As a result of a Dutch law implementing the amended Article 5(3) of the e-Privacy Directive, Dutch websites began featuring a "cookie wall." As one commentator wrote: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2197251 In October 2012, a large share of Dutch websites, including the websites of the leading Dutch newspapers but also of the public service media, forced their users to accept tracking technologies (cookies) before being allowed to enter. The Dutch cookie-walls were a response to, or rather [an] act of resistance against a new Dutch law that was originally meant to protect users['] privacy vis--vis the placing of cookies. The cookie walls generated a great deal of discontent. The commentator noted: Arguably, the cookie-walls were neither deceptive nor intimidating, nor did they force users into accepting cookies - users were after all free to leave or visit another website. But were they really free? One may already wonder whether a decision of 'take it or leave it' is indeed a real free choice. What could be learned from the emergence of the "cookie wall" and the discontent it generated? Does it show that assuring that individuals provide consent prior to accepting cookies is meaningless and solves nothing? Or is the lesson simply that the current regulation (still reflected in the ePrivacy Directive), although a step in the right direction, requires some tinkering? What regulatory changes might you suggest in light of the "cookie wall" saga, particularly as the ePrivacy Regulation is still undergoing debate in the EU? (See also paragraphs 39-41 in the EDPB Guidelines on consent, which discuss "cookie walls" https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_202005_consent_en.pdf).