I wonder if there will ever be a suit in which that cookie banner ("Got it!" ugh) is found not to apply because users basically agree to it simply by seeing it.

I wonder if there will ever be a suit in which that cookie banner ("Got it!" ugh) is found not to apply because users basically agree to it simply by seeing it. You have their stupid cookie by the time you can read that message. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me, but I'm not even slightly a lawyer. The whole strategy seems to be in bad faith. I wish more sites would react by minimizing usage of cookies instead of just adopting that dumb overlay.