A few weeks later, that optimism has largely evaporated. Publisher-side policy teams and ad-ops leaders are arguing that the proposal doesn’t reduce complexity so much as rearrange it — while adding new constraints that could make it harder to generate consent-driven data on the open web. In their view, the changes risk strengthening browsers and “closed ecosystem” platforms at the expense of independent media.
Europe’s “Cookie Simplification” Plan Is Spooking Publishers
- Publishers say the Omnibus doesn’t deliver meaningful simplification and may introduce additional consent-management obligations.
- Browser- and device-level consent controls are viewed as a major risk to opt-in rates and to the publisher value chain.
- Proposed exemptions for “media services” could be difficult to use in practice if ad tech vendors fear misclassification and liability.
- One-click “consent or reject” requirements may further depress consent rates, shrinking usable data for measurement and fraud controls.
- Strategic implication: publishers fear the outcome favors walled gardens with logged-in identity and first-party reach.
The mood shift: from “maybe” to “we’re worse off”
Publishers reviewing the Digital Omnibus have focused less on its stated intention and more on its practical impact. The concern is not merely that consent rules remain strict; it’s that publishers see few offsets or operational wins — and several new burdens.
As News Media Europe’s Iacob Gammeltoft put it:
“I don’t see that we — publishers — are getting anything out of the Omnibus, and even less in the way of ‘simplification’ which is the stated purpose for revising the rulebook,”
In the same breath, he described publishers as “worse off” than before — a blunt assessment that captures the broader frustration: publishers expected clearer rules and fewer traps, but instead see a new set of requirements layered onto an already brittle system.
Issue #1: Browser-level consent settings could turn “no” into a default, web-wide position
The most contentious element for publishers is the idea that users could set tracking and cookie permissions once — at the browser or device level — and then have every website automatically honor that preference. Conceptually, it sounds user-friendly: fewer banners, fewer repetitive decisions, and a consistent privacy posture across the internet.
Publishers see a different outcome: a single global setting that could sharply reduce site-level consent rates, with limited opportunity for publishers to explain tradeoffs or present context. The worry is that a broad “no tracking” choice becomes effectively permanent for large segments of the audience.
DPG Media’s director of privacy, Bert Verschelde, framed the risk in conversion terms and pointed to Apple’s App Tracking Transparency experience as a cautionary tale:
“We know that consent rates are heavily impacted by the exact UI design of consent requests, but if Apple’s ATT is anything to go by, this could mean that as many as 75 percent of EU browsers will reject all targeted ads across the web by default,”
If browsers or operating systems implement consent prompts with a strong privacy-forward design — or if they nudge users toward a broad opt-out in the name of simplicity — publishers could lose the consent signal that underpins a large share of open-web advertising, measurement, and optimization.
Verschelde also emphasized who he believes benefits most if the open web’s consent-driven data supply weakens:
“This will ultimately benefit the walled gardens, who have a high logged-in reach and do not rely on cookie consent for their targeting.”
In plain terms: platforms with massive authenticated audiences, proprietary ad stacks, and closed measurement systems may be able to keep targeting and personalization working even if browser-level defaults reduce tracking on the broader web.
Verschelde has also criticized the concept publicly, writing:
“The EU’s cookie fix is 20 years old and still misses the point.”
That line captures a deeper complaint publishers have raised for years: the web keeps changing, but regulation and implementation debates often circle back to old architectures, old assumptions, and old power dynamics.
Why exemptions may not save publishers
The proposal hints that certain media services and publishers could be exempted from centralized, browser-led settings. On paper, that might sound like a release valve — a way to preserve publisher-consent flows for journalism and public-interest content while reducing noise elsewhere.
In practice, publishers question who will determine eligibility and how risk will be allocated across the supply chain. If ad tech vendors have to decide whether a publisher qualifies — and if they face liability for getting it wrong — the “exemption” could become unusable.
Gammeltoft described the classification problem this way:
“It would require ad tech companies to decide who is a media service provider under the European Media Freedom Act [and] what qualifies for this exemption to make sure they are not in a legal red zone and liable for GDPR breaches when doing business,”
That puts ad tech intermediaries in an uncomfortable role: they would need to make judgments that could carry regulatory exposure. The predictable response, publishers fear, is risk avoidance — fewer partners, more conservative settings, and more “no” decisions to reduce liability.
Gammeltoft’s bottom line:
“This will create problems for publishers,”
Even if an exemption exists in theory, the market may not operationalize it if counterparties believe it creates new legal ambiguity.
Issue #2: One-click reject/consent rules may lower opt-in rates and restrict “low-risk” tracking
The second friction point is the push toward a one-click model — where users can consent or reject all non-essential cookies with a single action. The stated intent is to reduce manipulative banner design and create a cleaner, more consistent experience across sites.
Many privacy advocates have argued for years that a one-click “reject all” is essential to fair consent. Publishers do not necessarily dispute the fairness goal; their concern is what happens to the business model — and to important operational data — when opt-in rates drop.
The worry is not limited to behavioral advertising. Publishers point out that consent-driven data is used for measurement, reach/frequency management, attribution modeling, and fraud signals — including cases they would characterize as relatively limited or “low-risk” compared with cross-site profiling.
Gammeltoft highlighted what he sees as a net-new burden without meaningful relief:
“What does that really change? Apart from the fact that we now have additional consent management requirements relating to having a reject-all button and a cap on the frequency with which we can ask for users to consent,”
Publishers also worry that if repeated consent prompts are restricted (a “frequency cap”), then recovery from a low-consent moment becomes harder. In other words: if a user makes a blanket rejection, publishers may have fewer opportunities to re-present choices in a more contextual way later.
The competitive argument: publishers vs. closed ecosystems
Underneath the legal and UX debate is a strategic fear: that the Digital Omnibus approach, while framed as a user empowerment measure, could accelerate an economic shift away from independent publishers and toward platforms that are less dependent on cookie-based consent.
Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet’s Thomas Lue Lytzen summarized the concern in stark competitive terms:
“Sadly, changes appear to be fairly cosmetic; they don’t really put publishers in a better position; big tech will still have way easier access to data via their closed ecosystems, whereas publishers will have to ‘fight’ to get data on the open internet,”
Lytzen went further, arguing that the formalization of requirements and the shift toward browser-controlled consent reduces publisher flexibility and increases browser power:
“The formalized consent requirements and browser-controlled consent only limit publishers’ choices even more and hand over power to browsers,”
This is the core publisher claim: the “simplification” may reduce banner fatigue for users, but it may also consolidate control over consent flows into entities (browsers, operating systems, large platforms) whose incentives do not necessarily align with sustaining independent, ad-funded publishing.
What publishers are likely to do next
Even before any final text or implementation timeline is set, many publishers are already considering how to adapt. Based on how similar shifts have played out in the past, a few likely responses stand out:
- Double down on logged-in strategies: memberships, newsletters, registrations, and identity solutions that reduce reliance on third-party signals.
- Rebuild measurement plans: greater use of contextual signals, modeled measurement, and aggregated reporting where consent rates shrink.
- Reassess consent UX and vendor governance: ensuring enforcement is technically correct and reducing the number of third-party tags to minimize exposure.
- Explore alternative monetization: including subscriptions, pay-or-consent models, and premium sponsorship formats.
None of these strategies are cost-free. The publisher frustration is that “simplification” was supposed to reduce operational drag — not push them into more complex workarounds.
Where CaptainCompliance.com fits in: making consent enforcement defensible as rules shift
Regardless of where the Digital Omnibus lands, one trend is already locked in: consent and tracking compliance is moving from a policy exercise to an engineering discipline. Publishers and ad-funded businesses need systems that can (1) detect what’s firing, (2) block what must not fire, and (3) prove what the user chose — reliably, at scale, and over time.
CaptainCompliance.com is built for that operational reality. For teams facing shifting consent mechanics — whether driven by browser signals, stricter “reject all” requirements, or enforcement pressure — Captain Compliance helps reduce the gap between what the banner says and what the site actually does.
How Captain Compliance supports high-scrutiny environments
- Continuous scanning and change detection to identify new cookies, pixels, and script injections before they create compliance drift.
- Pre-consent enforcement so non-essential tags do not fire until a valid opt-in is captured.
- Geo-adaptive consent experiences to align behavior to jurisdictional requirements without maintaining multiple implementations.
- Audit-friendly records that support investigations, vendor reviews, and internal governance.
- Dynamic cookie policy outputs to keep disclosures current as tags change.
If you are evaluating platforms specifically for cookie consent and tracking governance, this resource is a practical starting point:
Best Cookie Consent Solution.
The Digital Omnibus “cookie fix”
The Digital Omnibus “cookie fix” is being sold as a simplification project. Publishers reading the fine print are describing something else: a shift in where consent decisions happen, plus tighter interaction rules, without a clear reduction in the operational burden of compliance.
Whether those fears prove accurate will depend on legislative outcomes and—crucially—how browsers and devices implement any new consent controls. But the publisher message is already clear: if consent becomes a browser-level switch and one-click rejection becomes the norm, the open web’s economics could change fast — and not in publishers’ favor.
