Impact on Web Analytics and Tracking

The EU Digital Omnibus fundamentally reshapes the web analytics landscape. By creating a clear exemption for aggregated audience measurement, the regulation validates privacy-first analytics while maintaining restrictions on invasive tracking.

This page analyzes how the Omnibus affects different analytics approaches, who wins and loses, and what website operators should do to prepare.

The Current Analytics Landscape

Pre-Omnibus Reality

Cookie banners everywhere:

• Approximately 41% of EU websites display cookie banners
• Most analytics tools trigger consent requirements
• Even basic traffic measurement often requires banners

High rejection rates:

• 26% of users click "reject all"
• 54% accept without reading (consent fatigue)
• Result: Incomplete or unreliable data

Data loss from consent denial:

• Missing traffic from 20-30% of visitors
• Skewed analytics (privacy-conscious users underrepresented)
• Difficulty measuring true website performance
• Business decisions based on incomplete data

Complex compliance burden:

• Legal review of cookie policies
• Consent Management Platform (CMP) implementation
• Regular audits of tracking tools
• Vendor assessments and Data Processing Agreements
• Average cost: €400-€5,000+/year depending on site size

The Analytics Consent Dilemma

Website operators face a difficult choice:

Option 1: Require consent for analytics

• ❌ Lose 20-30% of traffic data
• ❌ Cookie banner costs
• ❌ Poor user experience
• ✅ Use full-featured analytics tools

Option 2: Skip analytics to avoid consent

• ✅ No cookie banner needed
• ✅ Better user experience
• ❌ Fly blind (no performance data)
• ❌ Cannot optimize conversion, content, or UX

Option 3: Use consentless analytics

• ✅ No cookie banner
• ✅ Complete traffic data
• ⚠️ Limited features vs. traditional tools
• ⚠️ Legal uncertainty (until now)

What the Omnibus Changes for Analytics

The Game-Changing Exemption

Article 88a(3)(c) provides a clear legal basis for audience measurement:

"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"

No consent required when:

1. ✅ Data is aggregated (not individual user tracking)
2. ✅ Processing is by the controller (website owner)
3. ✅ For the controller's own use only (not shared/sold)

What "Aggregated" Means

Permitted under exemption:

• Total page views
• Unique visitors (counted, not tracked)
• Traffic sources (referrer data)
• Geographic location (country/city level)
• Device types and browsers
• Popular pages and content
• Conversion funnels (aggregate)
• Session duration statistics

Still requires consent:

• Individual user journey tracking across sessions
• User-level behavioral profiles
• Cross-device tracking
• Persistent user identifiers for non-aggregate purposes
• Retargeting pixels
• Detailed individual-level analytics

The distinction: You can measure the audience (how many, from where, what they view) without tracking individuals (who specifically, what they do over time).

What "Controller's Own Use" Means

Permitted:

• Analyzing traffic to your own website
• Understanding your audience demographics
• Measuring content performance
• Optimizing user experience
• Internal business intelligence

Requires consent:

• Sharing analytics data with third parties
• Selling audience insights to advertisers
• Cross-site tracking networks
• Data brokers aggregating across properties
• Advertising platforms using data for targeting

Key test: If analytics data never leaves your control and is only used to understand your own service, you're likely exempt.

First-Party vs. Third-Party Analytics

First-party analytics (typical exemption scenario):

• Analytics code on your own domain
• Data stored by you (or processor acting on your behalf)
• Data used only for your own insights
• Result: NO CONSENT NEEDED

Third-party analytics (usually needs consent):

• Analytics provider tracks across multiple sites
• Provider uses data for their own purposes (ad networks, benchmarking)
• Data shared with other parties
• Cross-site tracking and profiling
• Result: CONSENT REQUIRED

Important nuance: Using a third-party analytics tool is fine if:

• You remain the controller
• Provider is your processor (GDPR Article 28)
• Data is not shared beyond processing your site
• Provider doesn't use your data for their purposes

Example:

• ✅ Sealmetrics: First-party, consentless, data not shared = EXEMPT
• ✅ Self-hosted Matomo: First-party, your data only = EXEMPT
• ⚠️ Google Analytics 4 (configured for no data sharing): Likely exempt if properly configured
• ❌ Google Analytics with ads features: Needs consent (data used for advertising)
• ❌ Facebook Pixel: Needs consent (cross-site tracking, ad targeting)
• ❌ Ad network tracking: Needs consent (third-party profiling)

Winners and Losers

Winners

1. Consentless Analytics Providers

Platforms that already operate under privacy-first principles are validated and advantaged:

Characteristics:

• No cookies or cookieless design
• First-party data collection
• Aggregated measurement focus
• No cross-site tracking
• No data sharing or selling

Examples:

• Sealmetrics
• Plausible Analytics
• Fathom Analytics
• Simple Analytics
• Self-hosted Matomo (privacy mode)

Advantage: These tools are already compliant with Article 88a(3)(c) and can market "no consent needed under EU Digital Omnibus."

2. First-Party Data Solutions

Server-side analytics:

• Data processed on website's own servers
• Complete control over data
• No third-party dependencies
• Naturally fits "controller's own use" requirement

Data warehouses and BI tools:

• Tools that aggregate first-party data
• Business intelligence platforms
• Internal analytics dashboards

3. Privacy-by-Design Platforms

Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs):

• Differential privacy
• Federated analytics
• On-device computation
• Aggregated-only outputs

These technologies align perfectly with the "aggregated measurement" exemption.

4. Website Operators (Small to Medium)

Small businesses and SMEs:

• Can finally get analytics without cookie banner costs
• No CMP subscription needed (€400-€2,000/year savings)
• No legal review expenses
• Simplified compliance

Content publishers:

• Understand audience without consent barriers
• Optimize content based on complete data
• Improve user experience (no banners)

Public sector:

• Government websites can measure usage
• Universities and research sites simplified
• Public services more accessible

Losers

1. Cross-Site Tracking Networks

Ad tech platforms relying on third-party cookies:

• Still require consent under Article 88a(3)(c)
• Cannot benefit from audience measurement exemption
• Browser signal adoption will further impact them

Behavioral advertising networks:

• Cross-site profiling requires consent
• Retargeting pixels need consent
• Audience segmentation across properties needs consent

2. Third-Party Cookie-Dependent Solutions

Traditional analytics with data sharing:

• Google Analytics with advertising features
• Analytics platforms that benchmark across clients
• Tools that monetize via data sharing

Impact: Must either:

• Restructure to be first-party only, OR
• Continue requiring consent (competitive disadvantage)

3. Consent Management Platforms (CMPs)

Reduced market:

• 60% of websites may no longer need cookie banners
• Smaller addressable market for CMP vendors
• Pressure on pricing

Counterbalance:

• Remaining consent requirements are more complex
• Browser signal integration creates new opportunities
• Article 88a(4) compliance requires sophisticated UX

Likely outcome: Market contracts but remaining use cases become more sophisticated.

4. Advertising Platforms Relying on Consent

High-consent-friction models:

• Platforms requiring granular consent
• Retargeting and behavioral advertising
• Cross-device tracking

Challenge: Users may set browser signals to reject tracking by default, reducing consent rates even further when Article 88b browser controls arrive (48 months).

Browser Signals Impact on Analytics

Article 88b Timeline

24 months: Websites must support machine-readable consent signals 48 months: Browser vendors must provide user controls

Expected User Behavior

Privacy-conscious defaults:

• Browsers may ship with "reject tracking" as default
• Users who care will configure strict settings once
• Most users may keep defaults

Impact on consent-required analytics:

• Lower consent rates than current cookie banners
• One-time browser decision vs. per-site decision
• Could reduce tracking consent to 10-30% of users

Impact on exempted analytics:

• No impact—exempt is exempt
• Consentless analytics unaffected by browser signals
• Competitive advantage grows larger

Media Service Provider Exemption

Article 88b(3): Media service providers (news sites, publishers) are EXEMPT from browser signal requirements.

What this means:

• News publishers can still show cookie banners
• Can override browser signals for their own consent requests
• Protects publisher revenue models dependent on advertising

Analytics implications:

• Publishers can still ask for analytics + advertising consent
• May create two-tier system: publishers vs. other sites
• User experience: Some sites respect browser, others still ask

Sealmetrics Positioning

Already Compliant with Article 88a(3)(c)

Sealmetrics is designed precisely for the exemption criteria:

✅ Aggregated measurement:

• No individual user tracking across sessions
• Privacy-first architecture
• Anonymized data collection

✅ First-party data only:

• Data belongs to the website owner (controller)
• Sealmetrics acts as processor
• No cross-site tracking

✅ For controller's own use:

• Data not shared with third parties
• Not sold or monetized by Sealmetrics
• Used solely for client's audience insights

No Consent Banners Needed

Current advantage, future certainty:

• Sealmetrics already operates without consent requirements
• Article 88a(3)(c) provides explicit legal basis
• Clients can confidently deploy without cookie banners

Competitive Advantages Post-Omnibus

1. Legal certainty:

• Clear alignment with Article 88a(3)(c)
• No ambiguity about consent requirements
• Simplified compliance for clients

2. Complete data:

• No data loss from consent rejection
• Accurate audience measurement
• Better business intelligence

3. Cost savings:

• No cookie banner implementation
• No CMP subscription
• No ongoing legal review

4. Better user experience:

• No interruptions
• Faster page loads
• Privacy-respecting

5. Future-proof for browser signals:

• Exempt analytics unaffected by Article 88b
• No dependency on consent rates
• Stable data quality regardless of browser defaults

Recommendations for Website Operators

Audit Your Current Analytics Setup

Identify consent-dependent tools:

Create an inventory:

1. Analytics platforms: Which tools track users?
2. Advertising pixels: Facebook, Google Ads, retargeting?
3. Third-party scripts: Social media widgets, embedded content?
4. Cross-site tracking: Affiliate networks, attribution tools?

Classify each tool:

• ✅ Exempt (first-party, aggregated, own use)
• ⚠️ Consent required (third-party, tracking, profiling)
• ❓ Uncertain (need further analysis)

Evaluate Consentless Alternatives

For basic analytics needs:

If you currently use consent-dependent analytics for basic traffic measurement, consider switching to:

• Consentless platforms (Sealmetrics, Plausible, Fathom)
• Self-hosted privacy-focused solutions (Matomo privacy mode)
• Server-side analytics (custom logging)

Cost-benefit analysis:

• Compare CMP costs + partial data vs. consentless + complete data
• Factor in user experience improvements
• Consider compliance simplification

For advanced tracking needs:

If you need individual user tracking, cross-device tracking, or behavioral profiling:

• Consent will still be required
• Focus on Article 88a(4) compliance (single-click refuse, 6-month cooldown)
• Prepare for Article 88b browser signals
• Optimize consent rates through transparency and value exchange

Prepare for Browser Signal Era

Timeline awareness:

• 24 months (≈2027-2028): Implement browser signal support
• 48 months (≈2029-2030): Browsers deploy user controls

Technical preparation:

• Monitor European standardisation body standards development
• Plan infrastructure for machine-readable signals
• Consider how to handle consent/rejection programmatically
• Test compatibility with expected signal formats

Strategic preparation:

• Reduce dependency on consent-based tracking
• Shift to first-party data strategies
• Build direct relationships with users
• Invest in owned analytics infrastructure

Hybrid Approach

Many websites will use:

Tier 1 - No consent (Article 88a(3)(c) exempt):

• First-party audience measurement
• Basic traffic analytics
• Content performance
• User experience optimization

Tier 2 - Consent required:

• Advanced behavioral tracking
• Advertising pixels
• Retargeting
• Cross-device attribution

Implementation:

• Load Tier 1 immediately (no consent needed)
• Request consent for Tier 2
• Ensure Tier 1 provides enough value to operate without Tier 2

Document Your Compliance

Privacy policy updates:

• Explain use of Article 88a(3)(c) exemption
• Document which analytics are exempt vs. consent-based
• Describe data flows and retention

Internal documentation:

• Legal basis for each processing activity
• Data Processing Agreements with analytics vendors
• Technical safeguards for aggregation

Be ready to demonstrate:

• Data is aggregated
• Processing is for your own use only
• No sharing beyond necessary processing

Comparison Matrix

Analytics Type	Consent Needed?	Article 88a Basis	Browser Signals Impact	Data Quality
First-party, aggregated	❌ No	88a(3)(c) exemption	None (exempt)	100%
First-party, individual tracking	⚠️ Depends	88a(1) or Art 6	High (if consent basis)	Varies
Third-party analytics (no sharing)	❌ No	88a(3)(c) if structured properly	None (exempt)	100%
Third-party with data sharing	✅ Yes	88a(1) consent	High	10-70%
Ad networks, retargeting	✅ Yes	88a(1) consent	Very high	10-30%
Cross-site tracking	✅ Yes	88a(1) consent	Very high	10-30%

Timeline and Action Items

Immediate (Now - 6 months after entry into force)

• Audit current analytics and tracking tools
• Classify tools as exempt vs. consent-required
• Evaluate consentless alternatives for basic analytics
• Update privacy policies to reference Article 88a
• Consider removing unnecessary cookie banners

Short-term (6-24 months)

• Implement Article 88a(4) compliant consent UX (single-click refuse, 6-month cooldown)
• Migrate to first-party data strategies where possible
• Monitor standardization efforts for browser signals
• Train teams on new compliance requirements
• Optimize analytics stack for post-Omnibus landscape

Medium-term (24-48 months)

• Implement browser signal support (Article 88b)
• Prepare infrastructure for machine-readable consent
• Test interoperability with browser controls
• Reduce dependency on consent-dependent tracking
• Build resilient analytics architecture

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use Google Analytics without consent under the Omnibus?

It depends on configuration:

• GA4 with no data sharing, no advertising features, configured for first-party use only: Likely exempt under Article 88a(3)(c)
• GA4 with advertising features, cross-site tracking, or data shared with Google for their purposes: Consent required

Key factors:

• Are you the sole controller or is Google a joint controller?
• Is data used only for your audience measurement?
• Are advertising or remarketing features enabled?

Recommendation: Consult with privacy counsel on your specific GA4 configuration, or use a clearly exempt platform like Sealmetrics.

Does "aggregated" mean I cannot see any individual page views?

No. "Aggregated" in Article 88a(3)(c) means the purpose is aggregate measurement, not that you can never see granular data.

Permitted:

• Viewing individual page view events (to calculate aggregates)
• Seeing a specific referrer for a specific session
• Analyzing a particular conversion path in aggregate

Not permitted without consent:

• Building persistent individual user profiles
• Tracking specific users across sessions for behavioral analysis
• Creating detailed dossiers on individual visitors

Analogy: A store can count customers and see what each person buys (to calculate totals), but cannot track individuals over time to profile their behavior.

What about heatmaps and session recordings?

Session recordings (Hotjar, FullStory, etc.): Almost certainly require consent.

Reasoning:

• Individual-level tracking
• Detailed behavioral data
• Not "aggregated measurement"
• High privacy risk

Heatmaps: Possibly exempt if truly aggregated.

Exempt approach:

• Aggregate click positions across all users
• No individual session identification
• Used only for UX optimization on your site

Requires consent:

• Individual session heatmaps
• Linked to user identities
• Shared with third parties

Recommendation: If you want to avoid consent, use truly aggregated heatmaps or A/B testing tools that don't track individuals.

Can I share analytics data with my agency or consultants?

Yes, if they are processors acting on your behalf under GDPR Article 28.

Structure:

• Data Processing Agreement in place
• Processor acts only on your instructions
• Data used solely for your purposes (audience measurement)
• No independent use by processor

No, if:

• Processor uses data for their own purposes
• Data is shared with processor's other clients
• Processor becomes a joint controller

Article 88a(3)(c) requires "solely for its own use"—this is satisfied when processors provide services to you, but not when data is shared more broadly.

Related Resources

• Cookie Consent Reform - Full details on Article 88a
• GDPR Amendments - Other GDPR changes in the Omnibus
• EU Digital Omnibus Overview - Complete regulation guide

Key Takeaways

1. First-party, aggregated analytics = NO CONSENT NEEDED under Article 88a(3)(c)
2. Third-party tracking, profiling, ad tech = CONSENT REQUIRED
3. Winners: Consentless analytics, first-party data, privacy-first platforms
4. Losers: Cross-site trackers, third-party cookie networks, consent-dependent models
5. Browser signals coming in 24-48 months will further impact consent-based tracking
6. Sealmetrics is compliant with Article 88a(3)(c) exemption
7. Audit your analytics to identify what needs consent and what doesn't
8. Prepare for first-party future by reducing consent dependencies now

The Digital Omnibus creates a clear path for privacy-respecting analytics while cracking down on invasive tracking. Website operators who embrace consentless, first-party measurement will gain competitive advantages in data quality, user experience, and compliance simplicity.