Anybody familiar with certain UK newspapers will know that the EU has a track record of poorly drafted legislation, leaving itself open to dramatic misinterpretation. The most famous was probably the “bent banana directive” which ruled that bananas must be “free of abnormal curvature”, causing much hilarity and fun-making among Eurosceptics.

The “cookie directive” (EU Directive 2009/136/EC) aims to protect privacy by asking users’ permission before a cookie is placed on their computers. There are no specific guidelines as to how this should be implemented, and in the ensuing information vacuum some the worst-case-scenarios have filled the gap.

The worst of them all has users faced with a plethora of opt-in decisions, as websites serve up all the various cookies that websites tend to serve up these days. Any website with banner ads and using an analytics package would have quite a few.

Needless to say, such meddlesome opt-in features would put commercial EU websites at a disadvantage to their non-EU counterparts. Why would we want to do that?

Of course, the solution could be much more subtle, but the lack of any clear guidelines means that dramatic misinterpretation is the order of the day.

Enforcement is also an issue, particularly in a “borderless” online world with many complex permutations: do non-EU visitors to an EU website need to opt-in? What about non-EU websites with EU visitors? And non-EU websites that have affiliates within the EU’s borders? Individual EU countries can implement the directive as they see fit, which hardly helps.

Given the difficulties of enforcement, the cumbersome user experience, and the negative commercial implications, this looks like another “bent banana” directive in disguise: poorly crafted, faintly absurd and probably subject to mass disobedience.

Of course, a high-profile prosecution could signal a real intent to enforce the rules. But until that happens, I wouldn’t start redesigning my website just yet. A wait-and-see approach is probably the sanest course to take.