The EU Digital Omnibus Act: What It Means for Your Analytics (and Whether GA4 Qualifies)

A screenshot of the Google Analytics 4 Admin Account Details page showing the Data Sharing Settings section. Four checkboxes are all checked: Google products and services, Modeling contributions and business insights, Technical support, and Account specialists, each with a description of how Google may use the data. An annotation points at the first checkbox and reads 'This checkbox alone breaks Article 88a. Your analytics data improves Google products. That is not data held solely for your own use.' A second annotation reads 'Article 88a requires the controller to keep audience-measurement data solely for its own use. GA4 shares it with Google products, modeling, support staff, and sales specialists by default.' A third annotation reads 'There is no configuration of this page that makes GA4 qualify. The data is processed on Google infrastructure either way.'
Show article contentsHide article contents
  1. The EU just rewrote the cookie rules
  2. Article 88a: the consent exemption for analytics
  3. Does Google Analytics qualify?
  4. The data you're already losing
  5. Which analytics tools actually qualify?
  6. The UK already did this
  7. The political battle you should understand
  8. The CNIL already proved this works
  9. When this takes effect: the timeline
  10. What you should do today

Europeans spend 575 million hours per year clicking cookie consent banners. That is EUR 14.375 billion in lost productivity, gone on a pop-up almost nobody reads. The EU's Digital Omnibus wants to end the banner for analytics that don't track individuals. Here is what it means for your site, and why Google Analytics won't make the cut.

Key Takeaways
  • The EU Digital Omnibus Act (proposed November 2025) folds cookie rules into GDPR via Article 88a, replacing the failed ePrivacy Regulation.
  • Article 88a creates a consent exemption for audience measurement tools that meet strict criteria: first-party only, no cross-site tracking, no data sharing with third parties.
  • Google Analytics does not qualify for the exemption. It transfers data to Google's US servers and uses it across Google's advertising products.
  • Privacy-first, cookieless analytics tools (EU-hosted, no cookies, no personal data) are positioned to qualify for the exemption.
  • The proposal must pass European Parliament and Council. Expected timeline: 2027-2028 at the earliest. But the direction of travel is clear.

For over two decades, cookie consent has been governed by the ePrivacy Directive from 2002. Each EU member state wrote it into national law its own way. Germany has its TDDDG. France has CNIL's implementation. Belgium has its 2005 Act. Twenty-seven countries, twenty-seven different cookie laws. One website, twenty-seven ways to get it wrong.

The ePrivacy Regulation was supposed to fix that. Proposed in January 2017, it was meant to modernize the rules and give the EU a single framework. Nine Council presidencies took a turn at it. All nine failed. On February 11, 2025, the Commission withdrew the proposal for good. Eight years of drafts, amendments, and debates. Nothing to show for it.

So the Commission tried something else. Instead of writing a new regulation, the Digital Omnibus folds cookie rules straight into the GDPR through a new Article 88a. One regulation, directly applicable in all 27 member states, enforced by the GDPR machinery that already exists. No more twenty-seven versions.

Three attempts to fix EU cookie rules
Attempt 1
ePrivacy Directive
2002 (still in force)
FRAGMENTED
27 different national laws
Attempt 2
ePrivacy Regulation
2017 - 2025
WITHDRAWN
Failed after 8 years, 9 presidencies
Attempt 3
Digital Omnibus
2025 - present
IN PROGRESS
Folds cookies into GDPR
The ePrivacy Directive remains in force for non-personal data. Article 88a only absorbs the personal data portion into GDPR. Source: Kennedys Law

The Digital Omnibus does more than shuffle the rules around. It goes after consent fatigue directly. Websites must offer a single-click refusal button, and once a user declines, the site cannot re-ask for the same purpose for at least six months. A companion Article 88b says browsers must be able to send standardized privacy signals to websites, and websites must honor them. That is Global Privacy Control, only now it would be the law.

But the change that matters most for analytics sits in Article 88a, paragraph 3, subparagraph (c). It is a consent exemption for audience measurement. Get it right, and the analytics banner disappears.

Article 88a: the consent exemption for analytics

Here is the exact wording of the proposed exemption. Consent is not required for:

"Creating aggregated information about the usage of an online service to measure the audience of such a service, where it is carried out by the controller of that online service solely for its own use."

One sentence. Five conditions hide inside it. Here is each one in plain English.

The five conditions of Article 88a(3)(c)
1
Aggregated information
The output must be patterns and trends, not individual user journeys. Legal analysts note this refers to the purpose, not a prohibition on ever processing granular data. Session-level collection is permitted as long as it feeds into aggregate reporting.
2
Usage of an online service
The analytics must measure your own website or app. Not multiple clients' sites. Not a benchmarking product. Not a network of properties.
3
Measure the audience
The purpose must be audience measurement: pageviews, sessions, referrers, device info, country-level geo, engagement metrics. Not profiling, not remarketing, not behavioral targeting.
4
Controller of that online service
You, the website owner, must control the data. An analytics provider can act as your data processor, but they must not access or reuse the data for their own purposes.
5
Solely for its own use
The data cannot be shared, sold, or repurposed. No feeding into advertising ecosystems. No cross-client aggregation. No benchmarking databases. It stays between you and your analytics tool.
Sources: Taylor Wessing, Piwik PRO, Freshfields

The EDPB and EDPS have asked for the exemptions to be "further specified" before adoption. The shape of it is already clear, though. First-party, aggregated analytics for your own website, with nothing leaking out to third parties. That is the lane.

One nuance trips people up, so it is worth getting right. "Aggregated" describes the purpose of the measurement. It is not a ban on ever touching granular data. Several legal analyses say so. Piwik PRO puts it well: a store can count its customers and see what each one buys to work out the totals, but it cannot follow those people from one store to the next. Session-level collection is fine as long as it rolls up into aggregate reporting and nobody can be re-identified or tracked across sessions.

Does Google Analytics qualify?

No. Privacy lawyers, analytics vendors, and data protection authorities all land in the same place: GA4 does not meet the Article 88a criteria, and no realistic configuration can make it qualify. Several EU countries have already ruled Google Analytics illegal. The exemption criteria show you why.

Let me walk through it, one condition at a time. Here's how it falls apart.

GA4 sets persistent cookies. The _ga cookie has a 2-year expiry. The _ga_<container> cookie runs for 2 years too. Turn on Google Signals and it ties a person's activity across their devices through their Google account data. None of that is a temporary session identifier. It is a two-year leash.

A screenshot of the Chrome DevTools Application > Cookies panel on a site running Google Analytics 4. The cookie table lists _ga with a value GA1.1.1843271905... and a 2-year expiry (2028-05-27), _ga_9K7L2M4N5P also with a 2-year expiry, _gid set to Session, and _gat_gtag_UA at 1 minute. The two _ga cookies are highlighted. An annotation reads 'Both Google Analytics ID cookies persist for 2 years. These are not temporary session identifiers.' A second annotation reads 'Article 88a exempts only aggregated audience measurement with no persistent cross-session tracking. A 2-year identifier cookie fails condition 1 on its own.'
Chrome DevTools on a page running GA4. The _ga and _ga_<container> cookies both carry a 2-year expiry. Those are persistent cross-session identifiers, not the temporary session tokens Article 88a's exemption is written for.

Data flows to Google, a third party. Every event is sent to Google's servers and processed on Google's infrastructure. Google then uses aggregated customer data for its own product development and improvement. Wire that up with Google Ads, DV360, and the rest of the advertising machine, and your analytics data is no longer "solely for your own use." It is working for Google too.

Cross-site tracking is built in. Switch on Google Signals and cross-device tracking comes with it. Cross-domain tracking hands user identifiers from one domain to the next through URL parameters. You do not even need to run Google Ads. The data still feeds Google's wider infrastructure.

Google Analytics 4 vs. Article 88a requirements
Aggregated data only
GA4 collects individual user journeys, tracks users across sessions with persistent cookies
FAIL
First-party data only
All data transmitted to Google's US servers and processed on shared infrastructure
FAIL
No cross-site tracking
Google Signals enables cross-device tracking. Cross-domain tracking passes IDs via URLs.
FAIL
Controller retains control
Google uses data for product development and advertising optimization
FAIL
Solely for own use
Data feeds into Google Ads, benchmarking, and Google's AI training pipeline
FAIL
Osborne Clarke calls the exemption "drafted in very narrow terms" that exclude tools operating across multiple services. Taylor Wessing describes it as "narrowly framed."

Can you configure GA4 into qualifying? No. Turn Google Signals off, turn the advertising features off, unlink Google Ads, and the core problem is still there. The data lands on Google's servers. Google is both the processor and a company with advertising interests in the very same data. CNIL has noted that getting GA4 to comply with GDPR transfer rules takes "proxyfication," meaning you route every hit through a reverse proxy to strip the identifiers before Google ever sees them. For most organizations that is out of reach.

Consent Mode v2 does not save it either. Google's Advanced Consent Mode sends anonymous "cookieless pings" when someone declines consent, then leans on machine learning to model the missing conversions. The data still goes to Google, a third party. The analytics provider still reuses it for product development. "Solely for its own use" and the way GA4 is built simply do not fit together.

Google has made no public statement on whether GA4 qualifies for the Article 88a exemption.

The data you're already losing

The consent exemption isn't just a paperwork win. It fixes a real measurement problem. If your analytics tool requires consent, you're losing most of your data in European markets right now.

Germany and France: 60 to 77% rejection rates. Put a compliant "Reject All" button up next to "Accept All," same size, same weight, and fewer than 25% of visitors accept cookies. The etracker Consent Benchmark 2025 measured an average 60% data loss from compliant banners. More than half your visitors, gone before you count them.

GA4 misses 55.6% of traffic. Orbit Media ran an independent study, GA4 against cookieless analytics on the same website. With consent banners showing, GA4 missed 55.6% of the traffic. It saw fewer than half the people who came.

The ICO saw a 90.8% drop. The UK's own Information Commissioner's Office, the privacy regulator itself, had Google Analytics counting 119,417 users a day. Then they put up a best-practice cookie banner. The count fell to 10,967. That is a 90.8% drop. The visitors did not go anywhere. They just stopped showing up in the numbers.

What consent-dependent analytics actually sees in EU markets
Real visitors 1,000
GA4 with consent (Germany) 130 - 250
GA4 with consent (EU average) 300 - 444
Cookieless analytics (no consent needed) 900 - 975
GA4 Germany range reflects 60-77% consent rejection. EU average reflects 55.6% data gap from Orbit Media study. Cookieless tools lose only 2.5-10% to strict ad blockers. Source: SealMetrics, etracker

Consent Mode modeling has a catch most people miss. Google's machine learning model, the one that is supposed to fill in the gaps from people who decline, needs 1,000+ daily events from denying users across 7 days in a row, plus another 1,000+ daily events from consenting users. Most sites under 30,000 monthly visitors never clear that bar. So the modeling never switches on. The data from non-consenting users is just gone, for good.

Then there is the bill for the banner itself. Consent management platforms are not free. CookieYes starts at $8.33 a month. Cookiebot starts at $8 a month for 50 subpages. Enterprise tools like OneTrust run a median of $11,500 a year. You are paying that to show a pop-up that makes 60 to 87% of your visitors disappear.

Tools that qualify for the Article 88a exemption make this whole mess go away. No consent banner for analytics. No CMP bill. No data lost to rejection. You see 100% of your visitors from day one.

Which analytics tools actually qualify?

The exemption does not care which brand name is on your tool. It cares how the tool is built. Here is how the major analytics tools line up against Article 88a's five requirements.

Article 88a qualification scorecard
Tool Cookieless First-party No cross-site No data reuse Qualifies?
Google Analytics 4 No
Adobe Analytics No
Matomo (cloud, default) Config needed
Matomo (cookieless mode) Yes
Piwik PRO (anonymous mode) Yes
Plausible Yes
Fathom Yes
Simple Analytics Yes
Clickport Yes
○ = possible with configuration but not default. Matomo requires disabling cross-domain tracking, User ID, e-commerce tracking, and visitor profiles per the CNIL configuration guide. Adobe offers server-side options but the standard implementation uses cookies and processes data on Adobe's infrastructure.

The pattern jumps out. Tools that were cookieless and first-party from day one qualify without you touching a setting. Tools built for advertising ecosystems can't get there no matter what you toggle. Article 88a doesn't invent a new category. It blesses what privacy-first analytics tools have been doing all along. If you want the mechanics of how this category works, see our privacy-friendly analytics guide.

The Audience Measurement Coalition has complained that the exemption is too narrow. Their gripe is that "solely for its own use" blocks independent audience measurement run by joint industry committees. When even the industry groups say the rule is too strict, you know the criteria are tight.

The UK already did this

While the EU is still debating, the UK has already moved. The Data (Use and Access) Act got Royal Assent on June 19, 2025. Section 112 adds a statistical purposes exception: you do not need consent for analytics cookies that gather aggregate statistical information about how a website is used, as long as the data cannot identify anyone and you offer an opt-out.

This matters. The UK used to demand consent for every non-essential cookie under PECR. Now it carves out privacy-respecting analytics by name. And it is already law.

Analytics consent exemptions by jurisdiction (March 2026)
United Kingdom
DUAA Section 112. Aggregate statistics, opt-out required.
IN FORCE
France
CNIL exemption since 2020. Self-assessment model since July 2025.
IN FORCE
Spain, Italy, Netherlands
National analytics exemptions with varying conditions.
IN FORCE
EU (Digital Omnibus)
Article 88a. Harmonizes rules across all 27 member states.
PROPOSED
Germany, Austria, Ireland, Finland
No analytics exemption. Consent required for all analytics cookies.
NO EXEMPTION
United States
20 state privacy laws. No analytics-specific exemption. 1,500+ CIPA wiretapping lawsuits.
NO EXEMPTION
Note: US state laws exempt "de-identified and aggregate data" from scope, but don't create an analytics-specific exemption. CIPA wiretapping suits target third-party tracking tools, not first-party cookieless analytics. Sources: ICO, Matomo, MultiState

If you serve both UK and EU audiences, the message is hard to miss. The two jurisdictions are arriving at the same answer: first-party, aggregated analytics that do not track individuals should not need consent.

Over in the US, the story rhymes. The California Privacy Protection Agency fined Todd Snyder $345,178 in May 2025 over CCPA violations tied to tracking pixels. More than 1,500 businesses have been sued under CIPA in the past 18 months, the claim being that their website tracking counts as "wiretapping." Now look at who got sued. Not one of those CIPA suits has gone after a cookieless, first-party analytics provider. Every case targets tools that ship data to third parties.

The political battle you should understand

The analytics exemption does not float free of everything around it. It rides inside a much bigger Digital Omnibus package, and that package has turned into one of the most fought-over pieces of EU legislation in years.

127 civil society organizations signed an open letter calling the Omnibus "the biggest rollback of digital fundamental rights in EU history." Max Schrems' organization noyb put out three versions of a detailed legal analysis and called it "the biggest attack on Europeans' digital rights in years." EDRi called it "a major rollback of EU digital protections." The EFF called it "full of bad and confusing ideas that will significantly weaken privacy protections."

Corporate Europe Observatory found that 7 of the 8 major changes in the Omnibus "align closely with the positions of major tech corporations." The digital industry spends EUR 151 million a year lobbying the EU, up 33.6% since 2023. Read those two numbers together and the shape of the thing gets clearer.

Here is the part that matters for analytics, though. The consent exemption for audience measurement is the least controversial piece of the whole package. Even the EDPB and EDPS "strongly support the objective of providing for a regulatory solution to address consent fatigue and the proliferation of cookie banners." The fight is over the other parts: narrowing what counts as personal data, stretching "legitimate interest" to cover AI training, and trimming back data subject rights.

The analytics exemption is just doing what CNIL has been doing in France since 2020. It is not a new idea. It is an EU-wide version of an approach that already works.

Where key stakeholders stand on the analytics exemption
EDPB/EDPS "Strongly support" addressing consent fatigue. Want exemptions "further specified."
CNIL (France) Already operates a consent exemption for first-party analytics since 2020.
DigitalEurope Calls the GDPR changes "broadly right" and supports analytics simplification.
EFF Opposes the broader package, but calls browser consent signals (Article 88b) "at least one good idea."
noyb / 127 civil society orgs Oppose the broader package as "deregulation, not simplification." Analytics exemption is not the primary concern.
IAB Europe Supports analytics reform but opposes browser consent signals as "technically unworkable" and a "severe economic risk."
The privacy community's opposition is primarily directed at the broader GDPR changes (personal data definition, AI training, data subject rights), not at the analytics consent exemption specifically.

All of this shapes the timeline. The analytics exemption has broad support, even from the privacy advocates fighting the rest of the package. Whether it makes it through comes down to one procedural question: does Parliament split the provisions apart and vote on them one by one, or does it vote on the package as a single block?

The CNIL already proved this works

France did not wait for the Digital Omnibus. The CNIL has run a consent exemption for audience measurement tools since 2020. And it has policed the edges of that exemption hard.

In 2025 the CNIL handed out EUR 486.8 million in fines, nearly 9 times the EUR 55 million it issued in 2024. Cookies were front and center. Google was fined EUR 325 million. Shein was fined EUR 150 million for loading 10 cookies before a visitor had even touched the consent banner. American Express was fined EUR 1.5 million for dropping cookies on people who had explicitly said no.

So the message is not subtle. The CNIL is not easing off. It is running two lanes. First-party analytics that meet the strict criteria run without consent. Everything else risks record fines.

On July 4, 2025, the CNIL swapped its formal certification program for a self-assessment model. The public list of CNIL-validated tools was retired on January 1, 2026. Now providers assess their own compliance against the CNIL's published criteria. The old list had Matomo, Piano Analytics, Piwik PRO, and a handful of other European vendors on it. Google Analytics never made the list at all.

CNIL cookie enforcement: 2024 vs 2025
2024 Total Fines
EUR 55M
Baseline year
2025 Total Fines
EUR 486.8M
8.9x increase year-over-year
Google (advertising cookies without consent)
EUR 325M
Shein (cookies before consent interaction)
EUR 150M
American Express (cookies despite refusal)
EUR 1.5M
Source: CNIL 2025 enforcement report. Google was specifically fined for displaying advertising without consent in Gmail (EUR 200M Google LLC + EUR 125M Google Ireland) and for biased consent interfaces requiring 6 clicks to refuse vs 2 to accept.

The CNIL exemption sets out what counts: first-party cookies only, no cross-site tracking, no combining the data with other systems, no sending identifiable information to third parties, a cookie lifespan capped at 13 months, data retention capped at 25 months, and an opt-out. Article 88a in the Digital Omnibus is the same set of principles, written up at the EU level.

This is not a thought experiment. It has been running for five years in the EU's second-largest market. The Digital Omnibus just takes that and makes it the law everywhere.

When this takes effect: the timeline

The Digital Omnibus is not law yet. Here is where it stands and what a realistic timeline looks like.

Digital Omnibus legislative timeline
Nov 2025
Commission publishes the Digital Omnibus proposal
Done
Feb 2026
EDPB/EDPS Joint Opinion 2/2026 published
Done
Mar 2026
Feedback periods close, committee reviews begin
Done
Q2 2026
Council general approach expected. Parliament committee votes.
Expected
H2 2026
Trilogue negotiations between Commission, Parliament, and Council
Expected
Late 2026
Final adoption (ambitious estimate)
Expected
+6 months
Article 88a takes effect (analytics consent exemption)
~mid 2027
+24 months
Article 88b takes effect (mandatory browser consent signals)
~late 2028
Timeline is widely considered ambitious given political opposition to the broader package. The analytics exemption could be decoupled and move faster, or the entire package could slip into 2027. Sources: MediaLaws Legislative Tracker, IAPP

One more thing could speed all of this up, no matter what the Omnibus does. The EU-US Data Privacy Framework is wobbling. President Trump dismissed three Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) in January 2025, which left it without a quorum. That board's annual report was one of the safeguards the Commission leaned on when it approved the framework. Norway's DPA has warned that if the framework is revoked, "there will most likely not be a transition period." Should a "Schrems III" scenario materialize, every EU business running US-based analytics would be in breach of GDPR overnight. No warning, no grace period.

What you should do today

Don't wait for the Digital Omnibus. The consent rejection rates on their own already mean GA4 is already broken for EU businesses. The Omnibus just makes it official.

So here's how I'd decide, depending on where you are.

If you're in France, Spain, Italy, or the Netherlands: You can already run qualifying analytics without consent under the national exemptions you have today. Switch to a cookieless analytics tool and take the analytics part out of your consent banner now.

If you're in the UK: The DUAA Section 112 exemption is in force. You can run aggregate analytics without consent, as long as you offer an opt-out.

If you're anywhere else in the EU: The Omnibus hasn't passed, so in a country like Germany you still need consent for analytics today. But the direction is set. Move to a cookieless GA alternative now and you start seeing 100% of your traffic right away, because tools that don't use cookies or collect personal data don't need consent. You're also ready for Article 88a the day it lands.

If you're in the US: The aggregate data exemption under CCPA/CPRA already puts de-identified and aggregate consumer information out of scope. Cookieless analytics that only ever produce aggregate statistics sit right in that lane. On top of that, you clear your CIPA wiretapping exposure entirely.

The math isn't complicated. A consent-dependent tool shows you 13 to 40% of your EU traffic. A cookieless analytics tool shows you 90 to 100%. That gap is not a rounding error. It's the difference between deciding on half a picture and deciding on the whole one.

Ready to see your full traffic?
Clickport is cookieless by design. No consent banners needed. No data sent to third parties. EU-hosted. Article 88a compliant before Article 88a exists. Start your 30-day free trial, no credit card required.
Start free trial

The regulators are quietly building a moat around privacy-first analytics. Every new enforcement action, every consent rate study, every CIPA lawsuit makes the case stronger. The EU Digital Omnibus does not create the trend. It validates it.

If you want the broader case against GA4, read Why You Should Stop Using Google Analytics in 2026. For the full legal picture, read Is Google Analytics Legal in 2026?. And for a deep dive into how cookieless tracking works under the hood, read What Cookie-Banner-Free Analytics Actually Means.

David Karpik

David Karpik

Founder of Clickport Analytics
Building privacy-focused analytics for website owners who respect their visitors.

Comments

Loading comments...

Leave a comment