technical behavior, withdrawal, and later changes.

EU ePrivacy cookie banner UX test cases

Source-backed cookie banner UX tests for Article 5(3) ePrivacy consent: reject all, pre-ticked boxes, withdrawal, cookie walls, analytics toggles, and consent evidence.

EU ePrivacy Cookie Scope Classifier Workflow

Decide whether cookies, pixels, SDKs, local storage, identifiers, and analytics fall within Article 5(3), then document consent, an exemption, or escalation.

EU ePrivacy direct-marketing consent checklist

Checklist for ePrivacy Directive direct-marketing messages: consent, soft opt-in, sender identity, opt-out handling, proof records, suppression, and national-law caveats.

EU ePrivacy Directive compliance calendar for cookies, consent, and marketing

Source-backed ePrivacy calendar covering Directive milestones, Article 5(3) cookie reviews, consent evidence, direct marketing checks, and national-law follow-up.

EU ePrivacy Directive Compliance Checklist

A concrete ePrivacy checklist for terminal equipment access, cookie consent, exemptions, banner UX, direct marketing, confidentiality, GDPR interplay, and evidence records.

EU ePrivacy Directive Compliance Guide for Cookies, Marketing, and Communications

Practical ePrivacy Directive compliance checks for terminal equipment, communications confidentiality, cookie consent, exemptions, direct marketing, evidence, and national-law caveats.

EU ePrivacy Directive Cookies and Consent: Article 5(3), exemptions, and banner evidence

Cookie consent guide for the EU ePrivacy Directive: Article 5(3) scope, strictly necessary and transmission exemptions, consent UX, withdrawal, logs, analytics caveats, and GDPR interplay.

EU ePrivacy Directive direct marketing rules for electronic mail

Source-backed guide to Article 13 ePrivacy Directive rules for electronic mail marketing, prior consent, customer soft opt-in, opt-out handling, sender identity, and Member State caveats.

EU ePrivacy Directive Enforcement and Fines

Source-backed guide to ePrivacy Directive enforcement, national penalties, competent authorities, GDPR interplay, cookie-banner risk, and evidence limits.

EU ePrivacy Directive FAQ: cookies, consent, marketing, GDPR interplay

Answers to recurring EU ePrivacy Directive questions on Article 5(3), terminal-equipment access, cookie consent, exemptions, analytics, direct marketing, GDPR interplay, national enforcement, and evidence.

EU ePrivacy Directive Metadata and Location Data Guide

Source-backed guide to EU ePrivacy Directive rules for traffic data, location data, anonymisation, consent, value-added services, Article 5(3) overlap, and national-law limits.

EU ePrivacy Directive penalties and fines: national enforcement caveats

Source-backed guide to ePrivacy Directive penalty exposure, national transposition caveats, cookie enforcement evidence, consent defects, and GDPR overlap limits.

EU ePrivacy Directive Requirements: cookies, communications and marketing

Source-backed map of EU ePrivacy Directive requirements for communications confidentiality, terminal-equipment access, consent, traffic and location data, and direct marketing.

EU ePrivacy Directive vs GDPR: cookies, communications, marketing, and evidence

Compare the EU ePrivacy Directive and GDPR by trigger, consent standard, lex specialis overlap, enforcement caveats, and evidence outputs for cookies, device access, communications, and marketing.

EU ePrivacy Directive vs UK PECR: cookies and direct marketing

Compare the EU ePrivacy Directive with current UK PECR rules for device storage and access, statutory exceptions, consent, electronic-mail marketing, soft opt-ins, and enforcement.

EU ePrivacy soft opt-in marketing checklist

Source-backed checklist for using the EU ePrivacy Directive soft opt-in exception for customer email marketing, opt-outs, sender identity, suppression records, and national-law caveats.

EU ePrivacy soft opt-in marketing review workflow

Decide whether an electronic-mail marketing audience meets every Article 13 soft opt-in condition, or must be suppressed or supported by valid prior consent.

EU ePrivacy Strictly Necessary Cookie Exemptions

Source-backed guide to the Article 5(3) ePrivacy exemptions for transmission cookies, requested-service cookies, analytics caveats, evidence, and national-law checks.

Are cookie walls allowed under the EU ePrivacy Directive?

FAQ answer on cookie walls under the EU ePrivacy Directive, covering freely given consent, refusal and withdrawal paths, banner evidence, and national-law caveats.

Do Analytics Cookies Require Consent under the EU ePrivacy Directive?

FAQ answer on analytics cookies under Article 5(3) ePrivacy, limited analytics exemptions, configuration evidence, consent logs, and national-law caveats.

EU ePrivacy soft opt-in FAQ for email marketing

When Article 13(2) soft opt-in can support EU customer email marketing, including existing-customer, similar-offer, opt-out, sender-identity, suppression-list, and national-law checks.

Is a reject-all button required for EU ePrivacy cookie consent?

Standalone FAQ answer on EU ePrivacy reject-all and refuse options for cookie banners, including equal prominence, deceptive UX, consent evidence, withdrawal, and national-law caveats.

Strictly Necessary Cookies under the EU ePrivacy Directive

FAQ answer on when EU ePrivacy Article 5(3) allows cookies without consent, with cited examples, analytics caveats, evidence records, and national-law cautions.

What should CMP consent logs retain under the EU ePrivacy Directive?

FAQ answer on CMP consent logs for EU ePrivacy cookie consent: retained fields, consent validity signals, banner versioning, refusal and withdrawal events, proof limits, and national-law caveats.