Cookie & Consent Compliance: What to Prepare for in 2026

For years, cookie consent sat on the margins of marketing. Most teams treated it as a compliance checkbox—handled with a banner, a plugin, or a quick legal review—rarely something that influenced core marketing strategy.

That mindset began to shift in 2020, when California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). For U.S.-based marketers, CCPA was the first clear signal that digital advertising, tracking, and data sharing would face sustained regulatory oversight. Still, for many organizations, the impact remained manageable and largely reactive.

The real turning point came in 2024.

That year marked the moment when privacy regulation (particularly in the EU and UK) began to reshape how marketing technology operates directly. New consent requirements, enforcement pressure, and platform-level changes meant that consent was no longer just about notice and disclosure. It became a functional dependency for analytics, attribution, retargeting, and conversion tracking.

Today, privacy regulation sits squarely in the operational core of digital marketing. Consent now determines how much performance data platforms like Google will collect, model, or withhold, and how confidently marketing teams can measure pipeline and revenue.

At the center of this shift is what many teams now recognize as cookie and consent compliance infrastructure. Understanding what that really means (and how expectations have evolved since 2020) is no longer optional. It’s table stakes for marketers preparing for 2026.

Cookie & Consent Compliance: What Marketing Teams Are Dealing With

When organizations talk about cookie and consent compliance, they are usually referring to more than just a banner.

In practice, a modern consent compliance combines a Consent Management Platform (CMP) with tag and data controls that actually enforce user choices. Its role is operational, not cosmetic.

A properly implemented consent compliance typically:

• Displays region-specific consent notices (opt-in in the EU, opt-out in many U.S. states)
• Controls whether tracking technologies (cookies, pixels, SDKs) are allowed to fire
• Stores auditable records of consent and preference changes
• Communicates consent signals to advertising and analytics platforms
• Honors browser-based or universal opt-out signals, such as Global Privacy Control (GPC), where required

Regulators have made it increasingly clear that a banner alone is not enough. If a user opts out and tracking still occurs, the company is exposed to enforcement risk.

What’s Changed Since 2024

More U.S. Privacy Laws, and They’re Now Being Enforced

Since 2024, the number of comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws has grown rapidly. By mid-2025, over 20 states had passed or implemented consumer privacy statutes covering online tracking, targeted advertising, and data sharing.

More importantly, enforcement activity began to shift from education to action.

State regulators (particularly Attorneys General and dedicated privacy agencies) started reviewing how companies implement consent, with a specific focus on cookie banners, preference centers, and tracking behavior.

Key signals include:

• Increased scrutiny of “dark patterns” in consent interfaces
• Reviews of whether opt-out choices are as easy as opt-in
• Audits of whether consent choices actually control tracking technologies

California’s CPPA Targeted Cookie Banners and Dark Patterns

The original California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) laid the groundwork, and its expansion through the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) strengthened consumer rights and created a dedicated enforcement body—the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). While these laws went into effect earlier, they began to be actively referenced and enforced more aggressively in 2024 and 2025, with broader implications expected heading into 2026.

At the same time, California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) (a much older law) has gained new relevance. It has increasingly been used in lawsuits against websites for how they track user behavior, particularly through session replay tools, analytics, and third-party scripts. Together, CCPA, CPRA, and CIPA are driving a heightened focus on meaningful, defensible consent.

In response, the CPPA has issued explicit guidance warning against the use of “dark patterns” in consent flows. This includes:

• Designs that subtly push users to accept tracking
• Opt-out options that are hidden or harder to find
• Language that frames rejection as confusing, negative, or discouraging

From a marketing perspective, many long-standing tactics designed to maximize opt-in rates are now compliance risks.

For marketing teams, this shift means cookie banners and preference centers must strike a new balance between conversion goals and genuine user choice. The days of burying “Reject” behind extra clicks (or nudging users toward consent by design) are coming to an end. Consent management is no longer just a technical requirement; it’s a core compliance and brand trust issue.

States Began Coordinating Cookie Banner Reviews

Several state Attorneys General have publicly discussed coordinated efforts to review websites for compliance, including cookie banners and tracking behavior. These reviews often begin with warning letters but can escalate if issues are not resolved.

Connecticut became one of the first states to publicly announce a privacy law settlement, signaling that enforcement is no longer theoretical.

Opt-Out Signals Became an Operational Requirement

Since 2024, privacy compliance has shifted from simply offering an opt-out to being able to actively recognize and honor opt-out signals—even when the user doesn’t click anything.

To understand why this matters, it helps to distinguish between opt-in and opt-out models:

• Opt-in means a user must explicitly agree to cookies or tracking before any tracking technology can fire or collect data. No consent, no tracking.
• Opt-out means tracking may occur by default, but users must be given a clear, easy-to-find way to say they do not want their data collected, sold, or shared.

In California, privacy laws go further by requiring businesses to honor both user actions and automated opt-out signals. In many other states, the requirement is typically more limited, often satisfied by providing a clearly labeled link that allows users to submit a request not to have their data sold or shared. While the specifics vary by state, the common expectation is that opting out must be simple, visible, and effective.

This shift has real technical implications. Several state privacy laws now require companies to recognize browser-based or machine-readable signals, such as Global Privacy Control (GPC), which automatically communicate a user’s opt-out preference. As a result, consent management can no longer rely solely on banner clicks or preference center selections.

For marketing and web teams, this means consent systems must be built to detect, interpret, and enforce opt-out signals in real time: across analytics, advertising, and third-party tools. Opt-out compliance is no longer just a policy statement; it’s an operational requirement baked into how tracking technology is deployed.

What to Prepare for in 2026

New State Privacy Laws Take Effect January 1, 2026

On January 1, 2026, comprehensive privacy laws in Indiana, Kentucky, and Rhode Island take effect. In addition, amendments in states like Texas, Oregon, Delaware, and Connecticut expand opt-out and consent-related obligations.

For national organizations, this means that privacy compliance can no longer be handled state by state in a reactive way. Consent frameworks must scale across jurisdictions.

California’s DELETE Act Signals Centralized Consumer Control

California’s DELETE Act creates a centralized, state-run mechanism allowing consumers to submit deletion requests across registered data brokers.

Key dates include:

• January 1, 2026: Regulations take effect
• January 2026: Consumers can begin submitting deletion requests

While this law focuses on data brokers, it signals a broader move toward centralized consumer control, which will influence how users expect consent and deletion to work online.

Browser-Level Opt-Out Is Coming

California’s AB 566 requires the development of browser- or device-level opt-out controls that automatically communicate user preferences.

Although enforcement is expected in 2027, organizations should prepare well in advance. Consent systems that cannot interpret these signals risk falling out of compliance before enforcement officially begins.

Expect Increased “Reality Checks” on Consent Enforcement

By 2026, regulators are expected to focus less on whether a consent notice exists and more on whether it works.

Organizations should expect scrutiny around:

• Whether trackers fire before consent is granted
• Whether opt-out signals are respected
• Whether consent choices persist across sessions
• Whether data sharing aligns with disclosed purposes

California and Texas, in particular, are expected to remain aggressive due to their regulatory posture and enforcement history.

Active U.S. Privacy Laws and Emerging Enforcement Risk

States with Laws in Effect by the End of 2025

As of late 2025, comprehensive privacy laws are already active in states including:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia, Utah, Texas, Florida, Oregon, Montana, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Minnesota.

Each law differs, but most regulate targeted advertising, data sharing, and consent mechanisms.

States Most Likely to Enforce Aggressively

Based on published guidance and enforcement actions, the states most likely to “crack down” include:

• California, due to the CPPA’s focused enforcement on dark patterns and consent integrity
• Texas, due to its broad consumer protection enforcement posture
• States participating in coordinated AG sweeps, particularly around cookie banners

How Google Consent Mode v2 Changes Things

What Consent Mode v2 Actually Does

Google Consent Mode v2 acts as the translation layer between user consent choices and Google’s tracking behavior. It allows Google tags to dynamically adjust how they operate based on whether a user has granted or denied consent.

Specifically, Consent Mode v2 introduces four key parameters:

• ad_storage – controls whether advertising cookies can be stored
• analytics_storage – controls whether analytics cookies can be stored
• ad_user_data – controls whether user data can be sent to Google for advertising purposes
• ad_personalization – controls whether ads can be personalized

These signals tell Google when cookies may be set, when user data may be processed, and when personalization is allowed. When properly implemented, this setup enables native Google tools (like Google Analytics, Google Ads, and Floodlight) to automatically respect user consent and opt-out signals.

However, Consent Mode v2 does not collect consent on its own. The business is still responsible for presenting users with a compliant consent experience (such as a cookie banner or preference center) and capturing their choices accurately. Consent Mode simply ensures those choices are technically enforced across Google’s ecosystem.

What Happens When Consent Is Denied

When users deny consent, Google tags do not stop sending data entirely. Instead, they send cookieless pings, which Google may use for aggregated or modeled measurement. This allows for some reporting continuity, but it does not fully replace consented tracking.

Importantly, when Consent Mode v2 is correctly implemented, Google can temporarily retain this limited, non-identifying data. If the user later provides consent during the same measurement window, Google may be able to associate that consent with previously collected cookieless signals and make the data available in reporting.

Google documents this retention window as up to approximately 63 days, after which unconsented data that is not converted through user consent is no longer eligible for reconciliation. This means delayed consent can partially restore measurement accuracy, but only within that defined timeframe.

For site owners, this reinforces two key points:

• Consent timing matters—late consent is better than no consent, but it has limits
• Proper configuration is essential for Google to lawfully bridge the gap between denied and granted consent

Cookieless measurement can reduce data loss, but it is not a substitute for clear, compliant consent collection.

Why Consent Mode v2 Matters Heading into 2026

Consent Mode v2 plays a critical role in bringing Google’s tracking behavior more in line with GDPR and other global privacy regulations, particularly in how consent and opt-out signals are respected at a technical level.

More importantly, it directly ties compliance to performance.

If consent signals are missing, improperly mapped, or inconsistently applied:

• Google may limit ad personalization
• Remarketing audiences may shrink or stop populating
• Measurement accuracy may decline, especially for EEA and UK traffic

As regulators increase scrutiny and platforms enforce stricter requirements, consent infrastructure becomes a revenue-impacting system, not just a legal safeguard. Marketing operations, analytics, and legal teams must align to ensure user consent—whether opt-in or opt-out—is clearly captured, correctly interpreted, and accurately passed to platforms like Google.

In short, Consent Mode v2 only works as intended when the broader consent process is done right. Without that foundation, both compliance and performance suffer.

Final Takeaway

In 2026, consent will no longer be something marketing teams simply “check the box” on. It will be a foundational layer that determines what data you can collect, which audiences you can build, and how confidently you can measure pipeline and revenue.

Organizations that get ahead of this shift (and invest early in real consent enforcement, transparent user choice, and technically sound implementations) gain more than just regulatory protection. Clear, trustworthy consent experiences encourage users to share data willingly, helping website owners build stronger first-party data over time.

That first-party data becomes increasingly valuable as third-party tracking continues to decline. It improves audience quality, strengthens personalization, and makes campaigns more resilient to platform and regulatory changes. In this way, consent isn’t just a compliance requirement—it’s a long-term lever for marketing performance, data ownership, and sustainable growth.