42%
European supervisory authorities have increasingly taken the position that, pursuant to the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive, companies should notify visitors if they access or store information in a cookie, or if they utilize other online tracking technology (e.g., web pixels, javascripts, etc.). The decision to deploy a cookie banner, however, is complex and involves a number of factors including the extent to which a company does business in Europe or is otherwise subject to the GDPR, and the extent to which a company utilizes adtech or analytics cookies on its website. For example, a significant portion of the companies that comprise the Fortune 500 are not multinational and operate primarily (and in some instances exclusively) within the United States (e.g., US utility providers, US-centric retailers, etc.). In addition, a significant minority of companies that comprise the Fortune 500 are not significantly engaged in the use of online tracking technology. For example, 17% of the companies in the Fortune 500 do not deploy any advertising technology (“adtech”) cookeis on their website.
Based upon a recent survey of the Fortune 500, only 42% of companies deploy a cookie banner to European website visitors.1
For more information and resources about the CCPA visit http://www.CCPA-info.com.
This article is part of a multi-part series published by BCLP to help companies understand and implement the General Data Protection Regulation, the California Consumer Privacy Act and other privacy statutes. You can find more information on the CCPA in BCLP’s California Consumer Privacy Act Practical Guide, and more information about the GDPR in the American Bar Association’s The EU GDPR: Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions.
1. Websites of each company in the Fortune 500 were reviewed during May and June of 2020 from an IP address in Ireland. Websites were visited using Chrome for iOS. In situations in which a Fortune 500 company is a holding company that does not operate a significant website, the website of one of the holding company’s operating units was examined as a proxy.
[View source.]
